I don't understand how anyone can read the abstract and think it's "ridiculously clear" that the "Just by looking at the raw weights," doesn't apply to the Qwen experiment.

▲

tedivm 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You are right, if you literally just read a one paragraph description you will get less details than reading the whole post, but most of us read more than just the one paragraph. There is some actual interesting stuff in the paper, including the portion where they did edit the weights to fix the looping bug.

▲

malfist 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> most of us read more than just the one paragraph

Most of us barely read the title

	▲	tedivm 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Honestly, that's on them. Coddling people who are too intellectually lazy to read the entire article isn't helping anyone.

▲

kenjackson 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It says this “All of this is possible without allowing Astra to write training loops. It uses its reasoning to figure out what each part of a neural network computes, or should compute, and changes the weights accordingly.”

This seems 100% accurate to me. What is a lie here?

▲

stymaar 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Nobody said they outright “lied”, most misleading statements are “100% accurate” yet are designed to mislead the reader.

And when you see the reactions in the HN comment to the original article, it's pretty clear that most people have indeed been mislead.

▲

nextaccountic 3 hours ago | parent [-]

The article is not misleading either.

The title is but then OP should talk about just the title instead

	▲	stymaar 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The title and the abstract are, the article is fine (but disappointing, given the excitement built up by the title + abstract)