<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>A Technical Survey of Reinforcement Learning Techniques for Large Language Models · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2507.04136/</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/2507.04136/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>A Technical Survey of Reinforcement Learning Techniques for Large Language Models — mentioned by lossolo</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44601250</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2507.04136:44601250</guid><pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2025 04:37:52 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;I understand your argument. The recipe that finally let RLHF + SFT work without strip mining base knowledge was real R&amp;amp;D, and GPT 4 class models wouldn’t feel so &amp;quot;chatty but competent&amp;quot; without it. I just still see ceiling effects that make the whole effort look more like climbing a very tall tree than building a Saturn V. GPT 4.1 is marketed as a &amp;quot;major improvement&amp;quot; but under the hood it’s still the KL-regularised PPO loop OpenAI first stabilized in 2022 only with a longer context window and a lot more GPUs for reward model inference. They retired GPT 4.5 after five months and told developers…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2507.04136/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.AI</category></item></channel></rss>
