标签：#AR

Diffusion AI is most common in image generation, but it can make text outputs much faster.

Full disclosure: this is directional, not a paper. n=120 tasks, one internal evaluator, not peer reviewed. I work at an LLM infrastructure company. This experiment was done on my own time and is not a company claim. Karpathy's framework classifies tasks by verifiability. Can output be mechanically checked? High verifiability tasks like code compilation and structured JSON extraction are safer because the verifier catches errors. Low verifiability tasks like creative writing are riskier. I wondered if high verifiability tasks are also easier in practice. Can a weaker model do them as well as a frontier model if the verifier catches mistakes? Setup was 120 tasks across four categories. Code unit tests, structured extraction, multi hop reasoning, creative summarization. Three models: Claude Sonnet 4.6, GPT 5.5, local Mistral 3 8B via vLLM 0.6.3. Pass rate for the first two, human rating 1 to 5 for the last two. Results were messy. Code unit tests: Sonnet 4.6 94%, GPT 5.5 91%, Mistral 3 8B 87%. With one retry Mistral 3 hit 95%. That surprised me. I expected the gap to be bigger. Structured extraction: Sonnet 4.6 97%, GPT 5.5 94%, Mistral 3 8B 89%. With retry 96%. Also closer than I expected. But here is where it got weird. Sonnet 4.6 initially scored worse than GPT 5.5 on structured extraction, which made no sense. Turns out our JSON schema had an ambiguous nested array that confused Claude's tool use parser. Fixing the schema brought Sonnet to 98%, but I kept the original numbers in the table because the mistake is part of the story. Your verifier is only as good as your schema. Multi hop reasoning: Sonnet 4.6 78%, GPT 5.5 71%, Mistral 3 8B 51%. Retry didn't help. The model would hallucinate reasoning paths consistently. This is where the capability gap was real. Creative summarization: Sonnet 4.6 4.2 out of 5, GPT 5.5 3.9 out of 5, Mistral 3 8B 3.1 out of 5. Expected. Interpretation: high verifiability tasks seem simpler in the sense that weaker model plus verifier ca

“We see a future where intelligence is a utility, like electricity or water, and people buy it from us on a meter." What do you think this means in practice? Is this a reasonable vision for AI, or does it raise concerns about dependence on a few companies for access to intelligence ? submitted by /u/Choice-Scallion-3499 [link] [留言]

The hard parts of robotics are supposed to be perception, planning, and control. So why does so much of the day go to everything that comes before them? The hidden setup tax in every robotics simulation project Ask anyone what's hard about robotics and you'll get the same list: perception, planning, control, navigation. The genuinely interesting problems. If you track where your hours actually go, though, a strange thing shows up. A big chunk of the day disappears before you reach any of that. You're not solving hard problems yet. You're just getting to the starting line: wiring up a workspace, writing description files, stitching together launch files, and coaxing a simulator into opening without errors. It's the unglamorous tax on every project, and most of us have quietly accepted it as the cost of doing business. Building a differential drive robot simulation in ROS 2 and Gazebo from scratch A diff drive base, a LiDAR, and Gazebo, set up from one prompt instead of an afternoon of boilerplate. A few days ago I wanted a simple mobile robot simulation. Nothing exotic: a differential drive base (two driven wheels, the classic mobile-robot setup), a LiDAR for sensing, running in Gazebo . This is the kind of thing that should be straightforward. In practice it's an afternoon of boilerplate before the robot so much as twitches. So instead of wiring it up by hand, I wanted to see how far Drift could get from a single prompt. To make it a fair test, I stripped the workspace down to nothing. No packages, no URDF, no launch files. A blank slate. Then I typed one line: "Create a mobile simulation from scratch." From XACRO to URDF: how the robot description gets generated in ROS 2 What the tool wrote first, and what XACRO and URDF actually do for your robot. It checked the workspace first: The opening move was sensible: it looked at the current directory to understand what it was working with. It generated a XACRO file for the robot's dimensions: XACRO is the macro-based for

Unravel the tangled world of cords and find the ones you need to charge your gadgets and transfer data.

