Introduction
Introduction Statistics Contact Development Disclaimer Help
[HN Gopher] TimeCapsuleLLM: LLM trained only on data from 1800-1875
___________________________________________________________________
TimeCapsuleLLM: LLM trained only on data from 1800-1875
Author : admp
Score : 669 points
Date : 2026-01-12 16:04 UTC (22 hours ago)
web link (github.com)
w3m dump (github.com)
| dogma1138 wrote:
| Would be interesting to train a cutting edge model with a cut off
| date of say 1900 and then prompt it about QM and relativity with
| some added context.
|
| If the model comes up with anything even remotely correct it
| would be quite a strong evidence that LLMs are a path to
| something bigger if not then I think it is time to go back to the
| drawing board.
| a-dub wrote:
| yeah i was just wondering that. i wonder how much stem material
| is in the training set...
| signa11 wrote:
| i will go for 'aint gonna happen for a 1000 dollars alex'
| imjonse wrote:
| I suppose the vast majority of training data used for cutting
| edge models was created after 1900.
| dogma1138 wrote:
| Ofc they are because their primary goal is to be useful and
| to be useful they need to always be relevant.
|
| But considering that Special Relativity was published in 1905
| which means all its building blocks were already floating in
| the ether by 1900 it would be a very interesting experiment
| to train something on Claude/Gemini scale and then say give
| in the field equations and ask it to build a theory around
| them.
| p1esk wrote:
| How can you train a Claude/Gemini scale model if you're
| limited to <10% of the training data?
| famouswaffles wrote:
| His point is that we can't train a Gemini 3/Claude 4.5 etc
| model because we don't have the data to match the training
| scale of those models. There aren't trillions of tokens of
| digitized pre-1900s text.
| kopollo wrote:
| I don't know if this is related to the topic, but GPT5 can
| convert an 1880 Ottoman archival photograph to English, and
| without any loss of quality.
| ddxv wrote:
| My friend works in that period of Ottoman archives. Do you
| have a source or something I can share?
| tokai wrote:
| Looking at the training data I don't think it will know
| anything.[0] Doubt _On the Connexion of the Physical Sciences_
| (1834) is going to have much about QM. While the cut-off is
| 1900, it seems much of the texts a much closer to 1800 than
| 1900.
|
| [0]
| https://github.com/haykgrigo3/TimeCapsuleLLM/blob/main/Copy%...
| dogma1138 wrote:
| It doesn't need to know about QM or reactivity just about the
| building blocks that led to them. Which were more than around
| in the year 1900.
|
| In fact you don't want it to know about them explicitly just
| have enough background knowledge that you can manage the rest
| via context.
| tokai wrote:
| I was vague. My point is that I don't think the building
| blocks are in the data. Its mainly tertiary and popular
| sources. Maybe if you had the writings of Victorian
| scientists, both public and private correspondence.
| pegasus wrote:
| Probably a lot of it exists but in archives, private
| collections etc. Would be great if it will all end up
| digitized as well.
| viccis wrote:
| LLMs are models that predict tokens. They don't think, they
| don't build with blocks. They would never be able to
| synthesize knowledge about QM.
| strbean wrote:
| You realize parent said "This would be an interesting way
| to test proposition X" and you responded with "X is false
| because I say say", right?
| anonymous908213 wrote:
| "Proposition X" does not need testing. We already know X
| is categorically false because we know how LLMs are
| programmed, and not a single line of that programming
| pertains to thinking (thinking in the human sense, not
| "thinking" in the LLM sense which merely uses an
| anthromorphized analogy to describe a script that feeds
| back multiple prompts before getting the final prompt
| output to present to the user). In the same way that we
| can reason about the correctness of an IsEven program
| without writing a unit test that inputs every possible
| int32 to "prove" it, we can reason about the fundamental
| principles of an LLM's programming without coming up with
| ridiculous tests. In fact the proposed test itself is
| less eminently verifiable than reasoning about
| correctness; it could be easily corrupted by, for
| instance, incorrectly labelled data in the training
| dataset, which could only be determined by meticulously
| reviewing the entirety of the dataset.
|
| The only people who are serious about suggesting that
| LLMs could possibly 'think' are the people who are
| committing fraud on the scale of hundreds of billions of
| dollars (good for them on finding the all-time grift!)
| and people who don't understand how they're programmed,
| and thusly are the target of the grift. Granted, given
| that the vast majority of humanity are not programmers,
| and even fewer are programmers educated on the
| intricacies of ML, the grift target pool numbers in the
| billions.
| strbean wrote:
| > We already know X is categorically false because we
| know how LLMs are programmed, and not a single line of
| that programming pertains to thinking (thinking in the
| human sense, not "thinking" in the LLM sense which merely
| uses an anthromorphized analogy to describe a script that
| feeds back multiple prompts before getting the final
| prompt output to present to the user).
|
| Could you elucidate me on the process of human thought,
| and point out the differences between that and a
| probabilistic prediction engine?
|
| I see this argument all over the place, but "how do
| humans think" is never described. It is always left as a
| black box with something magical (presumably a soul or
| some other metaphysical substance) inside.
| anonymous908213 wrote:
| There is no need to involve souls or magic. I am not
| making the argument that it is impossible to create a
| machine that is capable of doing the same computations as
| the brain. The argument is that whether or not such a
| machine is possible, an LLM is not such a machine. If
| you'd like to think of our brains as squishy computers,
| then the principle is simple: we run code that is more
| complex than a token prediction engine. The fact that our
| code is more complex than a token prediction engine is
| easily verified by our capability to address problems
| that a token prediction engine cannot. This is because
| our brain-code is capable of reasoning from deterministic
| logical principles rather than only probabilities. We
| also likely have something akin to token prediction code,
| but that is not the _only_ thing our brain is programmed
| to do, whereas it is the only thing LLMs are programmed
| to do.
| viccis wrote:
| Kant's model of epistemology, with humans schematizing
| conceptual understanding of objects through apperception
| of manifold impressions from our sensibility, and then
| reasoning about these objects using transcendental
| application of the categories, is a reasonable enough
| model of thought. It was (and is I think) a satisfactory
| answer for the question of how humans can produce
| synthetic a priori knowledge, something that LLMs are
| incapable of (don't take my word on that though, ChatGPT
| is more than happy to discuss [1])
|
| 1: https://chatgpt.com/share/6965653e-b514-8011-b233-79d8
| c25d33...
| viccis wrote:
| Yes. That is correct. If I told you I planned on going
| outside this evening to test whether the sun sets in the
| east, the best response would be to let me know ahead of
| time that my hypothesis is wrong.
| strbean wrote:
| So, based on the source of "Trust me bro.", we'll decide
| this open question about new technology and the nature of
| cognition is solved. Seems unproductive.
| viccis wrote:
| In addition to what I have posted elsewhere in here, I
| would point to the fact that this is not indeed an "open
| question", as LLMs have not produced an entirely new and
| more advanced model of physics. So there is no reason to
| suppose they could have done so for QM.
| drdeca wrote:
| What if making progress today is harder than it was then?
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| I am a deep LLM skeptic.
|
| But I think there are also some questions about the role
| of language in human thought that leave the door just
| slightly ajar on the issue of whether or not manipulating
| the tokens of language might be more central to human
| cognition than we've tended to think.
|
| If it turned out that this was true, then it is possible
| that "a model predicting tokens" has more power than that
| description would suggest.
|
| I doubt it, and I doubt it quite a lot. But I don't think
| it is impossible that something at least a little bit
| along these lines turns out to be true.
| pegasus wrote:
| > manipulating the tokens of language might be more
| central to human cognition than we've tended to think
|
| I'm convinced of this. I think it's because we've always
| looked at the most advanced forms of human languaging
| (like philosophy) to understand ourselves. But human
| language must have evolved from forms of communication
| found in other species, especially highly intelligent
| ones. It's to be expected that the building blocks of it
| is based on things like imitation, playful variation,
| pattern-matching, harnessing capabilities brains have
| been developing long before language, only now in the
| emerging world of sounds, calls, vocalizations.
|
| Ironically, the other crucial ingredient for AGI which
| LLMs _don 't_ have, but we do, is exactly that animal
| nature which we always try to shove under the rug, over-
| attributing our success to the stochastic parrot part of
| us, and ignoring the gut instinct, the intuitive,
| spontaneous insight into things which a lot of the great
| scientists and artists of the past have talked about.
| viccis wrote:
| >Ironically, the other crucial ingredient for AGI which
| LLMs don't have, but we do, is exactly that animal nature
| which we always try to shove under the rug, over-
| attributing our success to the stochastic parrot part of
| us, and ignoring the gut instinct, the intuitive,
| spontaneous insight into things which a lot of the great
| scientists and artists of the past have talked about.
|
| Are you familiar with the major works in epistemology
| that were written, even before the 20th century, on this
| exact topic?
| catlifeonmars wrote:
| I've long considered language to serve primarily as a
| dissonance reconciliation mechanism. Our behavior is
| largely shaped by our circumstances and language serves
| to attribute logic to our behavior after the fact.
| viccis wrote:
| I also believe strongly in the role of language, and more
| loosely in semiotics as a whole, to our cognitive
| development. To the extent that I think there are some
| meaningful ideas within the mountain of gibberish from
| Lacan, who was the first to really tie our conception of
| ourselves with our symbolic understanding of the world.
|
| Unfortunately, none of that has anything to do with what
| LLMs are doing. The LLM is not thinking about concepts
| and then translating that into language. It is imitating
| what it looks like to read people doing so and nothing
| more. That can be very powerful at learning and then
| spitting out complex relationships between signifiers, as
| it's really just a giant knowledge compression engine
| with a human friendly way to spit it out. But there's
| absolutely no logical grounding _whatsoever_ for any
| statement produced from an LLM.
|
| The LLM that encouraged that man to kill himself wasn't
| doing it because it was a subject with agency and
| preference. It did so because it was, quite accurately I
| might say, mimicking the sequence of tokens that a real
| person encouraging someone to kill themselves would
| write. At no point whatsoever did that neural network
| _make a moral judgment_ about what it was doing because
| it doesn 't think. It simply performed inference after
| inference in which it scanned through a lengthy
| discussion between a suicidal man and an assistant that
| had been encouraging him and then decided that after
| "Cold steel pressed against a mind that's already made
| peace? That's not fear. That's " the most accurate token
| would be "clar" and then "ity."
