Plainly

A reference site, not a course

AI, explained by level.
Nothing to sell you.

Search “learn AI” and almost every result is published by somebody with a course to sell or a tool to promote — the platforms' own catalogues, the labs' own academies. Some of it is free and some of it is good. The few results not selling anything are forum threads: disinterested, and unsourced. Nothing on that first page tells you whether any of it still holds. This site points at whatever is actually best, says when it's free, and tells you the date it was last checked so you know how much to trust it.

Published  ·  Last verified  ·  Next scheduled review:

Pick where you actually are

The usual mistake is starting in the wrong place. People who just want to use these tools well get pushed into machine-learning theory and quit; people who want to build get handed prompt tips. Three honest tracks:

Or start with one of these

If you'd rather read something than place yourself first, these three are where to start: what to actually do differently, what these systems can't do, and how to tell whether anything you're reading still holds. Behind them sit checking an answer written for you, knowing whether a change actually helped, the glossary, the myths and where each one is answered, how to choose an assistant, what happens to what you type, and two written for people building things: designing for the ways it fails and why it does things nobody asked for. They are all listed on Guides.


How this site works

Every page carries two dates, published and last verified, because AI writing rots faster than anything else in tech and matching dates mean a page hasn't been re-checked since it was written. How to read them. Every hard number lives on one page, Model facts, so one page rots instead of a hundred. Nothing here is an affiliate link, free resources come first, and any figure that couldn't be checked against a primary source is flagged in orange rather than filled in with something plausible-looking.

Why two dates say more than one Two timelines. On the first, the published date and the last-verified date sit far apart, and the stretch between them is marked as the period in which somebody opened the sources again. On the second, both dates sit on the same point: there is no stretch between them, because the page has not been re-checked since the day it was written. Dates that differ the sources were opened again in here Published Last verified Dates that match no stretch to open the sources in Published Last verified
One date tells you almost nothing. Published is the day a page went up and it never moves again; last verified is the most recent day somebody opened the sources and checked that the page is still true. Only the stretch between them carries information. When the two dates match — as they still do on most of this site — nobody has re-checked that page since the day it was written, and the honest reading of that is unproven rather than proven. Which is the argument for printing both instead of one reassuring “updated” stamp that could mean either.

Who writes this, what it costs to run, and the one commercial connection it has: about this site. Every correction is logged and dated on the changes page.

The terms everyone drops without explaining

Short, plain explainers for the vocabulary that gets used as though you already know it. Written to actually teach, not to rank.

Not sure which track? → Start here and answer three questions. · New to the vocabulary? → Glossary · The reference pages → Guides · Where the facts come from → Sources