<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Synthetic continued pretraining · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2409.07431/</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/2409.07431/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Synthetic continued pretraining — mentioned by nickandbro</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45585051</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2409.07431:45585051</guid><pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2025 21:17:36 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;You could! But just like others have mentioned, the performance would be negligible. If you really wanted to see more of a performance boost by pretraining you could try to create a bigger chunk of data to train off of. This would be done by either creating synthetic data off of your material, or finding adjacent information to your material. Here&amp;#x27;s a good paper about it: &amp;lt;https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.07431&amp;gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2409.07431/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.LG</category></item><item><title>Synthetic continued pretraining — HN submission</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41537652</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:submission:2409.07431:41537652</guid><pubDate>Sat, 14 Sep 2024 05:20:16 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Synthetic Continued Pretraining&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;3 points; 0 discussion replies on HN. &lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2409.07431/"&gt;Paper and source history&lt;/a&gt;. A submission is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.LG</category></item></channel></rss>