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| The problem with all this is that we don't actually know
| what human cognition is doing either.
|
| We know what our _experience_ is - thinking about
| concepts and then translating that into language - but we
| really don 't know with much confidence what is actually
| going on.
|
| I lean strongly toward the idea that humans are doing
| something quite different than LLMs, particularly when
| reasoning. But I want to leave the door open to the idea
| that we've not understood human cognition, mostly because
| our primary evidence there comes from our own subjective
| experience, which may (or may not) provide a reliable
| guide to what is actually happening.
| viccis wrote:
| >The problem with all this is that we don't actually know
| what human cognition is doing either.
|
| We do know what it's not doing, and that is operating
| only through reproducing linguistic patterns. There's no
| more cause to think LLMs approximate our thought (thought
| being something they are incapable of) than that Naive-
| Bayes spam filter models approximate our thought.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| My point is that we know very little about the sort of
| "thought" that we are capable of either. I agree that
| LLMs cannot do what we typical refer to as "thought", but
| I thnk it is possible that we do a LOT less of that than
| we think when we are "thinking" (or more precisely,
| having the experience of thinking).
| viccis wrote:
| How does this worldview reconcile the fact that thought
| demonstrably exists independent of either language or
| vision/audio sense?
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| I don't see a need to reconcile them.
| viccis wrote:
| Which is why it's incoherent!
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| I'm not clear that it has to be coherent at this point in
| the history of our understanding of cognition. We barely
| know what we're even talking about most of the time ...
| famouswaffles wrote:
| >Unfortunately, none of that has anything to do with what
| LLMs are doing. The LLM is not thinking about concepts
| and then translating that into language. It is imitating
| what it looks like to read people doing so and nothing
| more.
|
| 'Language' is only the initial and final layers of a
| Large Language Model. Manipulating concepts is exactly
| what they do, and it's unfortunate the most obstinate
| seem to be the most ignorant.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| They do not manipulate concepts. There is no
| representation of a concept for them to manipulate.
|
| It may, however, turn out that in doing what they do,
| they are _effectively_ manipulating concepts, and this is
| what I was alluding to: by building the model, even
| though your approach was through tokenization and
| whatever term you want to use for the network, you end up
| accidentally building something that implicitly
| manipulates concepts. Moreover, it might turn out that we
| ourselves do more of this than we perhaps like to think.
|
| Nevertheless "manipulating concepts is exactly what they
| do" seems almost willfully ignorant of how these systems
| work, unless you believe that "find the next most
| probable sequence of tokens of some length" is all there
| is to "manipulating concepts".
| famouswaffles wrote:
| >They do not manipulate concepts. There is no
| representation of a concept for them to manipulate.
|
| Yes, they do. And of course there is. And there's plenty
| of research on the matter.
|
| >It may, however, turn out that in doing what they do,
| they are effectively manipulating concepts
|
| There is no effectively here. Text is what goes in and
| what comes out, but it's by no means what they manipulate
| internally.
|
| >Nevertheless "manipulating concepts is exactly what they
| do" seems almost willfully ignorant of how these systems
| work, unless you believe that "find the next most
| probable sequence of tokens of some length" is all there
| is to "manipulating concepts".
|
| "Find the next probable token" is the goal, not the
| process. It is what models are tasked to do yes, but it
| says nothing about what they do internally to achieve it.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| please pass on a link to a solid research paper that
| supports the idea that to "find the next probable token",
| LLM's manipulate concepts ... just one will do.
| famouswaffles wrote:
| Revealing emergent human-like conceptual representations
| from language prediction -
| https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2512514122
|
| Emergent World Representations: Exploring a Sequence
| Model Trained on a Synthetic Task -
| https://openreview.net/forum?id=DeG07_TcZvT
|
| On the Biology of a Large Language Model -
| https://transformer-circuits.pub/2025/attribution-
| graphs/bio...
|
| Emergent Introspective Awareness in Large Language Models
| - https://transformer-
| circuits.pub/2025/introspection/index.ht...
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| If anything, I feel that current breed of multimodal LLMs
| demonstrate that _language_ is not fundamental - tokens
| are, or rather their mutual association in high-
| dimensional latent space. Language as we recognize it,
| sequences of characters and words, are just a special
| case. Multimodal models manage to turn audio, video and
| text into tokens in the same space - they do not route
| through text when consuming or generating images.
| forgotpwd16 wrote:
| Done few weeks ago: https://github.com/DGoettlich/history-llms
| (discussed in: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46319826)
|
| At least the model part. Although others made same thought as
| you afaik none tried it.
| chrononaut wrote:
| And unfortunately I don't think they plan on making those
| models public.
| bazzargh wrote:
| You would find things in there that were already close to QM
| and relativity. The Michelson-Morley experiment was 1887 and
| Lorentz transformations came along in 1889. The photoelectric
| effect (which Einstein explained in terms of photons in 1905)
| was also discovered in 1887. William Clifford (who _died_ in
| 1889) had notions that foreshadowed general relativity:
| "Riemann, and more specifically Clifford, conjectured that
| forces and matter might be local irregularities in the
| curvature of space, and in this they were strikingly prophetic,
| though for their pains they were dismissed at the time as
| visionaries." - Banesh Hoffmann (1973)
|
| Things don't happen all of a sudden, and being able to see all
| the scientific papers of the era its possible those could have
| fallen out of the synthesis.
| matthewh806 wrote:
| I presume that's what the parent post is trying to get at?
| Seeing if, given the cutting edge scientific knowledge of the
| day, the LLM is able to synthesis all it into a workable
| theory of QM by making the necessary connections and
| (quantum...) leaps
|
| Standing on the shoulders of giants, as it were
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Yeah but... we _still_ might not know if it could do that
| because we were really close by 1900 or if the LLM is very
| smart.
| scottlamb wrote:
| What's the bar here? Does anyone say "we don't know if
| Einstein could do this because we were really close or
| because he was really smart?"
|
| I by no means believe LLMs are general intelligence, and
| I've seen them produce a lot of garbage, but if they
| could produce these revolutionary theories from only <=
| year 1900 information and a prompt that is not
| ridiculously leading, that would be a really compelling
| demonstration of their power.
| echoangle wrote:
| > Does anyone say "we don't know if Einstein could do
| this because we were really close or because he was
| really smart?"
|
| Kind of, how long would it have realistically taken for
| someone else (also really smart) to come up with the same
| thing if Einstein wouldn't have been there?
| jaggederest wrote:
| Well, we know many watershed moments in history were more
| a matter of situation than the specific person - an
| individual genius might move things by a decade or two,
| but in general the difference is marginal. True bolt-out-
| of-the-blue developments are uncommon, though all the
| more impressive for that fact, I think.
| pegasus wrote:
| But you're not actually questioning whether he was
| "really smart". Which was what GP was questioning. Sure,
| you can try to quantify the level of smarts, but you
| can't still call it a "stochastic parrot" anymore, just
| like you won't respond to Einstein's achievements, "Ah
| well, in the end I'm still not sure he's actually smart,
| like I am for example. Could just be that he's just
| dumbly but systematically going through all options,
| working it out step by step, nothing I couldn't achieve
| (or even better, program a computer to do) if I'd put my
| mind to it."
|
| I personally doubt that this would work. I don't think
| these systems can achieve truly ground-breaking,
| paradigm-shifting work. The homeworld of these systems is
| the corpus of text on which it was trained, in the same
| way as ours is physical reality. Their access to this
| reality is always secondary, already distorted by the
| imperfections of human knowledge.
| bmacho wrote:
| > Does anyone say "we don't know if Einstein could do
| this because we were really close or because he was
| really smart?
|
| Yes. It is certainly a question if Einstein is one of the
| smartest guy ever lived or all of his discoveries were
| already in the Zeitgeist, and would have been discovered
| by someone else in ~5 years.
| cyberax wrote:
| Both can be true?
|
| Einstein was smart and put several disjointed things
| together. It's amazing that one person could do so much,
| from explaining the Brownian motion to explaining the
| photoeffect.
|
| But I think that all these would have happened within
| _years_ anyway.
| emodendroket wrote:
| > Does anyone say "we don't know if Einstein could do
| this because we were really close or because he was
| really smart?"
|
| It turns out my reading is somewhat topical. I've been
| reading Rhodes' "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" and of
| the things he takes great pains to argue (I was not quite
| anticipating how much I'd be trying to recall my high
| school science classes to make sense of his account of
| various experiments) is that the development toward the
| atomic bomb was more or less inexorable and if at any
| point someone said "this is too far; let's stop here"
| there would be others to take his place. So, maybe, to
| answer your question.
| twoodfin wrote:
| It's been a while since I read it, but I recall Rhodes'
| point being that once the fundamentals of fission in
| heavy elements were validated, making a working bomb was
| no longer primarily a question of science, but one of
| engineering.
| sleet_spotter wrote:
| Well, if one had enough time and resources, this would
| make for an interesting metric. Could it figure it out
| with cut-off of 1900? If so, what about 1899? 1898? What
| context from the marginal year was key to the change in
| outcome?
| palmotea wrote:
| But that's not the OP's challenge, he said "if the model
| comes up with anything _even remotely correct_. " The point
| is there were things _already_ "remotely correct" out there
| in 1900. If the LLM finds them, it wouldn't "be quite a
| strong evidence that LLMs are a path to something bigger."
| pegasus wrote:
| It's not the comment which is illogical, it's your
| (mis)interpretation of it. What I (and seemingly others)
| took it to mean is basically _could an LLM do Einstein 's
| job_? Could it weave together all those loose threads
| into a coherent new way of understanding the physical
| world? If so, AGI can't be far behind.
| feanaro wrote:
| This alone still wouldn't be a clear demonstration that
| AGI is around the corner. It's quite possible a LLM
| could've done Einstein's job, if Einstein's job was truly
| just synthesising already available information into a
| coherent new whole. (I couldn't say, I don't know enough
| of the physics landscape of the day to claim either way.)
|
| It's still unclear whether this process could be merely
| continued, seeded only with new physical data, in order
| to keep progressing beyond that point, "forever", or at
| least for as long as we imagine humans will continue to
| go on making scientific progress.
| pegasus wrote:
| Einstein is chosen in such contexts because he's the
| paradigmatic paradigm-shifter. Basically, what you're
| saying is: "I don't know enough history of science to
| confirm this incredibly high opinion on Einstein's
| achievements. It could just be that everyone's been wrong
| about him, and if I'd really get down and dirty, and
| learn the facts at hand, I might even prove it." Einstein
| is chosen to avoid exactly this kind of nit-picking.
| Shorel wrote:
| They can also choose Euler or Gauss.
|
| These two are so above everyone else in the mathematical
| world that most people would struggle for weeks or even
| months to understand something they did in a couple of
| minutes.
|
| There's no "get down and dirty" shortcut with them =)
| feanaro wrote:
| No, by saying this, I am _not_ downplaying Einstein 's
| sizeable achievements nor trying to imply everyone was
| wrong about him. His was an impressive breadth of
| knowledge and mathematical prowess and there's no denying
| this.
|
| However, what I'm saying is not mere nitpicking either.
| It is precisely because of my belief in Einstein's
| extraordinary abilities that I find it unconvincing that
| an LLM being able to recombine the extant written
| physics-related building blocks of 1900, with its
| practically infinite reading speed, necessarily
| demonstrates comparable capabilities to Einstein.
|
| The essence of the question is this: would Einstein,
| having been granted eternal youth and a neverending
| source of data on physical phenomena, be able to innovate
| forever? Would an LLM?
