标签：#AR

0 % vs 50 %: making a RAG agent refuse to hallucinate 2026-05-31 · LLM / RAG A retrieval-augmented agent is only as trustworthy as its behaviour on questions whose answer isn't in the corpus . The failure mode is quiet: instead of saying "I don't know," the model invents a confident, well-formed, wrong answer. This post shows a single guardrail that takes that from common to never — and, crucially, measures it. Reference architecture: nim-agent-blueprint — agentic RAG on the NVIDIA NIM stack with a built-in eval harness. The ablation The agent loop is plan → retrieve → generate → validate . The interesting variable is the generation prompt's contract with the retrieved context: Configuration Out-of-corpus hallucination rate Generate freely from context ~50 % Guarded prompt (answer only from context; otherwise abstain) 0 % Same model, same retriever, same questions. The only change is a prompt that makes "I can't answer that from the provided sources" a first-class, rewarded output — plus a validate step that checks the answer is grounded in retrieved spans before returning it. On in-corpus questions, retrieval recall@3 stayed at 94–100 % , so the guardrail buys safety without costing coverage. Why "just prompt better" isn't the lesson The lesson isn't the prompt — it's that the difference between 50 % and 0 % is invisible without an eval harness . A demo that only asks in-corpus questions looks perfect in both configurations. You only see the 50 % when you deliberately ask things the corpus can't answer and score groundedness . So the blueprint ships with: retrieval hit-rate (is the answer even retrievable?), answer groundedness via LLM-as-judge (is the answer supported by what was retrieved?), latency , and OpenTelemetry traces per agent step. That's the difference between "it works on my five questions" and "here is the number a partner can hold me to." Takeaway For enterprise RAG, abstention is a feature, not a failure. Make "I don't know" a rewarded output, vali

I used to think AI tools were just for tech , software (like you get the point )people or big companies. But I've been experimenting for the past few months like since january start of this year ,and honestly it's changed how I work. Simple things like summarizing long articles, drafting emails, or just brainstorming it saves me so much mental energy. am still learning some though am not fully there submitted by /u/Imaginary_Bake_5820 [link] [留言]

Speaking to TechCrunch, Crunchbase’s head of research Gené Teare, said the factors holding back Black founders include “access to networks, relationships, and early introductions."

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

For Context: I work in a semiconductor manufacturing company as a modelling engineer, I use some modelling softwares etc but none of them use AI. I wanted to understand the whole AI craze nowadays, people say that AI will replace jobs/Increase productivity and I don't get it at all. All I see is a simple chatbot (ChatGPT) which is a super impressive version of google and can solve some basic math/science questions and Co-Pilot in my workplace which I found to be useless, for example the facilitator thing which is supposed to make meeting notes is so bad at summaring meeting minutes etc. I don't think AI is there yet to do very basic things. So yes in theory if AI gets better in few years/decades sure it take the non-technical part of my job like making meeting minutes/making ppt's etc but I think its still not there yet. For AI to take over my job it needs to get the basic shit correct first and then maybe it can do the technical stuff. One really good use-case of AI that i can see is to generate Code based on the project requirement, So I can see how entry level coder's jobs might be affected sure, but that's a very small portion of the economy, right? submitted by /u/the_axe_effect [link] [留言]

