<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>How Does Code Pretraining Affect Language Model Task Performance? · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2409.04556/</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/2409.04556/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>How Does Code Pretraining Affect Language Model Task Performance? — mentioned by aspenmartin</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47542881</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2409.04556:47542881</guid><pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2026 14:12:49 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;So what do you think the difference is between humans and an agent in this respect? What makes you think this has any relevance to the problem? everything is combinatorially explosive: the combination of words that we can string into sentences and essays is also combinatorially explosive and yet LLMs and humans have no problem with it. It&amp;#x27;s just the wrong frame of thinking for what&amp;#x27;s going on. These systems are obtaining higher and higher levels of abstractions because that is the most efficient thing for them to do to gain performance. That&amp;#x27;s what reasoning looks like: compositions of higher…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2409.04556/"&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>
