标签：#AR

Communication and Stakeholder Management Successfully executing enterprise architecture projects requires more than just technical expertise. The key to success lies in effective engagement management, where communication and stakeholder management play a central role. In this post, we’ll explore strategies and tactics for successfully engaging stakeholders in complex IT projects and enterprise architecture initiatives. The Challenge: Complexity and Different Perspectives Enterprise architecture projects are often characterized by high complexity. They span various business units and teams, from IT to management and external service providers. These projects are not only technologically demanding but also require close collaboration between all involved parties. Each stakeholder brings their own perspectives, priorities, and objectives, which increases the risk of misunderstandings, delays, and misaligned outcomes. The Key to Success: Engagement Management Effective engagement management ensures that all stakeholders are involved from the start and that their needs and expectations are understood. This involves not only regular communication but also a structured and strategic approach. Below are some proven strategies to achieve successful engagement: 1. Early and Comprehensive Stakeholder Mapping Successful engagement begins with a clear understanding of the involved stakeholders. Stakeholder mapping helps identify all relevant actors, their interests, and their potential influence on the project. The following questions should be considered: Who are the internal and external stakeholders? What are their expectations for the project? How much influence do they have on decision-making? What are their communication needs? A comprehensive stakeholder mapping allows for the establishment of clear communication paths and consideration of specific needs from the start. 2. Transparent Communication One of the most common causes of project failure is insufficient or ineff

The shifts that actually matter for builders - late May to mid-August 2026 The last three months did not produce a single "GPT-5 moment." There was no single release that reset the conversation the way earlier step-changes once did. Instead, the ground moved in several places at once: a wave of frontier and open-weight model launches in July, growing candor about how badly long-context windows actually hold up, and a genuinely uncomfortable security story out of xAI's new agent product. Here's the short, opinionated version of what actually changed for people who ship AI systems. 1. Models & Capability GPT-5.6 (OpenAI) shipped in three tiers - Sol, Terra, and Luna after a government review, with the fastest tier reportedly hitting 750 tokens/sec on Cerebras hardware and a new "Ultra" mode for maximum reasoning effort. Anthropic's lineup grew fast: Opus 5 landed at unchanged Opus pricing ($5/$25 per million tokens), reportedly within half a point of a rival's benchmark peak at half the per-task cost, alongside a new Sonnet 5 and a higher "Fable 5" tier. xAI iterated twice: July's Grok 4.5 (1.5T parameters, trained partly on coding-agent interaction data) was followed by Grok 4.6 on August 12 - a 500K-token-context model aimed at coding and long-running agents, priced at $2/$6 per million tokens standard and $4/$12 for long-context requests. Google's Gemini Flash line saw three releases in quick succession - 3.5, 3.6, and then 3.7 Flash - each undercutting the last on price. 3.6 Flash alone cut output pricing from $9.00 to $7.50 per million tokens. Open-weight competition intensified: Kimi K3 (Moonshot) became the largest open release yet at 2.8T parameters (104B active via MoE) with a 1M-token window, and it was joined by DeepSeek V4-Pro, the Qwen3.8 series, and GLM-5.3 - plus Inkling (Thinking Machines), a 975B open-weight MoE trained on 45 trillion multimodal tokens. One-line interpretation: The capability ceiling is still rising, but the more interesting number th

