Yeah. The article is not misleading. The title is, but you know, headlines are all lies that's why you read the article.

The title is: "LLMs can natively read & write neural network weights"

The title is part of “The post”.

>but you know, headlines are all lies that's why you read the article.

I'm fine with throwing the baby out with the bathwater in that case and just calling the whole article misleading.

If you read comments about the paper it's pretty obvious people are misled. People think that the method read in Qwen weights directly to improve it. That's not what it did --- it authored a program to analyse and fix the weights.

What's confusing is they do have experiments that read raw weights, and the abstract is misleadingly written to make it sound like that's how the Qwen experiment works.

I wouldn't say misled, I would just say they made up their mind about what it means regardless of what the article said. Maybe the title is misleading, but the original article is pretty fair.

> it authored a program to analyse and fix the weights.

This is a difference without much distinction, at least to me. It's like being upset when someone says that Claude made a http call -- of course the LLM didn't make the call itself, it used a tool to do it.

> who read the original post

I think there's your answer. A hell of a lot of people will often read the title without reading the contents of the article. I admit I'm often guilty of that

At this moment on the front page (early morning in the US), this post is #1 and the other one is #2, so it's working like a warning about the other one being misleading before clicking on it.

Yes, I'm glad I waited for this post to arrive before even delving into the topic.

[delayed]

Given that the top comment yesterday said “this is insane […] I’m shook” I’d say no, it wasn’t all that obvious to everyone.

As someone who uses LLMs in their coding but doesn’t pay attention to every development this is why I find it all so exhausting. There’s no point reading incremental updates because everything is so overhyped.

Reading an article takes more time than commenting, which takes more time than voting. So the typical life cycle of a HN post is that people vote on it without reading the article, comment without reading the article, vote on the comments without reading the article, and respond to comments without reading the article, until after some time people who've actually read the article show up in the comments with some clarifications, saving everyone else the bother of having to read it themselves.

If you want to escape the hype, reading posts with no upvotes and no comments on https://news.ycombinator.com/newest is an option, though somewhat hit-or-miss.

Gotta get to the IPO, whatever it takes.