标签：#AR

Alt Carbon said the agreement followed more than a year of scientific review and due diligence, with Microsoft requiring additional verification and data-sharing measures.

submitted by /u/Foreign-Swan4271 [link] [留言]

It feels like just a couple of years ago, using AI for everyday tasks still felt like something new or even a bit weird. Now it seems like a lot of people are using it without thinking twice, whether for writing, learning, brainstorming, or just quick answers. I’m curious how others see this shift. Do you think AI has become normalized quicker than most people predicted, or does it still feel like a big deal to a lot of users? submitted by /u/NoFilterGPT [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/aarshie [link] [留言]

I’ve been thinking about a support automation story I read recently. A team replaced a simple rules engine with an LLM classifier. The model was around 92% accurate. Sounds good. Until you realize that at 100 tickets a day, that’s roughly 8 mistakes every day. The interesting part wasn’t the accuracy though. It was what happened when the model was wrong. Nobody could explain why a ticket was classified a certain way. Nobody could point to a specific rule. Nobody could quickly fix the behavior. The team eventually started reviewing every classification manually. The automation was still running, but the trust was gone. That got me thinking. A lot of discussion around AI agents focuses on making decisions better. Better prompts. Better models. Better reasoning. But I rarely see people discussing what happens after the decision. How is the decision verified? How is it audited? How do you know an action should actually be executed? Maybe the biggest challenge for AI agents isn’t getting from 92% to 96%. Maybe it’s building systems that people can trust when things go wrong. Curious how others are thinking about this. submitted by /u/docybo [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/andix3 [link] [留言]

Brutal self-assessment paints a picture of a Microsoft gaming division in crisis.

Everyone talks about reasoning, agents, and larger models. But the more I learn about AI systems, the more I think we're missing something fundamental: AI doesn't accumulate experience the way humans do. A senior engineer isn't valuable only because of raw intelligence. They're valuable because years of experience have shaped how they think. They're valuable because they've spent years building mental models, learning from failures, recognizing patterns, updating beliefs, and connecting knowledge across thousands of experiences. That accumulated experience becomes a competitive advantage. Modern AI systems are different. They can solve difficult problems, write code, and explain complex concepts, yet most of what they "know" remains largely fixed after training. New information is often handled through context windows, retrieval systems, databases, or retraining pipelines rather than being integrated into a continuously evolving understanding of the world. This creates an interesting question: Can intelligence continue to scale if experience doesn't? Humans become more useful over time because experience compounds. An AI that could reliably learn from interactions, update its worldview, resolve contradictions, remember what matters, forget what doesn't, and improve without catastrophic forgetting might represent a larger leap than another increase in parameter count. Maybe the next frontier isn't making AI smarter. Maybe it's making AI capable of growth. Do you think future breakthroughs will come primarily from better reasoning models, or from systems that can continuously learn from experience? submitted by /u/Shreyansh_awasthi01 [link] [留言]

We posted here last week about infrastructure walls that show up when AI moves from personal use to team use. We had a few people described walls we hadn't named, which is more useful than the confirmations. Following up to collect more of those. If you've hit something that isn't on the list, or one of the six that looked different in your context, drop it here. What were you building and where did it break? The six walls for reference: Identity (who the AI is when it talks to your team), Decision Memory (whether past decisions inform future ones), Attention (how the system knows what to prioritise), Write-Back (whether AI outputs actually change the systems of record), Governance (who checks the AI's work), Economics (whether the cost structure holds at scale). Which one came first for your team? submitted by /u/Framework_Friday [link] [留言]

I've been teaching myself about Symbolic Regression (SR), which looks like a super exciting field. (A great intro resource below [1]). But then I was wondering: given LLMs' increasingly-growing power in generating code, which is in a way very similar to Symbolic Regression (or of course, even directly tackling symbolic regression tasks), are existing SR techniques dead? Happy to hear your thoughts. [1] ETH Zürich AISE: Symbolic Regression and Model Discovery - YouTube submitted by /u/omomom42 [link] [留言]

The Gem necklace can track your UV exposure.

