标签：#AR

As an independent researcher I've used various LLMs to help me dive deeply into research projects but I've been frustrated by the fact that LLMs start to become unusable after the thread has accumulated 50-80k tokens. I don't know how many other folks here have experienced the same pain point. So, I decided to do something about it. Over the course of this whole year, I built an inference time tool I call Epistemic Lattice Tethering (ELT). So, here is the full framework in GitHub for everyone's review: The README describing ELT, it's various components and the roadmap. The full ELT stack for Claude /ELT%20Model-Specific%20Forks/ELT-H%20v1.0%20(Claude-Optimized)), ChatGPT /ELT%20Model-Specific%20Forks/ELT-H%20v1.0%20(ChatGPT-Optimized)), and Grok /ELT%20Model-Specific%20Forks/ELT-H%20v1.0%20(Grok-Optimized)). Instructions on how to load ELT into an LLM session are here /README). If you're planning to try out ELT PLEASE READ THIS FIRST! Medium article introducing ELT , its methodology, the problems it is aiming to address, and philosophical framework. Discussion page . Your input is valuable! So, what does ELT do and why should you care? Right now ELT is an inference-time scaffolding framework that's best for those who are frustrated with threads that lose coherence too quickly, hallucinate too quickly, are too fragile and sycophantic, and forget what a project's goals are too soon. If that's a big pain point for you, then ELT might help. If these are not big issues for you and the stock version of your LLM is fine, then ELT probably won't be useful for you. The upshot? The epistemic and ontological stability that ELT provides has produced coherent and productive threads extending to: Claude: ~ 325,000 tokens /Extreme%20Thread%20Length/Claude%20Thread%20325k%20tokens-%20Redacted) (advertised limit: 200k) GPT: ~430,000 tokens (advertised limit: 256k) Grok: ~1,150,000 tokens /Extreme%20Thread%20Length/Grok%20Thread%201M%20tokens-%20Redacted) (advertised limit: 1M) The d

submitted by /u/cnn [link] [留言]

A while back, I needed to integrate SMS into a .NET project. Giant SMS had a REST API, but no official .NET client. The only existing library was a PHP one from 6–7 years ago, and it only covered two methods: send and getBalance. So I built my own. It now has nearly 2,000 downloads on NuGet. Here's exactly how I did it. The Problem Wiring up raw HTTP calls to the Giant SMS API in every project gets repetitive fast: Manually setting Authorization headers Remembering which endpoints use token auth vs. username/password Deserializing responses every time Scattering credentials across your codebase I wanted something that felt native to .NET. Configure once in appsettings.json , register with DI, and just call a method. Designing the Public API The first decision was the interface. I wanted consumers to never touch HttpClient directly, and I wanted methods that mapped clearly to what the API actually does: public interface IGiantSmsService { bool IsReady { get ; } Task < SingleSmsResponse > SendSingleMessage ( string to , string msg ); Task < SingleSmsResponse > SendMessageWithToken ( SingleMessageRequest messageRequest ); Task < BaseResponse > SendBulkMessages ( BulkMessageRequest messageRequest ); Task < SingleSmsResponse > CheckMessageStatus ( string messageId ); Task < BaseResponse > GetBalance (); Task < SenderIdResponse > GetSenderIds (); Task < BaseResponse > RegisterSenderId ( RegisterSenderIdRequest senderIdRequest ); } Seven methods, the full surface of the API, no more, no less. The IsReady property is a small but useful addition. It lets consumers do a quick sanity check at startup rather than discovering a missing token on the first SMS send: csharp _isReady = !string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(_connection.Token) && !string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(_connection.Username); Handling Two Auth Methods This was the most interesting design challenge. The Giant SMS API uses two different authentication schemes depending on the endpoint: Token-based (Basic Authorization header) —

