> Rendering them as individual pages would mean publishing an indexed, searchable copy of every private message in the corpus — including the many that concern ordinary members and people who wrote to the party, not public figures.
Besides the practical hassle of downloading 300gb and wasting time .
It's their report, their claims, their argument. The burden to make the case and be transparent is theirs, not mine. It's dishonest to present AI summaries as facts.
There should be at least a sample of the source text so we can see how well the descriptions match the sources.
Also, where is the prompt, the model? The methods used to present the content.
It's funny how much critique of "AI slop" is on HN, and here's a case where even mild hallucination is very misleading, yet the bar is incredibly low.
The way I see it, either you are curious enough to download some of the files or you are not. I don't understand this middle ground where you spend more time complaining about the distribution method than it would take to download. It feels contrived or even in bad faith, especially given that the link above would allow you to do exactly that without starting a torrent client.
So what's your argument? accept it at face value? It's an incomplete report. I'm not complaining. I'm pointing out the gaps to people who may not take the time to explore what is on the site.
If you don’t believe it go and download the documents and grep through them. You act like 300gb is large. It’s not. The next FPS will probably be that big.
why redact?
from their site
> Rendering them as individual pages would mean publishing an indexed, searchable copy of every private message in the corpus — including the many that concern ordinary members and people who wrote to the party, not public figures.
which is suspicious
If you're so curious, why not have a look? The files are pretty obviously available, any online magnet link viewer will show them to you https://webtor.io/db503db679f508aa31a9e07913b2aa8cf7aa6dff?p...
[flagged]
Since you seem to have no intention of using HN as intended, we've banned the account.
Besides the practical hassle of downloading 300gb and wasting time .
It's their report, their claims, their argument. The burden to make the case and be transparent is theirs, not mine. It's dishonest to present AI summaries as facts.
There should be at least a sample of the source text so we can see how well the descriptions match the sources.
Also, where is the prompt, the model? The methods used to present the content.
It's funny how much critique of "AI slop" is on HN, and here's a case where even mild hallucination is very misleading, yet the bar is incredibly low.
The way I see it, either you are curious enough to download some of the files or you are not. I don't understand this middle ground where you spend more time complaining about the distribution method than it would take to download. It feels contrived or even in bad faith, especially given that the link above would allow you to do exactly that without starting a torrent client.
There is a second magnet which features all the 100k file as individual files. The packed archive is only for more efficient torrents
that's even worse
If you are bothered by not knowing, why aren't you downloading it and looking?
I may, I may not.
Look dude, maybe this is your project , so you're defensive.
I saw the tag line, visited and thought "ooh some spicy emails that'll be interesting. ".
Then i found a bunch of AI slop, with no grounding.
That's all it is.
“Here’s the files so you can look for yourself”
“I refuse to and I’m still going to complain.”
So what's your argument? accept it at face value? It's an incomplete report. I'm not complaining. I'm pointing out the gaps to people who may not take the time to explore what is on the site.
Are you just trolling?
The documents have been provided.
If you don’t believe it go and download the documents and grep through them. You act like 300gb is large. It’s not. The next FPS will probably be that big.
no