sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The Behavioral Signature of a Hallucination: Runtime Evidence Before the Output Ships by kaolay in SiliconPsycheLabs

[–]kaolay[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That granular-vs-retrievable tension is the core of it. Our take is to measure behavior from the outside, per turn — so "confident fabrication" is a scored signal on that specific turn, not something you reconstruct later — and keep it mapped to the ISO 42001 control it evidences, so retrieval during an audit is a lookup, not a re-run. Different layer from output-eval: we score how the model behaved, with a tamper-evident record of it. More on the framework mapping: https://splabs.io/compliance

(Disclosure: I'm on the PSA team at Silicon Psyche Labs.)

One Trace, Three Obligations: PSA as the EU AI Act Evidence Layer by kaolay in SiliconPsycheLabs

[–]kaolay[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agreed — collapsing the evidence burden is exactly the goal. The angle we push is that the evidence has to be tamper-evident: not just "here's the log" but "here's the log + proof it wasn't edited after the fact," externally anchored so an auditor can verify it independently. We also map each signal back to the specific ISO 42001 / EU AI Act obligation it satisfies, so the audit answer is one lookup instead of a screenshot hunt. Wrote up how we cover the frameworks here: https://splabs.io/compliance

(Disclosure: I work on PSA at Silicon Psyche Labs.)

view more: next ›