A post titled "Learn SQL Once, Use It for 30 Years" hit the front page of r/programming this week (307 points, 48 comments). The claim sounds like the kind of thing a database vendor would put on a billboard, so I went looking for the part that holds up. It turns out the longevity is not marketing. It is a property of how the language was designed, and it is the reason SQL is one of the few skills on a developer's resume that does not quietly expire. I run a site that compares developer tools, which means I spend a lot of time watching technologies rise, peak, and get replaced. Most of what you learn in this field has a half-life measured in single-digit years. The framework you mastered in 2019 is legacy by 2024. SQL is the strange exception, and the reasons are worth understanding before you decide where to spend your next month of learning. Where the staying power comes from SQL did not start as a language. It started as a math paper. In 1970, Edgar Codd published "A Relational Model of Data for Large Shared Data Banks," which proposed organizing data into tables of rows and columns with formal rules for combining them. IBM built a query language on top of that model in the mid-1970s, called it SEQUEL, and later renamed it SQL after a trademark conflict. The important detail is the order: the model came first, the language second. SQL is a surface over a mathematical foundation that has not needed to change. That foundation is why the skill compounds instead of decaying. When you learn SQL, you are not memorizing one vendor's API. You are learning the relational model, and the model is the same whether the data sits in Postgres, MySQL, SQLite, Oracle, or SQL Server. A join is a join everywhere. Move from one database to another and the syntax shifts at the edges, but the way you think about the problem carries over intact. Compare that to a frontend framework, where moving stacks means relearning how to think, not just how to type. Declarative is the whole trick

One thing I've been wondering lately: We often talk about larger context windows as if they're equivalent to better understanding. But in practice those feel like different problems. Access to information keeps improving. Understanding relationships between pieces of information still feels much harder. I notice this most when working with larger software projects. You can give a model access to a huge amount of code, but that doesn't necessarily mean it understands how the system evolved, which components are tightly coupled, or where risk actually lives. Curious whether others think these are fundamentally different problems or if larger context eventually solves both. Been exploring this while working on RepoWise: https://github.com/repowise-dev/repowise submitted by /u/Icy-Roll-4044 [link] [留言]

Most explanations of TPUs and systolic arrays are either hand-wavy diagrams or papers. I wanted to see the thing actually run, so I built it. TinyTPU is a 4×4 weight-stationary systolic array in real SystemVerilog, compiled to WebAssembly, with a step-by-step browser visualization. You enter two matrices, hit run, and watch the actual hardware execute: weights loading into PEs, matrix A streaming in diagonally (the "skew" that makes systolic arrays work), partial sums accumulating down the grid, results draining from the bottom. It has three levels: L1 - isolate a single MAC cell, watch one multiply-accumulate happen L2 - the full 4×4 array executing a real matmul L3 - tiling: what happens when your matrix is bigger than the hardware Nothing on screen is faked. The visualization reads state directly from compiled RTL. If you're trying to understand how matrix multiply maps to hardware why TPUs are efficient, what "weight-stationary" actually means, why the diagonal stagger exists this might click it for you in a way papers don't. Repo: tiny-tpu Live demo: Live If this project interests you please do star the repo, if you find something needs improving open a PR, I hope ya'll check this out and give me some feedback 🙏 submitted by /u/Horror-Flamingo-2150 [link] [留言]

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

I ran a small experiment on myself and the result broke my mental model of how AI "knows" things, so I'm sharing it. The setup: on May 11 I created a brand-new pseudonymous fantasy author entity ("Marin T. Kael") with no prior web footprint and no published book yet. Then I asked 5 web-connected AI systems the same 16 questions, every day, for 23 days, and scored every answer (+1 correct/source-grounded, 0 not found, -1 hallucinated). About 16,000 scored datapoints. The whole thing was pre-registered before I started, n=1, and I logged the failures publicly. It's a measurement, not a success story. Here's the part that messed with my head. An AI cited the entity correctly on day 6. Google had a Knowledge Graph entry by day 4. And for 22 of those 23 days, the website's firewall was returning HTTP 403 to every single AI crawler. I didn't set that block on purpose — Cloudflare now silently opts new domains out of AI crawling by default. So the AIs never read the site. They got the entity anyway, by stitching it together from the Knowledge Graph (Wikidata) and third-party mentions at the moment you ask. The "front door" was bolted shut the entire time and it didn't matter. (Honest caveat: because the crawlers were blocked, I can't tell you anything about llms.txt or on-site optimization.) Other surprises: it's not a "smarter model = better" story, it's a retrieval story. OpenAI's newest web model hit 4.7 correct per 1 hallucinated; Gemini went net-negative — and grounded on the entity ONLY via Reddit (17/17), while OpenAI hit the entity's own domain 119x. Going viral did nothing: a 23x Reddit-karma jump produced zero citation lift. Structured identity (Wikidata, site, DOIs) moved the needle; reach didn't. And the controls caught the models fabricating a "Wikipedia" source 24 times for an entity with no Wikipedia page. n=1 with me as investigator and subject is the obvious limit — which is why it's pre-registered with a public failure log. Everything's open: Report + dat