AI-Powered Privacy Policy Generators LLM‑driven privacy policy generators have moved from experimental prototypes to production‑grade services in 2026, offering on‑demand, jurisdiction‑aware drafts that can be directly embedded into compliance pipelines. Tools such as PrivacyGPT and PolicyCraft combine retrieval‑augmented generation with rule‑extraction models, turning natural‑language privacy intents into enforceable policy clauses that can be exported as JSON‑LD or plain‑text templates. Deep Dive Architecture PrivacyGPT leverages a hybrid architecture: a domain‑specific transformer fine‑tuned on 10 million privacy statements, paired with a deterministic rule engine that maps extracted obligations to GDPR, CCPA, and emerging AI‑Act provisions. PolicyCraft adds a feedback loop where the generated draft is automatically validated against an internal compliance knowledge graph; mismatches trigger a self‑correcting prompt that iteratively refines the text until a confidence score above 92 % is achieved. Real-World Engineering Examples A fintech startup integrated PrivacyGPT via its CI/CD pipeline; each pull request that modifies data‑collection code triggers an API call that updates the “Data Retention” clause, keeping the public policy in sync with code changes. A multinational e‑commerce platform deployed PolicyCraft to generate locale‑specific consent banners; the system produced 27 variants in under five minutes, each certified against the EU’s Digital Services Act. Zero‑Trust Architecture for Rule Enforcement Zero‑trust architecture (ZTA) starts from the assumption that no network segment—whether on‑prem, cloud, or edge—can be implicitly trusted. Instead of a perimeter, every request is evaluated against a continuously refreshed identity profile that fuses user credentials, device posture, and behavioral risk scores. In practice, this means deploying a Policy Decision Point (PDP) that consumes attributes from an identity provider, a device‑trust service, and a tel

📚 This is part 2 of a series. Part 1: The Origin Story Part 2: [Current Article] Part 3: Coming soon... Let me tell you about the day my crash reporting UI crashed. The Grey Screen One afternoon, my Android app's crash screen rendered all-grey. No content. No report button. Just a blank slate where the app's last line of defense should have been. The root cause? A stale file from Gradle's build cache after a major refactor. The compiled resource IDs no longer matched the packaged resource table. ViewBinding inflated the wrong layout, and a silent NullPointerException killed the crash screen itself. It was invisible in CI. It only appeared in specific rebuild scenarios. And it took hours to trace. That bug taught me something important: The fix isn't done when the patch ships. It's done when the lesson becomes automated. So I wrote a build-time task that reads the compiled class files directly, compares them against the final packaged resources, and verifies every constant matches. It runs automatically after every packaging step. You never have to remember to invoke it. That was the first of many incident-driven tools I built. The FAB That Disappeared A few weeks later, a developer tools Floating Action Button vanished from consumer apps. Debug menus inaccessible. Secure screens incorrectly enabled. Turns out, my shared library's BuildConfigUtils was reading the library's own BuildConfig —which is baked as "release" at publish time. An AAR can never know the consumer's build type. 25 files across 34 call sites were silently broken. I built a Gradle plugin that generates a SskBuildConfig object per consumer module, per variant, using AGP's onVariants callback. It registers generated source via KotlinCompile.source() —not reflection, which broke across AGP versions. It detects Android plugins by extension type, not hardcoded IDs, so it works with com.android.application , com.android.library , com.android.dynamic-feature , and any future Google plugin. Same package as

Recently, the AAAI 2027 organizers sent an email regarding collusion occurring during the review process, especially in the 2-cycles category (i.e., an author of Paper A reviews Paper B, while an author of Paper B reviews Paper A). Given the fact that most submissions come from a single country, there are higher chances that the assignment algorithm will naturally create 2-cycles among authors from that country. This, in turn, means that most authors involved in collusion could be from that country. I will not name that country; otherwise, I would be labelled as racist. By the way, did AAAI release statistics about the number of submissions, like they did last time? It is also good news that a major and prestigious conference like AAAI is acknowledging that collusion is happening. We all knew that this kind of collusion had been happening for years. There are papers accepted at top conferences such as NeurIPS, ICLR, AAAI, and ICML that do not even have their code published on GitHub. This forces other researchers in the community to spend substantial time reimplementing the code themselves if they want to reproduce the reported results. What are the views of other authors on this? submitted by /u/Fragrant_Fan_6751 [link] [留言]

Does anyone know how the BMVC to IJCV special issue recommendation works? Is it mainly based on the review scores, or is it a separate decision by the ACs/program chairs (e.g. based on oral/highlight selection, reviewer comments, etc.)? Also, is there any way to know at this point whether a paper has been recommended for the IJCV track, or do authors only find out later through a separate email? Would be great to hear from anyone who has gone through this in previous years! submitted by /u/Secondhanded_PhD [link] [留言]

*Part 2 of "Multi-Agent Systems in Production: What They Don't Tell You", a four-part series...

