"<Q>What model are you?<A>Qwen." is surely in Qwen's training data. It's quite standard to include such meta knowledge during instruction tuning.

I learned to machine on their machines, before graduating to full-sized units. They were great for learning, because they had all the essential features of professional manual machines, but couldn't cause as much damage when something went wrong. And they were delightfully made and easy to take apart and modify. Sad.

That's true for production models, but a lot of research involves working with fine-tuned models made for one experiment. RL involves constantly updating weights. Those may well run in the same cluster as the eval.

It's shocking that anyone can spoof the number of, say, my bank. At least large institutions should have authentication.

Please don't submit pages with multiple unrelated stories, as it's not suitable for discussion.

You can engage with an AI-written document! Simply paste the document into the AI (same or different as the AI that wrote it) and ask questions. You can get an answer in seconds compared to an hour (if it's a blog post by an HN reader), days (if it's a professional blogger), or never (if it's by a journalist).

Perhaps AI-written articles should include the prompt as hidden text on the page. Or include a link with the prompt embedded, that causes the AI to spit out the same article that you could then ask questions about.

I can indeed use AI to do research on topics I learn about on HN. That’s a different activity than what I come to HN for, or when I’m reviewing a proposal for something at work, or if I’m interested in an article and want to learn more about some of the details that didn’t make the final draft from either the author or from other people with experience in the area.

“Why didn’t the author consider [this thing that seems similar]” is almost never something you can ask an llm, especially for articles where the author is putting in so little of their own effort that they don’t edit out obvious AI tells.

Librarians have systems that can classify every published book. And scientific publishers can classify every paper. Those don't add up to a complete classification of all human knowledge, but it's a substantial fraction of it.

If you skim the high-level book categories at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dewey_Decimal_classes, you may conclude this is is beyond a lifetime's work.

Mmhmm. A talented cataloger in a research library understands where the 'fuzz' in these systems is - where the margins intersect - and they have a process for helping systematize those classifications in a way that they can socialize with other librarians across the world. (If nobody has ever cataloged a particular book before... your record is probably going into OCLC WorldCat and other people will borrow the output of your thinking process later... making things more and more definitive.)

Okay I got it . But do we have any best possible classification system or map . That is most complete. A map which has tried to capture totality of all known human knowledge without leaving anything significant.

I want this so I am not unaware of any field of knowledge. Atleast any significant feild of knowledge

Practically Best possible .

Thank you sir for your response

Gmail is at least as large a target, and they don’t keep having breaches.

I just ask LLMs questions about things I'm curious about. I don't really want to follow someone else's predefined curriculum. A curriculum is necessary when the information has to be delivered in a lecture, but not in a 1-1 interactive setting.

If you type "I want to learn CUDA programming. Where should I start?" into Claude, it gives a pretty plausible outline. It's not clear what an app could add to it.

Same. The ability to investigate a topic from almost any angle or starting point has been really fun and helpful.

Some of mine do. They use WASM64 with threads to run robotics simulations.

That’s an “acceptable” use.