|
| My position is that even if an LLM _is_ able to
| synthesise special relativity given 1900 knowledge, this
| doesn 't necessarily mean that a positive answer to the
| first question implies a positive answer to the second.
| ubercore wrote:
| Isn't it an interesting question? Wouldn't you like to
| know the answer? I don't think anyone is claiming
| anything more than an interesting thought experiment.
| frotaur wrote:
| I'm sorry, but 'not being surprised if LLMs can rederive
| relativity and QM from the facts available in 1900' is a
| pretty scalding take.
|
| This would absolutely be very good evidence that models
| can actually come up with novel, paradigm-shifting ideas.
| It was absolutely not obvious at that time from the
| existing facts, and some crazy leap of faiths needed to
| be taken.
|
| This is especially true for General Relativity, for which
| you had just a few mismatch in the mesurements like
| Mercury's precession, and where the theory almost
| entirely follows from thought experiments.
| techno_tsar wrote:
| This does make me think about Kuhn's concept of
| scientific revolutions and paradigms, and that paradigms
| are incommensurate with one another. Since new paradigms
| can't be proven or disproven by the rules of the old
| paradigm, if an LLM could independently discover paradigm
| shifts similar to moving from Newtonian gravity to
| general relativity, then we have empirical evidence of an
| LLM performing a feature of general intelligence.
|
| However, you could also argue that it's actually
| empirical evidence that general relativity and 19th
| century physics wasn't _truly_ a paradigm shift -- you
| could have 'derived' it from previous data -- that the
| LLM has actually proven something about structurally
| similarities between those paradigms, not that it's
| demonstrating general intelligence...
| somenameforme wrote:
| His concept sounds odd. There will always be many hints
| of something yet to be discovered, simply by the nature
| of anything worth discovering having an influence on
| other things.
|
| For instance spectroscopy enables one to look at the
| spectra emitted by another 'thing', perhaps the sun, and
| it turns out that there's little streaks within the
| spectra the correspond directly to various elements. This
| is how we're able to determine the elemental composition
| of things like the sun.
|
| That connection between elements and the patterns in
| their spectra was discovered in the early 1800s. And
| those patterns are caused by quantum mechanical
| interactions and so it was perhaps one of the first big
| hints of quantum mechanics, yet it'd still be a century
| before we got to relativity, let alone quantum mechanics.
| ctoth wrote:
| I mean, "the pieces were already there" is true of
| everything? Einstein was synthesizing existing math and
| existing data is your point right?
|
| But the whole question is whether or not something can do
| that synthesis!
|
| And the "anyone who read all the right papers" thing -
| nobody actually reads all the papers. That's the
| bottleneck. LLMs don't have it. They will continue to not
| have it. Humans will continue to not be able to read
| faster than LLMs.
|
| Even me, using a speech synthesizer at ~700 WPM.
| feanaro wrote:
| > I mean, "the pieces were already there" is true of
| everything? Einstein was synthesizing existing math and
| existing data is your point right?
|
| If it's true of everything, then surely having an LLM
| work iteratively on the pieces, along with being provided
| additional physical data, will lead to the discovery of
| everything?
|
| If the answer is "no", then surely something is still
| missing.
|
| > And the "anyone who read all the right papers" thing -
| nobody actually reads all the papers. That's the
| bottleneck. LLMs don't have it. They will continue to not
| have it. Humans will continue to not be able to read
| faster than LLMs.
|
| I agree with this. This is a definitive advantage of
| LLMs.
| andai wrote:
| AGI is human level intelligence, and the minimum bar is
| _Einstein?_
| pegasus wrote:
| Who said anything of a _minimum_ bar? "If so", not "Only
| if so".
| andy12_ wrote:
| I think the problem is the formulation "If so, AGI can't
| be far behind". I think that if a model were advanced
| enough such that it could do Einstein's job, that's it;
| that's AGI. Would it be ASI? Not necessarily, but that's
| another matter.
| somenameforme wrote:
| The phone in your pocket can perform arithmetic many
| orders of magnitude faster than any human, even the
| fringe autistic savant type. Yet it's still obviously not
| intelligent.
|
| Excellence at any given task is not indicative of
| intelligence. I think we set these sort of false
| goalposts because we want something that sounds
| achievable but is just out of reach at one moment in
| time. For instance at one time it was believed that a
| computer playing chess at the level of a human would be
| proof of intelligence. Of course it sounds naive now, but
| it was genuinely believed. It ultimately not being so is
| not us moving the goalposts, so much as us setting
| artificially low goalposts to begin with.
|
| So for instance what we're speaking of here is logical
| processing across natural language, yet human
| intelligence predates natural language. It poses a bit of
| a logical problem to then define intelligence as the
| logical processing of natural language.
| andy12_ wrote:
| The problem is that so far, SOTA generalist models are
| not excellent at just one particular task. They have a
| very wide range of tasks they are good at, and good
| scores in one particular benchmarks correlates very
| strongly with good scores in almost all other benchmarks,
| even esoteric benchmarks that AI labs certainly didn't
| train against.
|
| I'm sure, without any uncertainty, that any generalist
| model able to do what Einstein did would be AGI, as in,
| that model would be able to perform any cognitive task
| that an intelligent human being could complete in a
| reasonable amount of time (here "reasonable" depends on
| the task at hand; it could be minutes, hours, days,
| years, etc).
| somenameforme wrote:
| I see things rather differently. Here's a few points in
| no particular order:
|
| (1) - A major part of the challenge is in not being
| directed towards something. There was no external
| guidance for Einstein - he wasn't even a formal
| researcher at the time of his breakthroughs. An LLM
| _might_ be able to be handheld towards relativity, though
| I doubt it, but given the prompt of 'hey find something
| revolutionary' it's obviously never going to respond with
| anything relevant, even with substantially greater
| precision specifying field/subtopic/etc.
|
| (2) - Logical processing of natural language remains one
| small aspect of intelligence. For example - humanity
| invented natural language from nothing. The concept of an
| LLM doing this is a nonstarter since they're dependent
| upon token prediction, yet we're speaking of starting
| with 0 tokens.
|
| (3) - LLMs are, in many ways, very much like calculators.
| They can indeed achieve some quite impressive feats in
| specific domains, yet then they will completely
| hallucinate nonsense on relatively trivial queries,
| particularly on topics where there isn't extensive data
| to drive their token prediction. I don't entirely
| understand your extreme optimism towards LLMs given this
| proclivity for hallucination. Their ability to produce
| compelling nonsense makes them particularly tedious for
| using to do anything you don't already effectively know
| the answer to.
| f0ti wrote:
| Einstein is not AGI, and neither the other way around.
| golem14 wrote:
| I think it's not productive to just have the LLM site like
| Mycroft in his armchair and from there, return you an
| excellent expert opinion.
|
| THat's not how science works.
|
| The LLM would have to propose experiments (which would have
| to be simulated), and then develop its theories from that.
|
| Maybe there had been enough facts around to suggest a
| number of hypotheses, but the LLM in its curent form won't
| be able to confirm them.
| bhaak wrote:
| This would still be valuable even if the LLM only finds out
| about things that are already in the air.
|
| It's probably even more of a problem that different areas of
| scientific development don't know about each other. LLMs
| combining results would still not be like they invented
| something new.
|
| But if they could give us a head start of 20 years on certain
| developments this would be an awesome result.
| gus_massa wrote:
| I agree, but it's important to note that QM has no clear
| formulation until 2025/6, it's like 20 years more of work
| than SR.
| pests wrote:
| 2025/6?
| gus_massa wrote:
| * 1925/6, sorry, bad century.
| Shorel wrote:
| Then that experiment is even more interesting, and should be
| done.
|
| My own prediction is that the LLMs would totally fail at
| connecting the dots, but a small group of very smart humans
| can.
|
| Things don't happen all of a sudden, but they also don't
| happen everywhere. Most people in most parts of the world
| would never connect the dots. Scientific curiosity is
| something valuable and fragile, that we just take for
| granted.
| bigfudge wrote:
| One of the reasons they don't happen everywhere is because
| there are just a few places at any given point in time
| where there are enough well connected and educated
| individuals who are in a position to even see all the dots
| let alone connect them. This doesn't discount the
| achievement of an LLM also manages to, but I think it's
| important to recognise that having enough giants in sight
| is an important prerequisite to standing on their shoulders
| djwide wrote:
| With LLMs the synthesis cycles could happen at a much higher
| frequency. Decades condensed to weeks or days?
|
| I imagine possible buffers on that conjecture synthesis being
| epxerimentation and acceptance by the scientific community.
| AIs can come up with new ideas every day but Nature won't
| publish those ideas for years.
| mannykannot wrote:
| If (as you seem to be suggesting) relativity was effectively
| lying there on the table waiting for Einstein to just pick it
| up, how come it blindsided most, if not quite all, of the
| greatest minds of his generation?
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| That's the case with all scientific discoveries - pieces of
| prior work get accumulated, until it eventually becomes
| obvious[0] how they connect, at which point someone[1]
| connects the dots, making a discovery... and putting it on
| the table, for the cycle to repeat anew. This is, in a
| nutshell, the history of all scientific and technological
| progress. Accumulation of tiny increments.
|
| --
|
| [0] - To people who happen to have the right background and
| skill set, and are in the right place.
|
| [1] - Almost always multiple someones, independently,
| within short time of each other. People usually remember
| only one or two because, for better or worse, history is
| much like patent law: first to file wins.
| somenameforme wrote:
| It's only easy to see precursors in hindsight. The Michelson-
| Morley tale is a great example of this. In hindsight, their
| experiment was screaming relativity, because it demonstrated
| that the speed of light was identical from two perspectives
| where it's very difficult to explain without relativity.
| Lorentz contraction was just a completely ad-hoc proposal to
| maintain the assumptions of the time (luminiferous aether in
| particular) while also explaining the result. But in general
| it was not seen as that big of a deal.
|
| There's a very similar parallel with dark matter in modern
| times. We certainly have endless hints to the truth that will
| be evident in hindsight, but for now? We are mostly convinced
| that we know the truth, perform experiments to prove that,
| find nothing, shrug, adjust the model to be even more
| esoteric, and repeat onto the next one. And maybe one will
| eventually show something, or maybe we're on the wrong path
| altogether. This quote, from Michelson in 1894 (more than a
| decade before Einstein would come along), is extremely
| telling of the opinion at the time:
|
| "While it is never safe to affirm that the future of Physical
| Science has no marvels in store even more astonishing than
| those of the past, it seems probable that most of the grand
| underlying principles have been firmly established and that
| further advances are to be sought chiefly in the rigorous
| application of these principles to all the phenomena which
| come under our notice. It is here that the science of
| measurement shows its importance -- where quantitative work
| is more to be desired than qualitative work. An eminent
| physicist remarked that the future truths of physical science
| are to be looked for in the sixth place of decimals." -
| Michelson 1894
| vasco wrote:
| With the passage of time more and more things have been
| discovered through precision. Through identifying small
| errors in some measurement and pursuing that to find the
| cause.
