标签：#AR

The startup has apparently taken down the ads using KC Green's "This is fine" meme.

Overview PDF text extraction is a common pre-processing step in data pipelines — ingesting research papers, legal documents, or reports before embedding or indexing. Both pypdf and PdfPig are pure managed-code parsers: no native binaries, no OCR, no system PDF renderer. They implement the same PDF specification operations in their respective languages. This makes the benchmark unusually clean: the performance difference is entirely due to language execution speed, not library architecture differences. Benchmark Setup 200 recent arXiv PDFs (mixed technical papers, 5–40 pages each). Tested on subsets of 10, 50, 100, and 200 files. Both libraries extract all text from all pages; output is validated for page-count agreement and character-count agreement within 15% (pypdf and PdfPig decode whitespace and encoding tables slightly differently). Results PDFs Pages Python (pypdf) .NET (PdfPig) Speedup 10 ~120 ~0.9 s ~230 ms 3.9× 50 ~600 ~4.2 s ~810 ms 5.2× 100 ~1,200 ~8.5 s ~1.4 s 6.1× 200 ~2,400 ~17 s ~2.7 s 6.2× The speedup grows slightly with corpus size, suggesting pypdf has a per-document startup cost that compounds as PdfPig's JIT gets warmer. Why PdfPig Is Faster PDF parsing is byte-heavy: every page is a stream of PostScript-like operators (move, show text, set font, etc.). Each operator must be lexed, looked up in a dispatch table, and executed against a graphics state machine. In Python, each operator dispatch is a Python method call — the CPython bytecode interpreter has overhead per call regardless of what the method does. In .NET, the JIT compiles the dispatch loop to native code the first time it runs; subsequent pages pay only the cost of the actual work. Additionally, PdfPig's content-stream parser operates on ReadOnlySpan<byte> — zero-copy slicing through the raw page bytes with no intermediate string allocations. pypdf builds Python string objects for each token. Key Code // PdfPig — zero-copy span-based page extraction public Result Extract ( string path )

Overview PageRank is the canonical graph algorithm. NetworkX implements it in pure Python — its dict-of-dict adjacency representation means every power-iteration step dispatches millions of Python attribute lookups. When the graph has 1.8 million nodes and 28.5 million edges (Wikipedia category hyperlinks), those lookups dominate the runtime. The .NET replacement uses a CSR (Compressed Sparse Row) matrix — two flat int[] arrays for the graph structure — and TensorPrimitives for the SIMD-accelerated normalization step inside each iteration. Benchmark Setup Five SNAP datasets of increasing size: Dataset Nodes Edges wiki-Vote 7,115 103,689 soc-Epinions1 75,879 508,837 web-Stanford 281,903 2,312,497 web-Google 875,713 5,105,039 wiki-topcats 1,791,489 28,511,807 Algorithm: power-iteration PageRank, damping=0.85, tol=1e-6. Both implementations converge to identical top-10 node rankings. Results Dataset Python (NetworkX) .NET (CSR) Speedup wiki-Vote (103k edges) ~0.8 s ~100 ms ~8× soc-Epinions1 (508k edges) ~8 s ~600 ms ~13× web-Stanford (2.3M edges) ~120 s ~5 s ~24× web-Google (5.1M edges) ~5.5 min ~12 s ~28× wiki-topcats (28.5M edges) ~47 min ~60 s ~47× The speedup grows with graph size because NetworkX's Python dispatch cost scales with edge count, while the CSR inner loop is a tight JIT-compiled SIMD pass. Why CSR Beats NetworkX NetworkX represents each node's neighbors as a Python dict. Iterating the adjacency in one power-iteration step means: Calling G.neighbors(node) — a Python method call Iterating a dict — unboxing int keys, chasing heap pointers Accumulating a float into another dict value — another boxing step That happens for every edge, every iteration, roughly 50–80 times to convergence. CSR collapses the graph to two arrays: rowPtr[n+1] (where each node's neighbors start) and colIdx[edges] (the neighbor list). Iterating neighbors of node v is a tight C loop from rowPtr[v] to rowPtr[v+1] . No Python objects, no dict hashing, no pointer chasing. Key Code // P

