Generally speaking, posting output from a LLM, without explaining exactly what do you think it illustrates and why is frowned upon here. I don't think your comment does a great job of the latter.
> I don't think this means what you think it means.
> I did some interacting with the Tencent model that showed up here a couple days ago [...]
> This is a question that obviously was in the training data. How do you get the answer back out of the training data?
What do I think the conversation illustrates? Probably that having the answer in the training data doesn't get it into the output.
How does the conversation illustrate that? It isn't subtle. You can see it without reading any of the Chinese. If you want to read the Chinese, Google Translate is more than good enough for this purpose; that's what I used.
I can't, and I imagine most of the people who downvoted you couldn't either.
I think asking people to go to Google Translate to parse a random comment that seems to be 90% LLM output by volume is a bit much.
I cannot figure out what the comment is trying to get across either. It's easy for you because you already know what you are trying to say. You know what the pasted output shows. The poor execution is in not spending enough time thinking about how someone coming in totally blind would interpret the comment.
I didn't downvote you, but like (probably) most people here, I can't read Chinese; I can't derive whatever point you're trying to make just from with text you provided.