The general shape of the problem is that every public LLM benchmark is on a saturation clock that runs from the moment of its publication to the moment a model's training corpus has eaten it. The clock has been running, on the visible benchmarks of the last five years, for somewhere between twelve and thirty months before each one is no longer useful for differentiating frontier models. The benchmarks are not failing. They are doing exactly what they were designed to do, in the order they were designed to do it, and the field has been running through them faster than the people designing them anticipated. I want to put numbers on the saturation pattern, walk through what the contamination evidence actually says, and then sit with the question of what an honest benchmark would have to look like in 2026 — because the "private held-out eval" answer that the labs are converging on has economics that are worth examining carefully before any of us salute it as the solution. The saturation timeline, with numbers HumanEval (Chen et al., OpenAI, July 2021). 164 hand-written Python problems. The benchmark was published with Codex at 28.8% pass@1; the underlying GPT-3 base model scored 0%. GPT-4 (March 2023) hit 67% in the original Technical Report. By late 2024, OpenAI's o1-preview and o1-mini both reached 96.3% pass@1 ; Claude 3.5 Sonnet sat at 93.7%. The benchmark is saturated in the operational sense — the relative spread across the top ten models is around 10 percentage points, which is too small a gap to differentiate them on, and most of the new models arrive within a percentage point or two of the ceiling. The successor variants (HumanEval+ from EvalPlus, with augmented test cases) are the field's response. Lifespan from publication to operational saturation: about 36 months. MMLU (Hendrycks et al., September 2020). 57 subjects, ~14,000 multiple-choice questions, taken from publicly-available test prep and academic sources. The problem with MMLU is not that it's satura

Computer-based assessments have a quiet accessibility problem. Most platforms assume the user can read text on a screen, click through options, and type their responses. For visually impaired students — particularly in India — this assumption effectively shuts them out entirely. I wanted to fix that. Not with a workaround, but with an experience that feels native to voice from the ground up. The Problem Screen readers exist, but they're clunky, require separate setup, and often mispronounce Indian names, words, and sentence structures in ways that feel jarring and unnatural. The experience breaks down fast. What visually impaired Indian students actually need is a system that speaks to them the way people around them speak — in a familiar accent, at a natural pace, without sounding like a robot reading out a manual. That's what led me to Sarvam AI. Why Sarvam I had tried other TTS APIs before. They worked, technically. But there was always something off — a flatness to the voice, a slightly Western lilt, a pronunciation of common Hindi-origin words that made it obvious the model had never really heard Indian English spoken naturally. Sarvam's TTS was different. The first time I ran a test question through it, the output sounded like something a real person would say. The accent was warm and familiar — the kind of voice an Indian student would actually trust and follow without friction. That moment changed how I thought about the project. This wasn't just a convenience feature anymore. It was the core of the experience. What I Built The platform is a full-stack web app built with React and Tailwind on the frontend, Express.js on the backend, and PostgreSQL for storing user data and scores. The interaction model is deliberately simple. A single click anywhere on the screen triggers Sarvam TTS to read the current question aloud. A double click starts listening and transcribes the user's spoken answer using Sarvam STT. No keyboard required. No mouse precision required.

When a RAID array fails, the worst thing you can do is panic and start poking at it immediately. I've seen too many cases where an impatient rebuild attempt overwrote the only good copy of data. This walkthrough covers how to safely approach a degraded or failed RAID — with ddrescue as your best friend. Step 0: Stop. Don't touch the array yet. Before running mdadm --assemble , before doing anything, clone your physical disks . A RAID 5 with one failed drive can lose everything the moment a second drive throws a read error during rebuild. This isn't hypothetical — it's how most total RAID losses happen. The golden rule: image first, recover second . Step 1: Assess the damage # Check current RAID state cat /proc/mdstat # More detail mdadm --detail /dev/md0 Look for: [UUU_] — one drive failed (underscore = missing) [UU__] — two drives failed (catastrophic for RAID 5) State: degraded , recovering , or failed Do NOT run mdadm --manage /dev/md0 --add /dev/sdX yet. Stop the array instead: mdadm --stop /dev/md0 Step 2: Clone each disk with ddrescue ddrescue is the right tool because it handles read errors gracefully: it maps bad sectors, retries them, and lets you resume interrupted sessions. Never use dd for a failing disk. Install it: # Debian/Ubuntu sudo apt install gddrescue # RHEL/CentOS sudo dnf install ddrescue Clone each RAID member to a separate image file (you need enough storage — same total size as all disks combined): # First pass: copy everything readable, skip bad sectors fast sudo ddrescue -d -r0 /dev/sda /mnt/backup/sda.img /mnt/backup/sda.log # Second pass: retry bad sectors up to 3 times sudo ddrescue -d -r3 /dev/sda /mnt/backup/sda.img /mnt/backup/sda.log Key flags: -d — direct disk access (bypass kernel cache) -r0 / -r3 — retry bad sectors 0 or 3 times The .log mapfile is critical: it lets you resume if the clone is interrupted Repeat for every disk in the array ( sdb , sdc , etc.). Step 3: Work from the images Once you have image files, assemble a soft