A frozen desktop window is a state, not a diagnosis. Windows adds Not Responding when the UI thread stops processing messages for long enough. That can happen because the application is doing legitimate work, waiting for disk or network I/O, blocked by another process, stuck behind a modal dialog, or caught in a real deadlock. Reinstalling may replace files, but it does not tell you what the process was waiting for. Preserve a few minutes of evidence first. Define the symptom precisely Keep these cases separate: Slow: the window still repaints and eventually accepts input. Not responding: the frame is visible, but Windows reports that the app is not processing messages. Blank: the frame appears while the content surface fails to render. Invisible: the process runs without a visible main window. Crash: the process exits and may create an application error event. This distinction matters. A blank WebView surface and a blocked UI thread can look similar to a user, but they leave different evidence. Use one repeatable action Restart the application once and perform the smallest action that reproduces the freeze. Record: the exact click or file that triggers it; the time the action starts; how long the window remains responsive; whether CPU, disk, or network activity changes; whether the process recovers without being terminated. Avoid opening several test files or clicking repeatedly. Extra input can queue more work and hide the original transition. Watch the process before ending it Open Task Manager and identify the correct process ID. Expand child processes if the application uses helpers or a web-rendering runtime. Useful observations include: High sustained CPU: a loop, intensive parsing, OCR, compression, or rendering work is plausible. Near-zero CPU with disk activity: the process may be waiting for storage. Near-zero CPU with network activity: an online request, proxy, DNS, or TLS operation may be blocking progress. Near-zero activity everywhere: look for a hidd

🚀 From FlipaClip to SitePoint: The Full Story of Kehinde Owolabi How a Nigerian teenager built a professional game engine with borrowed laptops, offline W3Schools, and pure determination. 🎮 Play the Game Try Limn Engine Live — Space Shooter Demo See what 4 years of determination built. This space shooter runs at 60 FPS on a Tecno Pop 4 with 1GB RAM. 📖 Introduction Every developer has an origin story. Some start with a fancy computer and a computer science degree. Others start with a flipbook app and a sister who trusted them with her phone. My name is Kehinde Owolabi . I'm 18 years old (born December 4, 2007), and I live in Lagos, Nigeria. I'm currently in PC103 at BYU Pathway, and I'm a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I built a 94/100 professional game engine called Limn Engine. It runs at 60 FPS on a Toshiba with 4GB RAM. It was published on SitePoint and ranked #3 among 2D JavaScript game engines. Nobody knew it was developed on a Chromebook, a borrowed Thinkpad (behind my sister's back), and a Toshiba that "hung like hell." That was the secret I kept for months. But that's only one part of this story. This is the full story of how I went from a button phone to a 94/100 game engine, from FlipaClip to SitePoint, from a boy who failed physics to a developer who built something that runs on a Tecno Pop 4. The one-line summary: "I'm Kehinde Owolabi, an 18-year-old developer from Lagos, Nigeria who went from FlipaClip to building a 94/100 game engine on borrowed laptops — and got published on SitePoint." 🎮🚀 🎨 The Beginning: FlipaClip and the Spark of Creativity Before I was a developer, I was an animator. I used FlipaClip — a simple animation app on mobile — to create flipbook-style animations. I loved bringing characters to life, frame by frame. I would spend hours drawing, tweaking, and watching my creations move. That creative spark stayed with me. I wanted to create interactive experiences. I wanted to build games. But I didn't know how.

