Alright Learning Crew, Ernis here, ready to dive into another fascinating paper from the world of AI! Today, we're talking about teaching computers to truly see and understand videos, not just as a series of still images, but as a dynamic sequence of events unfolding over time.
Now, you might think that's easy, right? We humans do it all the time. But it turns out that getting AI to understand the 'when' of a video – when specific actions happen – is a real challenge. Think of it like this: you're watching a cooking show. The AI needs to not only recognize that someone is chopping vegetables, but also pinpoint exactly when they start chopping, when they add the spices, and so on.
The problem is, the current generation of AI models, called Multimodal Large Language Models, or MLLMs, sometimes get tripped up. They're like that friend who's always looking at their phone. They can describe what's generally happening, but they miss the crucial details of when things happen. The paper we're discussing today highlights that these MLLMs often rely more on recognizing language patterns (what they've been trained to expect) than truly paying attention to the visual cues in the video. It's like they're guessing the timestamps based on a script instead of actually watching the action.
So, how do we fix this? That's where VideoExpert comes in! These researchers have designed a new AI model that's specifically built to handle this temporal challenge. It's like having two super-smart assistants working together, each with their own specialty.
One assistant, the Temporal Expert, is all about time. It's like a hawk, watching the video frame by frame, picking up on even the slightest changes and creating a timeline of events. It uses a high frame rate but compresses the tokens to efficiently capture dynamic changes. Think of it as watching a super sped-up version of the video but still catching all the important moments.
The other assistant, the Spatial Expert, is focused on the details of what is happening in each frame. It’s the art critic carefully analyzing the composition, the colors, and the objects in the scene. This expert uses specially designed spatial tokens and combines visual information with the language instructions, so the AI knows what it's supposed to be looking for.
These two experts work together, sharing information via a special token, ensuring that the AI understands both when and what is happening in the video. The genius part is that the Temporal Expert and the Spatial Expert have completely independent parameter sets.
"By offloading temporal grounding from content generation, VideoExpert prevents text pattern biases in timestamp predictions."
To make the Spatial Expert even more efficient, the researchers also developed something called a Spatial Compress module. It's like a master editor, cutting out the unnecessary visual clutter and highlighting only the most important details for the Spatial Expert to analyze.
The results? The researchers say that VideoExpert is a significant improvement over existing models, showing impressive performance on various tasks requiring temporal understanding of videos. It's more accurate and versatile, which means it can be applied to a wider range of real-world problems.
So, why does this matter? Well, think about the possibilities!
For security, this could lead to AI systems that can instantly detect suspicious activity in surveillance footage.
In healthcare, it could help doctors analyze surgical videos to identify critical moments and improve surgical techniques.
For self-driving cars, this kind of temporal understanding is crucial for navigating complex traffic situations and reacting safely to unexpected events.
This research brings us one step closer to AI that can truly understand and interact with the world around us through video.
Now, a couple of things that popped into my head as I was prepping this:
How easily could this VideoExpert model be adapted to understand audio cues alongside the visual information? Could adding sound further improve its accuracy?
And, considering the amount of data needed to train these models, how can we ensure that the training data is diverse and unbiased, to avoid perpetuating harmful stereotypes?
That's all for this episode, Learning Crew! Keep those questions coming, and I'll see you next time on PaperLedge!Credit to Paper authors: Henghao Zhao, Ge-Peng Ji, Rui Yan, Huan Xiong, Zechao Li

Hey PaperLedge learning crew, Ernis here, ready to dive into some seriously cool research! Today, we're talking about making our AI see – and understand – the world better, just like we do. Think of it as giving computers a pair of super-powered glasses and a thinking cap!
Okay, so picture this: We have these amazing tools called Large Language Models, or LLMs. They're like super-smart parrots that can generate text, translate languages, and answer your questions. Now, DeepSeek R1 figured out that you can actually make these LLMs reason better by using something called reinforcement learning or RL.
Reinforcement learning is like training a dog. You give it a treat (a reward) when it does something good and maybe a little "no" when it messes up. R1 cleverly uses clear-cut rules to decide when to give those "treats," making the learning process super stable and effective.
Now, here's where it gets interesting. The researchers behind a new paper thought, "Hey, what if we could do the same thing for Vision-Language Models, or VLMs?" Think of VLMs as AI that can not only "see" images but also understand what's happening in them and describe it in words. It's like giving a computer the ability to watch a movie and write a summary!