I'm a 17-year-old IT student from Luxembourg. A few months ago I got tired of spending 2-3 hours a day manually browsing Upwork, Malt, and Freelancer looking for projects. So I built an automation system that does it for me — 24/7, on a Raspberry Pi 3. Here's what it does, how I built it, and every painful lesson I learned along the way. What the system does Scans Upwork, Malt, and Freelancer every 30 minutes Scores each job 0–100 with AI based on my profile Generates proposals in English, French, and German Sends the best jobs to Telegram with inline A/B buttons Tracks which proposal style gets more replies Sends daily stats and weekly market trend reports Reminds me to follow up after 3 days The stack n8n — self-hosted workflow automation (Docker on Raspberry Pi 3) Groq API (Llama 3.1-8b-instant) — AI scoring and proposal generation Supabase — PostgreSQL database for jobs, proposals, clients SerpAPI — searching job boards via Google Apify — scraping Upwork listings Telegram Bot API — alerts and bot commands Cloudflare Tunnel — HTTPS for webhooks Total running cost: ~$5/month. 7 workflows 01 - Job Discovery — runs every 30 minutes, searches 10+ sources, deduplicates via Supabase unique constraint on URL 02 - Proposal Generator — AI scores the job, generates two proposal variants (formal vs hook-first), sends to Telegram with A/B buttons 03 - Follow-up Reminders — checks Supabase every 3 days for unanswered proposals 04 - CRM via Telegram — full client management through bot commands (/jobs, /stats, /clients) 05 - Market Intelligence — daily report: how many jobs found, average score, top platforms 06 - Trend Analysis — weekly report on what skills are trending in automation 07 - Lead Generation — finds companies actively using Zapier or Make who might want to switch to n8n Lessons learned (the hard way) 1. Cyrillic text breaks JSON body nodes silently If you have Cyrillic characters in a JSON body field with newlines, n8n throws a "Bad control character" error. Kee

I highly recommend watching (or rewatching) the 2014 movie Transcendence. The film beautifully captures the terrifying nature of the "technological singularity" where an Al undergoes exponential, recursive self-improvement, eventually taking over global networks and stripping away human agency until a total global blackout is the only way to stop it. For years, people brushed this off alongside The Terminator as pure Hollywood sci-fi. But look at where we are right now. Just this month, Anthropic-one of the world's leading Al labs-issued a massive warning calling for a globally coordinated, verifiable pause on advanced Al development. Their core fear? Exactly what happens in those movies: recursive self-improvement. They believe we are fast approaching the threshold where an Al can design and build its own successor, meaning humans could completely lose control of the technology. When the people actually building these models are telling us to hit the brakes because society can't keep up, it feels like we're blindly sprinting into a dystopia. What's your take on this? Are we staring down a real-life Skynet situation, or is this just big tech labs using fear-mongering to push for heavy regulations and lock out their competition? submitted by /u/photography_rambog [link] [留言]

Google AI Overview court loss in Germany could spell doom for AI search industry.

Anthropic dropped Fable 5 and I immediately swapped it into our dev stack. We route everything through a single endpoint on zenmux, so the actual switch was changing one model string and watching the latency graphs. The good parts first because there are a lot of them. I threw a refactoring task at it: split a messy python service into modules, preserve the public api, and write tests that prove nothing broke. Fable 5 planned the whole thing, caught a circular dependency I did not mention, and verified the tests pass. With Opus 4.8 I usually have to nudge it a couple of times when it forgets to update the init file. Fable 5 just did it. Then I dumped our full codebase and asked it to find a race condition we had been hunting for a week. It traced the async flow, named the exact function, and described the interleaving that triggers the bug. That level of context digestion feels new. Opus is good at long context, but Fable 5 felt like it was actually reasoning across the whole window instead of pattern matching near the top. I also sent it a blurry dashboard screenshot from a client call and it rebuilt the html and echarts config including the tooltip formatting. My designer’s first words were "when did you learn front end." I did not. But here is the part nobody in the launch threads is talking about enough. It is slow. On high effort I am seeing 45 to 90 seconds for a single complex turn. Our latency graphs go from a flat green line to a jagged mess the moment Fable 5 traffic hits. And it is expensive. The same prompt that costs X on Opus 4.8 costs roughly 1.4 to 1.7X on Fable 5 because it generates more tokens and runs at a higher effort tier by default. It writes its own reasoning traces out loud and bills you for them. For research tasks the quality is worth it. For "rewrite this email" it is comically overpowered. The bigger issue is the silent fallback. Fable 5 is basically Mythos with guardrails. When your prompt touches cybersecurity, biology, chemistry, or