What if adding Kotlin and Java compilation to your application didn't mean building an entire compilation pipeline yourself? What if you could add Bytesmith, configure the filesystem once, provide your source files and output destination, and simply compile? That's the idea behind Bytesmith . Bytesmith is a Kotlin and Java compiler toolkit designed for JVM and Android applications. It provides a unified API for Kotlin, Java, and mixed-language compilation, while also supporting filesystem abstraction, custom classpaths, boot classpaths, compiler plugins, packaging, and diagnostics. Configure the environment, provide the source, specify the output, and compile. The problem Compiler tooling can become surprisingly difficult when it is tightly coupled to the environment in which it was originally designed to run. You might need to deal with: Kotlin compiler versions Kotlin standard libraries Java compilation Bootclasspath configuration Dependency classpaths Source discovery Output handling Android storage Storage Access Framework URIs Packaging Compiler diagnostics And then there is the question of where those files actually live. On a desktop JVM, you might have traditional filesystem paths: /home/user/project/src/Main.kt On Android, you might be working with application storage or files selected through the Storage Access Framework: content://... If your compiler API directly depends on java.io.File , your compilation code becomes coupled to one filesystem model. Bytesmith takes a different approach. Adding Bytesmith The goal is to make compilation something you can plug into an application. With Gradle: implementation ( "io.github.sifisofakude.bytesmith:bytesmith-common:1.0.0" ) After adding Bytesmith, configure the filesystem your application wants to use. For a JVM application: FileSystems . current = JvmFileSystem () For Android: FileSystems . current = AndroidSafFileSystem ( context ) Once the filesystem is configured, the rest of the compilation layer can opera

Building a Scalable, HIPAA‑Compliant Healthcare Document Processing Pipeline in .NET & Azure Quick Answer A deep dive into architecting a production‑grade Healthcare Document Processing Pipeline—covering AI extraction, FHIR integration, vector search, and compliance at scale. In my experience, the biggest cost is not the AI model, but the orchestration that turns raw scans into audit‑ready FHIR resources. The right mix of services can reduce latency by 30‑50% while keeping the bill below 10% of the raw compute budget. Choose services that expose a BAA and native hybrid search (Azure Cognitive Search) to avoid a second compliance layer. Prioritize deterministic scaling (Container Apps + Aspire) over elastic serverless when real‑time SLAs are tight. Version your embeddings; treat the vector index as a first‑class contract. HIPAA‑Ready High‑Volume Document Ingestion When a health system starts ingesting thousands of paper‑to‑digital documents per day, the naïve “scan‑and‑store” approach quickly becomes a compliance and performance nightmare. The real challenge is to produce HIPAA‑ready, FHIR‑compliant, low‑latency data that can be consumed by downstream clinical decision support or billing systems. Compliance is not a checkbox; it’s a series of audit trails that must survive a 30‑day retention policy and survive a forensic review. In production, the cost of a single PHI exposure can exceed the annual budget of the entire platform. Real‑World Example Consider a mid‑size hospital that receives 25,000 inpatient discharge summaries, 8,000 lab reports, and 12,000 imaging PDFs every month. Each document is a mixture of scanned images, PDFs, and legacy forms. The billing team needs structured diagnoses and procedure codes within 30 seconds to avoid claim denials, while the analytics team wants similarity search for rare disease cases in the last 12 months. The pipeline must: Extract structured entities with ≥95% accuracy. Redact PHI in transit and at rest. Provide audit logs

If your app sells an allowance, a number of credits a month, or a number of documents, or a number of anything. Whatever it is, you end up writing a balance somewhere, a reset when the period rolls over, a check before the expensive call, and a usage screen that has to agree with all of it. None of that is hard on its own. What gets you is that the pieces drift. The plan says a thousand a month, the reset runs on the first of the month, the subscription renews on the 18th, and the screen sums a table that the charging code stopped writing to two features ago. And then somebody adds a weekly cap and now there are two numbers per plan to keep consistent, times seven plans. So after repeating the same on many apps, just created Larameter. It's basically what you see in Claude or OpenAI subscription plans. It meters credits against a plan, enforces ceilings on things that exist rather than things that are spent, and works out which plan an account is on instead of storing it. How to install Just install the package via composer as usually: composer require edulazaro/larameter php artisan vendor:publish --tag = larameter-config php artisan vendor:publish --tag = larameter-migrations php artisan migrate Then add the trait to whatever you bill. An organisation, a user, a workspace: the package does not care, and it does not need a column on your table. use EduLazaro\Larameter\Concerns\HasCredits ; class Organization extends Model { use HasCredits ; } The account row appears the first time you touch it. What are allowances One period is rarely enough. A monthly figure alone lets a bad afternoon eat the month, so you want a weekly cap on top, and maybe a per-session one. Declare those windows once: 'windows' => [ 'session' => [ 'minutes' => 300 , 'anchor' => 'rolling' , 'share' => 0.04 ], 'weekly' => [ 'days' => 7 , 'anchor' => 'fixed' , 'share' => 0.25 ], 'monthly' => [ 'months' => 1 , 'anchor' => 'fixed' , 'share' => 1 ], ], And then a plan grants 1 figure , which every wi

