Tag: AI

Stages of Understanding Scientific Papers | December 10 2025, 19:38

As I periodically read scientific papers on my topic, I will try to articulate the levels of understanding the truth.

Level 0: “Read Later Folder” Downloaded the PDF, the title sounds genius, the abstract seems like the solution to all my problems. The file is forever buried in the ~/Downloads/Papers/ToRead folder.

Level 1: “Sumerian Cuneiform” Don’t understand anything at all. Random symbols, the Greek alphabet is over. “Orthogonal extrapolation of cognitive entropy within a quasi-stationary discourse inevitably induces a bifurcation of transcendental synergism.” Such materials really lower self-esteem. Most often from this level, you either fall back to zero, or gradually move to the second level.

Level 2: “Illusion of Competence” The Abstract is clear, the Introduction reads like a good detective story. But as soon as the main section starts, the text turns into a pumpkin. I can’t paraphrase it in my own words, only in general phrases: “Well, they trained a neural net… kind of.”

Level 3: “Formulas where needed and where not” The Abstract is clear, the first half of the article is also okay (architecture, pictures). But then comes formula (4), where “magic” happens. I take the authors’ word for it that equation (3) leads to (4) because, of course, I won’t check it. Beyond that — sheer horror and belief in a miracle.

Level 4: “Goldfish Effect” While reading — everything is crystal clear. The logic is solid, conclusions are obvious, the authors are smart. I close the tab, someone asks me, “What was the article about?” — and I freeze. My mind goes blank. If you take away the paper, I can’t reproduce even the idea because there essentially isn’t an idea, there is a process.

Level 5: “Armchair Expert” Everything’s clear, I can retell the essence over a beer. I know that Input transforms into Output, but the “black box” inside is still black. Give me a computer, I wouldn’t be able to reproduce even the skeleton because, it turns out, the article lacks half of the important stuff.

Level 6: “Critic-Practitioner” Everything is clear, I can recount, understand how to reproduce (even without their code). I see where they cut corners. I definitely know that the “state-of-the-art” result is achieved only thanks to a lucky seed or dataset and this strange trick in preprocessing, mentioned in the footnote on page 12.

Level 7: “Deconstructor” Hooray, I’ve understood everything and implemented it myself. It works worse than in the article, but I know why. However, I understand this work better than the second author (who just made charts). I see that all this complex mathematics over 5 pages boils down to two paragraphs in the middle.

Level 8: “Nirvana” The article is trivial. The idea is secondary, it was all in the ’90s with Schmidhuber, just named differently. Formulas are overcomplicated for importance. I can write the same in 10 lines of code and it will work faster. Reject.

If anything — I’m stuck somewhere between 2 and 4.

Nostalgia and Innovation: The Story of Starchat.ru | December 09 2025, 23:41

2003. We had a chat, my creation, Starchat.ru, where people constantly hung out and communicated with each other. It had a Java applet! Nobody even remembers what that is nowadays, probably. Initially, some programmer I found on the internet wrote this thing, who then disappeared, and I took over the support.

Just for laughs, I made a bot that you could chat with by simply sending it a private message. It was always online, and not everyone realized that it was a bot. When the robot received a message, it searched through massive chat logs for messages that contained the most words from the query and had some response. A response is the next message directed at the user by someone (like “Vasya: oh just go you know where!” is a response to Vasya’s message). In the chat interface, you had to click on a message and then reply to it. In the presence of several options (and there were always several options, given the traffic of chatters), a random one was chosen.

It turned out to be a robot that very amusingly answers questions. If you ask it what its name is, it always replies with different names but appropriately, with emojis and suffixes, often swearing. Also, the bot always gave adequate responses to standard questions like “where do you live” or “how old are you.” Since there was a huge history, and they talked about everything in general, it was hard to find a question to which the system did not give an interesting/correct/funny answer.

So, the bot had an interesting side effect. If you start swearing at it offensively, it begins to swear back even more offensively. And generally, it often reacts inadequately to attacks and reproaches. Simply because in real conversations, a polite question is answered politely, and a rude one — of course, rudely. The audience had a lot of fun with this bot.

It was especially interesting to read the bot’s logs afterward. People there didn’t understand that it was a robot. They asked it questions, quarreled and made up with it. It was fun)

Living Without Autopilot: A Surprising Reunion with My Tesla’s Upgraded Skills | December 09 2025, 19:30

Lived several months without autopilot in the car, now I turned it on, and during this time the car has learned not only to drive to a location across the city and through backroads, but also to find parking at the destination and park itself. But when I told it to come home, specifically pointing it to where it gets fed (charger), it stopped in front of the neighbor’s house. Makes you think;) but overall, very cool, Tesla

In-Flight French: Building a Language App on the Fly | December 01 2025, 15:45

By the way, yesterday morning, while waiting at the gate for my flight to Miami, I quickly wrote a French language learning app using Gemini based on an idea I sketched out to a friend while driving to the airport, and then used this app during the flight.