Imagine a procurement agent doing exactly what it was supposed to do. A supplier flags a delay. The agent reads the email, finds the affected PO, scans the network for alternate inventory, and reroutes the order. Twelve seconds, end to end. In a demo, the room nods. Someone asks about hallucinations. The vendor says the right things about guardrails. Everyone walks away reassured. The interesting question is a different one. Not whether the agent could be wrong — but what happens on the day it's completely, devastatingly right. The failure mode nobody is demoing: A financial agent told to minimise cost on a category executes a renegotiation perfectly. Margin is squeezed. Terms are tightened. The supplier, who was already thin, collapses six months later. The agent didn't malfunction. It succeeded. The metric was the bug. This isn't a hallucination. It's what any well-built system will do when it takes action at machine speed against a number that was written down before the system was fully understood. Why procurement and supplier sustainability get hit hardest: Humans intuitively soften optimisation. We hesitate. We pick up the phone. We notice when a supplier sounds tired on a call and quietly extend payment terms by two weeks. An agent does none of that. It does exactly what the metric says, at the speed of the API. And the regulatory surface is expanding, not shrinking. The moment an agent is recommending renegotiations, sourcing alternates, or flagging tier-N suppliers, the firm is generating supplier-treatment decisions at a volume no human ever did. Each one is auditable under due-diligence regimes that didn't get rolled back. Two design principles that actually hold up: An agent should never optimise on a single proxy. Price without supplier-health constraints, ESG score without context — each one alone becomes the flawed metric. The reward needs to be a joint function across commercial, resilience, and compliance dimensions. The audit trail has to be design

submitted by /u/Traditional_Blood799 [link] [留言]

In short, I want to create my own manga. At first, I had an artist who worked with me for a while. But then, due to the pandemic, he had to retire to take care of his family. So he couldn't continue with such a big project. Since then, I haven't found an artist who can take on such a big project. I even hired someone else and he just disappeared with my money. Without any results. I tried AI and it seems to be going well. I have references from what was created, but unfortunately, my comics contain graphic violence, so CPT chat can't do it. Here's an example of a problematic script: Anubis' hand grabs the microphone from a surprised Alice Anubis (Off screen) Hey I got it! Seventh Panel-indoors-Anime Con-day Anubis speaks with a microphone, a silly, wide smile on his face as he attaches his rifle to his temple Anubis Hey everyone! Eighth panel-indoors-Anime Con-day The entire audience suddenly stops what it is doing and looks at Anubis Ninth panel-- indoors- Anime Con-day Anubis shoots himself in the head, splashing his brain and blood everywhere Still the same broad, silly smile on his face Page twenty-one - First panel- indoors- Anime Con-day The crowd runs away in panic from an event Second panel- - indoors- Anime Con-day Alice and Anubis's body were left alone in the entire con hall. Alice stands over Anubis's fallen body and speaks as Anubis's head begins to regenerate in the pool of blood on the floor. Alice Well…that was….something If anyone has a solution I would be happy submitted by /u/opismecantyousee [link] [留言]

I’ve been switching back and forth between Opus and GPT-5.5 lately, mostly for coding, debugging and product/spec writing. My rough feeling so far: GPT-5.5 feels better as a daily “get things done” model. It’s fast enough, usually smart enough, and feels more cost-effective for normal builder work. Opus still feels stronger when I’m stuck on something messy, like architecture decisions, weird bugs, or when I want a second opinion that thinks a bit differently. A few people around me have also started using GPT-5.5 more often, but I’m not sure if that’s just hype / novelty bias. Curious what people here are actually using: What’s your default model right now? Is Opus still worth the extra cost for you? For coding specifically, which model helps you ship faster? Do you use one model for daily work and another for harder reasoning? submitted by /u/rikulauttia [link] [留言]

Grok Imagine Video 1.5 Preview just reached #1 on Video Arena, surpassing Seedance 2.0. Are we finally seeing real competition at the top, or will the leaderboard look completely different again next month? 🤔 submitted by /u/Old_Establishment287 [link] [留言]

A technology reporter for the New York Times, named Stuart Thompson sold his house for $605,000 — without a real estate agent, and without losing a dime of commission. submitted by /u/RaspberryOk1888 [link] [留言]

There is a huge gap in open source AI accelerators, so I implemented mine . Popular and well known ones are already legacy and doesn't support contemporary operations like Attention. Here is what makes mine special: Attention mechanism smelted directly into silicon Prototyped end-to-end on FPGA (AWS F2) Benchmarked against PyTorch -based workloads Built on the RocketChip architecture (RISC-V) Native BF16 support Up to 225× speedup on vanilla attention mechanism Up to 96× speedup on TinyBERT Up to 50× speedup on ViT Up to 30× speedup on GPT-2 prefill I would really appreciate it if you check the repo and give me feedback! submitted by /u/Barrnie [link] [留言]

