<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Prompting is not a substitute for probability measurements in large language models · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2305.13264/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2305.13264/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Prompting is not a substitute for probability measurements in large language models — mentioned by _delirium</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43196612</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2305.13264:43196612</guid><pubDate>Thu, 27 Feb 2025 17:45:05 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Yes, there’s research showing that models’ self-assessment of probabilities (when you ask them via prompting) don’t even match the same models’ actual probabilities, in cases where you can measure the probabilities directly (e.g. by looking at the logits): https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.13264&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2305.13264/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CL</category></item></channel></rss>
