标签：#Mac

​ For open-weight LLMs, how practical is it to study defenses against post-release fine-tuning that weakens refusal or safety behavior? I've been seeing “uncensored” or “heretic” variants of new models appear very quickly after release, which raises a question I’m curious about: is fine-tuning resistance a meaningful safety goal for open-weight releases, or is it too narrow because determined users can always modify weights, switch models, or use other workarounds? And to a larger extent, is current safety training even worth the cost and effort if it takes 30 minutes and an automated script to break the model? I’m not asking about a specific method, just the threat model. What would count as a useful practical win here? For example, would increasing attacker cost or making safety removal less reliable be valuable, even if perfect prevention is impossible? Curious how people think about this from a model release, governance, and AI safety perspective. submitted by /u/Aaron_Rock [link] [留言]

I Spent 30 Days Comparing Startup and Enterprise AI APIs Look, I'm just a dude building a SaaS side project. Not enterprise, not Fortune 500, just me and a few friends trying to ship something useful. So when I started hitting AI API walls, I went down the rabbit hole of figuring out what the heck to do. And honestly? Most guides out there are written by people who clearly have never had to choose between buying groceries or paying for OpenAI credits. They're either too corporate ("here's our enterprise procurement guide!") or too naive ("just use the cheapest API!"). So I figured I'd write the guide I WISH existed when I started. And I'm gonna throw in some enterprise stuff too because I consulted for a bigger company last year and saw what THEY deal with. Different worlds, I tell ya. Let me break this down properly. Why I Almost Just Used DeepSeek Directly Okay so here's the thing. When I first started, I was like "DeepSeek is dirt cheap, let me just sign up there and call it a day." I mean, the pricing was wild. Like cents per million tokens. How could I lose? Then I tried to actually sign up. Chinese phone number required. WeChat Pay or Alipay only. No PayPal. No Visa. Nothing. And I get it, that's their home market, but for me sitting here in my apartment in the US? Absolute dead end. So I started looking at aggregators. Tried like four of them. Some had weird pricing. Some had models that didn't actually work. One of them straight up charged me for tokens I never used (still salty about that). Then I landed on Global API and honestly I gotta say, it just worked. Email signup, PayPal, and I could test DeepSeek AND Claude AND Qwen all with one key. That's when I realised going direct to providers is kind of a trap if you're small. Let me show you the actual problem with going direct. The "Go Direct" Trap Here's what happens when you sign up direct with various providers: Problem What Happens to You Locked to one vendor Your whole app depends on their uptime Paym

The discovery underscores the increased effort being poured into Mac infostealers.

Hey all. I recently started working on a project to improve machine-translated webnovels via style transfer. The basic idea is to take the clunky translated prose and rewrite it to something that reads like it was written by a professional author, while remaining as faithful as possible to the original text. The source material is mostly amateur/MTL output full of direct sentence structure translations carried over from Chinese, awkward honorifics, over-translated idioms, that kind of thing. The goal isn't retranslation from the source but a cleanup of the English output. The tricky part is I have no clean data pair for supervised approaches. I've been looking at a few directions: Fine-tuning on target-style prose — collect high-quality English novels, fine-tune a small LLM to rewrite in that register. Just use a local LLM — run a local LLM and provide it with guidelines on what to rewrite and leave the same. No fine-tuning or anything needed, just hoping the transformer can handle it. A few things I'm stuck on: Is the faithfulness/fluency tradeoff actually manageable at the sentence level, or do I need paragraph-level context or more to preserve narrative coherence? How do people handle domain-specific terms like terminology and catchphrase-type things that need to survive the rewrite unchanged? Hard constraints during decoding, or just hope the model learns to leave them alone? Happy to hear about similar projects, relevant papers I might have missed, or just general lessons from working in this space. Thanks. submitted by /u/Divine_Invictus [link] [留言]

From what I understand, reviewers usually do not directly vote for these categories or nominate papers themselves. So how does the selection process typically work? Here are specific questions I wonder - Who actually selects the candidates: ACs, SACs, program chairs, award committees, or a separate committee? - Do ACs or committees read the camera-ready version, or is the decision based on the originally submitted/reviewed version? - Is the selection mostly based on reviewer scores, or do factors like novelty, impact, and discussion among ACs play a bigger role? submitted by /u/National-Resident244 [link] [留言]