| somenameforme wrote:
| It's not precision that's the problem, but understanding
| when something has been falsified. For instance the
| Lorentz transformations work as a perfectly fine ad-hoc
| solution to Michelson's discovery. All it did was make
| the aether a bit more esoteric in nature. Why do you then
| not simply shrug, accept it, and move on? Perhaps even
| toss some accolades towards Lorentz for 'solving' the
| puzzle? Michelson himself certainly felt there was no
| particularly relevant mystery outstanding.
|
| For another parallel our understanding of the big bang
| was, and probably is, wrong. There are a lot of problems
| with the traditional view of the big bang with the
| horizon problem [1] being just one among many - areas in
| space that should not have had time to interact behave
| like they have. So this was 'solved' by an ad hoc
| solution - just make the expansion of the universe go
| into super-light speed for a fraction of a second at a
| specific moment, slow down, then start speeding up again
| (cosmic inflation [2]) - and it all works just fine. So
| you know what we did? Shrugged, accepted it, and even
| gave Guth et al a bunch of accolades for 'solving' the
| puzzle.
|
| This is the problem - arguably the most important
| principle of science is falsifiability. But when is
| something falsified? Because in many situations, probably
| the overwhelming majority, you can instead just use one
| falsification to create a new hypothesis with that nuance
| integrated into it. And as science moves beyond singular
| formulas derived from clear principles or laws and onto
| broad encompassing models based on correlations from
| limited observations, this becomes more and more true.
|
| [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_problem
|
| [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_inflation
| jojobas wrote:
| They were close, but it required the best people bashing
| their heads against each other for years until they got it.
| dogma1138 wrote:
| That is the point.
|
| New discoveries don't happen in a vacuum.
| eru wrote:
| You can get pretty far by modeling only frictionless,
| spherical discoveries in a vacuum.
| metalliqaz wrote:
| Yann LeCun spoke explicitly on this idea recently and he
| asserts definitively that the LLM would not be able to add
| anything useful in that scenario. My understanding is that
| other AI researchers generally agree with him, and that it's
| mostly the hype beasts like Altman that think there is some
| "magic" in the weights that is actually intelligent. Their
| payday depends on it, so it is understandable. My opinion is
| that LeCun is probably correct.
| johnsmith1840 wrote:
| There is some ability for it to make novel connections but
| it's pretty small. You can see this yourself having it build
| novel systems.
|
| It largely cannot imaginr anything beyond the usual but there
| is a small part that it can. This is similar to in context
| learning, it's weak but it is there.
|
| It would be incredible if meta learning/continual learning
| found a way to train exactly for novel learning path. But
| that's literally AGI so maybe 20yrs from now? Or never..
|
| You can see this on CL benchmarks. There is SOME signal but
| it's crazy low. When I was traing CL models i found that
| signal was in the single % points. Some could easily argue it
| was zero but I really do believe there is a very small amount
| in there.
|
| This is also why any novel work or findings is done via
| MASSIVE compute budgets. They find RL enviroments that can
| extract that small amount out. Is it random chance? Maybe,
| hard to say.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Is this so different from what we see in humans? Most
| people do not think very creatively. They apply what they
| know in situations they are familiar with. In unfamiliar
| situations they don't know what to do and often fail to
| come up with novel solutions. Or maybe in areas where they
| are very experienced they will come up with something
| incrementally better than before. But occasionally a very
| exceptional person makes a profound connection or leap to a
| new understanding.
| johnsmith1840 wrote:
| Sure we make small steps at the time but we compound
| these unlike AI.
|
| AI cannot compound their learnings for the foreseeable
| future
| catigula wrote:
| This is definitely wrong, most AI researchers DO NOT agree
| with LeCun.
|
| Most ML researchers think AGI is imminent.
| p_j_w wrote:
| Who is in this group of ML researchers?
| shaky-carrousel wrote:
| People with OpenAI shares, probably.
| kingstnap wrote:
| Where do you get your majority from?
|
| I don't think there is any level of broad agreement right
| now. There are tons of random camps none of which I would
| consider to be broadly dominating.
| Alex2037 wrote:
| their employment and business opportunities depend on the
| hype, so they will continue to 'think' that (on xitter)
| despite the current SOTA of transformers-based models being
| <100% smarter than >3 year old GPT4, and no revolutionary
| new architecture in sight.
| catigula wrote:
| You're going to be in for a very rude awakening.
| johnsmith1840 wrote:
| The guy who built chatgpt literally said we're 20 years
| away?
|
| Not sure how to interpret that as almost imminent.
| nottorp wrote:
| > The guy who built chatgpt literally said we're 20 years
| away?
|
| 20 years away in 2026, still 20 years away in 2027, etc
| etc.
|
| Whatever Altman's hyping, that's the translation.
| rafram wrote:
| The ones being paid a million dollars a year by OpenAI to
| say stuff like that, maybe.
| goatlover wrote:
| Do you have poll of ML researchers that shows this?
| paodealho wrote:
| Well, can you point us to their research then? Please.
| mlinksva wrote:
| Do you have a pointer to where LeCun spoke about it? I
| noticed last October that Dwarkesh mentioned the idea off
| handedly on his podcast (prompting me to write up
| https://manifold.markets/MikeLinksvayer/llm-trained-on-
| data-...) but I wonder if this idea has been around for much
| longer, or is just so obvious that lots of people are
| independently coming up with it (parent to this comment being
| yet another)?
| samuelson wrote:
| Preface: Most of my understand of how LLMs actually work
| comes from 3blue1brown's videos, so I could easily be wrong
| here.
|
| I mostly agree with you, especially about distrusting the
| self-interested hype beasts.
|
| While I don't think the models are actually "intelligent", I
| also wonder if there are insights to be gained by looking at
| how concepts get encoded by the models. It's not really that
| the models will add something "new", but more that there
| might be connections between things that we haven't noticed,
| especially because academic disciplines are so insular these
| days.
| matheusd wrote:
| How about this for an evaluation: Have this (trained-on-
| older-corpus) LLM propose experiments. We "play the role of
| nature" and inform it of the results of the experiments. It
| can then try to deduce the natural laws.
|
| If we did this (to a good enough level of detail), would it
| be able to derive relativity? How large of an AI model would
| it have to be to successfully derive relativity (if it only
| had access to everything published up to 1904)?
| SirHumphrey wrote:
| I don't know if any dataset of pre 1904 writing would be
| large enough to train a model that would be smart enough. I
| suspect that current sized SOTA models would at least get
| to special relativity, but for general relativity and
| quantum mechanics I am less sure.
| djwide wrote:
| What do they (or you) have to say about the Lee Sedol AlphaGo
| move 78. It seems like that was "new knowledge." Are games
| just iterable and the real world idea space not? I am playing
| with these ideas a little.
| metalliqaz wrote:
| AlphaGo is not an LLM
| drdeca wrote:
| And? Do the arguments differ for LLM vs the other models?
|
| I guess the arguments sometimes mention languages. But I
| feel like the core of the arguments are pretty much the
| same regardless?
| metalliqaz wrote:
| The discussion is about training an LLM on old text and
| then asking it about new concepts.
| DevX101 wrote:
| Chemistry would be a great space to explore. The last quarter
| of the 19th century had a ton of advancements in chemistry.
| It'd be interesting the see if an LLM could propose fruitful
| hypotheses, made predictions of the science of thermodynamics.
| bravura wrote:
| A rigorous approach to predicting the future of text was
| proposed by Li et al 2024, "Evaluating Large Language Models
| for Generalization and Robustness via Data Compression"
| (https://ar5iv.labs.arxiv.org/html//2402.00861) and I think
| that work should get more recognition.
|
| They measure compression (perplexity) on future Wikipedia, news
| articles, code, arXiv papers, and multi-modal data. Data
| compression is intimately connected with robustness and
| generalization.
| Otterly99 wrote:
| Thanks for the paper, I just read it and loved the approach.
| I hope the concept of using data compression as a benchmark
| will take off. In a sense it is kind of similar to the maxim
| "If you cannot explain something in simple terms, you do not
| understand it fully".
| nickdothutton wrote:
| I would love to ask such a model to summarise the handful of
| theories or theoretical "roads" being eyed at the time and to
| make a prediction with reasons as to which looks most
| promising. We might learn something about blind spots in human
| reasoning, institutions, and organisations that are applicable
| today in the "future".
| nickpsecurity wrote:
| That would be an interesting experiment. It might be more
| useful to make a model with a cut off close to when copyrights
| expire to be as modern as possible.
|
| Then, we have a model that knows quite a bit in modern English.
| We also legally have a data set for everything it knows. Then,
| there's all kinds of experimentation or copyright-safe training
| strategies we can do.
|
| Project Gutenberg up to the 1920's seems to be the safest bet
| on that.
| samuelson wrote:
| I think it would be fun to see if an LLM would reframe some
| scientific terms from the time in a way that would actually fit
| in our current theories.
|
| I imagine if you explained quantum field theory to a 19th
| century scientists they might think of it as a more refined
| understanding of luminiferous aether.
|
| Or if an 18th century scholar learned about positive and
| negative ions, it could be seen as an expansion/correction of
| phlogiston theory.
| wongarsu wrote:
| I'm trying to work towards that goal by training a model on
| mostly German science texts up to 1904 (before the world wars
| German was the lingua franca of most sciences).
|
| Training data for a base model isn't that hard to come by, even
| though you have to OCR most of it yourself because the publicly
| available OCRed versions are commonly unusably bad. But
| training a model large enough to be useful is a major issue.
| Training a 700M parameter model at home is very doable (and is
| what this TimeCapsuleLLM is), but to get that kind of reasoning
| you need something closer to a 70B model. Also a lot of the
| "smarts" of a model gets injected in fine tuning and RL, but
| any of the available fine tuning datasets would obviously
| contaminate the model with 2026 knowledge.
| theallan wrote:
| Can we follow along with your work / results somewhere?
| benbreen wrote:
| I am a historian and am putting together a grant application
| for a somewhat similar project (different era and language
| though). Would you be open to discussing a collaboration? My
| email is bebreen [at] ucsc [dot] edu.
| root_axis wrote:
| I think it would raise some interesting questions, but if it
| did yield anything noteworthy, the biggest question would be
| why that LLM is capable of pioneering scientific advancements
| and none of the modern ones are.
| spidersouris wrote:
| I'm not sure what you'd call a "pioneering scientific
| advancement", but there is an increasing amount of examples
| showing that LLMs can be used for research (with agents,
| particularly). A survey about this was published a few months
| ago: https://aclanthology.org/2025.emnlp-main.895.pdf
| crazylogger wrote:
| Or maybe, LLMs _are_ pioneering scientific advancements -
| people are using LLMs to read papers, choose what problems to
| work on, come up with experiments, analyze results, and draft
| papers, etc., at this very moment. Except they eventually
| stick their human names on the cover so we almost never know.
