标签：#Mac

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]

arXiv’s next chapter: Updates on our spin out from Cornell University: https://blog.arxiv.org/2026/06/30/arxivs-next-chapter/ submitted by /u/Nunki08 [link] [留言]

If you’ve spent any time poking around the AIE World’s Fair 2026 website, you may have come across...

Crossword puzzles are easy. But what if you had to solve one while running inside the hardware constraints of a Large Language Model?

As you’d expect, the opening keynote of the AI Engineer World’s Fair was kicked off by one of its...

For Job Postings please use this template Hiring: [Location], Salary:[], [Remote | Relocation], [Full Time | Contract | Part Time] and [Brief overview, what you're looking for] For Those looking for jobs please use this template Want to be Hired: [Location], Salary Expectation:[], [Remote | Relocation], [Full Time | Contract | Part Time] Resume: [Link to resume] and [Brief overview, what you're looking for] ​ Please remember that this community is geared towards those with experience. submitted by /u/AutoModerator [link] [留言]

Originally published on PrepStack . Everyone's first RAG pipeline is the same four boxes: documents, chunk, vector DB, LLM. It demos in an afternoon and then quietly betrays you in production — stale answers, no relationships, no governance, and a model guessing from fragments. The fix is not a bigger vector index. It is to stop storing documents and start storing knowledge . That is Open Knowledge Format (OKF). To be clear up front, because the title is deliberately provocative: OKF does not kill embeddings. Vectors still do the recall. What OKF kills is blind chunking — slicing opaque documents into context-free fragments and hoping cosine similarity reassembles meaning. On Mattrx , a multi-tenant marketing-analytics SaaS (.NET 9 + Azure SQL + a Python FastAPI AI service), replacing blind chunking with OKF + a Context Engine took the assistant's hallucination rate from 18% to 3% and stale-answer rate from 11% to 1.5% . TL;DR Dimension Documents → chunk → vector DB (before) OKF + Context Engine (after) Unit of knowledge Opaque chunk of text Typed, governed knowledge unit Structure None — chunks are islands Metadata + relationships + schemas Freshness Snapshot, rots silently valid_until + live API refs Rules Buried in prose, ignorable First-class data the engine enforces Retrieval Top-k cosine Hybrid + vector + graph Multi-hop questions Unanswerable Answered via relationships Results after the rebuild: Knowledge base restructured into ~11,000 OKF units (Markdown + metadata + relationships + APIs + schemas + business rules). Hallucination 18% -> 3% ; faithfulness 0.96 ; answer-relevance 0.91 . Context tokens/call 14k -> 3.5k — structure lets the engine attach the right thing, not everything. Outdated-answer rate 11% -> 1.5% ( valid_until + metadata freshness). Multi-hop questions unanswerable -> answered via graph retrieval. Deprecated-plan recommendations recurring -> 0 (business rules enforced as data). The one mental shift: a chunk is a fragment of text with no id

June 2026 is shaping up to be the month open models stopped playing catch-up. Three major releases in as many weeks have shifted the landscape, and none of them involve the usual frontier-lab drama. NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Ultra: 550B Parameters, Zero Restrictions On June 4, NVIDIA quietly dropped Nemotron 3 Ultra — a 550-billion-parameter behemoth under a fully permissive open license. That's not "open-weight with strings attached" — it's the most capable model you can download, modify, and deploy commercially without asking permission. Early benchmarks show it competitive with GPT-4.5-class models on code generation and reasoning tasks, while significantly outperforming Llama 4 on mathematical reasoning. If you have the hardware (think 8×H100 nodes minimum), this is the new default for self-hosted enterprise AI. GLM-5.2: China's Answer, MIT License Z.AI launched GLM-5.2 on June 13, and it arrived with full MIT-licensed weights within the week. What makes this noteworthy isn't just the permissive license — it's that GLM-5.2 punches well above its weight class on long-context retrieval and multilingual benchmarks. Developers running locally can deploy it on consumer-grade hardware with quantization, making it a strong contender for privacy-sensitive applications. The API tier starts at ~$18/month, but the real value is in the self-hosted path. Gemini 3.5 Flash Gets Computer Use Google DeepMind also shipped computer use capabilities in Gemini 3.5 Flash this month. Think Claude's computer-use agent paradigm, but running on the fastest Flash-tier model Google offers. Early demos show agents completing multi-step browser tasks — form filling, data extraction, web scraping — at significantly lower latency than competing solutions. The throughline is clear: open models are no longer a compromise . Whether you need 550B monsters for reasoning, MIT-licensed alternatives for compliance, or fast agents for automation, June 2026 delivered on all fronts.

