找到 4451 篇相关文章
Is it first time happening or what? https://preview.redd.it/m4qemuh3lc4h1.jpg?width=1142&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d91c07b578207c3ba341cc89deb9dd035c6034d6 submitted by /u/eliassrm [link] [留言]
Breakfast cereal bowls, deli sandwiches, pizza dinners, soups, yogurt plates. Most people do not eat from a blank slate, they eat from habit. That is part of what makes nutrition advice so hard to follow. It is also part of what a new artificial intelligence system tried to solve. submitted by /u/Brighter-Side-News [link] [留言]
"AI slop" is not a model problem. It's an engineering problem you decided not to solve. The slop is the bland, off-voice, half-hallucinated, occasionally-just-an-error-message text that your LLM emits maybe 5% of the time — and that 5% is the part users screenshot. The instinct is to fix it in the prompt: add three more sentences of "be concise, be accurate, match my tone." That treats a stochastic system as if it were deterministic. It isn't. You cannot prompt your way to a guarantee. What actually works is treating the model like any other unreliable upstream dependency: wrap it in a harness that validates, rejects, and retries before anything reaches a user. The model proposes; the harness disposes. Here's how to build one. Slop is a systems problem, not a prompt problem Every production LLM feature I've shipped converged on the same shape: the model is one stage in a pipeline, not the pipeline itself. You don't trust raw generation any more than you'd trust raw user input. You parse it, you validate it against constraints you can express in code, and you reject anything that fails — automatically, before a human ever sees it. The key insight is that most slop is detectable . Empty output, a leaked stack trace, the wrong language, a 900-word answer when you asked for 200, a banned phrase like "in today's fast-paced world" — these are all checkable with deterministic code. You don't need a judge model to catch them (though a judge model has its place at the end). You need a gate that runs on every generation, costs microseconds, and never gets tired. Think of it as five layers, each rejecting a different class of failure. Layer 1: Structured output, not freeform text The single biggest reduction in slop comes from refusing to accept prose where you can demand structure. If you ask for a JSON object with named fields and a schema, the failure modes collapse from "infinite" to "a handful you can enumerate." Use the provider's native structured-output / tool-calling
A Stanford and Tsinghua paper ran a controlled experiment earlier this year. Same model. Same task. Different harness architecture. The result: a 6x performance gap driven entirely by the system built around the model. Not the model itself. This is not a prompt engineering insight. It is a systems architecture insight, and it changes where developers should invest their time when building agentic systems. The 6x Gap Meta-Harness tested Claude Opus 4.6 across two harness configurations on TerminalBench-2. The only variable was the scaffold: the code that manages tool calls, context windows, error recovery, and state persistence. One version scored at baseline. The other, with structured tool orchestration and context management, scored 18.4 points higher. Same inference cost. Same model. Different architecture. This pattern replicates across multiple independent studies: LangChain DeepAgents (2026): Same GPT-5.2-Codex model. Harness-only changes moved it from Top 30 to Top 5. That is a 13.7-point gain. Can Bölük (Hashline, 2026): Same model, same task. Changed the edit tool format. Performance went from 6.7% to 68.3%. That is a 10x improvement with 61% fewer tokens. Vercel's d0 agent : A production agent had 16 tools. Removing 14 of them (leaving only bash) took success rate from 80% to 100%. The bottleneck was not capability. It was decision surface. Why This Matters Practically The cheapest Haiku call with an optimised harness (37.6% on TerminalBench-2) outperformed the most expensive Opus call with a default harness (58.0%). That is at 1/50th the inference cost. Most teams are optimising at the wrong layer. They swap models, tune prompts, add retrieval. The structural leverage is in how the system manages tool calls, handles state, and recovers from failure. What Changes The practical takeaway for anyone building with AI agents: Audit your tool surface. Every tool your agent can call is a decision it must make. Vercel found 16→1 tool reduction improved everything.
The YouTube-to-prestige-horror pipeline is looking very strong.