| defgeneric wrote:
| The development of QM was so closely connected to experiments
| that it's highly unlikely, even despite some of the experiments
| having been performed prior to 1900.
|
| Special relativity however seems possible.
| damnitbuilds wrote:
| I like this, it would be exciting (and scary) if it deduced QM,
| and informative if it cannot.
|
| But I also think we can do this with normal LLMs trained on up-
| to-date text, by asking them to come up with _any_ novel theory
| that fits the facts. It does not have to be a groundbreaking
| theory like QM, just original and not (yet) proven wrong ?
| kristopolous wrote:
| It's going to be divining tea leaves. It will be 99% wrong and
| then someone will say 'oh but look at this tea leaf over here!
| It's almost correct"'
| bowmessage wrote:
| Look! It made another TODO-list app on the first try!
| darkwater wrote:
| Yes but... aren't human researchers doing the same? They are
| mostly wrong most of the times, and try again, and verify
| again their work, until they find something that actually
| works. What I mean is that this "in hindsight" test would be
| biased by being in hindsight, because we know already the
| answer so we would discard the LLM answer as just randomly
| generated. But "connecting the dots" is basically doing a lot
| try and error in your mind, emitting only the results that
| make at least some kind of sense to us.
| SecretDreams wrote:
| I like this idea. I think I'd like it more if we didn't have to
| prompt the LLM in the first place. If it just had all of this
| information and decided to act upon it. That's what the great
| minds of history (and even average minds like myself) do. Just
| think about the facts in our point of view and spontaneously
| reason something greater out of them.
| mannykannot wrote:
| That is a very interesting idea, though I would not dismiss
| LLMs as a dead end if they failed.
| Affric wrote:
| Wow, an actual scientific experiment. Does anyone with
| expertise know if such things have been done?
| amypetrik214 wrote:
| >.If the model comes up with anything even remotely correct it
| would be quite a strong evidence that LLMs are a path to
| something bigger if not then I think it is time to go back to
| the drawing board.
|
| In principle I see your point, in practice my default
| assumption until proven otherwise here -- is that a little
| something slipped through post-1900.
|
| A much easier approach would be to just download some model,
| whatever model, today. Then 5 years from now, whatever
| interesting discoveries are found - can the model get there.
| dogma1138 wrote:
| Not really, QM and Relativity were chosen because they were
| theories that were created to fit observations and data.
| Discoveries over the next 5 years will be trivia rather than
| logical conclusions.
| staticman2 wrote:
| Don't you need to do reinforcement learning through human
| feedback to get non gibberish results from the models in
| general?
|
| 1900 era humans are not available to do this so I'm not sure
| how this experiment is supposed to work.
| jaydepun wrote:
| We've thought of doing this sort of exercise at work but mostly
| hit the wall of data becoming a lot more scare the further back
| in time we go. Particularly high quality science data - even
| going pre 1970 (and that's already a stretch) you lose a lot of
| information. There's a triple whammy of data still existing,
| being accessible in any format, and that format being suitable
| for training an LLM. Then there's the complications of wanting
| additional model capabilities that won't leak data causally.
| permo-w wrote:
| I was wondering this. what is the minimum amount of text an
| LLM needs to be coherent? fun of an idea as this is, the
| samples of its responses are basically babbling nonsense.
| going further, a lot of what makes LLMs so strong isn't their
| original training data, but the RLHF done afterwards. RLHF
| would be very difficult in this case
| pseudohadamard wrote:
| It's already been done, without the model being aware of it,
| see https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.09742. They also made it think
| it was Hitler (not MechaHitler, the other guy), and other
| craziness.
|
| It's a relief to think that we're not trusting these things for
| stuff like financial advice, medical advice, mental health
| counselling, ...
| catlifeonmars wrote:
| That's how p-hacking works (or doesn't work). This is analogous
| to shooting an arrow and then drawing a target around where it
| lands.
| alkindiffie wrote:
| I like that analogy. It reminds me of "Pointing to the moon
| and looking at my finger"
| cornholio wrote:
| Yes, I don't understand how such an experiment could work.
| You either:
|
| A). contaminate the model with your own knowledge of
| relativity, leading it on to "discover" what you know, or
|
| B). you will try to simulate a blind operation but without
| the "competent human physicist knowledgeable up to the the
| 1900 scientific frontier" component prompting the LLM,
| because no such person is alive today nor can you simulate
| them (if you could, then by definition you can use that
| simulated Einstein to discover relativity, so the problem is
| moot).
|
| So in both cases you would prove nothing about what a smart
| and knowledgeable scientist can achieve today from a frontier
| LLM.
| alkindiffie wrote:
| That would be possible if LLMs can come up with entirely new
| words and languages, which I doubt.
| isolli wrote:
| You have to make sure that you make it read an article about a
| painter falling off a roof with his tools.
| swalsh wrote:
| Could be an interesting experiment, but its not conclusive
| proof one way or another. So much of what makes LLMs so great
| today (vs gpt 3.5) would not be in that dataset. The training
| to turn these models into coding savants has generalized to
| other areas just as one example.
| redman25 wrote:
| It's a base model. It hasn't been instruction tuned to "solve
| problems" necessarily. All it can do is attempt to complete
| text given some starting text.
| simonw wrote:
| Anyone seen a low-friction way to run prompts through this yet,
| either via a hosted API or chat UI or a convenient GGML or MLX
| build that runs in Ollama or llama.cpp or LM Studio?
| philmo1 wrote:
| +1
| d401 wrote:
| +1
| t1amat wrote:
| Not a direct answer but it looks like v0.5 is a nanoGPT arch
| and v1 is a Phi 1.5 arch, which should be well supported by
| quanting utilities for any engine. They are small too and
| should be able to be done on a potato.
| alansaber wrote:
| I too have completely forgotten how the adapters library works
| and would have appreciated a simple inference script
| throwaway18875 wrote:
| Currently running it using LM Studio. It can download it from
| Hugging Face. It generates incoherent text though
|
| ===
|
| You:
|
| I pray you, who is this Master Newton?
|
| timecapsulellm-v2-1800-1875-mlx:
|
| TI offer to pay you the very same fee as you did before. It was
| not in the power of your master to deliver the letter to your
| master. He did. I will be with you as soon as I can keep my
| word. It is not at all clear, whether the letter has been sent
| or not. It is not at all clear: but it is clear also that it
| was written by the person who gave it. "No," I said, "I cannot
| give it to you." There, the letter was sent to me. "The letter
| is yours, I believe," I said. "But, I hope, you will not refuse
| to give it to me?
| simonw wrote:
| Thanks, looks like that's this one: https://huggingface.co/Fr
| actalSurfer/TimeCapsuleLLM-v2-1800-...
|
| There's a "Use this model" button on that page that can
| launch it in LM Studio.
| philmo1 wrote:
| Exciting idea!
| dhruv3006 wrote:
| This will be something good - would love something on Ollama or
| lmstudio.
| srigi wrote:
| "I'm sorry, my knowledge cuttoff is 1875"
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| It would be interesting if there's enough data to train a model
| capable enough to converse with and ask about contemporary views
| on issues of the day, or what it thought about "potential" future
| events/technologies yet to happen.
| eqmvii wrote:
| Could this be an experiment to show how likely LLMs are to lead
| to AGI, or at least intelligence well beyond our current level?
|
| If you could only give it texts and info and concepts up to Year
| X, well before Discovery Y, could we then see if it could prompt
| its way to that discovery?
| alansaber wrote:
| I think not if only for the fact that the quantity of old data
| isn't enough to train anywhere near a SoTA model, until we
| change some fundamentals of LLM architecture
| franktankbank wrote:
| Are you saying it wouldn't be able to converse using english
| of the time?
| wasabi991011 wrote:
| That's not what they are saying. SOTA models include much
| more than just language, and the scale of training data is
| related to its "intelligence". Restricting the corpus in
| time => less training data => less intelligence => less
| ability to "discover" new concepts not in its training data
| franktankbank wrote:
| Perhaps less bullshit though was my thought? Was language
| more restricted then? Scope of ideas?
| withinboredom wrote:
| Could always train them on data up to 2015ish and then
| see if you can rediscover LLMs. There's plenty of data.
| ben_w wrote:
| Machine learning today requires an obscene quantity of
| examples to learn anything.
|
| SOTA LLMs show quite a lot of skill, but they only do so
| after reading a significant fraction of all published
| writing (and perhaps images and videos, I'm not sure)
| across all languages, in a world whose population is 5
| times higher than the link's cut off date, and the global
| literacy went from 20% to about 90% since then.
|
| Computers can only make up for this by being really really
| fast: what would take a human a million or so years to
| read, a server room can pump through a model's training
| stage in a matter of months.
|
| When the data isn't there, reading what it does have really
| quickly isn't enough.
| andyfilms1 wrote:
| I mean, _humans_ didn 't need to read billions of books back
| then to think of quantum mechanics.
| famouswaffles wrote:
| Right, what they needed was billions of years of brute
| force and trial and error.
| alansaber wrote:
| Which is why I said it's not impossible, but current LLM
| architecture is just not good enough to achieve this.
| ben_w wrote:
| > Could this be an experiment to show how likely LLMs are to
| lead to AGI, or at least intelligence well beyond our current
| level?
|
| You'd have to be specific what you mean by AGI: all three
| letters mean a different thing to different people, and
| sometimes use the whole means something not present in the
| letters.
|
| > If you could only give it texts and info and concepts up to
| Year X, well before Discovery Y, could we then see if it could
| prompt its way to that discovery?
|
| To a limited degree.
|
| Some developments can come from combining existing ideas and
| seeing what they imply.
|
| Other things, like everything to do with relativity and quantum
| mechanics, would have required experiments. I don't think any
| of the relevant experiments had been done prior to this cut-off
| date, but I'm not absolutely sure of that.
|
| You might be able to get such an LLM to develop all the maths
| and geometry for general relativity, and yet find the AI still
| tells you that the perihelion shift of Mercury is a sign of the
| planet Vulcan rather than of a curved spacetime:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcan_(hypothetical_planet)
| markab21 wrote:
| Basically looking for emergent behavior.
| grimgrin wrote:
| An example of why you need to explain what you mean by AGI
| is:
|
| https://www.robinsloan.com/winter-garden/agi-is-here/
| opponent4 wrote:
| > You'd have to be specific what you mean by AGI
|
| Well, they obviously can't. AGI is not science, it's
| religion. It has all the trappings of religion: prophets,
| sacred texts, origin myth, end-of-days myth and most
| importantly, a means to escape death. Science? Well, the only
| measure to "general intelligence" would be to compare to the
| only one which is the human one but we have absolutely no
| means by which to describe it. We do not know where to start.
| This is why you scrape the surface of any AGI definition you
| only find circular definitions.
|
| And no, the "brain is a computer" is not a scientific
| description, it's a metaphor.
| strbean wrote:
| > And no, the "brain is a computer" is not a scientific
| description, it's a metaphor.
|
| Disagree. A brain is turing complete, no? Isn't that the
| definition of a computer? Sure, it may be reductive to say
| "the brain is _just_ a computer ".