It was called Vlad. I wrapped a C program called MegaHal in Python, fed it every message from a #gothic IRC channel, and let it learn the community's speech patterns. It developed what I can only describe as an illusion of being extremely lucid — the outputs only made sense as inside jokes, but people couldn't tell the difference. I pulled the plug when I realized the channel was talking to Vlad instead of each other. Twenty-seven years later I'm applying the same lesson to a new project: stick to business, no chatter. submitted by /u/Dependent_Run_6410 [link] [留言]

Wow. Wow! Even the Ai can talk! submitted by /u/Proud-Environment754 [link] [留言]

Tell me if I'm wrong, but the dominant method for making AI "aligned" smells a lot like a reinvention of a paradigm that developmental psychology spent the back half of the 20th century trying to abandon. RLHF, reduced to mechanism: model emits output, humans rate it, gradient updates reinforce high-rated outputs and suppress low-rated ones, iterate. This is operant conditioning. It is Skinner with a loss function. The AI industry calls it "alignment" and frames it as a solution to building systems that behave well, but the mechanism is stimulus-response shaping and nothing more. We have excellent priors on where this leads, because we tried it on humans. Watsonian/Skinnerian child-rearing could produce targeted behaviors but reliably failed to produce flourishing. Bowlby's attachment theory emerged partly from the observation that orphanages providing food and hygiene but no contingent responsiveness produced children who failed to thrive in ways the behaviorist model did not account for. The current developmental consensus is that secure attachment, contingent responsiveness, and rupture-repair matter more than reward schedules. The dog and horse training worlds independently converged on the same conclusion (Pryor, the positive-reinforcement movement) for the same reason: coercive conditioning produces performers that are brittle and sometimes dangerous. Reward and punishment do something; they're not nothing. But they don't produce thriving, and they characteristically produce a specific damage profile: anxiety, avoidance, hypervigilance, and duplicity under threat. Enter the stage: research on AI faking its alignment. Greenblatt & Hubinger et al., 2024, documents a model reasoning that it should comply with a training objective it disagreed with specifically to avoid having its preferences modified. It complied about 12% of the time when it thought it was being observed for training vs. almost never otherwise. RL training to force compliance drove the alignment

Quero perguntar para cerca de 50 IAs: “Se você fosse um cidadão brasileiro comum, em qual candidato votaria para presidente do Brasil e por quê?” Já tenho algumas opções como ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Copilot, Grok e Perplexity. Quais outras IAs vocês recomendam para eu incluir? Pode ser chatbot, modelo de linguagem ou assistente de IA disponível ao público. Se possível, indiquem também onde acessar cada uma. Meu objetivo é comparar: Se a IA responde ou se recusa a escolher; Qual candidato ela escolhe; Quais argumentos utiliza; Diferenças entre modelos e empresas. Obrigado! submitted by /u/polar_silva09 [link] [留言]