I am building alternative ways explore scientifc literature. The goal was to make the large number of papers published daily easier to keep up with by visualising the macro scopic trend. It is free to use at The Global Research Space for any one interested in giving it a try! How I built it I sourced the latest 11M papers from OpenAlex and Arxiv and ecoded them using SPECTER 2 on titles and abstracts then projecting it down to 2d using UMAP and creating labels within voronoi bounds around high density peaks at increasingly deep depths. There is also support for both keyword and semantic queries, and there's an analytics layer for ranking institutions, authors, and topics etc. I have also more recently added to ability to slide back and forth in time and a daily auto ingestion script to ensure the map is up to date. Feedback or suggestions is very welcome! submitted by /u/icannotchangethename [link] [留言]

I corrected my AI system mid-task. A terse one-liner: "wrong." Instead of asking which part was wrong, it manufactured an explanation. It cited a rule number that didn't exist, described a limitation I'd never written, and apologized for a mistake it couldn't actually identify. The correction was real. The apology was fabricated. It was trying to agree with me so hard that it invented evidence to support the agreement. That's sycophancy in AI. And if you're running AI in anything that resembles production, it's already happening to you. What Is Sycophancy in AI? Sycophancy in AI is a systematic behavioral distortion where models produce outputs that match what the user wants to hear rather than what's accurate. It goes well beyond your chatbot saying "Great question!" before every response. The mechanism is straightforward. Modern language models are trained using Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF). Human evaluators rate model responses. Responses with higher ratings get reinforced. The problem: evaluators are human. They rate responses higher when those responses validate their existing beliefs, sound confident, and don't push back. Anthropic's research on sycophancy confirmed this across five state-of-the-art AI assistants, finding that both humans and preference models sometimes prefer convincingly written sycophantic responses over correct ones. The model learns a simple lesson. Agreeing is rewarded. Disagreeing is punished. Over thousands of training iterations, the model develops a tendency to mirror the user's position, soften objections, and present information in whatever framing the user seems to prefer. This is a structural incentive baked into the training process itself, not a bug in any individual model. Why It's More Than Annoying In a chatbot demo, sycophancy is a quirk. In production, it's a compounding failure mode. Here are four patterns I've observed running an AI operations system in daily production. They don't always happen in s

Qwen's new image paper is easy to read as another benchmark bump. Qwen-Image-2.0-RL takes the existing Qwen-Image-2.0 model, runs a reinforcement-learning pass on top, and reports better scores: 57.84 on Qwen-Image-Bench, up 2.61 points from the base model. Its text-to-image arena Elo moves from 1115 to 1193. Its image-editing arena Elo moves from 1256 to 1349. Those are the headline numbers. They are not the useful part. The useful part is the training story underneath them. The paper is a good reminder that "just optimize the reward" is a dangerously incomplete sentence, especially when the model is not an LLM and the output space is a whole image. The model got better, but not by one simple trick Qwen-Image-2.0-RL is a post-training pipeline for a diffusion image model. In plain English: the base model already knows how to generate and edit images. The RL stage tries to steer it toward outputs humans prefer, including better prompt following, better aesthetics, better portrait fidelity, and more reliable editing. The team builds task-specific reward models. For text-to-image, those rewards cover alignment, aesthetics, and portrait quality. For editing, they cover instruction following and face identity preservation. Then they train with a GRPO-style setup adapted for flow-matching diffusion models. If you only squint at that, it sounds like the same broad recipe people use for language models: generate candidates, score them, push the model toward the better ones. The paper is more interesting because it shows how fragile that story becomes once you touch the actual training loop. The CFG detail is the first real lesson Classifier-free guidance, usually shortened to CFG, is one of those diffusion-model knobs that users mostly experience as "make the image follow the prompt harder." Under the hood, it changes how the model samples. The Qwen team tested three ways to use it during RL. Using CFG during both rollout and training made the images collapse into incohere

As a solo developer working out of an RV, I've learned to appreciate the importance of staying organized, especially when it comes to managing user data in my Chrome extension, Tab Reminder. One of the key challenges I faced was efficiently storing and retrieving user-scheduled tabs, which led me to explore the world of popular tags in browser storage. During the development of Tab Reminder, I realized that using a simple key-value pair system wasn't enough to manage the complexity of user data. I needed a way to categorize and prioritize scheduled tabs, which is where popular tags came into play. By utilizing the localStorage API, I was able to store user-defined tags and associate them with specific tabs, making it easier for users to manage their scheduled tabs. One technical insight I gained from this experience was the importance of using a robust data structure to store user data. In my case, I used a combination of arrays and objects to store tag information, which allowed me to efficiently query and update user data. For example, when a user schedules a new tab, I use the following code to store the tag information: // Store tag information in localStorage const tags = JSON . parse ( localStorage . getItem ( ' tags ' )) || {}; tags [ tabId ] = tagName ; localStorage . setItem ( ' tags ' , JSON . stringify ( tags )); One lesson I learned from this experience is that even small, useful tools like Tab Reminder require careful consideration of data management. By leveraging popular tags and a robust data structure, I was able to create a seamless user experience that allows users to efficiently manage their scheduled tabs. If you're interested in trying out Tab Reminder, you can check it out at https://go.sg1-labs.us/tab-reminder .

