<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Still No Lie Detector for Language Models: Probing Empirical and Conceptual Roadblocks · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2307.00175/</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/2307.00175/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Still No Lie Detector for Language Models: Probing Empirical and Conceptual Roadblocks — mentioned by astrange</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36845068</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2307.00175:36845068</guid><pubDate>Mon, 24 Jul 2023 09:29:37 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; I think the author of that title could well do with a refresher course in epistemology and physics, as it is just not possible to do what they suggest. If you define &amp;quot;facts&amp;quot; as &amp;quot;things actually stored in the LLM&amp;#x27;s weights&amp;quot;, then research shows it is possible to determine if an output is a &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; or not. Although looking on arxiv I found a paper saying it doesn&amp;#x27;t work (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.00175.pdf) so maybe not.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2307.00175/"&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>
