标签：#art

Been using the Artlist AI Toolkit for a while now and honestly just camp out on Nano Banana 2 for image editing and Kling 3.0 for video. Between those two I can pretty much handle everything I need. The toolkit has a ton of other stuff: Veo 3.1, Flux 2.0, GPT Image 1.5, Sora 2, but I haven't felt a strong enough reason to branch out yet. Curious if anyone's actually putting the other models to work or if most people find their two or three go-tos and just stay there. Is Veo 3.1 actually worth trying alongside Kling? And does anyone use the voiceover tools or is that still rough around the edges? submitted by /u/shogunattila [link] [留言]

I'd like to perform the typical operation of giving an AI some text to review and asking it to give me feedback, summarize the document, evaluate the content etc. Except, I want to give it two pieces of text, perhaps two sides of a debate, and I don't want the output to depend on the order of the two inputs. My naive idea is to do it both ways in two separate contexts, then feed those results to each other with a request for convergent results, and repeat until they converge. However, this seems like it would be rather slow and expensive. Are there any existing tools that enable this sort of task without extra tooling and iterative attempts at convergence? submitted by /u/sparr [link] [留言]

I used to think the best AI food logging flow would be simple: Take a photo, let the model identify the meal, confirm it, done. That works surprisingly well for a lot of meals. But while building MetricSync, I learned the awkward product truth: the best input method changes depending on what is in front of the user. A photo is great for a plate. A barcode is better for packaged food. Text is better when the user already knows what they ate or wants to fix one detail quickly. The mistake is treating one input mode like the whole product. Photos feel magical until the meal gets messy Photo logging is the most impressive demo because it removes the blank search box problem. The user does not need to know the exact database name for “rice bowl with chicken and avocado.” They can just show the app what they ate. But meals are messy. A photo might miss the sauce. It might not know if the drink is diet or regular. It might confuse a small serving with a large one. It might identify the food category correctly but still need a portion correction. That does not make photo logging bad. It just means the UX cannot end at “AI guessed something.” The real product is the correction loop. Can the user fix the meal without starting over? Barcode scanning is boring in the best way Barcode scanning is not as exciting as AI, but it is often the right tool. If someone is logging a protein bar, yogurt, cereal, or a packaged drink, asking an image model to infer the nutrition facts is silly. The barcode is more direct. That changed how I thought about the app. AI should not be the star of every interaction. Sometimes AI should get out of the way. The goal is not “use AI everywhere.” The goal is “make logging the thing in front of me take the least effort.” For packaged foods, that means barcode first. For mixed plates, that means photo first. For quick edits, that means text. Text still matters The more AI features you add, the easier it is to forget text input. But text is still the fas

TLDR - auto lenders are using AI bots to negotiate insurance settlements with inaccurate information. How can I Captain Kirk them and get a live person on the phone? I am an insurance claims adjuster. Recently, several high-interest auto loan lenders have begun using AI (both through email and phone calls) to dispute the total loss values for our claims. For those of you that have never dealt with a total loss - the value of a vehicle is (usually) determined by seeing what comparable vehicles are selling for on the market, and making adjustments based on the condition, mileage, etc. between those vehicles and the totalled vehicle. If a customer disagrees, they can hire an appraiser and the company will hire an independent appraiser, and the two will come to an agreement. The lender gets paid the amount minus the customer's deductible, and if it doesn't fully pay off the loan, unfortunately the customer will be responsible for the balance. Lately, AI calls and emails have been coming from these lenders disputing the amounts, and often based on egregiously incorrect information. They provide cherry picked comparisons to try to boost the vehicle values, and sometimes they aren't the same year, make, or model. Sometimes mileage and condition isn't factored in, sometimes they are tricked-out show cars someone advertised on a FSBO site. The real problem is, we have to waste our time researching all of this to see if any of the data is correct. When we respond pointing out the flawed comparisons, they only come back with more flawed comparisons. If we argue long enough, they will invoke the appraisal clause on the customer's behalf. Their appraiser is another AI system with a cutesy name. All efforts to reach humans at these lenders are essentially turned away - we are told we need to deal with the system. I am open to any advice you folks have - how can we get these AI systems to basically give up and get us in touch with a real person? I'm not trying to screw anyone out

Now that almost everyone can use AI tools, I’m curious what skill will actually separate people moving forward. Is it prompting? Taste and judgment? Knowing how to verify outputs? Domain expertise? Workflow design? Or something else? My current take is that AI makes execution faster, but it does not replace knowing what good work should look like. The people who can guide, check, and apply AI well may become more valuable than people who only know how to generate outputs. What skill do you think will matter most in the next few years? submitted by /u/GlobalOpsNotes [link] [留言]

Yeah, so "AI will eat the world" or "AI changes everything" - well, its certainly changed traffic patterns on the web. submitted by /u/Objective_Farm_1886 [link] [留言]

With just two weeks to go, StrictlyVC Los Angeles is quickly approaching. On Thursday, June 18, at The Aerospace Corporation Campus in El Segundo, investors, founders, and tech leaders will gather for an evening of conversation exploring some of the most consequential shifts taking place across venture capital, defense technology, artificial intelligence, and advanced industry. Secure your spot here. […]

Can an AI decide that it's going to nefariously drive the human it's interacting with slowly insane? submitted by /u/Numerous-Cup1863 [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/esporx [link] [留言]

On August 19, Startup Battlefield is returning to Sydney in partnership with Stripe, one of the world's most iconic technology companies. We're taking over Stripe Tour Sydney for a night that the Australian startup ecosystem won't forget.