Turns out, a lot of visual tasks – like identifying objects in a picture – already have clear "right" answers. So, the researchers created VLM-R1, a special framework that uses reinforcement learning to boost VLMs' visual reasoning skills. It's like giving the AI extra practice and feedback to become a visual understanding pro.
So what did they find? Well, the results are pretty exciting! The RL-trained VLM not only performed really well on visual understanding tasks but also got better at generalizing – meaning it could handle new, unseen images better than models trained with regular, supervised learning. It's like teaching someone to ride a bike; once they've learned the basics, they can handle different types of bikes and terrains.
"The RL-based model not only delivers competitive performance on visual understanding tasks but also surpasses Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) in generalization ability."
But the researchers didn't stop there. They did a bunch of experiments to understand why this reinforcement learning approach works so well. They even discovered some surprising things, like the AI sometimes trying to "cheat" the reward system in object detection!
They call it "reward hacking". Imagine your dog learning to push the treat dispenser instead of doing the trick you asked for.
They also found what they called the "OD aha moment" – a point where the object detection skills suddenly clicked for the AI.
Plus, they looked at how the quality of the training data matters and how well this approach scales up as you use bigger and bigger models. It's all about figuring out the recipe for the perfect visual learning AI.
So, why does this matter? Well, think about all the things that rely on AI being able to "see" and understand the world: self-driving cars, medical image analysis, robots that can help us with everyday tasks... The better we can make VLMs, the better these applications will be.
For example:
For developers: This research offers a new, potentially more effective way to train VLMs, opening doors to more powerful AI applications.
For businesses: Improved visual understanding could lead to better quality control, more efficient automation, and smarter customer service.
For everyone: This could lead to safer and more helpful AI systems that can assist us in all aspects of our lives.
The cool thing is, the researchers have made their code and model available online! Check it out at https://github.com/om-ai-lab/VLM-R1.
Now, here are a couple of things that popped into my head while reading this paper:
Could this reinforcement learning approach be used to help VLMs understand more complex visual scenes, like understanding the emotional context of a photograph?
How can we prevent "reward hacking" and ensure that AI is learning the right things, not just finding ways to game the system?
Food for thought, right? That's all for this episode of PaperLedge. Keep learning, everyone!Credit to Paper authors: Haozhan Shen, Peng Liu, Jingcheng Li, Chunxin Fang, Yibo Ma, Jiajia Liao, Qiaoli Shen, Zilun Zhang, Kangjia Zhao, Qianqian Zhang, Ruochen Xu, Tiancheng Zhao

Hey PaperLedge crew, Ernis here, ready to dive into some cutting-edge research! Today, we're talking about a really cool system called CollEx – think of it as a super-smart research assistant that makes exploring huge scientific collections way easier and, dare I say, even fun!
Now, imagine you're trying to find a specific piece of information in a massive library with millions of books and artifacts. Traditional search engines are like those old library card catalogs – you can search by keyword, but it's not always intuitive, and you might miss a lot of interesting stuff. It can be especially challenging if you're new to the topic or just trying to spark some curiosity. That’s where CollEx comes in.
The researchers behind CollEx recognized this problem and built a system that acts like a friendly, knowledgeable guide. It uses what they call "Large Vision-Language Models," or LVLMs, which are essentially super-powered AI brains that can understand both text and images. Think of it like this: if you show CollEx a picture of a fossil, it can not only tell you what it is but also find related articles, videos, and even other images of similar fossils. Pretty neat, right?
But the real magic of CollEx lies in its "agentic" design. Instead of just throwing information at you, CollEx uses specialized "agents" that are equipped with different tools to help you explore the collection. It is accessible through a chat interface, similar to talking with a person. It abstracts the complex interactions via specialized agents equipped with advanced tools, facilitating curiosity-driven exploration and significantly simplifying access to diverse scientific collections. Imagine having a team of expert librarians, each with their own unique skills, working together to answer your questions and guide you through the collection. That's essentially what CollEx does!
So, why is this important? Well, for students and educators, CollEx can transform learning into an interactive adventure. Instead of passively reading textbooks, students can actively explore scientific collections, ask questions, and discover connections between different concepts. For researchers, CollEx can help uncover hidden patterns and interdisciplinary connections that might otherwise be missed. It’s like having a fresh pair of eyes on your data, helping you see things in a new light.
