<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Theoretical Limitations of Self-Attention in Neural Sequence Models · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1906.06755/</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/1906.06755/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Theoretical Limitations of Self-Attention in Neural Sequence Models — mentioned by dcolkitt</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25654757</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1906.06755:25654757</guid><pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2021 04:51:35 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;The root-case of skepticism has always been that while Transformers do exceptionally well on finite-sized tasks, they lack any fully recursive understanding of the concepts.[0] A human can learn basic arithmetic, then generalize those principles to bigger number arithmetic, then go from there to algebra, then calculus, then so. Successively building on previously learned concepts in a fully recursive manner. Transformers are limited by the exponential size of their network. So GPT-3 does very well with 2-digit addition and okay with 2-digit multiplication, but can&amp;#x27;t abstract to 6-digit…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1906.06755/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CL</category></item></channel></rss>