BMVC reviews will be out tomorrow. Making this parent thread for discussion. All the best everyone! submitted by /u/Hot_Version_6403 [link] [留言]

Paper Referred:- https://arxiv.org/pdf/2412.09871v1 Has anyone switched the transformer in the entropy model here to a Mamba model ? What could be the possible changes ? Just a ML fresher asking a genuine, since Mamba is more popular and saves computer (O(n)). Thanking you in advance ! submitted by /u/SoloLeveller07 [link] [留言]

I am a mid to late stage PhD student in ML. I've known this before, but only recently I started feeling this urgently: my mathematical foundations are shaky, because I kept "learning-things-as-I-go" when working on various problems. I likely have only a year or two left until I graduate, and before I do so, I want to really dedicate some time and focus to brush up on the fundamentals. Primarily, I want to improve my knowledge in Linear Algebra, Probability Theory, and Functional Analysis. For Lin. alg., I am looking at "Linear Algebra done right", and I think this book is sufficient for the topic, unless anyone thinks otherwise. I am not sure where to start for probability, as well as functional analysis. Rudin's books give me headaches. I instead started reading "A primer on RKHS" ( https://arxiv.org/abs/1408.0952 ) to "dip my toe" into functional analysis. Apart from the above, I might re-read PRML book (I've only read specific chapters before), and try to finish Pat Kidger's Just-Know-Stuff list ( https://kidger.site/thoughts/just-know-stuff ). Thoughts? Anyone have any book/resource recommendations? Someone told me to look into "the bright side of mathematics" on YouTube, anyone ever go through the videos there? I'm aware finding good, digestible resources is less than 10% of the challenge. The difficult part is sticking through and actually reading/working through these topics, while still juggling other academic responsibilities. submitted by /u/mvreich [link] [留言]

I am working in a research group in Germany, not that well known but in general good output. I have one colleague who does nothing in his PhD. He does not want to work, or he is not able to do any good research, his level is super bad. Plus He doesn’t even care about that. To wrap it up, he is just here for the money. Since he doesn’t want to work or he can’t really do anything good, instead what he does is “paper fishing”, he searches for people in the group doing some good research, and asks that they put his name on the paper. In this case he has something to cover up for him when the professor asks him about his progress. As long as his name is on the paper, progress is checked and funding is renewed. But he actually does nothing. I know this is very unprofessional and unethical. But people tell me it’s normal in academia. Professors all the time put names of their friends and this is how it works in academia. What are your thoughts of this behaviour? submitted by /u/impressivestatus21 [link] [留言]

You built a system to surface information so a person could decide. Somewhere it started deciding for them — the output stopped saying "here's what the documents show" and started saying "you should do X." Nobody designed that drift. An LLM, when asked a question, produces an answer-shaped thing, and an answer easily becomes a verdict. What everyone tries A prompt instruction: "Don't make recommendations." "Only state what's in the documents." People add the line and assume the boundary is enforced. Why it doesn't work A prompt instruction is a request, not a guardrail. The model follows it most of the time, then on the input that matters produces a confident recommendation anyway, because nothing structurally prevents it. "Please don't make recommendations" is to a guardrail what a sticky note saying "please don't enter" is to a locked door. And the stakes are higher than they look. When output drifts from evidence to verdict, accountability moves. As long as the system returns evidence and a human decides, the human owns the decision. The moment the system returns a verdict and the human defers, the system is deciding things it was never validated to decide — and when one is wrong, accountability is a blank. High-stakes fields separate evidence extraction from judgment on purpose; most RAG systems erase that line by default. The one shift Decide what the output is and enforce it structurally. An output should declare itself: answer, evidence, missing facts, or out-of-scope. "Return decision material, not a decision" has to live in the output contract and in gates — not in a polite request to the model. The system supplies frames; the human supplies verdicts. This is the output boundary — one of three places production RAG dies. Read the full version on my blog , where this connects to the RAG Failure Diagnosis Kit for teams debugging production RAG.

