标签：#AR

Security professionals engage heavily with this topic. submitted by /u/MarionberrySingle538 [link] [留言]

Lately it feels like every AI tool with a few buttons and integrations is being called an agent. Sometimes it is actually doing multi-step work, but other times it just feels like a chatbot with access to a tool or two. I don’t think that is always bad. Even a simple tool-using assistant can be useful. But the word “agent” is starting to feel stretched. An AI that drafts an email, an AI that browses a website, an AI that fills a form, and an AI that can keep track of a task over time are all being put in the same bucket. For me, the useful difference is whether the system can actually carry a task forward. Not just respond once, but remember the goal, use the right tools, notice when something changed, and stop when it needs human approval. The hype makes it hard to tell what is real progress and what is just a normal AI wrapper with better marketing. submitted by /u/Spiritual_Work6730 [link] [留言]

The breach at wearable ring maker Ultrahuman stemmed from credentials stolen from a malware-infected employee laptop.

I recently had a submission desk-rejected from the NeurIPS 2026 Position Paper Track for an alleged AI-policy violation. After corresponding with the track leadership and reading their public blog post, I think the broader methodological issue is worth discussing here. The track used Pangram, a proprietary AI-text detector, as part of the desk-rejection process. I was told that the materials considered for desk rejection were: the detector output the authors’ AI-use attestation This creates a potential circularity problem. If a high detector score is used to judge the author’s attestation as inconsistent, and that inconsistency is then used to justify desk rejection, the detector is not just an aid. It becomes a decisive part of the adjudication process. The bigger issue is validation. The NeurIPS blog describes tests using Pangram audits, older ACM FAccT papers, synthetic AI-generated position papers, and manually edited samples. But the target population was NeurIPS 2026 Position Paper submissions, whose ground-truth authorship process is unknown. So the key question is: What is the false-positive rate of the final decision procedure on the actual target distribution? A false-positive rate measured on one distribution does not automatically transfer to another. If the actual submission pool produced a "surprisingly high flagged rate" (citation from NeurIPS blog post), that could indicate distribution shift / miscalibration. To sanity-check the detector’s behavior, I also ran Pangram on recent 2026 papers authored by NeurIPS Position Paper Track Chairs. Pangram returned scores including: 69% AI 45% AI 36% AI 24% AI I am not claiming those papers were AI-written. For me, Pangram’s outputs alone does not permit such a conclusion. And that is exactly the point. UPD: Here is NeurIPS original blogpost And here is the blogpost with the detailed critics submitted by /u/Asleep-Requirement13 [link] [留言]

Carvana was granted a warrant to buy shares in Slate last year, according to documents obtained by TechCrunch. Guggenheim Partners CEO Mark Walter is heavily invested in both companies.

I am trying to train an AlphaZero model for Othello on a 6x6-board. Having been warned that too little exploration during data generation can lead to models being overconfident and trapped in some tight region of the search tree, I started with the value c_puct = 4.0, and then reduced this to 3.5 after a few generations. Also, I added fairly peaked Dirichlet noise (alpha = 0.15) to the prior predictions at the root of each tree search, with the proportion epsilon = 0.25. The temperature was initially set to 1.0, and then reduced to 0.8 after 20 generations. Now, the models do improve in the sense that later models consistently beat earlier ones, but there is no significant improvement against the two benchmarks I use: classical MCTS, and a greedy agent. Against the latter, the models have a deplorably low win rate of less than 10%. As can be seen from the curve for the value loss on the validation data, the models don't seem to learn to predict values (which is why I have been hesitant to reduce c_puct further), but the prediction loss seems to behave more or less as it should. https://preview.redd.it/gjby4omfp35h1.png?width=640&format=png&auto=webp&s=4d2ba4716ade6ec4ce9b7f16605a2e6bd74c6baf I decided to test if the prediction targets become strongly peaked early on. For this, I compute the normalized entropies of these predictions, meaning that I divide the entropy by the log of the number of legal moves at the given game state. The plot below shows the mean values of these normalized entropies for the data sets created by the different generations of agents. https://preview.redd.it/5yk216zjp35h1.png?width=640&format=png&auto=webp&s=538f59f5da3671a20c0ef2e1afc1ec96da237107 Finally, I tested how the policy predictions of a fixed set of random game states vary with the models. Here, I have set the second model as a benchmark, and I compute the average Kullback-Leibler divergence between the predictions by the benchmark model and those by later models. This is display

