<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>How Much Knowledge Can You Pack Into the Parameters of a Language Model? · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2002.08910/</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/2002.08910/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>How Much Knowledge Can You Pack Into the Parameters of a Language Model? — mentioned by patrick-lewis</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24259807</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2002.08910:24259807</guid><pubDate>Mon, 24 Aug 2020 12:07:37 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Hi, first author here. &amp;gt; Given that nearest-neighbor outperforms on closed book, is it reasonable to suspect the model is doing NN itself internally (which would explain the good performance on close duplicates?) I think this is definitely the case for the BART model. It is essentially acting as a QA-pair memorizer over the training data, and at test time, it just matches the question onto those seen at training time. Note that the T5-11B+SSM closed-book model was able to do a little better on NQ, so very large models with task-specific pretraining objectives do seem to do something slightly…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2002.08910/"&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>