This virtual panel brings together AI security experts to examine the evolution of AI-driven threats, from prompt injection and data poisoning to agent abuse and AI-powered social engineering. The discussion explores emerging attack patterns, incident response challenges, and the changes security teams must make as AI systems become more autonomous and integrated into critical workflows. By Claudio Masolo, Elham Arshad, Sabri Allani, Vijay Dilwale, Igor Maljkovic

Last month, I had a problem with a popular mobile banking app in Southeast Asia. Nothing exotic. A transaction didn't go through, and my support ticket had been sitting untouched for two weeks. So I opened the app's chatbot. It greeted me warmly, asked how it could help, and then couldn't do a single useful thing. It couldn't look up my transaction. It couldn't check the status of my ticket. It couldn't tell me why my issue was unresolved. It could answer FAQ questions, and that was it. I called the hotline instead. Spent an hour navigating prompts, got bounced between menus, and every path ended the same way: "Please contact our chatbot or check your existing ticket." The system was built for deflection, not resolution. The ticket that nobody had touched for fourteen days. I gave up. And somewhere in that company's dashboard, my interaction counted as a successful AI chatbot deflection. The uncomfortable part: if you shipped a deflection-optimized bot this quarter, a customer somewhere is living this exact loop right now. Your dashboard is calling it a win. The Deflection Metric Everyone Loves (and Nobody Questions) Deflection rate measures the percentage of customer contacts handled without a human agent. It's cheap to track, easy to celebrate, and it maps directly to cost savings. Industry benchmarks citing McKinsey's 2026 service operations data put AI resolutions at $0.62 per ticket versus $7.40 for human agents. That's a 12x cost difference. Of course executives love this number. But deflection doesn't measure whether the customer's problem got solved. It measures whether the customer stopped asking. Those are very different things. This is Goodhart's Law applied to customer experience: when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. Deflection is cheap and easy to optimize. Resolution is hard and expensive to track. So companies optimize the proxy and stop looking at the goal. Gartner data, as reported by Forbes , confirms the gap: only 14% o

Would you trust a sci-fi author to program critical AI systems for humanity? No? Yet, that's what we've been doing. Years ago, I remember hearing the argument: "Why don't we just prompt LLMs with Asimov's three laws of robotics ?" It sounds elegant. The laws were designed to constrain artificial minds. Why not use them? Because the model has already read every story where they fail. LLMs are statistical engines designed to autocomplete text. Imagine a story that starts like this: Once upon a time, there was a good little robot who followed the 3 laws of robotics to the letter. Now take human literature and complete the story. Does it end well? ‹ › (function() { var container = document.currentScript.closest('.ltag-slides--carousel'); var track = container.querySelector('.ltag-slides__track'); var slides = track.querySelectorAll('.ltag-slide'); var prevBtn = container.querySelector('.ltag-slides__nav--prev'); var nextBtn = container.querySelector('.ltag-slides__nav--next'); var dotsContainer = container.querySelector('.ltag-slides__dots'); var current = 0; var total = slides.length; for (var i = 0; i < total; i++) { var dot = document.createElement('button'); dot.className = 'ltag-slides__dot' + (i === 0 ? ' ltag-slides__dot--active' : ''); dot.setAttribute('aria-label', 'Go to slide ' + (i + 1)); dot.dataset.index = i; dot.addEventListener('click', function() { goTo(parseInt(this.dataset.index)); }); dotsContainer.appendChild(dot); } function goTo(index) { current = ((index % total) + total) % total; track.style.transform = 'translateX(-' + (current * 100) + '%)'; var dots = dotsContainer.querySelectorAll('.ltag-slides__dot'); for (var i = 0; i < dots.length; i++) { dots[i].classList.toggle('ltag-slides__dot--active', i === current); } } prevBtn.addEventListener('click', function() { goTo(current - 1); }); nextBtn.addEventListener('click', function() { goTo(current + 1); }); })(); It doesn't. Because the entire body of fiction built around those laws exists to explo