This is a simplified guide to an AI model called Beat_this maintained by Xavriley . If you like these kinds of analysis, you should join AImodels.fyi or follow us on Twitter . Overview beat_this is a beat and downbeat tracking model from the ISMIR 2024 paper "Beat This! Accurate Beat Tracking Without DBN Postprocessing" by xavriley and collaborators at CPJKU. The model detects precise beat positions and downbeat boundaries in audio files without relying on Dynamic Bayesian Network postprocessing, achieving state-of-the-art F1 scores while maintaining generality across diverse music genres. The architecture alternates convolutions with transformers operating either over frequency or time dimensions, and is trained on multiple datasets including solo instruments, pieces with time signature changes, and classical music with high tempo variations. The main model ( final0 , final1 , final2 ) weighs approximately 78 MB each, with a smaller variant available at 8.1 MB. The most critical detail before using it: the model achieves good results specifically because it avoids meter and tempo constraints that traditional systems impose, but this means it can still fail on difficult and underrepresented genres and performs worse on continuity metrics compared to methods using postprocessing. Best use cases Music information retrieval and analysis workflows. If you build music analysis software that needs to segment tracks into beat-aligned sections for tempo detection, structural analysis, or synchronization with other modalities, beat_this provides clean beat and downbeat annotations without requiring external postprocessing pipelines. The model outputs precise timestamps suitable for downstream music information retrieval tasks like onset detection or harmonic analysis. Rhythm-aware music production tools. For digital audio workstations, beat detection plugins, or metronome applications, this model provides frame-level accuracy suitable for real-time audio alignment and grid s

La forma del problema Un directorio es una superficie: el miembro lo abre y adivina. Un recomendador es una superficie de empujar: el sistema propone y tiene que justificarse. La justificación es la parte difícil, y es donde vive la estadística. Tres restricciones hicieron esto distinto de un recomendador de contenido: El item es una persona con capacidad finita. Un hilo se le puede recomendar a diez mil personas. Un experto no. Una mala recomendación es cara de los dos lados. Quien pide desperdicia una petición, el experto desperdicia una hora, y los dos aprenden a ignorar la superficie. La afirmación tiene que ser checable. "Quizá te guste este hilo" no necesita evidencia. "Esta persona está un nivel adelante de ti en diseño de sistemas" sí. Recuperación: híbrida, fusionada con RRF Tres recuperadores independientes sobre el conjunto de expertos elegibles, fusionados con Reciprocal Rank Fusion: def rrf_fuse ( * ranked_lists , k = 60 ): """ Fusiona listas de ids rankeadas. El score depende solo del rank, nunca de la escala propia del recuperador, que es el punto: la similitud coseno y un conteo de hilos resueltos no son números comparables. """ fused = {} for lst in ranked_lists : for rank , key in enumerate ( lst ): fused [ key ] = fused . get ( key , 0.0 ) + 1.0 / ( k + rank ) return fused RRF es la primitiva correcta aquí por una razón que vale la pena decir: los recuperadores emiten cantidades incomparables. Uno regresa un coseno en [-1, 1] , uno regresa un conteo entero de hilos resueltos, uno regresa un delta de nivel de escalera. Normalizarlos a una escala común requiere supuestos sobre sus distribuciones que nadie tiene a este volumen de datos. RRF descarta las magnitudes y se queda solo con el orden, que es exactamente la información que sobrevive a una muestra chica. k = 60 es la constante estándar de la formulación original de Cormack et al. Aplana la cabeza: la diferencia entre el rank 1 y el rank 2 es 1/61 - 1/62 ≈ 0.00026 , así que un recuperador no pu