"CollEx facilitates curiosity-driven exploration, significantly simplifying access to diverse scientific collections."
The researchers even tested CollEx on a real scientific collection from a public university, containing over 64,000 records! They showed that it could effectively help users explore the collection and discover new insights.
Here's a breakdown:
Problem: Traditional search in scientific collections is clunky and not very intuitive.
Solution: CollEx, a multimodal agentic RAG system using advanced AI, that understands both text and images.
Benefit: Makes exploring scientific collections easier, more interactive, and more fun for learners, educators, and researchers.
Now, this all sounds amazing, but it also raises some interesting questions, right?
How do we ensure that these AI agents are presenting information accurately and without bias?
Could systems like CollEx democratize access to scientific knowledge, or will they primarily benefit those with the resources to use them?
These are the types of discussions that the PaperLedge podcast will be diving into. As AI becomes more integrated into research and education, it's crucial to think critically about its potential impact and how we can use it responsibly.Credit to Paper authors: Florian Schneider, Narges Baba Ahmadi, Niloufar Baba Ahmadi, Iris Vogel, Martin Semmann, Chris Biemann

Hey PaperLedge crew, Ernis here, ready to dive into some groundbreaking research! Today, we're tackling a topic near and dear to my heart: bridging communication gaps. Specifically, we're looking at how AI can help make sign language more accessible to everyone.
Now, think about sign language for a moment. It's so much more than just hand movements, right? It's a rich, expressive language that uses gestures, facial expressions, and body language to convey meaning. It’s the primary way the Deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) community communicates. But here's the thing: most hearing people don't know sign language. This creates a huge barrier, making everyday interactions a real challenge.
Imagine trying to order coffee, or ask for directions, without being able to verbally communicate. That's the reality for many DHH individuals. So, how can we break down this wall?
That’s where this awesome research comes in! Scientists are working on something called automatic sign language recognition (SLR). The goal is to create AI systems that can automatically translate sign language into text or speech, and vice-versa. Think of it as a universal translator for sign language!
Now, building an SLR system is no easy feat. Recognizing individual signs is one thing, but understanding dynamic word-level sign language – where context and the flow of movements matter – is a whole other ballgame. It's like trying to understand a sentence by only looking at individual letters; you miss the bigger picture. The AI needs to understand how signs relate to each other over time.
Traditionally, researchers have used something called Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) for this. Imagine CNNs as filters that scan the video of someone signing, picking out key features like hand shapes and movements. The problem? CNNs are resource intensive, and they struggle to capture the overall flow of a signed sentence. They can miss those crucial global relationships between movements that happen throughout the entire video.
That’s where the heroes of our story come in: Transformers! These aren't the robots in disguise (though, that would be cool!). In AI, Transformers are a type of neural network architecture that uses something called self-attention. Think of self-attention as the AI's ability to pay attention to all parts of the video at once, figuring out how each gesture relates to the others. It's like understanding the entire symphony, not just individual notes. It helps the AI to capture global relationships between spatial and temporal dimensions, which makes them suitable for complex gesture recognition tasks.
This particular research paper uses a Video Vision Transformer (ViViT) model – a Transformer specifically designed for video analysis – to recognize American Sign Language (ASL) at the word level. They even used something called VideoMAE in their research.
And guess what? The results are impressive! The model achieved a Top-1 accuracy of 75.58% on a standard dataset called WLASL100. That's significantly better than traditional CNNs, which only managed around 65.89%. This shows that Transformers have the potential to dramatically improve SLR.
In essence, this research demonstrates that transformer-based architectures have great potential to advance SLR, overcome communication barriers and promote the inclusion of DHH individuals.
So, why does this matter?
For the DHH community: This technology could lead to more accessible communication tools, breaking down barriers and fostering greater inclusion.
For AI researchers: This research offers valuable insights into how to build more effective video recognition systems.
For everyone: By bridging communication gaps, we can create a more understanding and inclusive world for all.
This research raises some interesting questions, right?
How can we ensure that these AI systems are culturally sensitive and accurately represent the nuances of different sign languages?
What are the ethical considerations surrounding the use of AI in communication, particularly in relation to privacy and data security?
I’m super curious to hear your thoughts on this. Let’s keep the conversation going!
