标签：#AR

The most expensive mistake of my career wasn't a line of code; it was a 'yes'. That 'yes' not only cost me money but also severely damaged my reputation, which I had built over years. This was a turning point I experienced when my personal project, which I proudly worked on and named "BurnCPU," reached its first 100 users. Today, with 20 years of system architecture and operations experience, I can clearly see the decisions I made back then and the lessons I've learned since. This post is not just a technical error analysis; it's also an intention to share a pragmatic decision-making process, trade-offs, and the courageous stance of an expert. My goal is to spark discussion, encourage thought, and perhaps help you avoid similar mistakes. When Did That 'Yes' Come? BurnCPU was initially a tool I developed for my own needs, aimed at optimizing server resources. The goal was to reduce costs by efficiently utilizing idle CPU time. The development process was enjoyable and, over time, exceeded expectations. When the first beta users started giving positive feedback, my excitement was at its peak. And then the moment arrived; an investor, during this period when my project reached its first 100 users, offered financial support for a major scaling and marketing push. The offer was tempting. It presented an opportunity to reach wider audiences, add more features, and perhaps even commercialize the project. The person opposite me was introduced as a recognized and successful name in the industry. Without delving too deeply into the details of the offer, I said "yes." This simple word marked the beginning of the most expensive mistake of my career. ⚠️ A Risky 'Yes' When making this decision, I did not sufficiently analyze the technical maturity of the project or whether my infrastructure could handle such a load. I overlooked the chasm between the marketing power promised by the investor and my technical infrastructure. After the First 100 Users: Unexpected Problems When we re

I used to think the best AI food logging flow would be simple: Take a photo, let the model identify the meal, confirm it, done. That works surprisingly well for a lot of meals. But while building MetricSync, I learned the awkward product truth: the best input method changes depending on what is in front of the user. A photo is great for a plate. A barcode is better for packaged food. Text is better when the user already knows what they ate or wants to fix one detail quickly. The mistake is treating one input mode like the whole product. Photos feel magical until the meal gets messy Photo logging is the most impressive demo because it removes the blank search box problem. The user does not need to know the exact database name for “rice bowl with chicken and avocado.” They can just show the app what they ate. But meals are messy. A photo might miss the sauce. It might not know if the drink is diet or regular. It might confuse a small serving with a large one. It might identify the food category correctly but still need a portion correction. That does not make photo logging bad. It just means the UX cannot end at “AI guessed something.” The real product is the correction loop. Can the user fix the meal without starting over? Barcode scanning is boring in the best way Barcode scanning is not as exciting as AI, but it is often the right tool. If someone is logging a protein bar, yogurt, cereal, or a packaged drink, asking an image model to infer the nutrition facts is silly. The barcode is more direct. That changed how I thought about the app. AI should not be the star of every interaction. Sometimes AI should get out of the way. The goal is not “use AI everywhere.” The goal is “make logging the thing in front of me take the least effort.” For packaged foods, that means barcode first. For mixed plates, that means photo first. For quick edits, that means text. Text still matters The more AI features you add, the easier it is to forget text input. But text is still the fas

TLDR - auto lenders are using AI bots to negotiate insurance settlements with inaccurate information. How can I Captain Kirk them and get a live person on the phone? I am an insurance claims adjuster. Recently, several high-interest auto loan lenders have begun using AI (both through email and phone calls) to dispute the total loss values for our claims. For those of you that have never dealt with a total loss - the value of a vehicle is (usually) determined by seeing what comparable vehicles are selling for on the market, and making adjustments based on the condition, mileage, etc. between those vehicles and the totalled vehicle. If a customer disagrees, they can hire an appraiser and the company will hire an independent appraiser, and the two will come to an agreement. The lender gets paid the amount minus the customer's deductible, and if it doesn't fully pay off the loan, unfortunately the customer will be responsible for the balance. Lately, AI calls and emails have been coming from these lenders disputing the amounts, and often based on egregiously incorrect information. They provide cherry picked comparisons to try to boost the vehicle values, and sometimes they aren't the same year, make, or model. Sometimes mileage and condition isn't factored in, sometimes they are tricked-out show cars someone advertised on a FSBO site. The real problem is, we have to waste our time researching all of this to see if any of the data is correct. When we respond pointing out the flawed comparisons, they only come back with more flawed comparisons. If we argue long enough, they will invoke the appraisal clause on the customer's behalf. Their appraiser is another AI system with a cutesy name. All efforts to reach humans at these lenders are essentially turned away - we are told we need to deal with the system. I am open to any advice you folks have - how can we get these AI systems to basically give up and get us in touch with a real person? I'm not trying to screw anyone out