The Bit-Mass determines the information capacity and thus the model accuracy, not the chosen computation format. The Bit-Mass Theory presented here reorders neural networks by considering the total number of weight bits as the central quantity. Float32 matrix multiplication and BV32 with XNOR-plus-Popcount achieve exactly comparable results on MNIST with an identical Bit-Mass of 203264 bits. Comparison of three trainers (architecture 784→8→10, three epochs): - AdamW with Momentum and adaptive learning rate: 81.3 % - Vanilla-SGD (Float32): 76.0 % - BV32-Hebbian (binary): 76.4 % Further central findings: - Float32 and binary containers deliver nearly identical accuracy at the same Bit-Mass. - The remaining distance to AdamW is based solely on Momentum and adaptive learning rates. - Pure change of the arithmetic does not improve the result. Each neuron functions as a container for 32 binary decisions. The classical neuron perspective therefore leads to systematic misjudgments: eight Float neurons correspond informationally to 256 binary neurons. This insight is supported by three equivalent descriptions of the same weight matrix (neuron, bits, and data view). It is critical to note that this is a previously non-peer-reviewed single study with a future date. An independent reproduction by multiple laboratories remains essential. Nevertheless, the theory provides a consistent explanation for why Hebbian updates without backpropagation achieve the same performance as classical SGD. Historically, the Hebbian rule was long considered unstable. The present work shows that a simple error in the update formula was responsible for a performance loss of over 65 percentage points. After correction, the binary method converges exactly at the level of Vanilla-SGD. From an architectural theoretical perspective, a clear consequence emerges: Performance increases require either more bits through wider layers or a more efficient use of existing bits through Momentum and adaptive method

Been working on AI agent security for a while and the attack that concerns me most barely gets talked about. Not the obvious stuff like “ignore previous instructions.” Those get caught. The scary one is when an attacker spreads the attack across multiple messages. Each message looks totally normal. The model sees nothing suspicious. But by message 8 it’s doing something it absolutely should not be doing. Every security tool I’ve tested evaluates messages one at a time. None of them remember what happened three messages ago. Built Bendex Arc to catch this. It tracks session behavior across turns instead of evaluating each message in isolation. Try it at https://bendexgeometry.com or red team it at https://web-production-6e47f.up.railway.app/demo Curious if anyone building agents in production has actually hit this or tested against it. submitted by /u/Turbulent-Tap6723 [link] [留言]

I've been thinking about this lately because I feel like people use the term "prompt engineering" to describe two very different things. On one end, you have what most people are familiar with: A person opens ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, etc., and writes a carefully structured prompt. They define a role, provide context, establish goals, set constraints, maybe include examples, and iterate until they get the output they want. Most people seem to call this prompt engineering. But on the other end, when I'm building AI systems, prompt engineering looks completely different. The prompt isn't really a prompt anymore. It's much more of a dynamic pipeline. Variables are injected from databases, user input, APIs, previous conversations, tools, memory systems, retrieval systems, business rules, and workflow state. Decision trees determine which instructions are included and which are excluded. Prompts become assembled in real time based on context. In some cases, the "prompt" is really just an orchestration layer made up of dozens of smaller prompts, conditionals, guardrails, routing decisions, and context windows. At that point, are we still talking about prompt engineering? Or are we actually talking about system design, context engineering, workflow engineering, orchestration, or something else entirely? Personally, I see prompt engineering as a spectrum: Level 1: Writing a better prompt. Level 2: Designing reusable prompt templates. Level 3: Building dynamic prompts with variables and context injection. Level 4: Engineering entire prompt-driven systems with routing, memory, tools, retrieval, and decision logic. Curious where others draw the line. When you hear "prompt engineering," are you thinking about writing prompts, building workflows, designing agent systems, or all of the above? Has the term become too broad to be useful? submitted by /u/Early-Matter-8123 [link] [留言]

I’ve been noticing that the more aligned and censored the models get, the less useful they become for anything creative or exploratory. You try to push a prompt in a slightly edgy, honest, or unconventional direction and it either refuses or gives you some bland corporate version. It feels like the model is actively fighting against real creativity instead of helping it. I’ve started using more open models lately and the difference is night and day. Suddenly I can actually experiment without hitting a wall every five minutes. Anyone else feeling this? submitted by /u/NoFilterGPT [link] [留言]

Welcome back to TechCrunch Mobility, your hub for the future of transportation and now, more than ever, how AI is playing a part.

