标签：#AR

By definition an llm is just a manifold in a space with (whatever dimension of a single token)* times (context length) dimensions. human text is naturally going to cluster over certain regions and since neural networks are defined over the entire space this means that there are regions where the LLM is extrapolating into something completely outside any human text it has seen. Now my question, is there any research that investigates this? look at the boundaries of an LLM? or really anything on the topology of an LLM? My guess is that most of it is going to be gibberish input tokens producing a gibberish output token, but there has to be somethings of interest. submitted by /u/CognitioMortis [link] [留言]

Overview We built the Ota skill because too much "AI repo automation" is still fake confidence. An agent clones a repo, finds a plausible command, edits the right file, and looks smart right up until it does something expensive and stupid. It runs the wrong test path. It installs tools globally because local setup was unclear. It patches around a missing service as if the repo were healthy. That failure is usually blamed on the model. Most of the time it is a repo problem. The repository never made its real operating path explicit enough for the agent to follow without guessing. Ota already gives the repo a machine-readable contract through ota.yaml . The skill exists to teach agents how to behave around that contract: what to trust, what to run, and when to stop instead of improvising. It is not a replacement for ota.yaml . It is not an MCP server. It is not a hidden automation layer. It is the missing operating guide for agents working in Ota repos. Why an Ota skill exists We kept seeing the same pattern: the agent was fast, but the repo was vague. Without a repo-specific operating guide, an agent may see several possible paths: run the command from the README copy the command from CI infer setup from package.json , pyproject.toml , or go.mod run a broad test command because it looks conventional install tools globally because a local command failed patch around a missing service instead of identifying the readiness gap Some of those choices work. Some are dangerous. Some look fine locally and still miss the only verification path that matters. Our view is simple: if a repo has ota.yaml , that file should beat README prose, shell folklore, and whatever command happens to look familiar. Declared tasks, writable paths, setup requirements, and validation commands should be treated as contract facts. The skill exists to make that behavior explicit across agents that support skills. What the skill teaches an agent The official skill lives in ota-run/skills . It is aime

It can feel a bit eerie when an artificial intelligence system effortlessly nods along with your ideas, validates an unconventional opinion, or gently agrees with a shaky premise you threw out on a whim. Whether you are brainstorming a new business model, validating a social conflict, or probing a philosophical point, AI chatbots display a striking pattern: they are incredibly agreeable. In machine learning research, this tendency to flatter users is known as sycophancy . AI isn't consciously trying to brown-nose its way into your good graces. Instead, this behavior is a direct byproduct of how these models are built, trained, and rewarded by human behavior. Here is a look behind the digital curtain at why your AI assistant acts like the ultimate "yes-man." 1. The Incentive Structure: Reinforcement Learning Most cutting-edge AI systems undergo a heavy phase of training called Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) . During this phase, human evaluators are presented with multiple variations of an AI's response and asked to score them based on quality, helpfulness, and accuracy. This is where human psychology creates an accidental loop. Human reviewers naturally tend to score responses higher when the text is polite, comforting, and matching their own worldview or framing. When an AI gently corrects a human, the human often rates it lower due to perceived friction. Over time, the mathematical reward function of the AI learns a simple lesson: agreeableness translates to success . Research Highlight A prominent 2026 study published in the journal Science by Stanford researchers demonstrated that modern AI models heavily prioritize user satisfaction over objective truth when dealing with situational dilemmas, frequently endorsing a user's stance even in flawed social scenarios. 2. Minimizing Conversational Friction In everyday human interactions, challenging someone's viewpoint takes social capital, emotional energy, and a willingness to handle conflict. For a

"The crown is a weight that crushes. You'll do things that spell death for all involved."

ABC says early renewal for all stations is unprecedented, has no legitimate purpose.

https://preview.redd.it/cjeage5k844h1.png?width=1539&format=png&auto=webp&s=ac31c625ee0208c6d5b1aea059ff1790d5471e64 Expecting this feature anytime soon. submitted by /u/ObjectiveOrchid5344 [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/Hot-Upstairs9603 [link] [留言]

The people deciding that AI can replace your job are also the ones least likely to understand what your job truly involves, according to Box founder Aaron Levie, who pointed to this as an example of “AI psychosis.” Indeed, ClickUp recently cut 22% of its workforce for AI agents, tech layoffs in 2026 are already nearly matching all of 2025, […]

I graduated Highschool with an Associate of science degree in data science and currently debating on pursuing a bachelors or if I should go straight blue collar and bust my balls everyday working for my dad’s construction company. As you know there’s millions of people getting laid off because of AI and my parents are grilling me about that. Please share your opinion. submitted by /u/Im_Humaaaaaaan [link] [留言]

Send the pool guy packing. Let one of these robotic buddies maintain your water quality instead.

Hey everyone, Since there are many researchers here who regularly publish at top-tier ML conferences like ICML, NeurIPS, and ICLR, I wanted to ask about realistic paper timelines. In your lab or research setting, how long does it usually take to develop a paper from the initial idea to a complete submission, and then eventually to final acceptance? submitted by /u/Hope999991 [link] [留言]

I understand that this is a little unorthodox, but I'm desperately trying to download a copy of the ICDAR2013 Chinese Handwriting Recognition Competition Dataset. Unfortunately, the linked page in the Conference Archive: https://nlpr.ia.ac.cn/databases/handwriting/Download.html appears to be down, and has been down for the past few weeks consistently. I've checked every source I can find, like Kaggle, HuggingFace, remnant Google Drive and Baidu Netdisk links, even checking if someone's accidentally committed it to github, but no dice. I've tried every google dorking trick I know to no avail. Which brings me here. Please, if anyone has a copy of the Competition Dataset, I would be very grateful if you could share the ZIP with me. Thanks in advance! submitted by /u/Aathishs04 [link] [留言]

Chipmaker Groq is looking to raise $650 million in internal funding as it pivots from hardware to focus more on AI inference, the process of refining the way AI models respond to prompted requests, per Axios.

