<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Understanding the Origins of Bias in Word Embeddings · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1810.03611/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1810.03611/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Understanding the Origins of Bias in Word Embeddings — mentioned by mdifrgechd</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24887227</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1810.03611:24887227</guid><pubDate>Sun, 25 Oct 2020 15:56:57 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;One possible counterpoint- sample based explanation techniques can tell what training data was most influential in a ML model&amp;#x27;s prediction, and this has been considered in language models[0]. So you could argue that if there are training examples within a corpus that are having an outsized influence on the model output, then maybe it is derivative. This would be pretty cool to look at - are some GPT or other language model outputs relying strongly on a few sources? [0] https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.03611&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1810.03611/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.LG</category></item></channel></rss>