I was tired of watching LLM agents fail at basic Git operations. Standard integrations pass raw text, hang on pagers, or scream because they can't parse unstructured git diff outputs. git-courer is a full Model Context Protocol (MCP) server written in Go that treats Git properly. No bash spawning, no unstructured text to parse. Everything communicates via structured JSON. Here is an actual commit message it generated completely locally: fix: fix mcp server connection handling WHY The previous implementation lacked proper error handling for connection failures in the MCP server, leading to unhandled panics or silent failures when the local LLM backend was unreachable. WHAT * Added connection timeout logic to the local client calls. * Implemented retry mechanisms with exponential backoff for transient backend errors. The Architecture & Tool Pack Read Tools (status, diff, history, blame): Completely structured JSON and fully paginated. A single status call replaces over 5 standard Git commands for the agent. Write Tools (commit, merge, rebase, branch, stash, stage, sync...): Every single mutation auto-creates a backup before executing. If the LLM messes up, a RESTORE command brings you back exactly where you were. Safety Model: Destructive operations (hard resets, force pushes, branch deletions) require an explicit confirmed=true gate. The agent is forced to ask you first. dry_run=true is also available for peace of mind. The Semantic Annotator (Why it's different) Instead of just feeding raw code to the LLM, git-courer uses go-enry + go-tree-sitter to parse the AST and tag every hunk semantically before the LLM even sees it. It detects tags like NEW_FUNC, MOD_SIG, MOD_BODY, DELETED, and BREAKING_CHANGE. The commit type (feat, fix, refactor) is determined deterministically from these AST tags rather than guessed by the model. The Commit Pipeline Atomic Commits: One staged area = one commit. It actively prevents the agent from creating gian
reddit.com/settings/data-request https://gamma.app/docs/Reddit-Brain-qt0g7e5vktlgifm Implementation Blueprint Your questions answered. Three steps to go from zero to a fully operational Reddit Brain. Step 0: Download Your Archive Go to reddit.com/settings/data-request and request your full data export. You'll receive a ZIP file containing comments.csv and posts.csv — everything you've ever posted on Reddit. Step 1: Get the Data Action: Request your export at reddit.com/settings/data-request . Then: Download ZIP, extract comments.csv and posts.csv . Optionally run reddit-user-to-sqlite to build a parallel SQLite archive for richer querying. Step 2: Build the Brain Action: Load into Sheets or a database. Clean, tag, and compute word count and engagement metrics. Then: Add LLM passes for canonical_question , topic, tone, and content type. Push into a vector store; connect via n8n or your preferred orchestrator. Step 3: Exploit the Hell Out of It Action: Generate content backlogs, podcast outlines, FAQs, scripts, and social copy from your corpus. Then: Use agents to draft from your own history, keep messaging on-brand, and refresh the archive with new exports on a schedule. submitted by /u/jdawgindahouse1974 [link] [留言]
Why is it that most organization are in a hurry to integrate AI agents in process that don't really need the advancement, is that they don't want to be left behind or they are just following the hype submitted by /u/Quiet-Brilliant-1455 [link] [留言]
submitted by /u/EUobs [link] [留言]
Arm has open-sourced Metis, an agentic AI security framework designed to autonomously uncover complex software vulnerabilities. Unlike traditional pattern-based tools, Metis applies semantic reasoning to analyze cross-component dependencies and provides clear, natural language explanations for its findings. By Sergio De Simone
AI systems are moving from answering questions to taking actions. That changes the risk. A wrong chatbot answer is annoying. A wrong action inside email, CRM, payments, customer support, or internal data can create real damage. So maybe the next big AI challenge is not just better reasoning. It is knowing: what the AI can access what it can do alone what needs approval who is accountable when it fails As AI agents become more common, who do you think should be responsible when they make a bad decision? submitted by /u/Alpertayfur [link] [留言]
https://preview.redd.it/pv22tsg2ib4h1.png?width=1918&format=png&auto=webp&s=dfeda1000090dc99c57c8150e4de46cfe2ba2e29 I just wanted him to give me a prompt, which then i can give to Nano Banana pro and generate me a completely random thumbnail, i wanted to test its capabilities, but instead of a prompt, he gave me this... 😭😭😭😭😭 submitted by /u/ObjectiveOrchid5344 [link] [留言]
c_std: A Leak-Free, Cross-Platform Standard Library for Modern C Bringing the comfort of the C++ STL and Python's standard library to C17 — without leaving C A technical white paper. Executive summary C is still the substrate of the computing world — kernels, databases, language runtimes, embedded firmware, and the inner loops of nearly everything else. Yet the moment you step away from the kernel and try to write ordinary application code in C, you feel the gap: no growable vector, no hash map, no JSON parser, no string type that doesn't invite a buffer overflow. You either pull in a grab-bag of mismatched third-party libraries, each with its own conventions and failure modes, or you re-implement the same dynamic array for the hundredth time. c_std is an attempt to close that gap deliberately and coherently. It is a single, consistent library — written in pure C17 — that reimplements a large slice of the C++ Standard Library (containers, algorithms, smart pointers) alongside many Python-style conveniences ( json , regex , random , statistics , csv , config , even turtle graphics). It targets Windows and Linux from one source tree, compiles cleanly under -Wall -Wextra , and — this is the part I care about most — is verified leak-free under Valgrind , module by module, example by example. This paper explains the design philosophy, the architecture, and the engineering discipline that makes a library like this trustworthy enough to build on. 1. The problem: C's missing middle Every C programmer knows the two extremes. At the bottom, the language itself: pointers, malloc , memcpy , raw arrays. At the top, whatever the platform hands you — <windows.h> or POSIX, OpenSSL, a JSON library someone wrapped a decade ago. The middle — the layer the C++ STL and Python's batteries-included standard library occupy — is missing. That missing middle has a real cost. It shows up as: Re-invention. Teams write their own vector, their own string builder, their own linked list, each subt
