Nicholai/jan
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

docs: update Jan v1 research blog with professional styling and OG image

Browse Source 
- Updated title to 'Jan v1 for Deep Research'
- Added professional cookbook-style formatting inspired by OpenAI guide
- Added performance summary with benchmark results (91.1% vs 83.2%)
- Added new OG image (jan-research.jpeg)
- Improved content structure and readability
This commit is contained in:
eckartal 2025-08-22 14:35:17 +03:00
parent 9d15453b66
commit 37110ea262
2 changed files with 27 additions and 95 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

BIN
docs/src/pages/post/_assets/jan-research.jpeg Normal file
View File

Binary file not shown.
Side by Side

After

Width:  |  Height:  |  Size: 236 KiB

122
docs/src/pages/post/jan-v1-for-research.mdx
View File

@ -1,20 +1,21 @@
---
title: "Optimize Jan-V1 for Research: System Prompts & Setup Guide"
title: "Jan v1 for Deep Research: System Prompts & Setup Guide"
description: "Explore Jan-V1 capabilities in report generation and research tasks with prompt comparisons, examples, and customization instructions."
keywords: ["Jan-V1", "AI research", "system prompts", "LLM optimization", "research AI", "Jan App", "model configuration"]
readingTime: "8 min read"
tags: Qwen, Jan-V1, Agentic
categories: research
ogImage: assets/images/general/og-throughput-benchmark.png
ogImage: post/_assets/jan-research.jpeg
date: 2025-08-15
---
# Optimize Jan-V1 for Research: System Prompts & Setup Guide
# Jan v1 for Deep Research: System Prompts & Setup Guide
This cookbook will transform your Jan-V1 from a basic Q&A tool into a comprehensive research assistant. By the end of this guide, you'll have a custom-configured model that generates detailed reports with proper citations instead of surface-level answers.
![Jan-V1 research comparison](./_assets/deep_research_compare_jan.gif)
## Key Points:
## Key Points
- **Jan-V1 includes a default chat template** that's automatically embedded in its Hugging Face configuration
- **Use the default prompt** for daily tasks requiring short, accurate answers
@ -280,113 +281,44 @@ This report provides a detailed comparison of three AI language models: **Jan-Na
### Example 3: Software Comparison
**User Request:**
> Compare Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp for secure messaging.
**User Request:** "Compare Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp for secure messaging"
<div className="grid grid-cols-1 lg:grid-cols-2 gap-6 mb-8">
{/* Default Prompt Column */}
<div className="bg-gray-50 dark:bg-gray-900 p-6 rounded-lg border">
<h4 className="font-semibold mb-4 text-lg border-b border-gray-300 dark:border-gray-600 pb-2">Default Prompt Response</h4>
<div className="prose prose-xs max-w-none text-xs mt-4 h-[500px] overflow-y-auto [&_h1]:text-sm [&_h2]:text-xs [&_h3]:text-xs [&_h4]:text-xs [&_h5]:text-xs [&_h6]:text-xs [&_p]:text-xs [&_li]:text-xs [&_td]:text-xs [&_th]:text-xs">
Based on the search results, here's a comparison of Signal, Telegram, and WhatsApp for secure messaging:
<div className="prose prose-sm max-w-none text-sm mt-4">
**1. End-to-End Encryption (E2EE)**
- **Signal**: E2EE enabled by default for all chats (including groups). Open-source and transparent.
- **Telegram**: E2EE only available in "Secret Chats" (1:1 chats), **not** default for groups or regular chats. This is a significant privacy gap.
- **WhatsApp**: E2EE for all messages (since 2016), but metadata and server data are collected by Meta.
**Security Overview:**
- Signal: E2EE by default, open-source
- Telegram: E2EE only in Secret Chats
- WhatsApp: E2EE but Meta data collection
- Basic privacy comparison
- 200 words, single citation
**2. Privacy & Data Practices**
- **Signal**: Minimal data collection; no ads or analytics. Strong privacy focus.
- **Telegram**: Collects more metadata (e.g., chat activity, device info) compared to Signal. Groups have less privacy.
- **WhatsApp**: Uses E2EE but shares data with Meta for ads and services (e.g., contact lists, location).