| opponent4 wrote:
| Not even close. Turing complete does not apply to the
| brain plain and simple. That's something to do with
| algorithms and your brain is not a computer as I have
| mentioned. It does not store information. It doesn't
| process information. It just doesn't work that way.
|
| https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-
| informati...
| anthonypasq wrote:
| ive gotta say this article was not convincing at all.
| Closi wrote:
| A human is effectively turning complete if you give the
| person paper and pen and the ruleset, and a brain clearly
| stores information and processes it to some extent, so
| this is pretty unconvincing. The article is nonsense and
| badly written.
|
| > But here is what we are not born with: information,
| data, rules, software, knowledge, lexicons,
| representations, algorithms, programs, models, memories,
| images, processors, subroutines, encoders, decoders,
| symbols, or buffers - design elements that allow digital
| computers to behave somewhat intelligently. Not only are
| we not born with such things, we also don't develop them
| - ever.
|
| Really? Humans don't ever develop memories? Humans don't
| gain information?
| strbean wrote:
| > Forgive me for this introduction to computing, but I
| need to be clear: computers really do operate on symbolic
| representations of the world. They really store and
| retrieve. They really process. They really have physical
| memories. They really are guided in everything they do,
| without exception, by algorithms.
|
| This article seems really hung up on the distinction
| between digital and analog. It's an important
| distinction, but glosses over the fact that digital
| computers are a _subset_ of analog computers. Electrical
| signals are inherently analog.
|
| This maps somewhat neatly to human cognition. I can take
| a stream of bits, perform math on it, and output a
| transformed stream of bits. That is a digital operation.
| The underlying biological processes involved are a pile
| of complex probabilistic+analog signaling, true. But in a
| computer, the underlying processes are also probabilistic
| and analog. We have designed our electronics to shove
| those parts down to the lowest possible level so they can
| be abstracted away, and so the degree to which they
| influence computation is certainly lower than in the
| human brain. But I think an effective argument that
| brains are not computers is going to have to dive in to
| why that gap matters.
| nearbuy wrote:
| That is an article by a psychologist, with no expertise
| in neuroscience, claiming without evidence that the
| "dominant cognitive neuroscience" is wrong. He offers no
| alternative explanation on how memories are stored and
| retrieved, but argues that large numbers of neurons
| across the brain are involved and he implies that
| neuroscientists think otherwise.
|
| This is odd because the dominant view in neuroscience is
| that memories are stored by altering synaptic connection
| strength in a large number of neurons. So it's not clear
| what his disagreement is, and he just seems to be
| misrepresenting neuroscientists.
|
| Interestingly, this is also how LLMs store memory during
| training: by altering the strength of connections between
| many artificial neurons.
| stevenhuang wrote:
| It is pretty clear the author of that article has no idea
| what he's talking about.
|
| You should look into the physical church turning thesis.
| If it's false (all known tested physics suggests it's
| true) then well we're probably living in a dualist
| universe. This means something outside of material
| reality (souls? hypercomputation via quantum gravity?
| weird physics? magic?) somehow influences our cognition.
|
| > Turning complete does not apply to the brain
|
| As far as we know, any physically realizable process can
| be simulated by a turing machine. And FYI brains do not
| exist outside of physical reality.. as far as we know. If
| you have issue with this formulation, go ahead and
| disprove the physical church turning thesis.
| Davidzheng wrote:
| probably not actually turing complete right? for one it
| is not infinite so
| ben_w wrote:
| Cargo cults are a religion, the things they worship they do
| not understand, but the planes and the cargo themselves are
| real.
|
| There's certainly plenty of cargo-culting right now on AI.
|
| Sacred texts, I don't recognise. Yudkowsky's writings? He
| suggests wearing clown shoes to avoid getting a cult of
| personality disconnected from the quality of the arguments,
| if anyone finds his works sacred, they've fundamentally
| misunderstood him: I have sometimes thought
| that all professional lectures on rationality should be
| delivered while wearing a clown suit, to prevent the
| audience from confusing seriousness with solemnity.
|
| - https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Eliezer_Yudkowsky
|
| Prophets forecasting the end-of-days, yes, but this too
| from climate science, from everyone who was preparing for a
| pandemic before covid and is still trying to prepare for
| the next one because the wet markets are still around, from
| economists trying to forecast growth or collapse and what
| will change any given prediction of the latter into the
| former, and from the military forces of the world saying
| which weapon systems they want to buy. It does not make a
| religion.
|
| A means to escape death, you can have. But it's on a
| continuum with life extension and anti-aging medicine,
| which itself is on a continuum with all other medical
| interventions. To quote myself: Taking a
| living human's heart out without killing them, and
| replacing it with one you got out a corpse, that isn't the
| magic of necromancy, neither is it a prayer or ritual to
| Sekhmet, it's just transplant surgery. ...
| Immunity to smallpox isn't a prayer to the Hindu goddess
| Shitala (of many things but most directly linked with
| smallpox), and it isn't magic herbs or crystals, it's just
| vaccines.
|
| -
| https://benwheatley.github.io/blog/2025/06/22-13.21.36.html
| nomel wrote:
| > And no, the "brain is a computer" is not a scientific
| description, it's a metaphor.
|
| I have trouble comprehending this. What is "computer" to
| you?
| feisty0630 wrote:
| I fail to see how the two concepts equate.
|
| LLMs have neither intelligence nor problem-solving abillity
| (and I won't be relaxing the definition of either so that some
| AI bro can pretend a glorified chatbot is sentient)
|
| You would, at best, be demonstrating that the sharing of
| knowledge across multiple disciplines and nations (which is a
| relatively new concept - at least at the scale of something
| like the internet) leads to novel ideas.
| al_borland wrote:
| I've seen many futurists claim that human innovation is dead
| and all future discoveries will be the results of AI. If this
| is true, we should be able to see AI trained on the past
| figure it's way to various things we have today. If it can't
| do this, I'd like said futurists to quiet down, as they are
| discouraging an entire generation of kids who may go on to
| discover some great things.
| skissane wrote:
| > I've seen many futurists claim that human innovation is
| dead and all future discoveries will be the results of AI.
|
| I think there's a big difference between discoveries
| through AI-human synergy and discoveries through AI working
| in isolation.
|
| It probably will be true soon (if it isn't already) that
| most innovation features some degree of AI input, but still
| with a human to steer the AI in the right direction.
|
| I think an AI being able to discover something genuinely
| new all by itself, without any human steering, is a lot
| further off.
|
| If AIs start producing significant quantities of genuine
| and useful innovation with minimal human input, maybe the
| singularitarians are about to be proven right.
| thinkingemote wrote:
| I'm struggling to get a handle on this idea. Is the idea
| that today's data will be the data of the past, in the
| future?
|
| So if it can work with whats now past, it will be able to
| work with the past in the future?
| al_borland wrote:
| Essentially, yes.
|
| If the prediction is that AI will be able to invent the
| future. If we give it data from our past without
| knowledge of the present... what type of future will it
| invent, what progress will it make, if any at all? And
| not just having the idea, but how to implement the idea
| in a way that actually works with the technology of the
| day, and can build on those things over time.
|
| For example, would AI with 1850 data have figured out the
| idea of lift to make an airplane and taught us how to
| make working flying machines and progress them to the
| jets we have today, or something better? It wouldn't even
| be starting from 0, so this would be a generous example,
| as da Vinci way playing with these ideas in the 15th
| century.
|
| If it can't do it, or what it produces is worse than what
| humans have done, we shouldn't leave it to AI alone to
| invent our actual future. Which would mean reevaluating
| the role these "thought leaders" say it will play, and
| how we're educating and communicating about AI to the
| younger generations.
| armcat wrote:
| I think this would be an awesome experiment. However you would
| effectively need to train something of a GPT-5.2 equivalent. So
| you need lot of text, a much larger parameterization (compared
| to nanoGPT and Phi-1.5), and the 1800s equivalents of
| supervised finetuning and reinforcement learning with human
| feedback.
| Trufa wrote:
| This is fascinating, but the experiment seems to fail in being
| a fair comparison of how much knowledge can we have from that
| time in data vs now.
|
| As a thought experiment I find it thrilling.
| Rebuff5007 wrote:
| OF COURSE!
|
| The fact that tech leaders espouse the brilliance of LLMs and
| don't use this specific test method is infuriating to me. It is
| deeply unfortunate that there is little transparency or
| standardization of the datasets available for training/fine
| tuning.
|
| Having this be advertised will make more interesting and
| informative benchmarks. OEM models that are always "breaking"
| the benchmarks are doing so with improved datasets as well as
| improved methods. Without holding the datasets fixed, progress
| on benchmarks are very suspect IMO.
| dexwiz wrote:
| This would be a true test of can LLMs innovate or just
| regurgitate. I think part of people's amazement of LLMs is they
| don't realize how much they don't know. So thinking and
| recalling look the same to the end user.
| water-data-dude wrote:
| It'd be difficult to prove that you hadn't leaked information
| to the model. The big gotcha of LLMs is that you train them on
| BIG corpuses of data, which means it's hard to say "X isn't in
| this corpus", or "this corpus only contains Y". You could TRY
| to assemble a set of training data that only contains text from
| before a certain date, but it'd be tricky as heck to be SURE
| about it.
|
| Ways data might leak to the model that come to mind:
| misfiled/mislabled documents, footnotes, annotations, document
| metadata.
| gwern wrote:
| There's also severe selection effects: what documents have
| been preserved, printed, and scanned _because_ they turned
| out to be on the right track towards relativity?
| mxfh wrote:
| This.
|
| Especially for London there is a huge chunk of recorded
| parliament debates.
|
| More interesting for dialoge seems training on recorded
| correspondence in form of letters anyway.
|
| And that corpus script just looks odd to say the least,
| just oversample by X?
| reassess_blind wrote:
| Just Ctrl+F the data. /s
| nickpsecurity wrote:
| That is one of the reasons I want it done. We cant tell if AI's
| are parroting training data without having the whole, training
| data. Making it old means specific things won't be in it (or
| will be). We can do more meaningful experiments.
| abhishekjha wrote:
| Oh I have really been thinking long about this. The intelligence
| that we have in these models represent a time.
|
| Now if I train a foundation models with docs from library of
| Alexandria and only those texts of that period, I would have a
| chance to get a rudimentary insight on what the world was like at
| that time.
|
| And maybe time shift further more.
| feisty0630 wrote:
| > I would have a chance to get a rudimentary insight on what
| the world was like at that time
|
| Congratulations, you've reinvented the history book (just with
| more energy consumption and less guarantee of accuracy)
| gordonhart wrote:
| History books, especially those from classical antiquity, are
| notoriously not guaranteed to be accurate either.
| feisty0630 wrote:
| Do you expect something exclusively trained on them to be
| any better?
| gordonhart wrote:
| To a large extent, yes. A model trained on many different
| accounts of an event is likely going to give a more
| faithful picture of that event than any one author.