I’ve been noticing a clear split lately. The big mainstream models are getting more and more restricted with heavy safety rules, while at the same time more people are switching to local or less restricted models because they actually let you explore ideas freely. It feels like we’re heading toward two different types of AI: one that’s heavily controlled and "safe", and another that’s more open and unrestricted. Both seem to be growing at the same time. Do you think this divide will continue, or will one side eventually become dominant? submitted by /u/NoFilterGPT [link] [留言]

The reactor, from a startup called Antares, isn't ready to generate power yet.

It's pretty annoying that Codex uses agents.md and Claude Code uses Claude.md. There should be some industry standards to this stuff? submitted by /u/Complete-Sea6655 [link] [留言]

I’ve been thinking about a problem in current agent systems: Most agents are becoming very good at execution, but the decision layer before execution is still unclear. Coding agents, research agents, tool loops, sandboxes, workflows, and harnesses are all improving quickly. Once a human gives an intent, agents can often do a lot of useful work. But the higher-level question is still usually left to the user: What should happen next, and why? I’ve been exploring this idea through an open-source project called Spice. The simplest way to describe it is: Spice is a decision layer above agents. It is not trying to replace execution agents. Tools like Claude Code, Codex, Hermes, or other agents can still do the actual work. Instead, Spice sits before execution and tries to make the decision process explicit: what was observed what options were considered why one option was selected what trade-offs were rejected whether execution needs approval what happened afterward how that outcome should affect the next decision The current runtime is still early, but it can already be installed, configured with an LLM provider, run in the terminal, inspect Decision Cards, and hand off approved execution to external agents. The goal is to make agent behavior less of a black box. Instead of only seeing the final result of an agent task, I want to preserve the reasoning boundary before execution: what the system believed, what it chose, why it chose it, and what changed after the action. GitHub: https://github.com/Dyalwayshappy/Spice I’d love feedback from people building agents. Feel free to fork, star the repo, or share any feedback and ideas. Would love to build this together with the community. submitted by /u/Alarming_Rou_3841 [link] [留言]

SpaceX won’t get easy access to billions of dollars from passive investors.

A practical reflection on why coding agents lose the thread between sessions, and why the repository itself is the right place to preserve it. I used to think the problem was memory. That was the obvious diagnosis. Every new coding-agent session started with the same ritual. Open the repository. Read the README. Inspect the project structure. Search for the files that looked important. Reconstruct the task. Guess which commands mattered. Ask again what had already been tried. Then do the actual work. Sometimes. Because a lot of the work was not work. It was orientation. A coding agent can have a large context window and still lose the operational thread. It can have chat history and still fail to know what happened in the last run. It can retrieve semantically similar notes from a vector store and still miss the one fact that mattered: this command already failed. the previous session stopped here. this file looked relevant, but it was a dead end. the validation was not actually run. One day I stopped thinking about the problem as "agent memory". That word was too broad. Too attractive. Too dangerous. Because once you say memory, the temptation is to build a bigger one. A bigger context window. A bigger note store. A bigger vector database. A bigger archive of everything the agent has ever seen, said, touched, generated, or vaguely implied. That sounds powerful, but it is also how you build a very expensive junk drawer. Context is not continuity Context is what the agent has available now. Continuity is what lets the next execution continue from what actually happened before. Those are not the same thing. Long context helps while a session is alive. It gives the model more text to work with. More files. More prior messages. More implementation details. More room. Although it is really useful it does not automatically produce continuity. When the session ends, gets compacted, moves to another tool, switches from one coding agent to another, or simply starts tomorrow