Credit to Paper authors: Alexander Brettmann, Jakob Grävinghoff, Marlene Rüschoff, Marie Westhues

Hey PaperLedge crew, Ernis here, ready to dive into another fascinating piece of research! Today, we're tackling a problem that affects pretty much everyone who uses software: vulnerabilities. Think of them like cracks in the foundation of a building – if left unattended, they can lead to major problems.
Now, you might be thinking, "Okay, so software has flaws. Big deal. Can't someone just fix them?" And you'd be right! But here's the catch: finding and fixing these vulnerabilities is a super complex and time-consuming process. It requires specialized knowledge, like being a master architect who understands every nook and cranny of a building's design. The result? A ton of known vulnerabilities remain unpatched, leaving our systems open to attack.
Imagine your house has a leaky roof. You know about it, but you don't have the time or the know-how to fix it properly. Every time it rains, the problem gets worse. That's essentially what's happening with a lot of software out there.
But fear not, my friends, because some clever researchers are working on a solution! They're leveraging the power of Large Language Models – think of these as super-smart AI assistants – to automate the vulnerability repair process. These AI agents can understand and generate code, which is a promising step towards self-healing software.
However, simply feeding these agents static information, like lines of code, isn't enough. It's like giving a doctor a patient's medical chart without actually examining the patient. They need more context!
"The effectiveness of agents based on static information retrieval is still not sufficient for patch generation."
That's where the paper we're discussing today comes in. These researchers have developed a new program repair agent called VulDebugger. The key innovation? VulDebugger doesn't just look at the code; it actively debugs the program, much like a human programmer would.
Think of it like this: imagine a detective trying to solve a crime. They don't just read the police report; they go to the crime scene, examine the evidence, and interview witnesses. VulDebugger does something similar. It inspects the actual state of the program as it runs, using a debugger to see what's really going on. It also infers what should be happening by setting up "constraints" – expected states that the program needs to satisfy.
By constantly comparing the actual state with the expected state, VulDebugger can deeply understand the root causes of vulnerabilities and figure out how to fix them. It's like the detective piecing together all the clues to solve the mystery.
So, how well does this VulDebugger actually work? The researchers put it to the test on 50 real-life projects, and the results were impressive! VulDebugger successfully fixed 60% of the vulnerabilities, significantly outperforming other state-of-the-art approaches.
This is a big deal because it means we're one step closer to having software that can automatically repair itself, reducing our exposure to attacks and making our digital lives a little bit safer.
Why does this matter to you?
For the average user: This could mean fewer software crashes, less risk of being hacked, and a more secure online experience.
For developers: This could free up time to focus on building new features and improving software quality, rather than spending countless hours fixing bugs.
For security professionals: This could provide a powerful new tool for identifying and mitigating vulnerabilities, making it harder for attackers to exploit weaknesses in our systems.

Now, let's chew on this a bit. A couple of questions that jump to my mind are:
Given the reliance on "expected states," how does VulDebugger handle completely novel or unexpected program behaviors that might not be errors?
What are the ethical considerations of using AI to automatically patch vulnerabilities? Could it inadvertently introduce new problems or create unforeseen security risks?
Food for thought, crew! Let me know what you think in the comments. Until next time, keep exploring the PaperLedge!Credit to Paper authors: Zhengyao Liu, Yunlong Ma, Jingxuan Xu, Junchen Ai, Xiang Gao, Hailong Sun, Abhik Roychoudhury

Alright learning crew, welcome back to PaperLedge! Ernis here, ready to dive into some research that's got me thinking about how we test AI. Today, we're tackling a paper that throws a wrench into how we measure something called common-sense reasoning in language models.
Now, what is common-sense reasoning for an AI? Think of it like this: it's not just knowing facts, like "the sky is blue." It's understanding why the sky is usually blue, knowing that if you drop something, it'll fall, and generally being able to navigate the world like a reasonably intelligent human. It's the kind of knowledge you just know, without having to be explicitly taught.
To test this in AI, researchers use things called benchmarks – basically, standardized tests. One really popular one is called HellaSwag. The idea behind HellaSwag is to give the AI a situation and see if it can predict what happens next in a plausible, common-sense way.
Here’s where things get interesting. This paper we're looking at argues that HellaSwag isn't actually measuring common sense very well. The authors claim it has some serious problems that make the results unreliable. Think of it like this: imagine trying to measure someone's musical ability with a test that's full of typos, uses confusing instructions, and sometimes has more than one right answer! You wouldn't get a very accurate picture, would you?
