{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreia3lkmnceje4fluxww5qsxm2h5ihq243alp5euclb6gqqjdxhi5hu",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:pgryn3ephfd2xgft23qokfzt/app.bsky.feed.post/3mnzzozuuxg72"
  },
  "path": "/t/can-an-llm-lose-conceptual-continuity-while-remaining-coherent/176469#post_10",
  "publishedAt": "2026-06-11T19:10:42.000Z",
  "site": "https://discuss.huggingface.co",
  "textContent": "That makes sense. NIAH and LITM also seem to separate the two layers quite well.\n\nNIAH can often be solved by making the right item retrievable or salient inside the current context. LITM looks harder because the system must preserve not just an item, but its role in the epistemic structure: why it matters, which claim it supports, which constraint it belongs to, and when it should be re-injected.\n\nSo I agree that your KV/TIS work is directly relevant there. My external-state point is not a replacement, but a possible second layer for LITM-like failures: keep epistemic objects outside the model, then select the right slice before each inference pass.\n\nAnd about arXiv: unfortunately, I can’t sponsor anyone either. I’m in the same situation — independent work, no endorsement rights yet. So I fully understand the problem. The endorsement layer is sometimes harder to navigate than the technical work itself.",
  "title": "Can an LLM lose conceptual continuity while remaining coherent?"
}