标签：#artificial

GOP lawmakers, tech investors, and even OpenAI have tied the anti-data center movement in the US to Chinese interference. Experts say it’s much more complicated than that.

Google has announced the Google Colab CLI, a command-line tool that allows developers and AI agents to interact with remote Colab runtimes directly from a local terminal. By Daniel Dominguez

The fraudsters allegedly targeted hundreds of thousands of people with Gemini-coded scams sites.

Pinecone has announced a new integration between its Nexus knowledge engine and Microsoft OneLake, aiming to fundamentally change how enterprise AI agents access and reason over corporate data. By Craig Risi

The repurposing of Pokémon Go data for AI training continues to draw scrutiny.

The company has set aside an unusually high number of shares for retail investors. Still, experts say, you’re just getting the crumbs.

David Stein shares how to rethink large-scale architectural migrations using AI. He discusses ServiceTitan's "assembly line" pattern, explaining how decomposing legacy codebase refactoring into standardized tasks can achieve massive parallelization. He highlights the critical role of programmatically rigid validation loops to eliminate LLM hallucinations and accelerate engineering agility. By David Stein

Today on Uncanny Valley, we take an early look at the SpaceX IPO and why you might find yourself among the investors without even realizing it.

Thibault Sottiaux helped make AI coding one of OpenAI’s fastest-growing businesses. Now he’s overseeing a sweeping overhaul of ChatGPT.

A WIRED investigation found dozens of “nudified” deepfake images and videos on Grok's website, including nonconsensual depictions of celebrities and at least one prominent US politician.

submitted by /u/Foreign-Swan4271 [link] [留言]

It feels like just a couple of years ago, using AI for everyday tasks still felt like something new or even a bit weird. Now it seems like a lot of people are using it without thinking twice, whether for writing, learning, brainstorming, or just quick answers. I’m curious how others see this shift. Do you think AI has become normalized quicker than most people predicted, or does it still feel like a big deal to a lot of users? submitted by /u/NoFilterGPT [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/aarshie [link] [留言]

I’ve been thinking about a support automation story I read recently. A team replaced a simple rules engine with an LLM classifier. The model was around 92% accurate. Sounds good. Until you realize that at 100 tickets a day, that’s roughly 8 mistakes every day. The interesting part wasn’t the accuracy though. It was what happened when the model was wrong. Nobody could explain why a ticket was classified a certain way. Nobody could point to a specific rule. Nobody could quickly fix the behavior. The team eventually started reviewing every classification manually. The automation was still running, but the trust was gone. That got me thinking. A lot of discussion around AI agents focuses on making decisions better. Better prompts. Better models. Better reasoning. But I rarely see people discussing what happens after the decision. How is the decision verified? How is it audited? How do you know an action should actually be executed? Maybe the biggest challenge for AI agents isn’t getting from 92% to 96%. Maybe it’s building systems that people can trust when things go wrong. Curious how others are thinking about this. submitted by /u/docybo [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/andix3 [link] [留言]

Everyone talks about reasoning, agents, and larger models. But the more I learn about AI systems, the more I think we're missing something fundamental: AI doesn't accumulate experience the way humans do. A senior engineer isn't valuable only because of raw intelligence. They're valuable because years of experience have shaped how they think. They're valuable because they've spent years building mental models, learning from failures, recognizing patterns, updating beliefs, and connecting knowledge across thousands of experiences. That accumulated experience becomes a competitive advantage. Modern AI systems are different. They can solve difficult problems, write code, and explain complex concepts, yet most of what they "know" remains largely fixed after training. New information is often handled through context windows, retrieval systems, databases, or retraining pipelines rather than being integrated into a continuously evolving understanding of the world. This creates an interesting question: Can intelligence continue to scale if experience doesn't? Humans become more useful over time because experience compounds. An AI that could reliably learn from interactions, update its worldview, resolve contradictions, remember what matters, forget what doesn't, and improve without catastrophic forgetting might represent a larger leap than another increase in parameter count. Maybe the next frontier isn't making AI smarter. Maybe it's making AI capable of growth. Do you think future breakthroughs will come primarily from better reasoning models, or from systems that can continuously learn from experience? submitted by /u/Shreyansh_awasthi01 [link] [留言]

