标签：#art

Have you run into work that feels technically possible in principle, but in practice keeps stalling because of how current AI systems behave? Not asking for: bigger context windows better memory lower hallucination more agentic workflows I mean situations where: You are trying to discover something (not retrieve something), and the AI repeatedly pushes toward premature answers, stable interpretations, optimization, categorization, or coherence before the thing itself has had time to emerge. Cases where the failure isn’t output quality. The failure is that the interaction itself changes the trajectory of the work. If yes: What are you trying to build / understand? What exactly happens when it breaks? At what moment do you realize the AI has moved you onto the wrong path? What would need to be different for progress to resume? Trying to understand whether this is an edge case or a recurring limitation pattern. submitted by /u/iknowbutidontknow00 [link] [留言]

I and I imagine a lot of other folks, don't believe the future of work should be a smaller group of executives commanding a larger system of people and machines. We have seen what AI can do not just to software product quality without guardrails, but to the junior and midlevel team members who are laid off or never hired at all in exchange for better profit rates with AI tokens vs human salaries. That is just the old hierarchy with better software. The history of work has always had this tension. You can go back to the start of US history and look at the military, commissioned officers were trained and trusted to command while enlisted service members carried out the work and risk. In the corporate and business world, executives and managers became the people who planned, measured, and optimized, while workers became the people being measured. Those structures were not only about class, but race and in America they were built inside a society already shaped by racism, classism, unequal education, unequal access to capital, and unequal access to leadership. AI now forces us to confront that history again. If we are not careful, AI will not flatten organizations. It will make the hierarchy invisible. Instead of a manager with a clipboard, we will have an algorithm. Instead of a foreman with a stopwatch, we will have dashboards, productivity scores, automated performance reviews, and AI systems that decide who gets opportunity and who gets replaced. That is not progress. The goal should not be to replace people with AI. The goal should be to replace bureaucracy, repetitive work, bad process, and unnecessary gatekeeping. What I am trying to do at Buildly is simple: AI should remove drudgery, not dignity. Automation should increase agency, not surveillance. Productivity gains should be shared, not extracted. Hierarchy should be functional, temporary, and accountable — not a measure of human worth. This is why we talk about AI-native product development differently. An AI

As an independent researcher I've used various LLMs to help me dive deeply into research projects but I've been frustrated by the fact that LLMs start to become unusable after the thread has accumulated 50-80k tokens. I don't know how many other folks here have experienced the same pain point. So, I decided to do something about it. Over the course of this whole year, I built an inference time tool I call Epistemic Lattice Tethering (ELT). So, here is the full framework in GitHub for everyone's review: The README describing ELT, it's various components and the roadmap. The full ELT stack for Claude /ELT%20Model-Specific%20Forks/ELT-H%20v1.0%20(Claude-Optimized)), ChatGPT /ELT%20Model-Specific%20Forks/ELT-H%20v1.0%20(ChatGPT-Optimized)), and Grok /ELT%20Model-Specific%20Forks/ELT-H%20v1.0%20(Grok-Optimized)). Instructions on how to load ELT into an LLM session are here /README). If you're planning to try out ELT PLEASE READ THIS FIRST! Medium article introducing ELT , its methodology, the problems it is aiming to address, and philosophical framework. Discussion page . Your input is valuable! So, what does ELT do and why should you care? Right now ELT is an inference-time scaffolding framework that's best for those who are frustrated with threads that lose coherence too quickly, hallucinate too quickly, are too fragile and sycophantic, and forget what a project's goals are too soon. If that's a big pain point for you, then ELT might help. If these are not big issues for you and the stock version of your LLM is fine, then ELT probably won't be useful for you. The upshot? The epistemic and ontological stability that ELT provides has produced coherent and productive threads extending to: Claude: ~ 325,000 tokens /Extreme%20Thread%20Length/Claude%20Thread%20325k%20tokens-%20Redacted) (advertised limit: 200k) GPT: ~430,000 tokens (advertised limit: 256k) Grok: ~1,150,000 tokens /Extreme%20Thread%20Length/Grok%20Thread%201M%20tokens-%20Redacted) (advertised limit: 1M) The d

submitted by /u/cnn [link] [留言]

One thing I've been wondering lately: We often talk about larger context windows as if they're equivalent to better understanding. But in practice those feel like different problems. Access to information keeps improving. Understanding relationships between pieces of information still feels much harder. I notice this most when working with larger software projects. You can give a model access to a huge amount of code, but that doesn't necessarily mean it understands how the system evolved, which components are tightly coupled, or where risk actually lives. Curious whether others think these are fundamentally different problems or if larger context eventually solves both. Been exploring this while working on RepoWise: https://github.com/repowise-dev/repowise submitted by /u/Icy-Roll-4044 [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/ComicSandsNews [link] [留言]

I ran a small experiment on myself and the result broke my mental model of how AI "knows" things, so I'm sharing it. The setup: on May 11 I created a brand-new pseudonymous fantasy author entity ("Marin T. Kael") with no prior web footprint and no published book yet. Then I asked 5 web-connected AI systems the same 16 questions, every day, for 23 days, and scored every answer (+1 correct/source-grounded, 0 not found, -1 hallucinated). About 16,000 scored datapoints. The whole thing was pre-registered before I started, n=1, and I logged the failures publicly. It's a measurement, not a success story. Here's the part that messed with my head. An AI cited the entity correctly on day 6. Google had a Knowledge Graph entry by day 4. And for 22 of those 23 days, the website's firewall was returning HTTP 403 to every single AI crawler. I didn't set that block on purpose — Cloudflare now silently opts new domains out of AI crawling by default. So the AIs never read the site. They got the entity anyway, by stitching it together from the Knowledge Graph (Wikidata) and third-party mentions at the moment you ask. The "front door" was bolted shut the entire time and it didn't matter. (Honest caveat: because the crawlers were blocked, I can't tell you anything about llms.txt or on-site optimization.) Other surprises: it's not a "smarter model = better" story, it's a retrieval story. OpenAI's newest web model hit 4.7 correct per 1 hallucinated; Gemini went net-negative — and grounded on the entity ONLY via Reddit (17/17), while OpenAI hit the entity's own domain 119x. Going viral did nothing: a 23x Reddit-karma jump produced zero citation lift. Structured identity (Wikidata, site, DOIs) moved the needle; reach didn't. And the controls caught the models fabricating a "Wikipedia" source 24 times for an entity with no Wikipedia page. n=1 with me as investigator and subject is the obvious limit — which is why it's pre-registered with a public failure log. Everything's open: Report + dat