Lets start our discussion from 2010 . Timeperiod 2010 - 2020 we have predictive AI models such as Recommendation systems , customer segmentation etc .. From 2020 the when the generative models were introduced to the world then the landscape was completely changed . We have this generative era till 2022 . Then industry was stepped into a new era called "Augumentation" models like AI Copilot . This was continued from 2022-2024 . Then came AI Agents—one of the most transformative innovations of the modern AI era. Unlike traditional AI systems that primarily generate responses, agents can reason, plan, use tools, and execute tasks autonomously. Today, the industry is rapidly evolving toward Autonomous Systems, where multiple specialized agents collaborate through orchestration frameworks to solve complex real-world problems. The best AI Timeline : Traditional ML ↓ Deep Learning ↓ Transformers (2017) ↓ Foundation Models ↓ LLMs (GPT Era) ↓ Prompt Engineering ↓ Embeddings ↓ Vector Databases ↓ RAG ↓ Function Calling ↓ AI Agents ↓ Agent Frameworks ↓ Multi-Agent Systems ↓ MCP ↓ Agentic AI ↓ Autonomous AI Organizations Just in the span of 6 years we saw a drastic change in the evolution of AI. Can't imagine how this AI is going to be in the next few years. ai #machinelearning #python

If you’re building a generative AI chatbot, global e-commerce platform, or industrial IoT solution in 2026, picking the wrong database can sink performance, blow your budget, or delay your launch. For years, teams relied on one-size-fits-all relational databases for every workload, but modern applications demand specialized tools for specific use cases. AWS solves this challenge with 15+ purpose-built database engines across 8 distinct categories, optimized for performance, scalability, and cost efficiency for every imaginable workload. This guide breaks down every AWS database type, its core features, real-world use cases, and 2026 best practices to help you choose the right tool for your next project. Table of Contents Why Purpose-Built Databases Are the Standard in 2026 AWS Database Categories: A Deep Dive 2.1 Relational Databases 2.2 Key-Value Databases 2.3 In-Memory Databases 2.4 Document Databases 2.5 Graph Databases 2.6 Wide Column Databases 2.7 Time-Series Databases 2.8 Data Warehouse 2026 AWS Database Best Practices Common Mistakes to Avoid When Choosing AWS Databases Conclusion References Why Purpose-Built Databases Are the Standard in 2026 Modern workloads have vastly different requirements: a generative AI RAG system needs fast vector search, an IoT fleet needs high-throughput time-series data ingestion, and a global SaaS platform needs multi-region consistency with zero downtime. A single relational database cannot meet all these needs without tradeoffs. AWS purpose-built databases eliminate these tradeoffs by: Supporting open standard APIs to avoid vendor lock-in Offering serverless deployment options for all major engines Including built-in AI/ML and vector search capabilities Delivering up to 99.999% availability for mission-critical workloads Reducing TCO by 25-48% compared to self-managed or generic alternatives (per IDC) AWS Database Categories: A Deep Dive Relational Databases Relational databases store data in structured tables with fixed schema

The prediction that equivariance reduces sample complexity by a factor of |G| appears in roughly every paper on geometric deep learning and is measured as an actual scaling law in roughly none of them. This paper does the measurement. The methodology is the interesting part. Naive estimators conflate group order with task difficulty (larger groups induce harder symmetry structure, not just more constraint), so the authors derive a relative exchange rate that cancels the shared difficulty out, meaning roughly how much less data the equivariant model needs compared to a vanilla baseline as a function of n, on a controlled C_n-symmetric task where n is a free knob. They also pre-specify a failure taxonomy: explicit conditions that would count as evidence against the hypothesis before seeing results. The headline number is beta_diff ~ 1.28, consistent with the theoretical 1.0. But the more durable finding is the wrong-group control : a model built with the wrong cyclic symmetry, same orbit size and same compute budget, is actively worse than no constraint. Not noise. The joint pairwise CI [+0.79, +3.26] excludes zero robustly across every estimator they run. Misalignment isn't just unhelpful; it is harmful. There is also a clean mathematical result slipped into Sec. 4.3: augmentation + test-time orbit averaging is exactly equivariant for output-pooling architectures, provably and verified to bit-identical training curves. The architecture-vs-augmentation gap collapses to whether you apply the orbit average at test time, not to anything structural. This seems underappreciated. The paper is unusually transparent about what it didn't nail: the relative-rate estimator was adopted post-hoc, the two-level bootstrap CI (seeds x group sizes) includes zero, and a finer-N replication on a sqrt(2)-spaced grid is inconclusive. They rank their findings explicitly by robustness. The wrong-group result is the one they would stake a claim on. The exchange rate is directionally probable