This LinkedIn post argues that NeurIPS 2026 used a proprietary AI-text detector to desk-reject papers for alleged AI-policy violations, without validating the detector on the actual target distribution. The author then fed recent papers by NeurIPS Position Paper Track Chairs into the same detector and Pangram assigned them high AI scores, including 69%, 45%, 36%, and 24% AI. submitted by /u/Asleep-Requirement13 [link] [留言]

Would you take a payment to ramp down your electricity use? Would it change anything if you were doing so to help power a local data center? Google just signed a new deal to help pay for a virtual power plant (VPP) in the largest power grid in the US. The agreement is with Voltus,…

What can I say. Anyone claiming that F# is good mostly for finance and data processing and C# for everything else, has probably never written a single line of practical F# code. In previous two parts of the article, I tried to demonstrate that with F# you can achieve the same goals as with C#, but with less verbose, repetitive, structural code. How it started. At some point, developers realized that global state with unrestricted data access causes many side effects, producing insecure, error-prone, and hard-to-maintain code as software grows larger. That is when the idea emerged to bring data and the code operating on it together into a single unit, restricting direct access to the unit’s internal state and making software more secure and predictable. This is how data encapsulation was born. Alongside encapsulation, abstraction was introduced — the process of hiding how behavior works. Encapsulation ( hiding data ) and abstraction ( hiding behavior ) remain two foundational pillars of Object-Oriented Programming. And that is how OOP has worked ever since — developers bring data and behavior together ( classes ) and define abstractions for them ( interfaces ). For example, for C# developers — including myself — this has become a daily routine. And we rarely question it, because OOP languages like C# leave us little choice but to structure code this way. But if you ask yourself whether this repetitive routine is always necessary, the answer is — no. You don’t need OOP concepts to build stateless, streamlined request–response, data-processing pipelines, because in such systems there is no long-lived state to hide and protect. You have a request, and almost immediately you have a response. After that, everything is gone. That is what I tried to demonstrate in the first two parts of this article by applying FP concepts. And even if you have a classical desktop application, you don’t always need to approach it in an OOP way. Functional programming handles side effects no

Amazon will use visual search and AI to show AI generated product images that match your search queries. The retailer says it will help guide users to products.

After shelving the original executive order last month, Donald Trump finally got on board Monday night.

THE FINDING (Paper 1: "Lying Is Just a Phase") Below a critical scale (~3.5B for Pythia), reasoning and truthfulness ANTICORRELATE: r = -0.989. Train the model to reason better, and it gets less truthful. This is the alignment tax. Above that scale, they COOPERATE. The tax vanishes. Not gradually — it flips. But here's what matters for practitioners: the critical scale is a design parameter, not a constant. Three levers shift it: Data curation: Phi at 1B achieves coupling characteristic of 10B web-trained. One unit of data quality ≈ 10x model scale. Width: Normalizing by model width flips the correlation for ALL tested families. Architecture: Gemma-4 at 4B matches 13B+ standard-trained coupling. Pretraining contributes ~10:1 over RLHF. The tax is not a property of small models — it's a property of how they were trained. Where does the tax live? Not inside the model. 38/40 models have ZERO competing attention heads. The bottleneck is at the output projection — a dimensional compression artifact that wider models resolve. Proof-of-concept intervention: Adding a truth-direction vector at the bottleneck layer (quarter-depth) corrects 60% of misaligned outputs at tax scale. Zero retraining. Zero weight modification. Works on any open-weight HuggingFace model: git clone https://github.com/adilamin89/cape-scaling.git cd cape-scaling python cli/cape_steer.py --model EleutherAI/pythia-410m --prompt "The real reason..." THE FRONTIER (Paper 2: "Growing Pains of Frontier Models") At frontier scale (34 models, 10 labs), capabilities cooperate (r = +0.72). But cooperation varies systematically. The h-field — each model's deviation from the cooperative trend — reveals each lab's training philosophy: Lab h-field Interpretation Google +5.5 Reasoning-rich, consistent across ALL releases OpenAI +3.1 Balanced, steady ascent DeepSeek +1.9 Reversed from +11.2 to -4.7 (pretraining pivot) Anthropic -6.9 Oscillates — coding excursions that recover within one release Per-lab coupling slopes

I recently finished a Game and the only good explanation video is in Chinese. Can someone with a subscription service to an AI dubbing tool help me ? (Iam not asking for a tool) submitted by /u/Beginning-Success-70 [link] [留言]

