I think it's proper. When you release something like this, a raw data dump is the only way to cut out a BUNCH of the "this is modified and falsified" noise.

Yes. Importantly just because they've processed it conveniently doesn't mean they'd ever intend to share that.

My first thought when I saw this is how much will it cost me to kick it up to a HF I stance.

I did a trial run with the Epstein files and it was genuinely fun to catch a few bits before the media caught up.

Not to mention that if they add any metadata thats just increasing their exposure and they will be held to what the LLMs label it.

And if they did put a lot of effort into it your comment would say "look at all the money that went into compute for setting this up". Can't let them win, right?

No it would not. This is an abdication on UI. There is no reason to release a file labeled with a number in 2026 when what the user wants is searchable, categorized content with thumbnails and the ability to export groups. That's web tech we've had forever. The fact that they didn't use their AI or compute to do that with it is just a big fail.

Much better to release the raw stuff; those and derived resources will likely be available in a much more accessible way on public mirrors within a few days.

You're expecting competence from this administration?

Hey! we have some awesome fox news hosts and good looking people in this administration

It's almost like the whole thing is designed to absorb energy and distract some portion of the population from actually looking into anything real.

Like calling Epstein a democratic hoax?

It's more likely to make it take longer to figure out that there is nothing there. If one had clearly indexed and searchable content, we would see it's just garbage.

It makes more sense when you realize the whole point is to distract from the continued failure to release the Epstein files.

or distact from the Iran war, or distract from Israel, or distract from corruption... distraction from distractions. We keep buying what they're selling, and then complain the milk is still sour.

Easy with the use of "we" there buddy. Just look at the polling. There are way more people not buying the bullshit, and the numbers keep getting worse as even the faithful are tiring of it as well. So just tossing "we" around becomes offensive as you've now included me into something I will not be a part of.

Too little too late, unfortunately. The train has left the station.

The numbers have sort of plateaued. There's a ~30% of the population that is all-in on Trump for emotional/psychological reasons, who have very different values from the rest of the population. Where others see malicious incompetence, they see him sticking it to their opponents and are even willing to suffer as long as they perceive their opponents to be suffering more. So although they don't like paying a lot of extra money for gas, they will put up with it for a long time because the payoff is seeing others suffer more. IT's not that Trump created this mindset, although he was able to capitalize on it due to being celebrity; about 1/3 of people are assholes and they're able to use the internet to network and coordinate like any other group. Unfortuantely, they are one of the largest social groups, while opponents have to deal with the friction of coalition politics.

That's fine, but at 30% "we" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. If it was 80% in favor, then maybe "we" could be accepted. Even at the less than a majority winning the election makes "we" difficult to accept.

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

"We" really don't. The captured media do.

A lot of people still look to the MSM to define reality for them.

But there's a huge and myserious disconnect between the MSM's reporting of Trump as a Serious Person, and the reality that he's a compulsive liar and fantasist and is seriously ill with advancing dementia.

Without honest reporting, "we" don't have a public voice.

yup. I'm not going through this.

oh come on! where's that hacker spirit? you can download these and create a site that has them indexed as you'd like using the latest in LLM tech to parse the files and build the site for you. you can then turn around and give us a Show HN

Fortunately, you don't have to. Competent people will get busy on this.

Such people already know it's not aliens, though.

you mean like Harvard professors claiming that a rock from interstellar space is a probe from an intelligent society?

I'm only aware of Avi Loeb, who AFAIK is generally considered a crackpot and a grifter within academia, and his claims about Oumuamua and aliens aren't taken seriously by the mainstream.

Who are the others?

sorry, that's a typo that was autocorrected. professor should not have been pluralized

I'm not the poster you replied to but it's worth mentioning that there are, unfortunately, examples of more than a few highly-credentialed academics and scientists believing some pretty out there things. Due to such a large sample size, humans being human and tenure being for life, sometimes you're going to get outliers. Plus expertise in one discipline doesn't necessarily generalize to appropriate scientific rigor and skepticism in other domains.

While I don't understand it myself, I've seen a study showing how some scientists can compartmentalize and apply different standards of evidence between their professional life and personal beliefs. In other cases, scientists conducting rigorous lab controlled studies have been deceived by fake psychics doing simple magic tricks (and not nearly as well as a competent magician). For example, Harold Puthoff and Russell Targ at Stanford Research Institute being fooled by Uri Geller. While Puthoff and Targ were trained experimentalists having worked in laser physics, their parapsychology study designs had poor controls and lacked statistical rigor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology_research_at_SRI

As a long-time skeptic, I've learned to avoid broad appeals to authority because relying on "a scientist said..." is ineffective when a true believer can cite a credentialed scientist spouting nutty stuff. In recent years the situation around military assessments of UFO sightings has also changed dramatically. In the mid-2010s, some UFO enthusiasts already in the military managed to work their way into positions as UAP investigators, largely because "UFO Investigator" was a role no serious military careerist wanted on their record. Suddenly, what were once hundred page dry, technical assessments boiling down to "inconclusive" (which no one cared about) became artfully crafted, overly-credulous reports highlighting sensational (but poorly supported) "possibilities." This coincided with a political recalculation from some members of both parties in congress and the White House during the past two administrations to stop fighting the tiny but highly vocal UFO community as it was a no-win battle and instead basically leverage UAPs as a sideshow either for attention or distraction. And it's working.

"Nobel disease" [1] as well.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_disease

There are Harvard professors who believe in the supernatural, I'm sure.

Thank you Autism! I look forward to reading about aliens in a way that is easy for me

Hard disagree. A government releasing files with some probabilistic (unreliable) labeling would be pretty terrible.

>unlimited access to LLMs and compute

But extremely limited access to competent human beings.

Hackernews try not to somehow mention LLMs in every thread challenge (impossible)

If planes have just been invented, you need to go somewhere, and you live next to an airport, the idea of flight might come to mind quickly. That's the era we're in with LLMs. It just comes to mind for the HN crowd sooner.