Now that almost everyone can use AI tools, I’m curious what skill will actually separate people moving forward. Is it prompting? Taste and judgment? Knowing how to verify outputs? Domain expertise? Workflow design? Or something else? My current take is that AI makes execution faster, but it does not replace knowing what good work should look like. The people who can guide, check, and apply AI well may become more valuable than people who only know how to generate outputs. What skill do you think will matter most in the next few years? submitted by /u/GlobalOpsNotes [link] [留言]

Yeah, so "AI will eat the world" or "AI changes everything" - well, its certainly changed traffic patterns on the web. submitted by /u/Objective_Farm_1886 [link] [留言]

A few weeks back I had an agent reconciling a vendor list. It ran clean. No error, no crash, output...

The USDA this week confirmed the first known infection of the carnivorous fly larva, which feast on the flesh of living mammals, after the United States eradicated the nightmare bugs in the 1960s.

With just two weeks to go, StrictlyVC Los Angeles is quickly approaching. On Thursday, June 18, at The Aerospace Corporation Campus in El Segundo, investors, founders, and tech leaders will gather for an evening of conversation exploring some of the most consequential shifts taking place across venture capital, defense technology, artificial intelligence, and advanced industry. Secure your spot here. […]

Can an AI decide that it's going to nefariously drive the human it's interacting with slowly insane? submitted by /u/Numerous-Cup1863 [link] [留言]

Hello everyone! It has been a busy week, but I've made some exciting progress on my machine learning journey. Here is what I've been up to: Kaggle Orbit Wars & AWS I completed the baseline implementation for the Kaggle Orbit Wars competition and initially hit a score of around 1030. My score has dipped slightly over the past few days, so I am currently brainstorming ways to improve it. This week also marked my very first time using AWS! I used it to extract data for reinforcement learning. Transparency check: I spent exactly $7.58 USD on AWS resources during the process. Paper Reading & RL Insights I spent a lot of time reading research papers this week. AlphaZero: I was initially excited about using the self-play mechanism from AlphaZero. However, because this specific game has rock-paper-scissors dynamics, standard self-play might not work effectively. AlphaStar: This led me to the AlphaStar paper, which uses self-play combined with League Training . The engineering behind AlphaStar is incredible. Two specific concepts really stood out to me: Pointer Networks and V-trace off-policy correction . I was also impressed by their use of an LSTM core to handle long-term memory. Next Steps Moving forward, I plan to leverage Kaggle, AWS, and GCP credits to train different components of my model. I am giving myself total freedom to experiment, imagine, and test unconventional solutions. Random life update to close out the week: I used to have long hair because I was insecure about my forehead, but I finally decided to shave it all off at home by myself. It honestly feels really weird right now, but it's a fresh start!

submitted by /u/esporx [link] [留言]

On August 19, Startup Battlefield is returning to Sydney in partnership with Stripe, one of the world's most iconic technology companies. We're taking over Stripe Tour Sydney for a night that the Australian startup ecosystem won't forget.

These to seem to be confused and mixed up often. How do you pick those apart? submitted by /u/phamsung [link] [留言]

Meta was previously reported to be exploring facial recognition for its smart glasses.

submitted by /u/WrongdoerRough4712 [link] [留言]

Hi, everyone I am working as a Software engineer. The past few years I oversleep a little bit in scope of AI mostly because I am sceptical about it. I decided that I would like to move on and be more up to date with it and potential use of it. How do you use it in day to day habits or work? How to monetize it? submitted by /u/Blvckhype [link] [留言]

Musk can't be trusted to protect X user privacy, public commenters warn FTC.