GitHub: Prompt-Logic-Gates-PLG Over the past few days, I've shared my research project Prompt Logic Gates (PLG) and received a lot of interesting feedback. Some people loved the idea, some were skeptical, and many raised valid questions. The most common reaction was: > "Natural language is already the abstraction layer. Why add logic gates?" That's a fair question. My goal isn't to replace natural language prompting. In fact, natural language remains at the center of PLG. The idea is to explore what happens when prompts stop being a single request and start becoming systems. The Problem When we write prompts, we're converting our ideas, requirements, constraints, and expectations into text. For simple tasks, this works perfectly. But as prompts grow, they often include: Multiple objectives Business rules Style constraints Context dependencies Exclusions Fallback instructions Tool orchestration At that point, prompts become harder to maintain. Contradictions appear. Priorities become unclear. Context gets mixed together. The prompt is still text, but the complexity starts to resemble a system. What is PLG? Prompt Logic Gates (PLG) is a visual prompt engineering experiment that explores whether prompts can be organized before being sent to an AI model. Instead of writing one giant prompt, users create prompt components and connect them using semantic logic gates. The AI then analyzes the graph and compiles a final structured prompt. How It Works AND Gate When multiple instructions exist, the system evaluates them against the current context and determines which instruction is more foundational. The higher-priority instruction is applied first. OR Gate When multiple options are available, the system selects the most contextually relevant option instead of blindly including everything. NOT Gate Defines exclusions and negative constraints. It explicitly tells the system what should not be done, reducing contradictions and ambiguity. Ask Questions Gate If the system detec
Do you use the "Act as..." segment in your prompts? Do you think it's effective and why? I know it depends on the rest of the prompt, as well as the main goal, but i'm asking if it's working overall. submitted by /u/ObjectiveOrchid5344 [link] [留言]
With AI becoming part of almost everything now—work, business, investing, coding, spreadsheets, content creation, and more—I'm curious about real-world use cases. What's the one thing you use AI for regularly that has genuinely saved you time, made you money, improved your productivity, or solved a problem? Looking for practical examples rather than just "I use ChatGPT." What specific tasks have you automated or improved with AI? submitted by /u/Acrobatic-Shop4602 [link] [留言]
Standard AI 3D generators (like Meshy or Tripo) are limited. They produce solid, monolithic 3D objects that look good but are practically useless, because: - Want to rig or animate it for a game? Can't easily do that, because it’s a dead, monolithic blob instead of a functional, modular asset. - Want to change the arm of a robot you generated? Regenerate the entire asset. - Want to edit something manually? The whole thing collapses because it's not actually structured. Free github project here: https://github.com/RareSense/Nova3D But you'll need to bring your own API Key (BYOK) Under the hood (if you're interested): It uses an LLM as a structured code compiler, instead of an image generator. It writes native Blender Python (bpy) code blocks that target specific nodes in the scene graph. The trick is that everything compiles through Blender's actual scene graph structures instead of pixel or point-cloud diffusion. Final export is a clean multi-part GLB with transform nodes and working pivot axes preserved. submitted by /u/mhb-11 [link] [留言]
A group of 20 Snap alumni has come together to launch a fund called Ghost Angels to back the next generation of social media.
Prof G Markets (Live) Episode Title: Is AI Worth the Cost? The ROI Reckoning and the Coming Market Correction Location: The Castro Theatre, San Francisco, CA Hosts: Scott Galloway & Ed Nelson ED: We're going to talk about a topic not enough people talk about called AI. Nearly 50,000 workers have been laid off this year supposedly because of AI — that's almost as many as in all of 2025. For companies adopting AI, the thesis is simple: AI is supposed to do much of the work that humans do. In recent weeks, however, that thesis has hit a roadblock. More and more companies are reporting that despite the enormous power of AI, the technology is actually more expensive than the humans it is supposed to replace. Uber, for example, just blew through its entire 2026 AI budget in just four months. According to the COO, it is now getting harder to justify AI costs within the company. Microsoft is cancelling its Claude Code licenses across multiple divisions because it's simply gotten too expensive. And over at Nvidia, one executive said that the cost of compute is now "far beyond the cost of employees." Which all raises a crucial question for the AI industry: at what point does AI actually stop being worth it? This has blown up basically in the last 48 hours, with many companies coming out and saying they're not as confident about this whole AI thing as they used to be. ServiceNow is another company that just blew through their entire Anthropic budget. Technical staff at Stripe are reportedly spending nearly $100,000 on AI tokens every day. Salesforce is on track to spend $300 million on Anthropic tokens this year. Shopify said their earnings were "partially offset by increased LLM costs." We heard similar things from Meta, Spotify, and Pinterest. One Anthropic employee said his Claude Code bill came out to $150,000 in a single month. In some cases, it's getting very, very expensive. We've also seen an incentive — especially among tech companies — to use AI as much as possible.
The legacy book market and use of AI for this are going to be insane. Less than 1% of the US population writes a book. This is what AI is used for: to stop doing tedious stuff and actually do stuff that matters. https://preview.redd.it/fcn6d2t7ta4h1.png?width=2752&format=png&auto=webp&s=5ab6effcafc1e2156903d274f6a4411e53bd9d37 submitted by /u/jdawgindahouse1974 [link] [留言]