<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Reasoning Robustness of LLMs to Adversarial Typographical Errors · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2411.05345/</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/2411.05345/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Reasoning Robustness of LLMs to Adversarial Typographical Errors — mentioned by natrys</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45282450</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2411.05345:45282450</guid><pubDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2025 22:57:27 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;If you mean the bit about refusal from other models, then sure here is another run with same result: https://i.postimg.cc/6tT3m5mL/screen.png Note I am using direct API to avoid triggering separate guardrail models typically operating in front of website front-ends. As an aside the website you used in your original comment: &amp;gt; [2] Used this link https://www.deepseekv3.net/en/chat This is not the official DeepSeek website. Probably one of the many shady third-party sites riding on DeepSeek name for SEO, who knows what they are running. In this case it doesn&amp;#x27;t matter, because I already…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2411.05345/"&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>
