Live data from Hacker News

History LLMs: Models trained exclusively on pre-1913 texts

github.com

61–70 of 452 posts

Re: History LLMs: Models trained exclusively on pre-1913 texts

#61
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They pre-train with all data up to 1900 and then fine-tune with 1900-1913 data. Where does it say that? I tried to find more detail. Thanks.

See pretraining section of the prerelease_notes.md: https://github.com/DGoettlich/history-llms/blob/main/ranke-4...

I was curious, they train a 1900 base model, then fine tune to the exact year:

"To keep training expenses down, we train one checkpoint on data up to 1900, then continuously pretrain further checkpoints on 20B tokens of data 1900-${cutoff}$. "

Re: History LLMs: Models trained exclusively on pre-1913 texts

#62
post #15
post #3

“Time-locked models don't roleplay; they embody their training data. Ranke-4B-1913 doesn't know about WWI because WWI hasn't happened in its textual universe. It can be surprised by your questions in ways modern LLMs cannot.” “Modern LLMs suffer from hindsight contamination. GPT-5 knows how the story ends—WWI, the League's failure, the Spanish flu.” This is really fascinating. As someone who reads a lot of history an…

When you put it that way it reminds me of the Severn/Keats character in the Hyperion Cantos. Far-future AIs reconstruct historical figures from their writings in an attempt to gain philosophical insights.

This isn’t science fiction anymore. CIA is using chatbot simulations of world leaders to inform analysts. https://archive.ph/9KxkJ

Re: History LLMs: Models trained exclusively on pre-1913 texts

#63
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is definitely fascinating - being able to do AI brain surgery, and selectively tuning its knowledge and priors, you'd be able to create awesome and terrifying simulations.

Respectfully, LLMs are nothing like a brain, and I discourage comparisons between the two, because beyond a complete difference in the way they operate, a brain can innovate, and as of this moment, an LLM cannot because it relies on previously available information. LLMs are just seemingly intelligent autocomplete engines, and until they figure a way to stop the hallucinations, they aren't great either. Every piece o…

This is the 2023 take on LLMs. It still gets repeated a lot. But it doesn’t really hold up anymore - it’s more complicated than that. Don’t let some factoid about how they are pretrained on autocomplete-like next token prediction fool you into thinking you understand what is going on in that trillion parameter neural network.

Sure, LLMs do not think like humans and they may not have human-level creativity. Sometimes they hallucinate. But they can absolutely solve new problems that aren’t in their training set, e.g. some rather difficult problems on the last Mathematical Olympiad. They don’t just regurgitate remixes of their training data. If you don’t believe this, you really need to spend more time with the latest SotA models like Opus 4.5 or Gemini 3.

Nontrivial emergent behavior is a thing. It will only get more impressive. That doesn’t make LLMs like humans (and we shouldn’t anthropomorphize them) but they are not “autocomplete on steroids” anymore either.

Re: History LLMs: Models trained exclusively on pre-1913 texts

#64
Unfortunately there isn't much information on what texts they're actually training this on; how Anglocentric is the dataset? Does it include the Encyclopedia Britannica 9th Edition? What about the 11th? Are Greek and Latin classics in the data? What about Germain, French, Italian (etc. etc.) periodicals, correspondence, and books?

Given this is coming out of Zurich I hope they're using everything, but for now I can only assume.

Still, I'm extremely excited to see this project come to fruition!

Re: History LLMs: Models trained exclusively on pre-1913 texts

#65

> We're developing a responsible access framework that makes models available to researchers for scholarly purposes while preventing misuse. The idea of training such a model is really a great one, but not releasing it because someone might be offended by the output is just stupid beyond believe.

Public access, triggering a few racist responses from the model, a viral post on Xitter, the usual outrage, a scandal, the project gets publicly vilified, financing ceases. The researchers carry the tail of negative publicity throughout their remaining careers.

Why risk all this?

Re: History LLMs: Models trained exclusively on pre-1913 texts

#66
post #65

> We're developing a responsible access framework that makes models available to researchers for scholarly purposes while preventing misuse. The idea of training such a model is really a great one, but not releasing it because someone might be offended by the output is just stupid beyond believe.

Public access, triggering a few racist responses from the model, a viral post on Xitter, the usual outrage, a scandal, the project gets publicly vilified, financing ceases. The researchers carry the tail of negative publicity throughout their remaining careers. Why risk all this?

> triggering a few racist responses from the mode

I feel like, ironically, it would be folks less concerned with political correctness/not being offensive that would abuse this opportunity to slander the project. But that’s just my gut.

Re: History LLMs: Models trained exclusively on pre-1913 texts

#67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember reading a children's book when I was young and the fact that people used the phrase "World War One" rather than "The Great War" was a clue to the reader that events were taking place in a certain time period. Never forgot that for some reason. I failed to catch the clue, btw.

I seem to recall reading that as a kid too, but I can't find it now. I keep finding references to "Encyclopedia Brown, Boy Detective" about a Civil War sword being fake (instead of a Great War one), but with the same plot I'd remembered.

The Encyclopedia Brown story I remember reading as a kid involved a Civil War era sword with an inscription saying it was given on the occasion of the First Battle of Bull Run. The clues that the sword was a modern fake were the phrasing "First Battle of Bull Run", but also that the sword was gifted on the Confederate side, and the Confederates would've called the battle "Manassas Junction".

The wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_Bull_Run says the Confederate name was "First Manassas" (I might be misremembering exactly what this book I read as a child said). Also I'm pretty sure it was specifically "Encyclopedia Brown Solves Them All" that this mystery appeared in. If someone has a copy of the book or cares to dig it up, they could confirm my memory.

Re: History LLMs: Models trained exclusively on pre-1913 texts

#68
Love the concept- can help understanding the overton window on many issues. I wish there were models by decades - up to 1900, up to 1910, up to 1920 and so on- then ask the same questions. It'd be interesting to see when homosexuality or women candidates be accepted by an LLM.

Re: History LLMs: Models trained exclusively on pre-1913 texts

#69
post #46

I wonder if you could query some of the ideas of Frege, Peano, Russell and see if it could through questioning get to some of the ideas of Goedel, Church and Turing - and get it to "vibe code" or more like "vibe math" some program in lambda calculus or something. Playing with the science and technical ideas of the time would be amazing, like where you know some later physicist found some exception to a theory or some…

This is my curiosity too. Would be a great test of how intelligent LLM's actually are. Can they follow a completely logical train of thought inventing something totally outside their learned scope?

Brilliant. I love this idea!

Re: History LLMs: Models trained exclusively on pre-1913 texts

#70
post #4

The sample responses given are fascinating. It seems more difficult than normal to even tell that they were generated by an LLM, since most of us (terminally online) people have been training our brains' AI-generated text detection on output from models trained with a recent cutoff date. Some of the sample responses seem so unlike anything an LLM would say, obviously due to its apparent beliefs on certain concepts, t…

I used to teach 19th-century history, and the responses definitely sound like a Victorian-era writer. And they of course sound like writing (books and periodicals etc) rather than "chat": as other responders allude to, the fine-tuning or RL process for making them good at conversation was presumably quite different from what is used for most chatbots, and they're leaning very heavily into the pre-training texts. We d…

Fascinating, thanks for sharing
Post reply on HN