Please post your personal projects, startups, product placements, collaboration needs, blogs etc. Please mention the payment and pricing requirements for products and services. Please do not post link shorteners, link aggregator websites , or auto-subscribe links. -- Any abuse of trust will lead to bans. Encourage others who create new posts for questions to post here instead! Thread will stay alive until next one so keep posting after the date in the title. -- Meta: This is an experiment. If the community doesnt like this, we will cancel it. This is to encourage those in the community to promote their work by not spamming the main threads. submitted by /u/AutoModerator [link] [留言]

https://www.gnosyslabs.com/case-studies/safety-classifier-sparse-labels Gnosys is an autonomous model engineer: it improves prompts and classifiers when ground truth is too sparse for conventional optimization. On ToxicChat, a public safety benchmark, under realistic label scarcity, it improved a classifier past both the team's starting point and GEPA (a standard prompt optimizer), across two runs of our current method. This note describes what we did, what we found, and where the method underperformed. Results We report harm caught : the share of harmful messages flagged, holding the false positive rate fixed at 5% (one in twenty) for every method, so a difference reflects additional harm caught at the same cost rather than a change of threshold. Both runs below are scored on a held-out set the system never saw. Headline run (3,000) Prior run (1,000) Gnosys 0.777 0.909 Starting classifier 0.731 0.788 GEPA 0.702 0.848 In both runs, Gnosys improved on both the starting classifier and GEPA. In the headline run GEPA not only trailed Gnosys but fell below the starting classifier (0.731 to 0.702); in the prior run it improved on the starting point. This inconsistency is the central difficulty under sparse labels: optimization sometimes helps and sometimes harms, and without trustworthy measurement there is no way to tell which has happened. The comparison is intentionally conservative: both approaches use the same underlying optimizer. The only difference is that Gnosys engineers the objective the optimizer works against. The problem Teams running high-stakes AI classifiers, in content moderation, fraud, claims review, and risk scoring, share one constraint: the ground truth they need is a human judgment that is expensive, slow, and sometimes never arrives. They can verify only a small set of examples while decisions accumulate on everything else. Tuning the model against the few labels on hand is where the difficulty concentrates. Here "few" is literal: about 200 verifi

Apple is readying several new iPad Pro tablets, and a budget-friendly MacBook Pro, reports suggest.

This is a write-up on our company blog that I wrote, sharing our perspective into Hamiltonian Neural Networks (Greydanus et al., 2019) from a differential-geometry angle rather than the usual "here's the loss function" treatment. I've been working on HNN and LNN adjacent topics for years now and I found this particular lens made the *why* click in a way the standard framing never did for me, and I've been meaning to put everything in writing for a while now. I just feel like the Noether's Theorem which shows conservations can be mapped to symmetries (and in ML context, generalization) is not getting the attention that it deserves around physics informed neural networks. Also, it's a really beautiful architecture and I just love talking about it at every opportunity. It's math-heavy, but I did my best to sprinkle some tension relievers and interactive visuals here and there and make is as easy as it is to follow. Hopefully, I did a good job. I'd genuinely love to see your thoughts and your feedback submitted by /u/FlameOfIgnis [link] [留言]

1. The Problem It Solves Logistic Regression is used when the outcome is a category rather than a number . Most commonly, it's used for binary classification , where the answer is either Yes or No , True or False , or 1 or 0 . Typical business problems include: Will a customer churn? Is this transaction fraudulent? Will a customer click an ad? Will a loan default? Is an email spam? Will a machine fail in the next 24 hours? Unlike Linear Regression, we're not trying to predict a continuous value. Instead, we're predicting the probability that an event belongs to a particular class. For example: A customer may have an 82% probability of churning . The business can then decide whether that probability is high enough to trigger an intervention. 2. Core Intuition Imagine you're trying to predict whether a customer will cancel their subscription. Suppose the only feature you have is how many times they opened your app this month. If you use a straight line like Linear Regression, the predictions quickly become unrealistic. A very active customer might end up with a -20% chance of churn . A completely inactive customer could end up with 140% . Probabilities obviously can't work like that. To fix this, Logistic Regression takes the linear equation and passes it through a mathematical function called the Sigmoid Function . Instead of producing a straight line, it creates an S-shaped curve . No matter how large or small the input becomes, the output always stays between 0 and 1 . That makes it perfect for probability estimation. 3. The Mathematical Model The model first calculates a linear score. Instead of using that score directly, it passes it through the Sigmoid function. Where: z = linear score p̂ = predicted probability The final output is always between 0 and 1 . For example: 0.08 → Very unlikely 0.32 → Low risk 0.65 → Moderate risk 0.94 → Very high probability Businesses can then choose a decision threshold. For example: Probability ≥ 0.50 → Predict Churn Probability

https://pymupdf.io/blog/markdown-in-pymupdf-1-28 PyMuPDF 1.28 release, introduces Markdown as a first class document in PyMuPDF. Seems useful for a variety of workflows. You can create PDFs from Markdown text with control over appearance using CSS submitted by /u/Remote-Spirit526 [link] [留言]