Finding software is easy. Finding the right software is not. Search for almost any category—email marketing, CRM, productivity, design, or AI—and you will find hundreds of options. Every product presents itself as the best choice, while many comparison articles repeat the same features without explaining which users each tool actually suits. That problem inspired me to build PickTool , a platform for discovering and comparing AI and SaaS tools. PickTool is still evolving. I am currently improving its content quality, tool coverage, comparison experience, performance, and SEO structure. This is not a polished launch announcement. It is an honest look at the architecture behind the project and some of the lessons I have learned while building it. What Is PickTool? The goal of PickTool is simple: Help people find the right software in minutes, not hours. Instead of creating a basic directory filled with product names and affiliate links, I want each important tool to include useful and structured information, such as: Core features Pricing model Best use cases Strengths and limitations Ratings and evaluation criteria Alternatives Direct comparisons Related guides and category pages The challenge is that this creates several interconnected types of content. A single product can appear on its own tool page, inside a category, in multiple comparisons, and in articles about the best software for a particular use case. Keeping all of this consistent requires more than publishing isolated blog posts. Why I Chose Next.js and Laravel PickTool uses a decoupled architecture: Next.js powers the public-facing website. Laravel powers the backend, API, database logic, and administration system. MySQL stores tools, categories, ratings, pricing information, and editorial content. I chose this combination because I wanted the frontend and content-management logic to evolve independently. Laravel provides a structured backend for managing relationships between tools and content. Next.js

Originally published on tamiz.pro . The field of AI agents has moved rapidly from single-model executors to complex multi-agent orchestration. But after running 157 agent deployments across diverse task domains, one pattern emerged with striking consistency: planning quality predicts success far better than execution speed or model size. This isn't just theoretical—it's a practical lesson that's reshaping how engineers architect agent fleets, giving rise to what we're now calling Orca-style agents : hierarchical, planning-first systems that separate the expensive business of thinking from the cheaper business of doing. The Experiment: 157 Agent Runs Over six months, our team deployed and monitored 157 distinct agent runs across four primary use cases: code generation pipelines, automated testing workflows, infrastructure-as-code provisioning, and data transformation tasks. Each run varied along three dimensions: Architecture : Single-agent vs. flat multi-agent vs. hierarchical (Orca-style) Planning depth : No planning, brief intent statement, or full recursive planning loop Execution model : Direct LLM call per action vs. tool-augmented execution with validation The results were unambiguous. Systems that invested 3-5x more tokens in planning achieved 4.2x higher task completion rates and 3.8x fewer rollback cycles compared to agents optimized purely for fast execution. The correlation between planning sophistication and success held across every domain. Why Planning Beats Raw Execution The intuition behind this finding rests on an economic principle of LLM usage: planning is cheap relative to costly mistakes . A well-structured plan reduces the probability of executing the wrong sequence of tools, making incorrect API calls, or generating code that fails integration testing. Consider the token economics: Phase Tokens (typical) Cost impact Planning (intent + decomposition) 800–2,500 Low Execution per subtask 300–1,200 Medium Correction after failure 1,500–4,000 High

Originally published on hexisteme notes . A user complaint sent me into a caption pipeline: "the subtitles cut to two words in places where the sentence doesn't make sense." The fix I shipped for that complaint introduced a second bug, one word narrower and easy to miss, because the code that measured whether a line of text would fit reproduced an assumption about the text that the code drawing the line didn't share. Every test passed the whole time. I only found it by watching the rendered video. The bug the complaint pointed at The captioning system splits a transcript into short chunks that pop onto screen a few words at a time. The chunking function was doing fixed-size slicing — take the next N words, regardless of what came before or after. That's blind to sentence boundaries, so two unrelated sentences could land in the same chunk: loss. Today reads as one visual unit even though it's the tail of one sentence and the head of the next. The fix was a rule set, not a single tweak: hard break after terminal punctuation ( . ! ? … ) soft break at commas, semicolons, and em-dashes extend or push a chunk rather than let it end on a function word ( of , the , than , is , and about thirty others) target three words per chunk, four as a ceiling a pixel-width cap on the rendered chunk, measured against the actual caption font (Montserrat ExtraBold), with a budget of 1080 × 0.92 = 993.6px The first four rules are about where a line is allowed to break. The fifth is a physical constraint: however good the break points are, a chunk still has to fit on screen at the font size actually in use. That's the one that went wrong. What the width guard actually measured To get the pixel width of a candidate chunk, the guard rendered the chunk's text through the font and measured the result — which is the correct approach in principle, not a shortcut. Text width isn't a fixed number of pixels per character; it depends on the specific glyphs, so measuring the real string through the r