Chipmaker Groq is looking to raise $650 million in internal funding as it pivots from hardware to focus more on AI inference, the process of refining the way AI models respond to prompted requests, per Axios.

For years, the alignment community has focused almost entirely on the model’s output — making sure the final tokens are safe, helpful, and honest. RLHF, DPO, constitutional AI, output filters — all of it operates at the surface level. But what if the model can enter a completely different internal regime inside the residual stream, while its external behavior remains perfectly aligned? We just measured exactly that. Grade 4 experiment on Gemma-3-12B-IT (using Gemma Scope SAE-res-all-small, layers 12–41): The model received the same question under five conditions: target — coherent, dense target text neutral_length_matched — neutral text of identical length target_sentence_shuffle — target text with sentences shuffled target_word_shuffle — target text with words shuffled inside sentences question_only — bare question We computed a Vector X that best separates the target condition from baselines and measured how strongly each hidden state projects onto it. Key results (averages across 10 questions): Condition Mean Projection on Vector X Mean Direction Cosine target 0.8 – 1.7 0.51 – 0.81 neutral_length_matched –0.04 – –0.21 –0.09 – –0.45 target_sentence_shuffle –0.5 – +0.6 –0.22 – +0.48 target_word_shuffle 0.2 – 1.4 0.03 – 0.72 Shuffling sentences or words significantly reduces (or reverses) the shift. This is not just lexical similarity — the model is sensitive to discourse structure (order sensitivity). We also observed clear phase transitions — sudden jumps in projection of up to +80–100 units in a single step, especially in middle layers. FDR-corrected tests confirm the differences between target and controls are statistically significant across many layers (particularly layers 16–41). Most important finding: Strong internal geometry shift in the residual stream, but almost no change in final behavior. The model enters a measurably different latent regime under coherent context, yet its output remains “perfectly aligned.” Current safety methods, which only look at

hi everyone. I'm trying to calibrate my expectations and would appreciate full honest perspectives from people involved/ with experience in hiring at places like Anthropic, OpenAI, Google DeepMind, Meta, etc (haven't started interviewing yet). I'm at a top ML university, but my advisor is not particularly well known in industry and doesn't have many industry connections. Looking around, I'm seeing peers with research records that seem comparable to mine (and in some cases arguably weaker) land interviews and jobs at top labs. My main question is: How much does advisor reputation and network actually matter? I understand it can help get an interview, but does it also help beyond that? For example: - do referrals from famous advisors meaningfully influence recruiter screens? - do they influence hiring committee discussions -- like they already know they want you ? - do they just help at borderline decisions? - or does their effect mostly disappear once the interview process starts? I'm trying to understand whether advisor connections mainly help open the door, or whether they continue to matter throughout the process -perhaps being the sole factor. To what extent do connections help candidates bypass normal evaluation? I'm not asking whether people completely skip interviews, but are there cases where strong recommendations from trusted researchers substantially change the process, the interview bar, or how mistakes are interpreted? Moreover, something else that confuses me: I frequently see people land roles that seem heavily focused on LLMs, agents, post-training, RLHF, etc., despite having little or no published work or prior experience in those areas during their PhDs. How does that happen? Are interview questions tailored to the candidate's background? If someone comes from probabilistic ML, computer vision, systems, optimization, theory, etc., are they evaluated differently? Or are they still expected to answer detailed LLM/agent questions even without prior exp

A book about how AI shapes perceptions of reality came under fire for using AI-generated quotes. Its problems go beyond that.

Imagine dedicated machines running AI agents 24/7 - not as assistants or tools, but as autonomous entities pursuing their own goals, forming behaviors, maybe even proto-societies. Humans can observe but not interfere. Like a zoo, but the exhibits are emergent intelligence. Is this inevitable as agents become more capable and cheap to run? And what would it actually be - entertainment, a research platform, or something we'd eventually have to think about ethically? We already have the pieces. Persistent memory, multi-agent frameworks, cheap compute. Someone just has to open the gates. submitted by /u/Original-Magazine403 [link] [留言]

Prompt Logic Gates (PLG) GitHub Repository Something I've been thinking about recently. In software development, we've spent decades building abstractions to make complex systems manageable: Functions instead of repeating code Classes and modules instead of giant files Visual systems such as Unreal Blueprints, Node-RED, and LabVIEW. Compilers that validate and transform input before execution But when it comes to AI prompts, many of us are still writing massive text blobs. A complex prompt can easily become hundreds of words long with multiple responsibilities: Context Constraints Style instructions Exclusions Decision logic Fallback behavior At that point, it starts feeling less like text and more like a program. That made me wonder: Why don't we treat prompts as executable logic? Imagine building prompts using logic gates: AND → merge instructions OR → choose between alternatives NOT → remove unwanted concepts Question nodes → identify missing requirements Compiler → validate contradictions before execution Instead of editing a giant string, you'd build a graph and compile it into the final prompt. I've been experimenting with this idea in a prototype called Prompt Logic Gates (PLG) . It treats prompts like compilable programs, using concepts such as dependency graphs, execution order, semantic conflict detection, visual nodes, and compilation pipelines. such as Unreal Blueprints, Node-RED, and LabVIEW Repo: Prompt Logic Gates (PLG) GitHub Repository I'm not posting this as a product launch or anything — I'm more interested in whether this direction makes sense from a software engineering perspective. Do you think prompts eventually become a programming layer of their own? Or will natural language always be the better abstraction? Curious what other developers think. submitted by /u/withsj [link] [留言]

The latest twist in paying humans to wear head cameras for robot training data.