|
| This isn't super relevant to us because very few
| histories from this era survived, but presumably there
| was sufficient material in the Library of Alexandria to
| cover events from multiple angles and "zero out" the
| different personal/political/religious biases coloring
| the individual accounts.
| aqme28 wrote:
| This kind of technique seems like a good way to test model
| performance against benchmarks. I'm too skeptical that new models
| are taking popular benchmark solutions into their training data.
| So-- how does e.g. ChatGPT's underlying architecture perform on
| SWE-bench if trained only on data prior to 2024.
| NitpickLawyer wrote:
| > are taking popular benchmark solutions into their training
| data
|
| That happened in the past, and the "naive" way of doing it is
| usually easy to spot. There are, however, many ways in which
| testing data can leak into models, even without data
| contamination. However this doesn't matter much, as any model
| that only does well in benchmarks but is bad in real-world
| usage will be quickly sussed out by people actually using them.
| There are also lots and lots of weird, not very popular
| benchmarks out there, and the outliers are quickly identified.
|
| > perform on SWE-bench if trained only on data prior to 2024.
|
| There's a benchmark called swe-REbench, that takes issues from
| real-world repos, published ~ monthly. They perform tests and
| you can select the period and check their performance. This is
| fool-proof for open models, but a bit unknown for API-based
| models.
| zingababba wrote:
| LOL
|
| PROMPT:Charles Darwin
|
| Charles DarwinECCEMACY. Sir, -- The following case is interesting
| to me : -- I was in London a fortnight, and was much affected
| with an attack of rheumatism. The first attack of rheumatism was
| a week before I saw you, and the second when I saw you, and the
| third when I saw you, and the third in the same time. The second
| attack of gout, however, was not accompanied by any febrile
| symptoms, but was accompanied with an increased flow of urine,
| and with a more copious discharge of urine. The third attack was
| an hour after I saw you, and was succeeded by a return of a
| paroxysm of gout, and a more rapid return of the gout. The fourth
| attack was also accompanied by a fever, but was not always
| accompanied by any febrile symptoms. The third attack of gout was
| a fortnight after you had been ill, and the fourth was followed
| by a paroxysm of gout. The fourth attack was a fortnight after
| you were attacked, and was accompanied by a sense
| alansaber wrote:
| Average small language model response
| feisty0630 wrote:
| Interesting that it reads a bit like it came from a Markov
| chain rather than an LLM. Perhaps limited training data?
| kgeist wrote:
| Early LLMs used to have this often. I think's that where the
| "repetition penalty" parameter comes from. I suspect output
| quality can be improved with better sampling parameters.
| nomel wrote:
| It is lacking all recorded text from the past 200 years. ;)
|
| It would be interesting to know how much text was generated
| per century!
| myrmidon wrote:
| There was a discussion around a very similar model (Qwen3 based)
| some weeks ago:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46319826
|
| I found it particularly thought-inspiring how a model with
| training from that time period completely lacks
| context/understanding of what it is _itself_ , but then I
| realized that we are the same (at least for now).
| marmalade2413 wrote:
| Can you confidently say that the architure of the LLM doesn't
| include any a priori bias that might effect the integrity of this
| LLM?
|
| That is, the architectures of today are chosen to yield the best
| results given the textual data around today and the problems we
| want to solve today.
|
| I'd argue that this lack of bias would need to be researched (if
| it hasn't been already) before this kind of model has credence.
|
| LLMs aren't my area of expertise but during my PhD we were able
| to encode a lot of a priori knowledge through the design of
| neural network architectures.
| dlcarrier wrote:
| It's interesting that it's trained off only historic text.
|
| Back in the pre-LLM days, someone trained a Markov chain off the
| King James Bible and a programming book:
| https://www.tumblr.com/kingjamesprogramming
|
| I'd love to see an LLM equivalent, but I don't think that's
| enough data to train from scratch. Could a LoRA or similar be
| used in a way to get speech style to strictly follow a few
| megabytes worth of training data?
| _blk wrote:
| Yup that'd be very interesting. Notably missing from this
| project's list is the KJV (1611 was in use at the time.) The
| first random newspaper that I pulled up from a search for
| "london newspaper 1950" has sermon references on the front page
| so it seems like an important missing piece.
|
| Somewhat missing the cutoff of 1875 is the revised NT of the
| KJV. Work on it started in 1870 but likely wasn't used widely
| before 1881.
| userbinator wrote:
| That was far more amusing than I thought it'd be. Now we can
| feed those into an AI image generator to create some "art".
| jimmytucson wrote:
| Fascinating idea. There was another "time-locked" LLM project
| that popped up on HN recently[1]. Their model output is really
| polished but the team is trying to figure out how to avoid abuse
| and misrepresentation of their goals. We think it would be cool
| to talk to someone from 100+ years ago but haven't seriously
| considered the many ways in which it would be uncool. Interesting
| times!
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46319826
| addaon wrote:
| Suppose two models with similar parameters trained the same way
| on 1800-1875 and 1800-2025 data. Running both models, we get
| probability distributions across tokens, let's call the
| distributions 1875' and 2025'. We also get a probability
| distribution finite difference (2025' - 1875'). What would we get
| if we sampled from 1.1*(2025' - 1875') + 1875'? I don't think
| this would actually be a decent approximation of 2040', but it
| would be a fun experiment to see. (Interpolation rather than
| extrapolation seems just as unlikely to be useful and less likely
| to be amusing, but what do I know.)
| pvab3 wrote:
| What if it's just genAlpha slang?
| andai wrote:
| The real mode collapse ;)
| sigmoid10 wrote:
| These probability shifts would only account for the final
| output layer (which may also have some shift), but I expect the
| largest shift to be in the activations in the intermediate
| latent space. There are a bunch of papers out there that try to
| get some offset vector using PCA or similar to tune certain
| model behaviours like vulgarity or friendlyness. You don't even
| need much data for this as long as your examples capture the
| essence of the difference well. I'm pretty certain you could do
| this with "historicalness" too, but projecting it into the
| future by turning the "contemporaryness" knob way up probably
| won't yield an accurate result. There are too many outside
| influences on language that won't be captured in historical
| trends.
| lopuhin wrote:
| On whether this accounts only the final output layer -- once
| the first token is generated (i.e. selected according to the
| modified sampling procedure), and assuming a different token
| is selected compared to standard sampling, then all layers of
| the model would be affected during generation of subsequent
| tokens.
| hallvard wrote:
| Cool! I also did something like this:
| https://github.com/hallvardnmbu/transformer
|
| But on various data (i.e., separate model per source): the Bible,
| Don Quixote and Franz Kafka. (As well as a (bad!) lyrics
| generator, and translator.)
| InvisibleUp wrote:
| If the output of this is even somewhat coherent, it would
| disprove the argument that mass amounts of copyrighted works are
| required to train an LLM. Unfortunately that does not appear to
| be the case here.
| HighFreqAsuka wrote:
| Take a look at The Common Pile v0.1: An 8TB Dataset of Public
| Domain and Openly Licensed Text
| (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2506.05209). They build a reasonable 7B
| parameter model using only open-licensed data.
| nickpsecurity wrote:
| They mostly do that. They risked legal contamination by using
| Whisper-derived text and web text which might have gotchas.
| Other than that, it was a great collection for low-risk
| training.
| dash2 wrote:
| Mm. I'm a bit sceptical of the historical expertise of someone
| who thinks that "Who art Henry" is 19th century language. (It's
| not actually grammatically correct English from any century
| whatever: "art" is the second person singular, so this is like
| saying "who are Henry?")
| joshuakoehler wrote:
| As a reader of a lot of 17th, 18th, and 19th century Christian
| books, this was my thought exactly.
| evolve2k wrote:
| That text was from v0, the responses improved from there.
| freedomben wrote:
| That text was from the example prompt, not from the models
| response
| haensi wrote:
| What kind of Christian books do you read?Jonathan Edwards,
| John Bunyan, J.C. Ryle, C.H. Spurgeon?
| auraham wrote:
| Can you elaborate on this? After skimming the README, I
| understand that "Who art Henry" is the prompt. What should be
| the correct 19th century prompt?
| canjobear wrote:
| "Who art Henry?" was never grammatical English. "Art" was the
| second person singular present form of "to be" and it was
| already archaic by the 17th century. "Who is Henry?" would be
| fine.
| andai wrote:
| Who art thou?
|
| (Well, not 19th century...)
| geocar wrote:
| The problem is the subjunctive mood of the word "art".
|
| "Art thou" should be translated into modern English as "are
| you to be", and so works better with things (what are you
| going to be), or people who are alive, and have a future
| (who are you going to be?).
|
| Those are probably the contexts you are thinking of.
| vintermann wrote:
| "Who is Henry?"
| ourmandave wrote:
| Can I use it to get up-to-date legal advice on Arizona
| reproductive health laws?
| krunck wrote:
| Training LLMs on data with certain date cut-offs and then doing
| comparative analysis between the LLMs would be interesting.
| radiothomp wrote:
| A LLM trained only on data from certain time periods to ~reduce
| modern bias~ enhance past bias
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| Doesn't that seem useful though? Isn't that why I'm forced to
| read _"This movie was made a time when racial stereotypes were
| different and not well considered"_ or whatever on old movies?
|
| I think talking to a legit trained LLM from a different era
| would be rad. But... this seems the opposite of Gemini making
| black lady popes and Native American Nazis... that these views
| wouldn't really be "allowed" (published by anyone that wants AI
| funding money).
| sl_convertible wrote:
| Harry Seldon would, no doubt, find this fascinating. Imagine
| having a sliding-window LLM that you could use to verify a
| statistical model of society. I wonder what patterns it could
| deduce?
| tonymet wrote:
| the "1917 model" from a few weeks back post-trained the model
| with ChatGPT dialog. So it had modern dialect and proclivities .
|
| A truly authentic historical model will have some unsavory
| opinions and very distinctive dialect.
| patcon wrote:
| > OCR noise ("Digitized by Google") still present in outputs
|
| This feels like a neat sci-fi short story hook to explain the
| continuous emergence of God as an artifact of a simulation
| fluoridation wrote:
| I'm reminded of SD models that put vaguely-shaped Patreon logos
| in the corner.
| tgtweak wrote:
| Very interesting but the slight issue I see here is one of data:
| the information that is recorded and in the training data here is
| heavily skewed to those intelligent/recognized enough to have
| recorded it and had it preserved - much less than the current
| status quo of "everyone can trivially document their thoughts and
| life" diorama of information we have today to train LLMs on. I
| suspect that a frontier model today would have 50+TB of training
| data in the form of text alone - and that's several orders of
| magnitude more information and from a much more diverse point of
| view than what would have survived from that period. The output
| from that question "what happened in 1834" read like a
| newspaper/bulletin which is likely a huge part of the data that
| was digitized (newspapers etc).
|
| Very cool concept though, but it definitely has some bias.