**Strengths:** Clear recommendations
**Weaknesses:** Limited analysis depth
**3. Security Reputation**
- The IACR research paper (2023) confirms Signal has the strongest encryption and security features among the three.
- CNET and Reddit analyses consistently rank Signal as the most secure option.
**Key Takeaway**: Signal is the most secure for privacy-focused users due to default E2EE, minimal data collection, and open-source transparency. Telegram lags in default E2EE, while WhatsApp balances E2EE with broader data practices.
For a deeper technical breakdown, the IACR paper ([eprint.iacr.org/2023/071.pdf](https://eprint.iacr.org/2023/071.pdf)) provides a formal security analysis.
</div>
</div>
{/* Research Prompt Column */}
<div className="bg-blue-50 dark:bg-blue-950 p-6 rounded-lg border border-blue-200 dark:border-blue-800">
<h4 className="font-semibold mb-4 text-lg border-b border-gray-300 dark:border-gray-600 pb-2">Research Prompt Response</h4>
<div className="prose prose-xs max-w-none text-xs mt-4 h-[500px] overflow-y-auto [&_h1]:text-sm [&_h2]:text-xs [&_h3]:text-xs [&_h4]:text-xs [&_h5]:text-xs [&_h6]:text-xs [&_p]:text-xs [&_li]:text-xs [&_td]:text-xs [&_th]:text-xs">
# Signal vs. Telegram vs. WhatsApp: A Comprehensive Security Comparison
<h4 className="font-semibold mb-4 text-lg border-b border-gray-300 dark:border-blue-800 pb-2">Research Prompt Response</h4>
<div className="prose prose-sm max-w-none text-sm mt-4">
## Overview
**Comprehensive Security Analysis:**
- Full report with methodology and detailed comparison table
- Academic research citations (IACR 2023 study)
- Privacy practices analysis with breach history
- User experience and practical considerations
- Final recommendations table by use case
- 1000+ words, 5 authoritative references
This report provides a detailed, evidence-based comparison of Signal, Telegram, and WhatsApp with respect to secure messaging capabilities. The analysis draws from authoritative sources including academic research, independent reviews, and privacy-focused publications to evaluate encryption protocols, data collection practices, security features, and real-world vulnerabilities across these three major messaging platforms.
**Strengths:** Evidence-based analysis, academic rigor
**Result:** Professional security assessment format
## Key Findings
- **Signal emerges as the most secure option** for end-to-end encrypted messaging with robust privacy protections and open-source architecture [1][3]
- **WhatsApp provides strong encryption** but collects more user metadata than Signal for advertising purposes [2][3]
- **Telegram offers limited end-to-end encryption** (only in "Secret Chats") and has been involved in significant data breaches and law enforcement data sharing [1][4]
- **All three apps have self-destruct message features**, but Signal provides more granular control (e.g., messages disappearing after seconds/minutes) [3]
- **Signal is open-source**, while WhatsApp and Telegram have closed-source components that raise transparency concerns [1][2]
## Detailed Analysis
### Encryption Protocols and Implementation
| Feature | Signal | WhatsApp | Telegram |
|---------|--------|-----------|-----------|
| **Default E2EE** | Yes (all messages) [1][3] | Yes (all messages) [5] | No (only Secret Chats) [1][5] |
| **Encryption Protocol** | Signal Protocol (open-source) [3][4] | Signal Protocol (Whisper) [2] | MTProto (with E2EE in Secret Chats) [1][5] |
| **Metadata Collection** | Minimal (no metadata retention) [1][3] | Extensive (for advertising) [2][3] | Moderate (IP addresses, phone numbers) [1] |
| **Open Source** | Full client-side code [3][4] | Partial (server code not open) [1] | Partial (client open, server code closed) [1][4] |