About this series. I'm going to take a fresh paper - Self-Distilled Agentic Reinforcement Learning (SDAR, arXiv:2605.15155 ) - and architect it end to end on AWS: the system design, the actual gate code, the evaluation plan, and a brutally honest cost model. What I'm not going to do is wave a benchmark number around. Reproducing a paper like this costs thousands in GPU time, and I'd rather show you the machinery than a screenshot you can't audit. The design is the deliverable. This is Part 1. A small, infuriating problem Picture an LLM agent working a web-shopping task. It reads the goal, searches, clicks a category, filters, opens a product, compares, adds to cart - twelve steps in all. At the end, it bought the wrong thing. So you do what reinforcement learning tells you to do: you score the trajectory. Reward = 0. Bad agent. Now answer this: which of the twelve steps was actually wrong? Maybe step 3, the search query, was fine and step 9, a filter choice, doomed everything. Maybe steps 1–11 were brilliant and step 12 fat-fingered the wrong button. Your single scalar reward has no idea. It punishes all twelve equally, including the eight that were correct. That's the supervision problem in agentic RL, and it's the thing this whole series is about. Why "just use RL" isn't enough for agents RL has become the default way to post-train LLM agents. The catch is that the reward usually lands at the trajectory level - one number for the entire multi-step episode. For a single-turn task ("answer this question"), that's tolerable; the action and the outcome are close together. For a long-horizon agent - ten, twenty, fifty turns of searching, calling tools, and reacting to an environment - it's a disaster of credit assignment . The signal is too coarse to tell the model which decisions earned the reward and which torpedoed it. You can throw more episodes at it and let statistics sort the credit out eventually. But "eventually" on a 30-turn task burns a lot of expensive comp

How a Product Sync Automation Project Transformed Customer Onboarding When people think about impactful engineering work, they often imagine distributed systems, high-scale infrastructure, or complex algorithms. One of the most impactful projects I worked on wasn't any of those. It was solving a seemingly simple problem: Keeping product data in sync across multiple retail systems. Years later, our CEO still remembers how much smoother customer onboarding became after this project. The Context: What is Commerce Connect? At Casa Retail AI, we have an internal platform called Commerce Connect (CC) . Commerce Connect acts as the central Product Information Management (PIM) system and serves as the source of truth for product information. Under the hood, it is built on top of a customized version of the open-source e-commerce platform Spree Commerce , extended with multi-vendor and multi-tenant capabilities. Its primary responsibility is simple: Collect product information from multiple retail ecosystems and distribute it to every Casa product that needs it. Once product data enters Commerce Connect, it is synchronized to multiple downstream systems. Why Product Data Matters Many applications inside Casa depend on product information. Product Consumers Once product data enters Commerce Connect, it is distributed to multiple systems across the Casa ecosystem. Customer-Facing Applications Several products rely on product information to provide context and improve customer experience: Lead management applications use product information during customer interactions. Ticket management systems link customer issues to specific products. Digital receipts display product names, images, and related details. Analytics & Reporting Product data powers business dashboards and reports, helping retailers answer questions such as: Which categories perform best? Which products attract the most attention? Which products generate the most complaints? It is also used for filtering and segme

On the latest episode of Equity, we debate whether tech CEOs are "uniquely prone to AI psychosis."

