<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>LoraHub: Efficient Cross-Task Generalization via Dynamic LoRA Composition · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2307.13269/</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/2307.13269/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>LoraHub: Efficient Cross-Task Generalization via Dynamic LoRA Composition — mentioned by yacine_</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36881193</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2307.13269:36881193</guid><pubDate>Wed, 26 Jul 2023 17:13:37 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;If you fine tune them to be task specific, they&amp;#x27;ll perform well. In my experience, this control loop is a better investment than &amp;quot;prompt engineering&amp;quot;. (When I say task specific, I mean very task specific) GPT4 over the API is too fine tuned, which constrains its behavior. It fails to capture nuance in instructions. When you have the bag of weights, you can actually control your model. Having actual control over the model, and understanding the infrastructure that it&amp;#x27;s running on helps you meet actual SLAs. And it&amp;#x27;s cheaper, if you&amp;#x27;re not backed by infinite venture money.…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2307.13269/"&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>
