<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Counterexamples on Programmer.ie: Modern AI programming</title>
    <link>http://programmer.ie/tags/counterexamples/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Counterexamples on Programmer.ie: Modern AI programming</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 30 Aug 2026 00:17:00 +0100</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="http://programmer.ie/tags/counterexamples/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Breaking the Detector</title>
      <link>http://programmer.ie/books/hallucination-from-first-principles/07-chapter/</link>
      <pubDate>Sun, 30 Aug 2026 00:17:00 +0100</pubDate>
      <guid>http://programmer.ie/books/hallucination-from-first-principles/07-chapter/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Chapter 6 changed the standard for evaluation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A detector is not trustworthy because it has a good AUC.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It becomes trustworthy only after we understand how its errors behave under the conditions in which policy will use it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That immediately suggests a more aggressive question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Instead of waiting for those conditions to appear naturally, can we &lt;strong&gt;search for them deliberately&lt;/strong&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Suppose a containment detector works well on ordinary unsupported claims.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