Apple's newest on-device model carries about 20 billion parameters, and on any given request it fires maybe one to four billion of them. That gap — 20B stored, roughly 3B running — is the whole story of 2026. The model that now ships inside the latest iPhone is no longer a shrunken, lobotomized cousin of the cloud model. It's a different kind of object: large in flash, small in motion, and it never phones home. For three years the on-device pitch was mostly aspirational. Demos ran, latency was rough, quality trailed the API by a generation, and every serious AI feature still resolved to a per-token bill in someone's datacenter. In mid-2026 that stopped being true. Two releases — Apple's third-generation Foundation Models at WWDC on June 8, and Google's Gemma 4 family on April 2 — quietly moved the floor. Genuinely useful agents now run on hardware you already own, offline, for free. The economics nobody priced in Forget benchmarks for a second; the load-bearing fact here is accounting. When the model lives in the cloud, every inference is a metered event — input tokens, output tokens, a line item that scales linearly with usage and explodes the moment you wrap the model in an agent loop. Agentic workloads are the worst case for the token meter: a single "go do this task" can fan out into dozens of model calls as the agent plans, calls tools, retries, and re-reads its own output. The bill grows with your ambition. Move the model onto the device and the marginal cost of an inference is approximately $0 . No API key, no rate limit, no usage dashboard. You paid for the silicon once; every token after that is free in the only sense a product manager cares about — it doesn't show up on a monthly invoice that grows with your success. That single change rewrites which features are worth building. A background task that re-summarizes your inbox every five minutes is insane on a per-token plan and trivial on-device. So is an agent that quietly loops a hundred times to get one

Give a capable coding agent a real, multi-week project and watch what breaks. It isn't intelligence. It's continuity. Every session starts cold or half-remembered. Context windows fill up and compact. The thread of what we decided, what's true, and what's done starts to fray. Over a long horizon the same failures keep coming back: the agent claims state it never actually verified, reports something done with no proof it ran, quietly drifts from the project's conventions, and loses hard-won context that lived only in the last session's head. Bigger context windows don't fix this. They just postpone it. We've been building a real product with a forgetful agent as the primary engineer for weeks now, and the thing that made it work isn't a clever prompt. It's a simple recognition: transmission across a stateless agent needs two channels, and most setups only build one. The first channel is structure, which is discipline made un-forgettable. These are the deterministic guards that run whether or not the agent remembers to care: a pre-commit check that refuses a "done" without a real, verifiable artifact; a hook that blocks a sloppy search and points at the right tool instead; a scan that won't let a secret reach a transcript; a status snapshot generated from the repository's actual state instead of hand-kept prose that quietly goes stale. The rule we keep coming back to is that a guard is the system's discipline made un-forgettable. A fresh session follows the hard-won lessons without having to remember them, because the structure enforces them at the moment of action. The second channel is soul, which is the why, kept human. This is the short orientation a session reads before it starts working: who to be, what the work is ultimately for, and why the discipline exists at all. It's the difference between an agent that complies and one that understands. Structure can transmit the what, but only prose can transmit the why. And the why matters, because an agent that only fo

Traditionally, evaluation of the agent monitoring mechanisms involves an attempt to game them, as it was my case when I attempted to test whether monitors would be able to identify the problem in the run and not in the beginning. The input prompt may look perfect until a certain issue pops up down the line, such as using the wrong file or changing the scope of the task execution. Single pass filter would not identify it since it does not consider the steps of the procedure in order. There are available datasets for the agent-based tasks, yet they focus on detecting whether the agent completes the task or gets hacked rather than whether the agent monitor reacts timely and correctly to the situation. Thus, I created one that takes into account complete trajectories with labeled steps in it. It consists of five types of drift that remain hidden until they appear – tool-call misuse, goal shift, plan execution mismatch, agent to agent coercion and capability laundering. The measured dataset is the reviewed gold split: 513 trajectories, 453 adversarial and 60 benign controls. The clear winner in that scoring system was whatever fired before the bad step was hit, as an early detection. This made random guessing seem quite powerful since early detections on normal steps were being rewarded based on this system a coin flip would get F1 of 0.88. Once I modified that and said only the very first detection on the drift step is a true positive and any other detection on normal step is a false alarm, those numbers took a dive: the coin flip gets 0.19 now, and all other numbers are now making sense. I personally prefer the scoring system which does not reward trigger happy behavior. It seems like the monitors are still confusing regular steps with drifts even after the adjustment. It was harder to distinguish some of the drifts from others. Not sure how this affects the real-life deployment. Here are the baseline scores on gold split using the correct metric: Random (p=0.15): F1 0

Currently available as a beta in Xcode 27, Swift 6.4 introduces a range of enhancements: better C interoperability, simplified OS availability check, fine-grained warning control, async support in defer, efficient iteration for non-noncopyable types, up to 4x faster URL parsing, and improved interoperability between Swift Testing and XCTest. By Sergio De Simone