Our ancestors' genomes were built through successive waves of gene transfers.

submitted by /u/emefluence [link] [留言]

https://roguelite-mmo.com/ So I created the game very quickly for how much content it has. Fortunately it is slowly growing and the community members that do stay longer than the first 5 minutes have enjoyed it, some of the top members play multiple hours a day which is great! However there are plenty that I see hit the site and almost immediately move on before even really interacting with any of the game loops. They dont all leave feedback but the ones that do generally give the quick 'ai slop' line then nothing more. I get it, people associate 'ai vibe coding' with 'low effort money grab' and similar. My question is, I am not trying to hide/replace AI but rather find a happy medium where players at least 'see' the effort and the AI portions more so 'blend in' rather than 'stand out' (I have been a web dev for over 10 years on DoW/gov sites and it is now just 'the way of things' in day to day coding, it can complete my ideas a lot faster than I can code them. With good peer reviews of the results, there is no reason to not use it) Is there any UI/Image asset generation techniques/layouts you have done that seems to have worked with users to where the instant reaction is not 'ai slop'? If anyone goes through the actual gameplay that is built they would quickly see there are a lot of deep and fun systems put together and its not just a 'prompt and forget by joe schmo' type of game. Thanks for any feedback! submitted by /u/HeadHunterX223 [link] [留言]

Disclosure upfront: I'm the founder of an AI-visibility company, so this research scratches our own itch. Our domain was excluded from all counts before analysis. Not linking anything in the post. We wanted to answer a simple question: when an AI assistant shows you "sources," what is that, technically? So we opened devtools on the web clients of ChatGPT, Gemini, and DeepSeek, and ran the same 4 queries 10 times through each system. What we found: ChatGPT streams the answer over SSE and attaches citations as url_citation objects with start_ix / end_ix — character offsets into the generated text (UTF-16 code units, so emoji and CJK break your parsing if you count bytes). A citation is bound to a specific fragment of the answer, not the answer as a whole. Gemini runs on Google's batchexecute/JSPB transport — protobuf-as-JSON-arrays where fields have positions, not names. Next to each cited URL there's a family of short obfuscated fields. Our working hypotheses (not confirmed by Google docs): rs ≈ reliability score for the domain, ls ≈ last-seen date, GK ≈ character range (functional analog of ChatGPT's offsets). The interesting part isn't the exact decoding — it's that Gemini ships internal per-domain trust signals alongside every source. DeepSeek is the most transparent: a plain search_results[] array attached to the sub-queries it decomposes your question into. No offsets, no hidden fields. And what they actually cite is just as different: ChatGPT favored arXiv + Wikipedia (one arXiv paper got cited in 10/10 runs), Gemini favors big SaaS/marketing domains and — fun detail — never cited a single Google property in our runs, DeepSeek lives on press-release wires and news aggregators, including Chinese-language sources the other two never touched. Bonus finding: we compared all of this against Google/Bing top-10 for the same queries. URL-level overlap: 3.3% (4 matches out of 120 SERP positions). All four matches were Bing-side. Google: zero. Caveats: 4 queries from one

I played the ultimate game of strategy on a variety of smart chess boards to find the best for online and in-person matches.

Good system. One addition that moved the needle for me: ​ I track "capacity conversion" -- when AI saves me 3 hours on a task what do those 3 hours actually become? ​ Most people save time with AI and then fill it with more busywork. The ROI only materializes when you deliberately redirect saved time toward higher-value activities. ​ I keep a simple log: "AI saved X hours on [task]. Redirected to [activity]. Value of redirected time: [$amount]." ​ After 6 months, my actual ROI was 4x higher than the "time saved" metric suggested because of where the saved time went. ​ submitted by /u/JaredSanborn [link] [留言]