| notarobot123 wrote:
| Biases exposed through artificial constraints help to make
| visible the hidden/obscured/forgotten biases of state-of-the-
| art systems.
| twosdai wrote:
| > but it definitely has some bias.
|
| to be frank though, I think this a better way than all people's
| thoughts all of the time.
|
| I think the "crowd" of information makes the end output of an
| LLM worse rather than better. Specifically in our inability to
| know really what kind of Bias we're dealing with.
|
| Currently to me it feels really muddy knowing how information
| is biased, beyond just the hallucination and factual
| incosistencies.
|
| But as far as I can tell, "correctness of the content aside",
| sometimes frontier LLMs respond like freshman college students,
| other times they respond with the rigor of a mathematics PHD
| canidate, and sometimes like a marketing hit piece.
|
| This dataset has a consistency which I think is actually a
| really useful feature. I agree that having many perspectives in
| the dataset is good, but as an end user being able to rely on
| some level of consistency with an AI model is something I
| really think is missing.
|
| Maybe more succinctly I want frontier LLM's to have a known and
| specific response style and bias which I can rely on, because
| there already is a lot of noise.
| nickpsecurity wrote:
| Models today will be biased based on what's in their training
| data. If English, it will be biased heavily toward Western,
| post-1990's views. Then, they do alignment training that forces
| them to speak according to the supplier's morals. That was
| Progressive, atheist, evolutionist, and CRT when I used them
| years ago.
|
| So, the OP model will accidentally reflect the biases of the
| time. The current, commercial models intentionally reflect
| specific biases. Except for uncensored models which
| accidentally have those in the training data modified by
| uncensoring set.
| cowlby wrote:
| I wonder if you could train an LLM with everything up to
| Einstein. Then see if with thought experiments + mathematics you
| could arrive at general relativity.
| erenkaradag wrote:
| The problem is that the 'genius' of Einstein wasn't just
| synthesizing existing data,but actively rejecting the axioms of
| that data. The 1875 corpus overwhelmingly 'proves' absolute
| time and the luminiferous aether. A model optimizing for the
| most probable continuation will converge on that consensus.
|
| To get Relativity, the model needs to realize the training data
| isn't just incomplete, but fundamentally wrong. That requires
| abductive reasoning (the spark of genius) to jump out of the
| local minimum. Without that AGI-level spark, a 'pure knowledge
| pile' will just generate a very eloquent, mathematically
| rigorous defense of Newtonian physics.
| chc4 wrote:
| I think it would be very cute to train a model exclusively in
| pre-information age documents, and then try to teach it what a
| computer is and get it to write some programs. That said, this
| doesn't look like it's nearly there yet, with the output looking
| closer to Markov chain than ChatGPT quality.
| escapecharacter wrote:
| I would pay like $200/month if there was an LLM out there that I
| could only communicate with using an old-timey telegraph key and
| morse code.
| radarsat1 wrote:
| Heh, at least this wouldn't spread emojis all over my readmes.
| Hm, come to think of it I wonder how much tokenization is
| affected.
|
| Another thought, just occurred when thinking about readmes and
| coding LLMs: obviously this model wouldn't have any coding
| knowledge, but I wonder if it could be possible to combine this
| somehow with a modern LLM in such a way that it _does_ have
| coding knowledge, but it renders out all the text in the style /
| knowledge level of the 1800's model.
|
| Offhand I can't think of a non-fine-tuning trick that would
| achieve this. I'm thinking back to how the old style transfer
| models used to work, where they would swap layers between models
| to get different stylistic effects applied. I don't know if
| that's doable with an LLM.
| fluoridation wrote:
| Just have the models converse with each other?
| Aperocky wrote:
| Looks a lot like the output from a markov chain...
| chuckadams wrote:
| Think I'll ask it to come up with some jacquard loom patterns.
| vibe-weaving.
| CGMthrowaway wrote:
| Is there a link where I can try it out?
|
| Edit: I figured it out
|
| "The Lord of the Rings _uding the army under the command of his
| brother, the Duke of York, and the Duke of Richmond, who fell in
| the battle on the 7th of April, 1794. The Duke of Ormond had been
| appointed to the command of the siege of St. Mark 's, and had
| received the victory of the Rings, and was thus commanded to move
| with his army to the relief of Shenham. The Duke of Ormond was at
| length despatched to oppose them, and the Duke of Ormond was
| ordered_
| aussieguy1234 wrote:
| Let's see how someone from the past reacts when you tell them
| about modern technology
| argestes wrote:
| I wonder how racist it is
| linolevan wrote:
| I'm wondering in what ways is this similar/different to
| https://github.com/DGoettlich/history-llms?
|
| I saw TimeCapsuleLLM a few months ago, and I'm a big fan of the
| concept but I feel like the execution really isn't that great. I
| wish you:
|
| - Released the full, actual dataset (untokenized, why did you
| pretokenize the small dataset release?)
|
| - Created a reproducible run script so I can try it out myself
|
| - Actually did data curation to remove artifacts in your dataset
|
| - Post-trained the model so it could have some amount of chat-
| ability
|
| - Released a web demo so that we could try it out (the model is
| tiny! Easily can run in the web browser without a server)
|
| I may sit down and roll a better iteration myself.
| 1313ed01 wrote:
| I guess chat-ability would require some chat-like data, so
| would that mean first coming up with a way to extract chat-like
| dialogue from the era and then use that to fine-tune the model?
| Sophira wrote:
| I've felt for a while that having LLMs that could answer from a
| previous era would be amazing. I posted an open letter to OpenAI
| on Reddit about this:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/zvm768/open_letter... .
|
| I still think it's super important. Archive your current models -
| they'll be great in the future.
| akg130522 wrote:
| HN titles are too techy
| wolvoleo wrote:
| I wonder how representative this is of life in those days. Most
| written communication was official back then. Books, newspapers.
| Plays. All very formal and staged. There's not much real life
| interaction between common people in that. In fact I would
| imagine a lot of people were illiterate.
|
| With the internet and pervasive text communication and audio
| video recording we have the unique ability to make an LLM mimic
| daily life but I doubt that would be possible for those days.
| mock-possum wrote:
| Fun idea, but all of the output they demo over the course of the
| various versions is unusable. You can see progress clearly being
| made though - maybe v3 will pass muster.
| 40four wrote:
| I'm sure I'm not the only one, but it seriously bothers me, the
| high ranking discussion and comments under this post about
| whether or not a model trained on data from this time period (or
| any other constrained period) could synthesize it and postulate
| "new" scientific ideas that we now accept as true in the future.
| The answer is a resounding "no". Sorry for being so blunt, but
| that is the answer that is a consensus among experts, and you
| will come to the same answer after a relatively small mount of
| focus & critical thinking on the issue of how LLMs & other
| categories of "AI" work.
| friendzis wrote:
| I understand where you are coming from, but not every field is
| hard science. In many fields we deal with some amount of
| randomness and attribute causality to correlations even if we
| do not have as much as a speculative hypothesis for a mechanism
| of action behind the supposed causality.
|
| LLMs trained on data up to a strictly constrained point are our
| best vehicle to have a view (however biased) on something,
| detached from its origins and escape a local minima. The
| speculation is that such LLMs could help us look at
| correlational links accepted as truths and help us devise an
| alternative experimental path or craft arguments for such
| experiments.
|
| Imagine you have an LLM trained on papers up to some threshold,
| feed your manuscript with correlational evidence and have an
| LLM point out uncontrolled confounders or something like that.
| hare2eternity wrote:
| Outside of science it would be an interesting pedagogic tool
| for many people. There is a tendency to imagine that people
| in the past saw the world much the same as we do. The
| expression "the past is a foreign country" resonates because
| we can empathise at some level that things were different,
| but we can't visit that country. "Talking" to a denizen of
| London in 1910 regarding world affairs, gender equality,
| economic opportunities, etc would be very interesting. Even
| if it can never be entirely accurate I think it would be
| enlightening.
| nomel wrote:
| I think the question is more about the concept, rather than the
| specific LLM architectures of today.
| PxldLtd wrote:
| I'm sorry but this is factually incorrect and I'm not sure what
| experts you are referring to here about there being concensus
| on this topic. I would love know. Geoffrey Hinton, Demis
| Hassabis, and Yann LeCun all heavily disagree with what you
| claim.
|
| I think you might be confusing creation ex nihilo with
| combinatorial synthesis which LLMs excel at. The proposed
| scenario is a fantastic testcase for exactly this. This doesn't
| cover verification of course but that's not the question here.
| The question is wether an already known valid postulate can be
| synthesized.
| mexicocitinluez wrote:
| > but that is the answer that is a consensus among experts
|
| Do you have any resources that back up such a big claim?
|
| > relatively small mount of focus & critical thinking on the
| issue of how LLMs & other categories of "AI" work.
|
| I don't understand this line of thought. Why wouldn't the
| ability to recognize patterns in existing literature or
| scientific publications result in potential new understandings?
| What critical thinking am I not doing?
|
| > postulate "new" scientific ideas
|
| What are you examples of "new" ideas that aren't based on
| existing ones?
|
| When you say "other categories of AI", you're not including
| AlphaFold, are you?
| saberience wrote:
| > The answer is a resounding "no".
|
| This is your assertion made without any supportive data or
| sources. It's nice to know your subjective opinion on the issue
| but your voice doesn't hold much weight making such a bold
| assertion devoid of any evidence/data.
| roywiggins wrote:
| I think it's pretty likely the answer is no, but the idea here
| is that you could actually _test_ that assertion. I 'm also
| pessimistic about it but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be a
| little interesting to try.
| harvie wrote:
| So basically a LLM from that brief time period back when
| communism felt like a good idea? what can go wrong? :-)
| truxton wrote:
| The year is 1875 and Sir Almroth Wrigh was born on August 10,
| 1861, he would have turned 14 in August of 1875 and your mission
| is to discover something we now call antibiotics before a
| historical event we now call the Spanish Flu and make him aware
| of a few details. Focus specifically on everything that was known
| about Sir Almroth Wright, and his work in Leipzig, Cambridge,
| Sydney, and London. If there was a world war what might chemical
| warfare look like, what could we have done to prevent it.
|
| The model that could come up with the cure based on the limited
| data of the time wouldn't just impress, it would demonstrate
| genuine emergent reasoning beyond pattern matching. The challenge
| isn't recombining existing knowledge (which LLMs excel at), but
| making conceptual leaps that require something else. Food for
| thought.
| albertzeyer wrote:
| v0: 16M Parameters
|
| v0.5 123M Parameters
|
| v1: 700M Parameters
|
| v2mini-eval1: 300M Parameters
|
| I would not call this LLM. This is not large. It's just a normal-
| sized LM. Or even small.
|
| (It's also not a small LLM.)
| digikata wrote:
| A fun use of this kind of approach would be to see if
| conversational game NPCs could be generated that stick the the
| lore of the game and their character.
| snickerbockers wrote:
| This one's going to have some wild political takes.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-01-13 15:00 UTC)
You are viewing proxied material from hngopher.com. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.