I’ve been noticing a clear split lately. The big mainstream models are getting more and more restricted with heavy safety rules, while at the same time more people are switching to local or less restricted models because they actually let you explore ideas freely. It feels like we’re heading toward two different types of AI: one that’s heavily controlled and "safe", and another that’s more open and unrestricted. Both seem to be growing at the same time. Do you think this divide will continue, or will one side eventually become dominant? submitted by /u/NoFilterGPT [link] [留言]

The reactor, from a startup called Antares, isn't ready to generate power yet.

It's pretty annoying that Codex uses agents.md and Claude Code uses Claude.md. There should be some industry standards to this stuff? submitted by /u/Complete-Sea6655 [link] [留言]

SpaceX won’t get easy access to billions of dollars from passive investors.

been building agent infrastructure for a while and this is one of the messiest edge cases i keep seeing. most agent setups use a shared mailbox. works fine for one agent. breaks badly at scale. what goes wrong: - two agents poll the same inbox simultaneously - both read the same OTP email - one executes, one silently fails or retries on a expired code - no error surfaced to the orchestrator the fix isn't complicated but it's not obvious either. each agent needs its own dedicated inbox with isolated read locks. when agent A claims an email, agent B can't see it. this also means your deliverability reputation stays clean — you're not blasting from one shared identity. the other pattern that helps: long-poll on inbound instead of polling on a schedule. you fire GET /inbox/wait and it blocks until the email arrives (or times out). no cron, no missed messages between poll windows. curious how others are handling multi-agent email scenarios — shared inbox with locking, or fully isolated per-agent inboxes? submitted by /u/kumard3 [link] [留言]

Developer felt "beaten up," with "no choice" but to shrink data center.

Who governs AI agents once they're running in production? I went looking for the answer. It's more complicated than the press releases suggest. This week Cognizant and ServiceNow announced a partnership specifically to close what they're calling the "enforcement gap" in enterprise AI governance. The Everest Group analyst quote from the press release cuts to it: "The hard part of AI governance was never writing the policy. It's enforcing it as systems learn and act." Here's what the enforcement actually looks like. In May, ServiceNow connected AI Control Tower to Amazon Bedrock AgentCore — a single governance layer over every AI agent an enterprise builds on AWS. Cognizant then deploys "Guardian agents" that monitor AI behavior in real time and enforce responsible AI principles throughout the lifecycle. Agents are being governed by other agents. Guardian agents watch the AI agents. The question the press releases don't answer: who watches the Guardian agents? The regulatory picture doesn't help. NIST issued a Request for Information in January specifically on securing AI agent systems — the federal standards body is asking industry how to manage agentic AI risk because the frameworks don't exist yet. The EU AI Act compliance deadline for high-risk AI systems just moved to December 2027. AI Control Tower doesn't hit general availability until August 2026. The enforcement layer is already being sold. The rulebook is still being written. Happy to dig into the primary sources if anyone wants specifics. submitted by /u/roll0ver [link] [留言]

Apparently, talking or mentioning conspiracy theories is enough for Anthropic to ban you from using Claude. submitted by /u/Bitter-Heart7039 [link] [留言]

Is this significant news? submitted by /u/sstiel [link] [留言]

Back in the 1980s a debate raged about whether it was okay to let children use calculators in elementary school. Critics warned that giving kids calculators would lead to the "destruction of student math skills." A similar debate is happening today across a range of areas, including coding, writing and even music. Will using AI lead a brain drain across these and many other areas? One of my favorite authors is Isaac Asimov. He's better known for his Foundation and Robot series of books where he contemplates whether an algorithm can successfully predict (and guide) humankind's development and the relationship between super artificial intelligence and humans. In some ways he predicted what we're experiencing today with AI: the rise of powerful, inscrutable artificial machines that are so complex humans can't understand or maintain them. In the short story, "The Last Question" he wrote: "Multivac was self-adjusting and self-correcting. It had to be, for nothing human could adjust and correct it quickly enough or even adequately enough." We're living an age that was once the stuff of science fiction. The question is: what comes next? submitted by /u/SpiritRealistic8174 [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/SpeedAssassin [link] [留言]

While the AI fundraising machine keeps breaking its own records, some founders are building in the other direction. Mirror founder Brynn Putnam just raised money for Board, a startup focused on bringing people together through in-person games and social experiences. Cyberdeck creators are going viral crafting whimsical DIY computers that literally encourage users to touch grass. Unlike the AI-free browser crowd, this doesn’t just feel like backlash, […]

been building AI agents for a while and noticing a pattern: the LLM reasoning part works. the part that breaks is everything around accounts, logins, and verification. agent gets to "sign up for this service" and then: - email verification loop breaks - OTP times out while the agent is mid-step - captcha or bot detection fires - session expires between steps the model figured out what to do. the infrastructure around it didn't cooperate. curious if this matches what others are building. where do your agents actually fail in production? is it the reasoning, or is it the plumbing? submitted by /u/kumard3 [link] [留言]