The US military struck Iran again after an Iranian drone’s lucky midair strike.

Problems with Starlink's India expansion could challenge SpaceX's IPO growth story.

Move also cuts off a massive market of legit users who buy cards with physical cash.

V.C. Andrews died in 1986. Since then, more than 100 novels have been published under her name by ghostwriter Andrew Neiderman. Most readers either never noticed or didn't care. The books still had the gothic families, dark secrets, and familiar atmosphere people expected from a V.C. Andrews novel. It got me thinking about something we're starting to see with AI. When people ask whether AI can continue the work of a deceased author, musician, or artist, they're treating it as a brand-new question. But publishing has already been running a real-world experiment for nearly 40 years. A dead author's name remained on the cover. Someone else learned the style, themes, and formula. New works were produced for an audience that wanted more of the same. The franchise continued. The obvious difference is that Neiderman was a human ghostwriter and an AI model isn't. But from the perspective of readers, what exactly is the meaningful distinction? If a future "new" novel by a deceased author is good enough that readers enjoy it and can't tell the difference, should we care how it was produced? Or is there something fundamentally different about a human ghostwriter carrying on a literary legacy versus a model trained on the author's corpus? I wrote a longer piece about the V.C. Andrews case and why it feels relevant to the future of AI-generated creative work: https://tjcrowley.substack.com/p/the-ghost-in-the-machine-has-been Curious where people here draw the line. submitted by /u/Dependent_Run_6410 [link] [留言]

Honda's $42,000 hybrid coupe looks great, handles well, and gets 44 mpg.

Me: If I’m half Canadian and my wife is half Canadian (both moms) what does that make our kids? Claude: quarter Canadian. 🍁 Me: Imagine i have a box that is 50% pepper and 50% salt. And I have another box that 50% sugar and 50% salt. I mix the two together. Now it's 50% salt, 25% sugar, 25% pepper. Claude: Right — and your kids are 50% American (or whatever), 25% Canadian from you, 25% Canadian from your wife. Which adds up to half Canadian, same as each of you. The Canadian fraction doesn't shrink because both sides contributed it. Me: But your first answer was 25% (quarter) Canadian? Claude: You're right, I goofed. Following the salt logic: 25% + 25% = 50%, so they're half Canadian, same as each of you. I shouldn't have said quarter. Me: This was a really simple problem for me. What should I tell my friends about your abilities? Claud: What to tell your friends: I'm useful for research, drafting, analysis, and grinding through detail — but I can whiff on simple stuff, especially when I'm moving fast or anchoring on the wrong frame. Check my work, particularly on anything where the answer should be obvious. If it feels off, it probably is. submitted by /u/NECESolarGuy [link] [留言]

Backed by Alexis Ohanian’s 776 and Kindred Ventures, Zest uses transaction data and AI to generate restaurant recommendations based on users’ real dining habits and the places they frequent.

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

While Silicon Valley continues pushing aggressively into large language models and consumer-facing AI products, many European companies are focused on applying AI to complex systems already embedded into everyday life.

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy . ] submitted by /u/Evening_Scar_4905 [link] [留言]

There's a lot of impressive engineering inside Honor's Magic V6, but it's let down by software that desperately needs polish.