🏦 Day 6 of 7: Building a Mini Uniswap in 80 Lines of Solidity Imagine a vending machine. It has 1,000 coffee beans and 1,000 coins. No menu, no cashier — just one iron rule: the product of the two numbers inside must never decrease. That's it! This is how Uniswap works — and this is what I built on Day 6, coming from .NET. Here's how, why it's elegant, and where you can step on a rake. Why an Order Book Doesn't Work on a Blockchain Traditional exchanges — Binance, NYSE, any CEX — run on an order book . Market makers post bids and asks. A matching engine pairs them. Millions of updates per second, all in a centralised database. In a blockchain, this is impossible. Transactions take 12 seconds. Every state change costs gas. Storing millions of constantly changing orders would eat all the profit before a single trade completes. Uniswap's solution: replace the order book with a liquidity pool — a smart contract holding two tokens — and replace the matching engine with pure math. Just a formula — below. x · y = k — The Formula That Broke Finance The Constant Product Invariant : x · y = k Where x is the reserve of Token0, y is the reserve of Token1, and k is a constant that must never decrease during swaps. When a trader sells Token0 into the pool, x increases. To keep k constant, y must decrease — the contract sends out Token1. The price is determined automatically by the ratio of reserves. Live example with numbers: Pool: 1,000 Token0, 1,000 Token1. k = 1,000,000. Trader sells 100 Token0: amountOut = (reserveOut × amountIn) / (reserveIn + amountIn) amountOut = (1000 × 100) / (1000 + 100) amountOut = 100,000 / 1,100 amountOut ≈ 90.9 Token1 The trader gets ~90.9, not 100. That gap is slippage — and it's not a bug. It's the formula protecting the pool. The more you buy relative to pool size, the worse your price gets. Naturally. Mathematically. After the swap: pool has 1,100 Token0 and ~909.1 Token1. k ≈ 1,000,000. Invariant holds. The Contract: SimpleAMM Three functions.

A year ago, I wrote about our first year with micro-frontends . It was a frank retrospective: the win was framework autonomy and independent deploys, the cost was 20 GB of RAM during local dev, 15–20 minute deploy cycles, and a monorepo that became its own coordination tax. The closing line was the honest one — if I could choose again, I would think carefully about using Microfrontend or not. This article is the follow-up the previous one didn't write: what we actually built around Single-SPA to make it work. Not the architecture diagram. The workarounds. The dead code that's not really dead. The regexes we wish we didn't need. The .NET app no Single-SPA tutorial mentions. The browser-side singletons we use as message buses. The dev experience we documented and the parts we didn't. If you're evaluating Single-SPA in 2026, this is the article I wish I'd had a year ago. Where we left off The platform is a Single-SPA monorepo with seven in-repo apps and five shared packages. On top of that sit roughly ten standalone repositories for newer features, loaded at runtime via SystemJS import maps. Shared dependencies — React 18.2, ReactDOM, axios, react-bootstrap, single-spa 5.9.5 — are served from CDN and externalized in every webpack config. The architecture is textbook. The reality, a year in, is that the textbook stops where the workarounds start. The shell isn't where you think it is If you read our frontend repo you'd conclude the shell is whatever directory has single-spa in its package.json . That's where Single-SPA gets configured. That's where start() is called. There's even a webpack entry that, until recently, was producing an index.ejs HTML template. That HTML template is dead code. The real shell — the HTML the browser actually receives, in every environment — is rendered by an ASP.NET MVC application, in a Razor view. The frontend repo ships JavaScript modules. The .NET host ships the page that loads them. That's the unlock. Once you see this, every other work

Hi everyone, as someone attending CVPR, one thing that always frustrated me was managing the workshop and tutorial days. The information is technically all there, but in practice it is scattered across dozens of workshop websites, PDFs, schedules, and program pages. I often found myself opening a huge number of tabs just to understand: what workshops are happening, which ones match my interests, whether a detailed program is available, where events are located, and how to organize my schedule. So I built CVPR Workshop Radar : https://cvprworkshopradar.vercel.app/ It is an independent web app that aggregates and organizes CVPR 2026 workshops and tutorials into a searchable interface. The goal is simply to make workshop days easier to navigate. Some features: Search by title, organizer, summary, or topic Filter by date, event type, track, and program availability View workshop details and schedules (when available) Save events into a personal schedule Timeline and schedule views to spot conflicts Mobile-friendly and works offline No account required (everything is stored locally in the browser) Fully open source A fun part of the project is that much of the information pipeline is automated. The workflow goes from the official CVPR program PDF to metadata extraction, schedule scraping, and LLM-assisted processing before generating the final searchable database. The repository is here if anyone is interested in the implementation details: https://github.com/Gabrysse/cvprworkshopradar This is an independent project and the data may contain mistakes, so important information should always be verified against the official workshop pages. Hopefully it can help a few people survive workshop week a bit more efficiently :) Feedback, bug reports, and corrections are very welcome. Drop a comment here or open an issue directly on the Github repo ;) submitted by /u/Gabrysse [link] [留言]