We posted here last week about infrastructure walls that show up when AI moves from personal use to team use. We had a few people described walls we hadn't named, which is more useful than the confirmations. Following up to collect more of those. If you've hit something that isn't on the list, or one of the six that looked different in your context, drop it here. What were you building and where did it break? The six walls for reference: Identity (who the AI is when it talks to your team), Decision Memory (whether past decisions inform future ones), Attention (how the system knows what to prioritise), Write-Back (whether AI outputs actually change the systems of record), Governance (who checks the AI's work), Economics (whether the cost structure holds at scale). Which one came first for your team? submitted by /u/Framework_Friday [link] [留言]

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

https://roguelite-mmo.com/ So I created the game very quickly for how much content it has. Fortunately it is slowly growing and the community members that do stay longer than the first 5 minutes have enjoyed it, some of the top members play multiple hours a day which is great! However there are plenty that I see hit the site and almost immediately move on before even really interacting with any of the game loops. They dont all leave feedback but the ones that do generally give the quick 'ai slop' line then nothing more. I get it, people associate 'ai vibe coding' with 'low effort money grab' and similar. My question is, I am not trying to hide/replace AI but rather find a happy medium where players at least 'see' the effort and the AI portions more so 'blend in' rather than 'stand out' (I have been a web dev for over 10 years on DoW/gov sites and it is now just 'the way of things' in day to day coding, it can complete my ideas a lot faster than I can code them. With good peer reviews of the results, there is no reason to not use it) Is there any UI/Image asset generation techniques/layouts you have done that seems to have worked with users to where the instant reaction is not 'ai slop'? If anyone goes through the actual gameplay that is built they would quickly see there are a lot of deep and fun systems put together and its not just a 'prompt and forget by joe schmo' type of game. Thanks for any feedback! submitted by /u/HeadHunterX223 [link] [留言]

Disclosure upfront: I'm the founder of an AI-visibility company, so this research scratches our own itch. Our domain was excluded from all counts before analysis. Not linking anything in the post. We wanted to answer a simple question: when an AI assistant shows you "sources," what is that, technically? So we opened devtools on the web clients of ChatGPT, Gemini, and DeepSeek, and ran the same 4 queries 10 times through each system. What we found: ChatGPT streams the answer over SSE and attaches citations as url_citation objects with start_ix / end_ix — character offsets into the generated text (UTF-16 code units, so emoji and CJK break your parsing if you count bytes). A citation is bound to a specific fragment of the answer, not the answer as a whole. Gemini runs on Google's batchexecute/JSPB transport — protobuf-as-JSON-arrays where fields have positions, not names. Next to each cited URL there's a family of short obfuscated fields. Our working hypotheses (not confirmed by Google docs): rs ≈ reliability score for the domain, ls ≈ last-seen date, GK ≈ character range (functional analog of ChatGPT's offsets). The interesting part isn't the exact decoding — it's that Gemini ships internal per-domain trust signals alongside every source. DeepSeek is the most transparent: a plain search_results[] array attached to the sub-queries it decomposes your question into. No offsets, no hidden fields. And what they actually cite is just as different: ChatGPT favored arXiv + Wikipedia (one arXiv paper got cited in 10/10 runs), Gemini favors big SaaS/marketing domains and — fun detail — never cited a single Google property in our runs, DeepSeek lives on press-release wires and news aggregators, including Chinese-language sources the other two never touched. Bonus finding: we compared all of this against Google/Bing top-10 for the same queries. URL-level overlap: 3.3% (4 matches out of 120 SERP positions). All four matches were Bing-side. Google: zero. Caveats: 4 queries from one