<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>A Closer Look at the Limitations of Instruction Tuning · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2402.05119/</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/2402.05119/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>A Closer Look at the Limitations of Instruction Tuning — mentioned by DanyWin</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39699670</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2402.05119:39699670</guid><pubDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2024 01:25:27 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;You are exactly right! As I wanted to have a solution that works with many LLMs out of the box, I focused on chain of thoughts and few shot learnings. Lots of paper show that fine-tuning only helps with steerability and form (https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.05119), therefore I thought it would be sufficient to provide just the right examples and it did work! We do intend to create a decentralized dataset to further train models and have maybe a 2b or 7b model working well&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2402.05119/"&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>