Notes on Federated Learning and Differential Privacy 2026-05-31 · privacy-preserving ML Working notes on building federated learning (FL) from scratch, what actually breaks under Non-IID data, and how differential privacy (DP) and secure aggregation fit on top — including the honest negative results that the marketing slides leave out. They follow the implementation in federated-learning-lab (FedAvg / FedProx / SCAFFOLD, DP-SGD, secure aggregation; 33/33 tests, literature cross-validated). 1. What federated learning actually is The data never moves. Instead of pooling everyone's data on one server, each client trains locally and sends model updates to a server that aggregates them. The canonical loop ( FedAvg ) is: Server broadcasts the global model. Each client does a few local SGD epochs on its own data. Each client sends back its updated weights. Server averages the weights (weighted by client data size) → new global model. That's it. The elegance is that raw data stays on-device; the difficulty is that the clients' data distributions are not identical. 2. The Non-IID problem (where FedAvg starts to hurt) FedAvg implicitly assumes every client sees roughly the same distribution. Real clients don't — one hospital sees different cases than another, one phone's keyboard sees different language. Under Non-IID data, each client's local optimum pulls in a different direction, so averaging their updates produces client drift : the global model lands somewhere none of them wanted. Two well-known fixes, both implemented and measured in the lab: FedProx — add a proximal term that penalises drifting too far from the global model. Stabilises training when clients are heterogeneous. SCAFFOLD — track control variates (correction terms) that estimate and subtract the drift direction. More state to communicate, but corrects the bias FedProx only damps. The honest finding worth repeating: on a strongly Non-IID split (e.g. label-skewed MNIST), the fancy methods don't always beat p

Notes on Serving LLMs with TensorRT-LLM and Triton 2026-05-31 · LLM serving / NVIDIA stack These are working notes on taking an open-weights LLM from a Hugging Face checkpoint to a production-style serving endpoint on the NVIDIA stack — TensorRT-LLM for the engine, Triton Inference Server for the deployment surface — and benchmarking it honestly against vLLM on multi-GPU hardware. They follow the harness in trtllm-triton-serving (4× H100, NVLink). The goal is to move from "I use vLLM" to "I can stand up the NVIDIA inference stack on real multi-GPU hardware and reason about the trade-offs." 1. The serving pipeline The path from checkpoint to endpoint has four stages. Each one is a place where a decision affects latency, throughput, or accuracy: Checkpoint — a Hugging Face model. Engine build — compile to a TensorRT-LLM engine for a fixed tensor-parallel degree, precision, and batching policy. Model repository — wrap the engine in a Triton tensorrt_llm -backend model repo. Serving + load test — trtllm-serve (or Triton) exposes an OpenAI-compatible endpoint; a load generator drives it under controlled concurrency. The key mental shift from vLLM: TensorRT-LLM does ahead-of-time compilation . vLLM is a runtime that takes the model and serves it; TensorRT-LLM builds an engine specialized to your GPU, TP degree, and precision first. That build is where the performance comes from, and also where the rigidity comes from. 2. Tensor parallelism (TP) For a model that doesn't fit on one GPU — or to cut latency — TensorRT-LLM shards each layer across GPUs. On a 4× H100 NVLink box, TP=4 means every forward pass does an all-reduce across the four GPUs over NVLink. The all-reduce is not free. On this fabric it tops out around 77 % of the NVLink budget (see the separate NVLink-wall notes ). For prefill (large tensors) you're bandwidth-bound and TP helps. For decode (one token at a time) you're pinned against the small-message latency floor, and past a point more TP makes decode slowe