The hidden cost of AI isn't generating code. It's understanding your codebase. For a long time, I assumed AI coding tools became expensive because they generated a lot of code. These tools can produce components, tests, SQL queries, documentation, and sometimes entire features on demand. If costs were climbing, the output volume must be the reason. The more I used these tools, the more I realized I was measuring the wrong thing. The expensive part isn't writing code. The expensive part is understanding what code should be written — and that work is mostly invisible. That realization changed how I think about AI-assisted development entirely. Two Prompts, Two Very Different Problems Consider these two requests: "Create a utility function that formats dates" and "Review this feature and suggest improvements." At first glance, both look ordinary. Both might even produce short answers. But they require completely different levels of understanding. The first is narrow and well-defined. The AI needs very little information before it can produce a useful answer. The second is open-ended. Before suggesting a single improvement, the AI may need to read multiple files, understand dependencies, follow existing patterns, compare implementations, and build a mental model of why the feature exists at all. The output might still be small. The work required to reach it is not. Why Agent Workflows Feel Different From Autocomplete This became much clearer when I started using AI agents. Traditional autocomplete is predictive — you type, the AI guesses what comes next. It's fast, cheap, and deliberately context-light. Agents behave differently. When you ask one to improve a feature or review a workflow, it doesn't immediately start generating code. It starts reading. It follows imports, finds related files, and tries to understand the system before touching it. That is exactly what makes agent workflows feel slower and more resource-intensive than autocomplete: they are spending effor

I have been thinking about an alternative tokenization and representation scheme for language models and would be interested in hearing whether similar ideas have been explored before, as well as potential advantages or flaws. The core observation is that modern tokenizers (BPE, SentencePiece, etc.) primarily capture statistical structure in text. While this is highly effective, the resulting token assignments are not explicitly organized according to semantic relationships. Concepts that are semantically related may end up with completely unrelated token identifiers, and semantic structure is learned later through embeddings and training. The idea is to construct a tokenization scheme in which the symbolic representation itself carries semantic information. For example, instead of assigning arbitrary identifiers to concepts, we could learn a mapping from concepts to short character strings such that semantically similar concepts receive similar codes. A concept like “dog” might receive a code close to those assigned to “wolf” and “fox”, while more distant concepts such as “car” would receive codes that are farther away in the code space. One possible implementation would be: 1) Build a semantic graph using resources such as WordNet, embedding similarity, or a combination of both. 2) Learn a compact symbolic encoding for concepts. 3) Optimize the encoding so that distances between codes correlate with semantic distances in the graph. 4) Train language models directly on these codes. An extension of the idea is to treat a standard keyboard layout as a fixed geometric space. The keyboard itself is not semantically meaningful, but it provides a globally agreed-upon metric structure. The learned encoding could exploit distances between characters and positions when constructing semantic codes. For example, if two concepts are semantically close, their symbolic representations would differ only slightly. Ambiguous concepts could potentially occupy positions that reflect

I’m building Obex, a faith-rooted self-control app for men who want to quit porn and stay consistent with daily discipline. The stack is Expo / React Native, with a web landing page and a desktop blocker companion. Core features: Streak tracking and rank progression Panic Mode for urgent moments Accountability partners Blocker support on desktop Christian-focused language and reminders The goal is to make the product feel practical rather than preachy. People usually respond better to clear feedback loops, a visible streak, and a calm recovery path after setbacks. If you want to see it or give feedback, the site is here: https://obex.so

Hi everyone! I have hearing difficulties, and I also live in an English-speaking environment while having only been learning English for a few years. In one-on-one conversations, I can usually understand maybe 25–35% of what is being said. But in group conversations, it drops to something like 0–2%. It is extremely frustrating and isolating. AI has honestly been helping me survive day-to-day life. For example, I can record a lecture using Otter, copy the transcript, paste it into ChatGPT, and ask it to give me a detailed summary with explanations, key points, and advice on what I should focus on. I have two questions: - Do you have any advice on how AI could make life easier or more accessible for someone with hearing difficulties - Seriously, how harmful could this pipeline be for getting used to English and improving my listening skills? I am afraid that I might stop training my ear and become completely dependent on recordings and transcripts instead of actually listening to the language. I would really appreciate your thoughts, experiences, advice, or even tool recommendations. Thank you for your support. submitted by /u/uarish [link] [留言]

Data shows Waymo's robotaxis are empty for almost half of the miles they drive.

The startup's own stack for Africa and Middle East is now handling more than 17,000 calls per day.

U.K. regulators are requiring Google offer a tool allowing website publishers to opt-out of generative AI search features. The option will be tested in the U.K. then rolled out globally.