Hi everyone. Do the ACL arr may 2026 reviews come out of July 2nd or do they come out on July 7 th?? How much does one need to get into Main or Findings? I am a bit new to this. Thanks a lot folks. submitted by /u/Anshuman3480 [link] [留言]

The problem no one was solving Every Algerian developer building with AI hits the same wall: an international payment card. OpenAI, Anthropic, Google — every major AI provider assumes you have one. Most Algerian developers don't, or don't want to deal with the friction of currency conversion, card rejections, and unpredictable billing in a foreign currency. That's not a minor inconvenience. It's a barrier that quietly excludes an entire generation of developers from building with the best AI models available — not because they lack the skill, but because of infrastructure that was never designed with them in mind. The vision: AI sovereignty, not just AI access Access alone isn't the goal. The goal is sovereignty — Algeria having its own AI infrastructure layer, controlled locally, billed locally, and built to local compliance standards, instead of depending entirely on foreign gateways with no local accountability. That's what DEVUP AI is: Algeria's first AI inference gateway, built from the ground up to remove every friction point between an Algerian developer and the AI models they need. What DEVUP AI actually does 170+ AI models — including DeepSeek V4, Llama 3.1 405B, Qwen 3, Gemma 2, Mistral, GPT, Claude, and Gemini — through a single API OpenAI-compatible and Anthropic-compatible — point your existing SDK at our endpoint, no code rewrite needed Local DZD billing via Edahabia/CIB — no international card required SATIM-certified payment infrastructure — full compliance with Algeria's national payment standards Scoped JWT authentication for production-grade security A dedicated SDK ( npm install devupai ) and full documentation, so integration takes minutes, not days The technical bar was non-negotiable: this had to be production-grade from day one, not a side project. SATIM certification alone meant building proper transaction validation, receipt generation, chargeback tracking, and rejection-rate monitoring — the same rigor a bank would expect from a payment pr

Here is a question that sounds like a trick: can you build an accurate classifier out of models that are barely better than flipping a coin? Surprisingly, yes. That is the whole idea behind boosting, and AdaBoost is the algorithm that made it famous. I built it from scratch and dropped it into an interactive demo — here's how it actually works, real math, no hand-waving. Play with the live version: https://dev48v.infy.uk/ml/day21-adaboost.html The weak learner: a decision stump AdaBoost's building block is the simplest classifier you can imagine: a decision stump . It is a decision tree with exactly one split. Look at one feature, compare it to one threshold, and call everything on one side "+1" and everything on the other side "−1". That's it. One line, one cut. def stump_predict ( X , dim , thresh , polarity ): pred = np . ones ( len ( X )) if polarity == 1 : pred [ X [:, dim ] <= thresh ] = - 1 else : pred [ X [:, dim ] > thresh ] = - 1 return pred On anything that isn't trivially separable, a single stump is hopeless — on a checkerboard layout it barely passes 55-60%. That is exactly why it's a "weak learner": a model that only beats random guessing by a hair. The magic is in how we combine hundreds of them. Sample weights: a moving spotlight The engine of AdaBoost is a weight on every training point that says "how much does getting this one right matter?" Everything starts equal: n = len ( X ) w = np . full ( n , 1.0 / n ) # uniform: every point weighs 1/n These weights are a probability distribution — they sum to 1. After each round they change: points we got right get lighter, points we missed get heavier. Since we always pick the next stump to minimise weighted error, the heavy points end up dominating the search. The next stump is effectively forced to stare at whatever the committee keeps blowing. Weighted error, not a plain count When we hunt for the best stump each round, we don't count mistakes — we add up the weight of the mistakes: def weighted_error

Please post your questions here instead of creating a new thread. Encourage others who create new posts for questions to post here instead! Thread will stay alive until next one so keep posting after the date in the title. Thanks to everyone for answering questions in the previous thread! submitted by /u/AutoModerator [link] [留言]