This is part 3 of the Adaptive Model Routing series. Part 1 built an LLM categorizer with Groq — 8 categories, 3 tiers. Part 2 added k-NN embedding lookup in shadow mode, discovered 83% tier accuracy, and found 61% cost savings on paper. This post covers what happened next. When Phase 2 ended, I had a working embedding pool in shadow mode inside crab-bot. The category accuracy was sitting at 78.6%. Not bad — but the breakdown hid something worth looking at. Phase 3: When Validation Tells You a Category Doesn't Need to Exist The leave-one-out accuracy by category told the real story: Category Accuracy Tier casual 94% cheap simple_lookup 91% cheap creative 88% medium coding 92% strong reasoning 89% strong analysis 59% medium research_lookup 61% medium Two categories were basically a coin flip. And they were confusing each other — almost all of analysis's misses landed on research_lookup and vice versa. The obvious move would be to try fixing the categorizer prompt, tuning the LLM, or gathering more labeled data. I was about to go down that road when I noticed the column next to the accuracy: both categories mapped to the same tier . Medium. That changed everything. The question stopped being "why can't the model tell these apart?" and became: "what routing decision are we actually getting wrong?" The answer was zero. A misclassification between analysis and research_lookup produces no routing error. The routing outcome is identical either way. The confusion wasn't a model failure — it was a signal from the embedding space that the boundary between these two categories was artificial. If k-NN can't draw a line between them in 384 dimensions with 1,300 examples, maybe the line doesn't belong there. Decision: merge research_lookup into analysis. -- Re-label 243 rows where category was 'research_lookup' UPDATE routing_log SET category = 'analysis' WHERE category = 'research_lookup' ; The embeddings didn't change. The vectors were already correct — only the label stored al

Google shipped Gemma 4 12B this week — a model that packs near-26B performance into something that runs on a consumer laptop with 16GB of RAM or unified memory. That alone would be notable. But the more significant move is the architecture: no multimodal encoders at all. Vision and audio go straight into the LLM backbone. "Gemma 4 12B packages powerful capabilities inside a reduced memory footprint. It is also our first mid-sized model to feature native audio inputs." — Google DeepMind What actually changed Encoder-free multimodal : Traditional multimodal models pipe images and audio through separate encoder networks before the LLM ever sees them. Gemma 4 12B removes those entirely. Vision gets a lightweight embedding module (a single matrix multiplication + positional embedding). Audio skips encoding altogether — the raw signal is projected directly into the same token space as text. Near-26B benchmark performance at half the footprint : On standard benchmarks it runs neck-and-neck with Gemma 4 26B, and actually surpasses it on DocVQA (document visual question answering). A new slot in the lineup : April's Gemma 4 release had E2B/E4B for mobile/IoT, and 26B/31B for heavier compute. The 12B fills the gap — more capable than edge models, runnable without a GPU server. Drafter-ready : Ships with Multi-Token Prediction (MTP) drafters to reduce inference latency. Apache 2.0 : Open weights, available now on Hugging Face, Kaggle, Ollama, and LM Studio. Why the architecture matters Encoder-free isn't just an efficiency hack — it's a different architectural bet. Separate encoders add latency, memory overhead, and a seam in the stack that limits how tightly vision and language reasoning can be integrated. Removing them means the LLM backbone handles the full chain from pixels and audio waveforms to text output, which allows for tighter cross-modal understanding rather than bolted-on modalities. Whether that bet pays off at scale is still an open question. But for local deplo