**Signal** provides end-to-end encryption by default for all messages through its Signal Protocol, which is open-source and auditable. This ensures no backdoors or hidden vulnerabilities in the client software.
**WhatsApp** uses a modified version of the Signal Protocol (called "Whisper") for end-to-end encryption but retains metadata for its advertising infrastructure. This has led to criticism from privacy advocates who note WhatsApp's data collection practices [2].
**Telegram** implements end-to-end encryption only in its "Secret Chats," which are device-specific and not available on desktop browsers [1]. Public channels and groups are not encrypted, making them vulnerable to interception. Telegram's server-side encryption has been subject to scrutiny due to its closed-source nature [4].
### Privacy and Data Practices
Signal's privacy approach is the most stringent among the three: it does not collect user metadata beyond what is necessary for message delivery. In contrast:
- **Telegram** has explicitly shared user data with law enforcement in 2024 (impacting 2,253 individuals) [1]. The platform also experienced a major data breach in 2020 affecting 42 million Iranian users [1].
- **WhatsApp** collects user data for advertising and analytics, as evidenced by its data-sharing practices with Meta's ad ecosystem [2][3].
### Security Features and Vulnerabilities
- **Self-Destruct Messages**: Signal allows messages to auto-delete after seconds/minutes, while Telegram's minimum is one day [1][3].
- **Server Security**: Signal's open-source model enables third-party audits to verify server security. Telegram has been found to store messages in plaintext for extended periods on its servers [4].
- **Breach History**: Telegram has had multiple security incidents (e.g., 2019 Hong Kong protest data leak) [1]. WhatsApp has not had major breaches reported in public records, but its data collection creates indirect risks.
### User Experience and Practical Considerations
- **Group Messaging**: Telegram excels in large-scale group functionality with public channels (not encrypted), while Signal and WhatsApp limit group features [1][3].
- **Cross-Platform Support**: Signal works across all platforms without limitations. Telegram's Secret Chats are phone-only, creating a security gap for desktop users [1].
- **Cost**: All three apps are free, though Telegram offers a premium tier ($5/month) for additional features [1].
## Critical Insights from Academic and Industry Research
A 2023 academic analysis published in the Cryptology ePrint Archive confirms Signal's superior security posture through rigorous protocol evaluation [4]. The study found that while WhatsApp and Telegram offer E2EE in specific contexts, Signal's protocol is more resilient against common attacks due to its open-source implementation and lack of metadata retention.
The CNET review further supports this by noting that "Telegram's server code is not open source," which creates trust gaps that Signal's transparency mitigates [1]. This aligns with the ClearVPN comparison, which states: "Signal offers robust end-to-end encryption and a self-destruct feature that makes sure your messages are always secure" [3].
## Final Recommendations
| User Priority | Recommended App | Reason |
|----------------|------------------|--------|
| Maximum privacy and security | **Signal** | Open-source, no metadata collection, all messages encrypted by default |
| Large group collaboration | **Telegram** | Superior group/channel functionality (though public channels are unencrypted) |
| Legacy compatibility with WhatsApp ecosystem | **WhatsApp** | Strong encryption but limited privacy features |
For users prioritizing **maximum security and privacy**, Signal is the unequivocal choice based on current evidence. For those needing group communication features with some encryption, Telegram provides a middle ground. WhatsApp remains suitable for users who value convenience over extreme privacy.
## References
[1] https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/i-tried-signal-telegram-and-whatsapp-and-this-is-the-one-id-recommend/
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/1imqw72/is_it_better_if_i_shift_from_whatsapp_to_telegram/
[3] https://clearvpn.com/blog/signal-vs-telegram-vs-whatsapp/
[4] https://eprint.iacr.org/2023/071
[5] https://www.ccn.com/education/crypto/telegram-whatsapp-discord-signal-encryption-crypto-integration/
</div>
</div>
</div>