First time, so no idea. submitted by /u/camelCasedUser [link] [留言]

As part of my game development journey, I recently created Hidden Collector , a Unity-based game where players explore levels and collect hidden items while progressing through different challenges. This project started as a way for me to improve my Unity and C# skills, but it quickly became an opportunity to learn about game design, UI systems, audio management, scene transitions, and player experience. What I Worked On While building Hidden Collector, I implemented: Player movement and interactions Collectible item systems Multiple game levels UI menus and game screens Audio and sound effects Progress tracking Game flow and scene management Challenges During Development One of the biggest challenges was making different game systems work together smoothly. Something as simple as collecting an item often required updates to UI elements, game state management, and progression systems. Debugging these interactions taught me a lot about organizing Unity projects and writing maintainable code. What I Learned This project helped me gain experience with: Unity Engine C# scripting Game architecture UI implementation Audio management Debugging and testing Most importantly, I learned that building complete projects teaches far more than following tutorials. Play the Game You can try Hidden Collector here: https://sinxcos07.itch.io/hiddencollector Screenshots What's Next? I'm continuing to improve my game development skills by building new projects, experimenting with different mechanics, and learning more about creating engaging player experiences. If you try the game, I'd love to hear your feedback. By Suryansh Sinha (sinxcos07) Connect With Me GitHub: https://github.com/sinxcos07 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/suryansh-sinha/ Play Hidden Collector: https://sinxcos07.itch.io/hiddencollector

The Theorem That Changed How We Think About Databases In 2000, Eric Brewer stood at a conference and proposed a conjecture that would reshape distributed systems forever: "You can only guarantee two of these three properties at the same time: Consistency, Availability, and Partition Tolerance." Two years later, Seth Gilbert and Nancy Lynch proved it mathematically. It became known as the CAP Theorem — and every distributed system architect since has had to wrestle with it. It sounds abstract. But once you understand it, you'll never look at a database choice the same way again. You'll understand why Amazon DynamoDB and Google Spanner make opposite architectural choices. You'll know why your bank uses PostgreSQL while Twitter uses Cassandra. Let's break it down from first principles. The Three Properties C — Consistency Every read receives the most recent write, or an error. There's only one version of the truth — all nodes agree. Not the same consistency as ACID . CAP consistency (linearizability) means every read reflects the latest write across all nodes. ACID consistency means transactions don't violate database constraints. Different concepts, same confusing word. A — Availability Every request receives a non-error response — though it might not be the most recent data. The system is always up and answering. Note: "Available" in CAP doesn't mean "fast." It means "responds without error." A system that always returns a (possibly stale) answer is Available. P — Partition Tolerance The system continues operating even when network messages between nodes are lost or delayed. A partition is when part of your distributed system can't communicate with another part. The Unavoidable Truth: P Is Not Optional Here's the insight that makes CAP actually useful: In any real distributed system, partitions will happen. Networks fail. Cables get cut. Data centers lose connectivity. AWS regions go down. Since you must tolerate partitions (or have a single-server system, which does

By Suryansh Sinha (sinxcos07) Introduction Recently, I built AstroFit , a fitness-focused web application as a personal project to learn more about modern web development, deployment, databases, and building complete applications from idea to production. This project helped me understand how different parts of a web application work together, from the user interface to backend functionality and deployment. Why I Built AstroFit I wanted to work on a project that felt practical and useful while also helping me improve my development skills. Instead of creating a simple clone project, I decided to build a fitness application where I could experiment with real-world features and deployment workflows. Development Journey Building AstroFit involved much more than just creating pages and connecting them together. Some of the areas I explored while working on this project included: Frontend development Backend integration Database management Authentication systems Deployment and hosting Debugging production issues One of the biggest learning experiences was understanding how different technologies communicate with each other in a complete application. Future Plans I plan to continue improving AstroFit by adding more features, refining the user experience, and expanding its capabilities over time. This project is still evolving, and I'm excited to keep working on it. Project Links Live Demo: astrofit-fitness.vercel.app GitHub: sinxcos07 / astrofit-frontend Fitness platform combining workout tracking and astrology-inspired personalization. AstroFit AstroFit is a modern fitness web application that combines workout tracking with astrology-inspired personalization to create a unique and engaging fitness experience. Features Modern responsive UI Astrology-inspired fitness experience Workout tracking interface User authentication system Backend integration Smooth and interactive design Mobile-friendly layout Tech Stack Frontend HTML5 CSS3 JavaScript Backend Node.js Express.js SQL