The idea is that in an unfamiliar foreign language text, the user first marks unknown words and then sees their translations — but without the original text, and then returns to the text itself — but no longer seeing the translations. It’s as if the “dictionary was in the next room.” The hypothesis is that this method helps better memorize than when the translation is shown immediately upon clicking on a word, and when no effort is needed.

I am pleased that creating the app from scratch to the finished version took only about 35-40 minutes, and then I used it for some time during the flight, without the internet. Since all translations of all words/phrases were already made in advance.

I just deployed it on Render. It’s also nice that demonstrating the code in action was free and took another 10 minutes.

https://readandlearn.onrender.com/

Unleashing the Power: RTX 5090 for Advanced AI and Digital Art Creations | December 01 2025, 01:39

Nvidia RTX 5090 32Gb! Happy as an elephant. Installed ArchLinux and CUDA. Planning to soon get smart about boosting transformer deep neural networks and have a bunch of ideas for digital art based on concepts other than diffusion models.

Performance: Just ran a test, model GPT_OSS_20b_UD_Q4_K_XL generates 350 tokens per second with a context of 131072 tokens. That’s roughly an A4 page in a few seconds. Gemma3 27B – 55 tokens per second. Qwen3_30B_A3B_Q6_K – 259 tokens per second.

Navigating Complexity: The Challenge of Wikipedia’s Expert-Driven Content | November 26 2025, 01:06

Wikipedia has one big problem. Well, or we have it with Wikipedia. If you go to almost any Wikipedia page about a relatively complex mathematical or physical concept, you often suddenly don’t want to read it any further. Formally everything is correct there, but the explanation is given through concepts, often even more complex than the concept being explained. Besides, there is often a lot of unnecessary information — what is formally/academically/taxonomically part of the topic, but essentially “pollutes” the first impression.

This problem arises because the authors of Wikipedia (often mathematicians) prioritize rigor and completeness rather than didactics and comprehensibility.

In the English-speaking environment, this is sometimes called “Drift into pedantry”. Articles are often written by experts for experts, not for those who are trying to learn the subject from scratch.

Let’s take, for example, a “tensor”. Imagine a student who has heard that tensors are used in machine learning (Google TensorFlow) or physics and wants to understand the essence.

What the reader expects (intuition): “A tensor is a table of numbers (or some sort of data container) that describes the properties of an object and correctly changes if we rotate the coordinate system”

What Wikipedia provides: “A tensor (from Latin tensus, ‘strained,’ as per the classical layout of mechanical stress at the sides of a deformable cube, see illustration) — is a layout (arrangement in space) of numbers (components), used in mathematics and physics as a special type of multi-index object, possessing mathematical properties.” The article immediately starts listing ranks, covariance and contravariance of indices. This is formally correct but it “pollutes” the first impression.

The illustration at the very top is captioned like this: “Mechanical stress, deforming a cube with faces perpendicular to the coordinate axes, in classic elasticity theory is described by the Cauchy stress tensor, which links 2 indices: the normal vector to the face with the stress vector T (force per unit area); there are 3 directions of normals and 3 directions of stress components, which gives a 2nd rank tensor 3×3 — consisting of 9 components.”

Formally — not a single error. In fact — it’s a wall of text that requires knowledge of linear algebra just to read the definition.

It’s as if you asked “What is an apple?”, and you were responded with: “An apple is a fruit of plants from the subfamily Amygdaloideae or Spiraeoideae, featuring an epicarp, mesocarp, and endocarp, often participating in Newton’s gravitational experiments.”

On one hand, it seems like with the emergence of LLM, Wikipedia is no longer necessary. There are conditional LLMs like ChatGPT, which essentially paraphrase everything that is in Wikipedia in the required form. But they do it because they were trained on Wikipedia, and undoubtedly Wikipedia was given much more weight during training than other internet junk. If there was no Wikipedia in the training set, it would be much more difficult. Meanwhile, Wikipedia is constantly edited, and LLM and Google use it exactly when answering questions.

Therefore, on the one hand, it seems to me that it is high time for Wikipedia to transition to generating on the basis of expert-curated data and packaging knowledge in the required format, for example, in the form of questions and answers. On the other, the whole idea of encyclopedia master-data for LLM/RAG is lost.

The paradox is that LLM is, in essence, the only “interface” that was able to read these pedantic definitions of Wikipedia, “understand” them (through thousands of examples of code and articles) and translate them back into humane language. Wikipedia has become an excellent database for robots, but a poor textbook for people.

Curiosity Click: How Facebook’s Ad Previews Captivate | November 21 2025, 21:51

Facebook keeps showing me ads (in this case – a vest) and occasionally chooses very “successful” spots for a freeze frame that serves as a video preview in the feed. But, I must say, it achieves its goal and I click to see what kind of madness this is.