<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Fine Tuning vs. Retrieval Augmented Generation for Less Popular Knowledge · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2403.01432/</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/2403.01432/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Fine Tuning vs. Retrieval Augmented Generation for Less Popular Knowledge — mentioned by armcat</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39661062</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2403.01432:39661062</guid><pubDate>Sun, 10 Mar 2024 17:54:55 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;ve worked with EXACT this type of problem and for me RAG works perfectly well - it may seem &amp;quot;clumsy&amp;quot; as you put it in terms of trying to engineer or optimize the indexing, augmentation, and retrieval techniques, but it&amp;#x27;s worth it. I would claim that going down the finetuning route lends to a significantly higher probability of going astray at a MUCH larger cost. There have been some attempts to compare RAG vs FT approaches, I would recommend this paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.01432&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2403.01432/"&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>