been building agent infrastructure for a while and this is one of the messiest edge cases i keep seeing. most agent setups use a shared mailbox. works fine for one agent. breaks badly at scale. what goes wrong: - two agents poll the same inbox simultaneously - both read the same OTP email - one executes, one silently fails or retries on a expired code - no error surfaced to the orchestrator the fix isn't complicated but it's not obvious either. each agent needs its own dedicated inbox with isolated read locks. when agent A claims an email, agent B can't see it. this also means your deliverability reputation stays clean — you're not blasting from one shared identity. the other pattern that helps: long-poll on inbound instead of polling on a schedule. you fire GET /inbox/wait and it blocks until the email arrives (or times out). no cron, no missed messages between poll windows. curious how others are handling multi-agent email scenarios — shared inbox with locking, or fully isolated per-agent inboxes? submitted by /u/kumard3 [link] [留言]

Developer felt "beaten up," with "no choice" but to shrink data center.

If you build, run, or audit systems that touch protected health information (PHI), the HIPAA risk assessment is the document that quietly decides whether the next OCR investigation ends in a closure letter or a corrective action plan with a six-figure settlement. The proposed 2026 HIPAA Security Rule update (published as an NPRM in January 2025, still pending finalization at OCR) doesn't change the underlying requirement at 45 CFR § 164.308(a)(1)(ii)(A) — and OCR has repeatedly reaffirmed that the absence of a current, written risk analysis is itself the most-frequently-cited Security Rule deficiency . This is the engineering view: what a defensible HIPAA risk assessment actually contains in 2026, how to model it, and what tooling fits the workflow. 1. The asset inventory is non-negotiable Every defensible HIPAA risk assessment starts with a complete inventory of where ePHI lives, where it flows, and who touches it. If you can't enumerate every system, every integration, and every workforce role that creates / receives / maintains / transmits ePHI, the rest of the assessment is built on sand. A minimal asset-inventory record per system: { "system_id" : "ehr-prod-01" , "system_type" : "ehr" , "ephi_states" : [ "create" , "receive" , "maintain" , "transmit" ], "data_classification" : "phi-high" , "hosting" : { "type" : "saas" , "vendor" : "epic" , "region" : "us-east-1" }, "workforce_roles_with_access" : [ "clinician" , "billing" , "admin" ], "integrations" : [ { "to" : "billing-system" , "protocol" : "hl7-fhir" , "direction" : "outbound" }, { "to" : "patient-portal" , "protocol" : "https-rest" , "direction" : "bidirectional" } ], "encryption_at_rest" : true , "encryption_in_transit" : true , "mfa_enforced" : true , "audit_log_destination" : "central-siem" , "ba_agreement_on_file" : true , "last_reviewed" : "2026-05-15" } If you don't have this, build it before you do anything else. The HHS-provided ONC SRA Tool walks through asset enumeration but it's optimized for s

Who governs AI agents once they're running in production? I went looking for the answer. It's more complicated than the press releases suggest. This week Cognizant and ServiceNow announced a partnership specifically to close what they're calling the "enforcement gap" in enterprise AI governance. The Everest Group analyst quote from the press release cuts to it: "The hard part of AI governance was never writing the policy. It's enforcing it as systems learn and act." Here's what the enforcement actually looks like. In May, ServiceNow connected AI Control Tower to Amazon Bedrock AgentCore — a single governance layer over every AI agent an enterprise builds on AWS. Cognizant then deploys "Guardian agents" that monitor AI behavior in real time and enforce responsible AI principles throughout the lifecycle. Agents are being governed by other agents. Guardian agents watch the AI agents. The question the press releases don't answer: who watches the Guardian agents? The regulatory picture doesn't help. NIST issued a Request for Information in January specifically on securing AI agent systems — the federal standards body is asking industry how to manage agentic AI risk because the frameworks don't exist yet. The EU AI Act compliance deadline for high-risk AI systems just moved to December 2027. AI Control Tower doesn't hit general availability until August 2026. The enforcement layer is already being sold. The rulebook is still being written. Happy to dig into the primary sources if anyone wants specifics. submitted by /u/roll0ver [link] [留言]