Over the past year I have been fine-tuning open vision-language models - 9B dense up to a 35B mixture-of-experts - with supervised fine-tuning and GRPO-style reinforcement learning on verifiable rewards. Most of what I learned was not about algorithms. It was about the ways a training run can look healthy while doing nothing, or crash for reasons that have nothing to do with your code. Three failures, in increasing order of how long they fooled me. Failure 1: the metric that measured the wrong thing (18 hours) I ran an 18-hour supervised fine-tune that reported token accuracy climbing steadily to 99%. Looked like a textbook run. The real evaluation metric - accuracy on multiple-choice questions - never moved. The cause was a mismatch between what I supervised and what I evaluated. The training loss was over free-text reasoning traces; the evaluation scored a single extracted answer letter. The model got extremely good at reproducing the shape of the training text - hence 99% token accuracy - without that transferring to the decision I actually cared about. Token accuracy is a proxy, and proxies drift from the target exactly when you stop checking. The fix was structural, not a hyperparameter: supervise the thing you evaluate. If the deliverable is a constrained answer, the training signal has to reach that answer, not just the prose around it. The general rule I took: any training metric that is not your evaluation metric is a hypothesis about correlation, and you should check that correlation before you spend GPU-days on it. Failure 2: the crash that was two libraries disagreeing about position ids The GRPO trainer for the 9B vision model crashed in the forward pass, deep inside rotary position embedding code. Nothing in my training code had changed. The diagnosis took a while because the bug lived at the boundary between components: the text sequence length was derived from token-type ids, while the vision sequence length came from the image grid - and image-pad t

Cloudflare recently open-sourced Cloudflare OS. It allows enterprise teams to output work artifacts grounded in enterprise knowledge, know-how, and provisioned connectors, automate repetitive workflows with optimized token cost (with AI assistance only where needed), and build personal, shareable, customizable work software that caters to specific, complex use cases within a secure sandboxed model By Bruno Couriol

Small language models can now run directly on phones. But most of them stop learning the moment they ship. For personal AI, that feels like a strange stopping point. Some of the most useful signals arrive only after the model acts: Did the user dismiss the notification? Did they open it later? Did they rewrite the suggestion? Did they ask for it again? These interactions contain useful information about the user, but they are delayed, private, and ambiguous. They are not clean labels, and they are not reliable scalar rewards. To explore this problem, we built Online-SDFT , an open-source prototype that continually fine-tunes a small language model from delayed interactions while keeping the learning loop on the device. The prototype uses: LiquidAI/LFM2.5-230M A rank-4 LoRA adapter ONNX Runtime Training A bounded on-device replay buffer An Android notification-routing testbed Once the model has been provisioned, inference, interaction storage, replay, and adapter updates all happen locally. Why standard fine-tuning is awkward here Suppose the model receives a notification and chooses one of three actions: Show it now Save it for later Archive it Supervised fine-tuning would require a correct action for every notification. But the phone never observes what the ideal action was. Reinforcement learning replaces the correct answer with a reward, but that reward is also difficult to define. Opening a notification does not necessarily mean it arrived at the right time. Ignoring it does not necessarily mean it was unimportant. The user may simply have been busy. There is another complication: the model only observes the result of the action it actually took. If it archives a notification, it cannot know what would have happened had it shown the notification immediately. What the phone receives is not a label or reward. It receives hindsight . Using the same model as student and teacher The core idea is simple: let the model reconsider its decision after seeing what happened