<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Cross-Care: Assessing the Healthcare Implications of Pre-training Data on Language Model Bias · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2405.05506/</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/2405.05506/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Cross-Care: Assessing the Healthcare Implications of Pre-training Data on Language Model Bias — mentioned by saaas23</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40328707</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2405.05506:40328707</guid><pubDate>Sat, 11 May 2024 15:31:40 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;We made this (www.crosscare.net) to visualize what disease+demographic information are in LLM pre-training data, and how they propagate to downstream bias! (https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.05506) Things we found that are kinda interesting: 1. Models have no idea about the true prevalence (fair they are not fact-check/retrieval machines anyway) 2. models fit to pre-training data&amp;#x27;s co-occurances 3. Alignment methods deepen these biases 4. Base models SFT/DPO on certain language datasets (usually English only) will only impact their understanding of these concepts in English&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2405.05506/"&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>
