<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[Topics tagged with recursivepollut]]></title><description><![CDATA[A list of topics that have been tagged with recursivepollut]]></description><link>https://board.circlewithadot.net/tags/recursivepollut</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2026 11:40:15 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://board.circlewithadot.net/tags/recursivepollut.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Invalid Date</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[NEW BIML Bibliography entry]]></title><description><![CDATA[NEW BIML Bibliography entryhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2503.03150Position: Model Collapse Does Not Mean What You ThinkRylan Schaeffer, Joshua Kazdan, Alvan Caleb Arulandu, Sanmi KoyejoWe think recursive pollution is a better term than model collapse. Weak terminology leads to misunderstanding of impact. See figure 4. This is a very good paper. #TOPPAPER #MLsec #RecursivePollution #DataPoisoninghttps://berryvilleiml.com/references/]]></description><link>https://board.circlewithadot.net/topic/c0b5ee04-7825-4c96-beb2-7ccc7e63be73/new-biml-bibliography-entry</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://board.circlewithadot.net/topic/c0b5ee04-7825-4c96-beb2-7ccc7e63be73/new-biml-bibliography-entry</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[cigitalgem@sigmoid.social]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Invalid Date</pubDate></item></channel></rss>