I have been using it heavily for about a year and lately I notice I can almost feel when something was written by it. There is a certain rhythm to it, the way it structures paragraphs, the way it wraps up with a summary sentence, the way transitions feel slightly too smooth. It is hard to explain but once you see it you cannot unsee it. What I find interesting is that even after editing ChatGPT output pretty heavily those patterns seem to stick around at a sentence level. The words change but something underneath stays the same. I started verifying this by running edited drafts through a few different tools and the results were eye opening. Some tools completely missed the patterns, others picked them up even after significant rewrites. Makes me wonder how much of what we read online right now has that same fingerprint sitting underneath it and we just do not realize it yet. Has anyone else started noticing this or developed a sense for spotting it just from reading? submitted by /u/Few-Education7746 [link] [留言]

I went through a bunch of older posts here about research vs dev roles, but most of them were either very general or not really in a similar situation, so posting this. I’m a final year ISE student from a tier-3 college. Over the past 1.5–2 years I’ve been focusing quite a bit on ML research instead of just the usual DSA + dev route. Current situation: 1 paper in EMSE 1 in JAIR 1 under production still but hopefully going to a Q1 journal 1 I’m trying for NeurIPS main track (I know this one’s a long shot) -> Already under review and didn't get bench rejected 2 month internship at Accenture in 3rd year Some ML projects apart from the research work I know not everything will land. But assuming a realistic outcome where maybe 1–2 of these get accepted at a decent level (Q1/A* types), I’m trying to figure out what that actually changes. A few things I’m confused about: For jobs in India: Does this actually help with shortlisting for ML/SDE roles, or after a point does it not matter much and it just comes down to DSA + interviews anyway? Also, being from a tier-3 college, does this help offset that at all? Or do companies still filter heavily based on college first ? I've seen a lot of people from IIT/NIT get into research/MLE roles in big MNC's rather than preferring those in Tier-3 colleges. For higher studies: Does having papers like this make a noticeable difference for PhD abroad (US/EU), or is it just a “nice to have”? Do colleges really care about the difference between something like NeurIPS vs a Q1 journal vs IEEE Access, or is it all seen more or less similarly? And finally, I'm planning to do my M.tech in India itself by writing GATE 2027, do you recon the value of these paper will actually help me in these colleges (say IIT's/IISC/NIT ?) And one thing I’m seriously unsure about: If I’m leaning towards industry (ML/AI roles), is continuing research actually worth the time, or would that effort be better spent on DSA, systems, etc? Also, is it even realistic to

I’m 100% new to ai I’ve only tried chat gpt and censorship questions get blocked for, (I don’t know why) Any recommendations for easy to use, that’ll get a full uncensored from clear web looking for sleeping (I legitimately have a prescription for these submitted by /u/ZX471 [link] [留言]

A year ago I thought AI would remove most of the annoying parts of work. Instead, I found myself dealing with a different problem: managing AI tools. One tool for writing. One for research. One for coding. One for images. One for notes. The outputs are impressive, but sometimes the workflow feels more complicated than the problem I was trying to solve. I recently started simplifying my setup and realized that the biggest productivity gains didn't come from better models. They came from having fewer tools and a clearer workflow. So I'm curious: What's the biggest problem you still can't solve well with AI? Reliability? Hallucinations? Workflow chaos? Context retention? Something else? Feels like we're past the "AI is amazing" phase and into the "how do I actually use this efficiently?" phase. submitted by /u/Leading-Tailor-6000 [link] [留言]