These to seem to be confused and mixed up often. How do you pick those apart? submitted by /u/phamsung [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/WrongdoerRough4712 [link] [留言]

Hi, everyone I am working as a Software engineer. The past few years I oversleep a little bit in scope of AI mostly because I am sceptical about it. I decided that I would like to move on and be more up to date with it and potential use of it. How do you use it in day to day habits or work? How to monetize it? submitted by /u/Blvckhype [link] [留言]

Musk can't be trusted to protect X user privacy, public commenters warn FTC.

For those doing heavy AI programming or running local models on mobile hardware: Is the current generation of iPhone Pro or Samsung Galaxy Ultra actually making a difference in your workflow, or is it mostly a gimmick right now? submitted by /u/Spirited_Good9789 [link] [留言]

On Uncanny Valley, we dive into the IPO bonanza that the top AI companies are embarking on to the point where some real estate listings are looking for not just regular old cash, but Anthropic stock.

We've poured hundreds of billions into bigger models, bigger clusters, bigger training runs, all pointed at AGI. And yet: the model still rebuilds context every few turns, still forgets what you told it ten messages ago, still degrades over long horizons. The capability is staggering and the continuity is brittle. We keep making the pattern-matcher bigger and acting surprised when a bigger pattern-matcher is still a pattern-matcher. Start with the measurement problem, because it sets up everything else. Faster output and better output are not the same thing. The industry measures speed. Tokens per second, FLOPs, parameters, because speed is easy to measure. But *effective* output, the useful work you actually get before the model starts reconstructing or fabricating what it already knew, is a different axis entirely. And on that axis, raw hardware speed tells you almost nothing. A system that generates twice as fast but burns half its output re-establishing context it should have retained isn't ahead. We've been optimizing the number that's easy to read instead of the one that matters. Here's the part I think gets skipped entirely. Current systems have no intrinsic drive. They don't want anything. They sit idle until prompted and optimize the next token. A bacterium has more impetus than a frontier model, it has a goal (find food, avoid toxin) and acts on it unprompted. That's not intelligence, it's drive, and drive is the thing evolution built *first*, hundreds of millions of years before cognition. We built the cortex and skipped the brainstem. So the bet that "scale the transformer until AGI falls out" may be optimizing the wrong layer entirely. You can't scale your way into goal-generation if goal-generation isn't a function of scale. If genuine intelligence needs a motivational substrate, something that forms its own goals and acts on them, then no cluster on earth produces it by getting larger, because it's an architecture problem, not a compute problem. That

Hey all. Been vibe coding for almost 2 years now (I think?). Previously was more focused on traditional micro-saas but recently decided to go in a different direction and see how far I could push lovable and try and make a commercial grade browser based game. Built it with Lovable + Supabase + Stripe -- full commercial browser game, gyroscope controls on mobile, no app store needed. Generated all my assets (I know, I know, there aren't a ton) with a combination of Gemini to prototype and the GPT 2 to finalize. I've made a few small games here and there that generally only get used by my kiddos, but with this one I wanted to try and create a full gaming experience (login rewards, leaderboard, store, powerup mechanics, simulated ads, etc.) Put a $100 bounty on it for the first player to reach level 100 on mobile. Nobody has claimed it since launch. So genuinely asking -- is it too hard, or is that the point? tiltra.io P.S. It is currently playable on both desktop and mobile but with the gyro mechanic it is definitely more fun and challenging on mobile. submitted by /u/BeltwayBro [link] [留言]

Opus 4.6 or sonnet 4.6 for rping Currently running on pro right now Im unsure what to choose between the two in terms of rping cause i prefer creative writing, stay in character, deep emotional prose, good character development, good memory, good character emotionals and stuff like that So far im using opus 4.6 but it drains the limits relatively quick For the sonnet i can use for hours and still be fine So like im wondering which is better for rping? I havent tested both deeply Also if they're an even better option, pls tell me. submitted by /u/Turbulent_Arrival_55 [link] [留言]

Gartner updated their 2026 forecast to $2.5 trillion in global AI spending. Same week, MIT's NANDA Initiative dropped a follow-up: 95% of enterprise gen AI projects deliver zero measurable return. Not low return. Zero. I've been on the delivery side of 14 of these projects since January. The MIT number doesn't surprise me. If anything it's generous. 1. 73% of the engineering work that gets AI into production has nothing to do with the model. Data pipelines, integration layers, legacy system remediation, human-in-the-loop tooling. That's where the hours go. The model is 27% of the work but gets 70%+ of the budget. Every time. 2. The budget ratio between projects that ship and projects that stall is almost exactly inverted. We tracked this through ticket history and commit logs across 14 engagements. Projects that made it to production: roughly 30% model, 70% infrastructure. Projects that stalled: 70% model, 30% infrastructure. Most companies think they're at 50/50. They're not even close. 3. One client went from 71% Copilot adoption to 34% in six months. Two other AI platform licenses dropped under 12%. Combined licensing: $340K/year. The tools worked fine. Nobody redesigned workflows to actually use them. 4. The median data error rate across our engagements is 14%. Teams always guess 5-10%. One client found 23% in month four of a $310K build. That's two months of an ML engineer building training pipelines against garbage data. $36K in salary discovering a problem a data audit would have caught in a week. 5. Medtech company. Four concurrent AI pilots. No kill criteria. $920K in engineer salary. Eleven months. Shipped: nothing. I've now seen this at six companies now. Nobody defines when to stop spending. So nobody stops. 6. Individual gains are real. Company-level ROI stays flat. HCLTech and Writer both found this from different angles. Only 29% of companies see significant ROI from gen AI, despite people at their desks reporting productivity jumps as high as 5x. I m