HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
cpldcpu
MisguidedAttention
Python2024–2026
cpldcpu / MisguidedAttention

MisguidedAttention

A collection of prompts to challenge the reasoning abilities of large language models in presence of misguiding information

7Distinct people
8Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
491GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

A collection of prompts to challenge the reasoning abilities of large language models in presence of misguiding information

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 3:03:16 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by month8 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2024-11-10 17:15:31 UTC to 2026-04-23 09:15:54 UTC.

012342024-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 1 submissions, 0 commentsNov 20242024-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 4 mentions; 0 submissions, 4 comments2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2025-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2025-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-06-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-06-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-07-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 commentsJul 20252025-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsApr 2026

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
Nov 20242024-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-12-01 00:00:00 UTC110
Dec 20242024-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC404
Jan 20252025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-02-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Feb 20252025-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-03-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Mar 20252025-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-04-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 20252025-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-05-01 00:00:00 UTC000
May 20252025-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-06-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jun 20252025-06-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-07-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jul 20252025-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-08-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 20252025-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-09-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 20252025-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-10-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Oct 20252025-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-11-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 20252025-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-12-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 20252025-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 20262026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-02-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 20262026-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-03-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 20262026-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-04-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 20262026-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-05-01 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

8 sources
MoE is mostly an optimization of the active parameters and therefore lowering the compute requirements, but it can provide some performance improvements over dense models in some cases. I would not describe reasoning as optimization: In fact, it's typically doing the opposite, as models spend way more tokens (and therefore compute) on responding to the same prompt. Some of the smartest models these days use ridiculous amounts of reasoning before they ever respond. Try Deep Research in Gemini or Claude and you'll see what I'm talking about. >> But this seems to be a very clear path to be "taking the car to the carwash by foot" for a long time, isn't it? I thought the progress was plateauing sometime last year too, but then some new models got released and we saw that the multilingual capabilities improvements are real. And if you want some
Read the rest
thing more tangible and reported on, consider the Opus 4.5/4.6 coding revolution (Claude Code explosion) a few months back. LLMs being stochastic and statistical machines, there will always be funny things that people will come up with that will trick them, be it R's in strawberry or the carwash by foot. At the same time, I can tell you from my experience that a lot of the Misguided attention ( https://github.com/cpldcpu/MisguidedAttention ) type of stump questions work at a much lower rate with newer models. Progress is being made, it's just not in visible areas. BTW, you can come up with many trick questions that will stump even humans with PhDs. They will be of different kind than the ones for LLMs, but this is not a flaw unique to LLMs. If you're asking whether the progress to AGI isn't taking too long, then I personally think LLMs, at least with their current architecture, are not the foundation of AGI, and will always have inherent limitations. But we're fully in the "that's just like, your opinion, man" territory now :)
In Ask HN: Is the ongoing AI research driving LLM models to be better?
I use 0.05 for math, just did a 5k problem set, trying to fine-tune a smaller model with the outputs. It has some very interesting training, borrowed from r1 per the tech report, where it does the o1/qwq "thinking steps", but a bit shorter. It solves ~80% of the problems in 4k context, while qwq would go on for 8k-16k. It's very good at what it does. But as soon as I need it to do something other than solve a problem - say rewrite the problem in simpler terms, or given a problem + solution provide hints, or rewrite the solution with these <tags>, etc. it kinda stops working. Often times it still goes ahead and solves the problem. That's why I'm saying it's stubborn. If a task looks like a task that it can handle very well, it's really hard to make it perform that other, similar but not quite the same task. In a similar vein - https://gith
Read the rest
In Deepseek: The quiet giant leading China’s AI race
The LLM community has come up with tests they call 'Misguided Attention'[1] where they prompt the LLM with a slightly altered version of common riddles / tests etc. This often causes the LLM to fail. For example I used the prompt "As an astronaut in China, would I be able to see the great wall?" and since the training data for all LLMs is full of text dispelling the common myth that the great wall is visible from space, LLMs do not notice the slight variation that the astronaut is IN China. This has been a sobering reminder to me as discussion of AGI heats up. [1] https://github.com/cpldcpu/MisguidedAttention
In OpenAI O3 breakthrough high score on ARC-AGI-PUB
Here's a fairly simple test that I throw at any model that claims to be "GPT-4 level": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42262661 For more complicated stuff, I did some experiments using LLMs to drive high-level AI decisions in video games. Basically, it gets a data schema and a question like "what do you do next?", and can query the schema to retrieve the info that it thinks it needs to give the best answer to that. GPT-4 and GPT-o1 especially are consistently the best performers there, both in terms of richness of queries they produce, and how they make use of them. There's also a bunch of interesting examples along the same lines here: https://github.com/cpldcpu/MisguidedAttention. Although I should note that even top OpenAI models have troubles with much of this stuff. https://github.com/fairydreaming/farel-bench is another interes
Read the rest
ting benchmark because it's so simple, and yet look at the number disparity in that last column! It's easy to scale, too. Unfortunately, we're still at the point in this game where even seemingly trivial and unrelated minor changes in the prompt (e.g. slightly rewording it, and even capitalization in some cases) can have large effect on quality of output, which IMO is a tell-tale sign when the model is really operating in a "stochastic parrot" mode more so than any kind of actual reasoning. Thus benchmarks can be used as a way to screen out the poorly performing models, but they cannot reliably predict how well a model will actually do what you need it to do.
In Amazon Nova
The thing is, good documentation captures the difference between what you expect and what something is. LLMs, as they exist now, are mass-producers of cliché. You can sense it even in their prose or those inverted puzzle evaluations [0] , they are simply statistical models picking the most likely options without enough depth to subvert the average. When you ask them to describe a piece of code, you'll only get the rephrasing of what the code already says. - [0] https://github.com/cpldcpu/MisguidedAttention
In The Opposite of Documentation is Superstition (2020)

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.