So they trained LLM's on a bunch of junk and then notice that it got worse? I don't understand how that's a surprising, or even interesting result?
replies(3):
just use a different model?
dont train it with bad data and just start a new session if your RAG muffins went off the rails?
what am I missing here
I guess I don't actually have an issue with this research paper existing, but I do have an issue with its clickbait-y title that gets it a bunch of attention, even though the actual research is really not that interesting.
And while this result isn't extraordinary, it definitely creates knowledge and could close the gap to more interesting observations.