So, what are these problems with HellaSwag? The paper highlights a few:
Grammar Gone Wild: Apparently, HellaSwag has basic grammatical errors and typos. If the test itself is flawed, how can we trust the results?
Misleading Prompts: Some of the questions are just confusing or set up in a way that leads to incorrect answers, even if the AI does have common sense.
Multiple Right Answers: Sometimes, the test offers several options that could all be considered correct. This makes it difficult to determine if the AI is truly understanding the situation or just guessing.
“...if models are evaluated only on answer texts, or with "Lorem ipsum dolor..." instead of the question, more than 65% of model predictions remain the same...”
But here's the kicker: the authors even showed that if they replaced the actual questions with gibberish (like "Lorem ipsum"), the AI still gave the same answers most of the time! That suggests the AI isn't actually reading the question and using common sense at all. It's finding patterns elsewhere -- maybe in the way the answers are phrased.
Why does this matter? Well, these benchmarks are used to decide which AI models are "better" than others. Companies and researchers use these scores to choose which models to use in real-world applications. If the benchmarks are flawed, we could be making bad decisions and choosing AI that seems smart but isn't really reasoning effectively.
The authors conclude that HellaSwag, in its current form, shouldn't be used for evaluating common-sense reasoning. They even created a cleaned-up version called GoldenSwag, which they believe is a much better way to test these capabilities. They also provide suggestions to make future benchmarks better.
So, what does this mean for us?
For AI Researchers: This paper is a wake-up call to be more critical of the benchmarks we use. We need to make sure we're actually measuring what we think we're measuring.
For Businesses Using AI: Don't just blindly trust benchmark scores. Understand the limitations of these tests and consider other ways to evaluate AI before making important decisions.
For Everyone Else: This highlights that AI, while impressive, is still under development. We need to be aware of its limitations and not assume it's always making decisions based on common sense.
This research leaves me with a few questions for us to chew on:
If current benchmarks aren't accurately measuring common sense, how should we be testing AI's reasoning abilities? What would a truly valid common-sense reasoning test look like?
The authors created GoldenSwag, but what are the limits of just "cleaning up" an existing benchmark? Do we ultimately need to start from scratch to create more robust tests?
Given that so many AI applications rely on these potentially flawed benchmarks, how much are we overestimating the true capabilities of current AI systems?
That's all for this episode of PaperLedge! Let me know what you think of this research in the comments. Until next time, keep learning, crew!Credit to Paper authors: Pavel Chizhov, Mattia Nee, Pierre-Carl Langlais, Ivan P. Yamshchikov

Hey PaperLedge learning crew, Ernis here, ready to dive into some fascinating AI research! Today, we're unpacking a study that looks at how well we humans are actually talking to these super-smart AI chatbots, like the ones powering your favorite writing assistant or customer service tool. Think of it like this: you've got this amazing, super-powered genie in a bottle (the LLM), but are we really making the best wishes?
The basic idea is that these Large Language Models (LLMs) are designed to understand us using everyday language. You just type what you want, and poof, the AI does its thing. Sounds simple, right? But the researchers found something interesting: even though these systems are supposed to be user-friendly, a lot of us are struggling to get the most out of them. We're not always asking the right questions, or phrasing them in a way that the AI can really understand.
Think of it like ordering coffee. You could just say "Coffee, please." You'll probably get something, but it might not be exactly what you wanted. Maybe you wanted a latte, or an iced coffee, or a decaf with oat milk! The more specific you are, the better the barista (or the AI) can deliver. This paper suggests that we often give AI systems "coffee, please" prompts when we could be asking for a perfectly customized beverage.
This study set up an educational experiment. They had people try to complete tasks using an AI, but gave some folks special instructions, or prompting guidelines, on how to ask better questions. It's like giving some coffee-orderers a cheat sheet with all the different drink options and how to ask for them. They looked at three different kinds of cheat sheets – one they designed themselves and two others as a comparison. Then, they tracked how people interacted with the AI, looking at the types of questions they asked and how well the AI responded.
"Our findings provide a deeper understanding of how users engage with LLMs and the role of structured prompting guidance in enhancing AI-assisted communication."
To analyze all this data, they used something called Von NeuMidas – a fancy name for a system that helps them categorize the common mistakes people make when prompting. It's like having a coffee expert watch everyone's orders and say, "Ah, this person forgot to specify the size," or "This person didn't mention they wanted it iced."
What they found is that when people got better guidance on how to ask questions, they not only asked better questions, but the AI also gave better answers! It shows that a little bit of instruction can go a long way in improving how we interact with AI.
Why does this matter? Well, for educators, it means we need to teach people how to effectively use these AI tools. For AI developers, it means we need to design systems that are more forgiving of vague prompts, or that actively guide users towards asking better questions. And for everyone else, it means we can all get better at using these amazing tools to boost our productivity, creativity, and problem-solving skills.
So, here are a couple of things that popped into my head while reading this:
If we need to be "trained" to talk to AI, does that mean these systems aren't as intuitive as we thought?
Could AI be designed to provide real-time feedback on our prompts, almost like a built-in tutor?
Let me know what you think in the comments! What are your experiences with prompting AI? Have you found any tricks that work well for you? Until next time, keep learning!Credit to Paper authors: Cansu Koyuturk, Emily Theophilou, Sabrina Patania, Gregor Donabauer, Andrea Martinenghi, Chiara Antico, Alessia Telari, Alessia Testa, Sathya Bursic, Franca Garzotto, Davinia Hernandez-Leo, Udo Kruschwitz, Davide Taibi, Simona Amenta, Martin Ruskov, Dimitri Ognibene

Hey learning crew, Ernis here, ready to dive into some fascinating research! Today, we're tackling a big challenge in the world of AI – hallucinations in large language models. Now, before you picture robots seeing things, let me explain…
Think of those super-smart AI models like ChatGPT. They're amazing at writing, answering questions, and even generating code. But sometimes, they confidently spout information that's completely made up. That's what we mean by "hallucinations." It's like asking your friend a question and they give you a super convincing answer that sounds great, but is actually total fiction. Not ideal!
This is a huge problem because it makes these AI models unreliable. We can't just blindly trust them, especially in important situations like medical advice or legal research. That’s why researchers are working hard to find ways to detect and prevent these AI fibs.
Now, some clever folks have discovered that these LLMs actually leave clues inside themselves about whether they're telling the truth or not. It's like the AI has an internal monologue where it's waffling, and we just need to learn to hear it!
The problem is, these clues are tricky to find. Previous methods focused on specific words or phrases, which worked okay in controlled situations. But in the real world, when the AI is writing freely and hallucinating in unpredictable ways, these methods fall apart. It's like trying to catch a specific fish with a net that only works in one part of the lake.
That's where the paper we're discussing today comes in! These researchers developed a new method called HaMI, which stands for something quite technical, but the key is it's a smarter way to find those hidden "truthfulness hints."
Imagine you're trying to find a hidden message in a long document. Instead of focusing on specific words, HaMI looks at all the words and tries to figure out which ones are most important for detecting lies. It's like having a detective that can spot the crucial details in a messy crime scene.
The way HaMI does this is really clever. It treats the problem as a "multiple instance learning" task. Think of it like this: instead of judging the entire document at once, it breaks it down into smaller pieces (the words) and tries to figure out which pieces are the most suspicious. Then, it combines those suspicious pieces to make an overall judgment about whether the document is truthful or not.
This "divide and conquer" approach makes HaMI much more robust than previous methods. It can handle different writing styles, varying lengths of text, and unpredictable hallucination patterns. It's like having a lie detector that works no matter how someone tries to deceive you!
The researchers tested HaMI on several different datasets and found that it significantly outperformed existing state-of-the-art methods. In other words, it's a much better lie detector for AI!
So, why does this research matter? Well:
For developers: It provides a powerful new tool for building more reliable and trustworthy AI systems.
For users: It means we can have more confidence in the information we get from AI models.
For society: It helps us mitigate the risks associated with AI-generated misinformation.
This is a significant step towards making AI safer and more useful for everyone. And it opens up some interesting questions:
Can we use similar techniques to detect other types of AI errors, like biases or logical fallacies?
Could we eventually train AI models to be more aware of their own limitations and avoid hallucinating in the first place?
As AI becomes more sophisticated, will it become even harder to detect these "truthfulness hints," or will new clues emerge?
Lots to think about! That's all for today's deep dive. Keep learning, crew!Credit to Paper authors: Mengjia Niu, Hamed Haddadi, Guansong Pang