标签：#ci

The risk of more debris hitting the moon is on the rise as the space race heats up.

OpenAI’s first-ever influencer brand trip is sparking online backlash as tensions over the use of AI continue.

This story originally appeared in The Algorithm, our weekly newsletter on AI. To get stories like this in your inbox first, sign up here. Humanoid robots usually elicit more cringe than awe: They stumble, kick children, and despite advances are still worse at using their hands than my toddler. It’s a nascent industry, and such robots…

Half the market is arguing about whether RAG or a semantic layer is the right foundation for enterprise AI. They are not competing. They answer different questions, and most teams need both. Two shapes of question Every question an agent receives breaks into one of two forms: "What did we say about X?" — lives in contracts, policies, tickets, docs. Unstructured. RAG was built for this. "What is true about X?" — lives in your warehouse and governed metrics. Structured. A semantic layer was built for this. Treating them as rivals is how teams end up with a system that can quote the pricing policy but cannot tell you this quarter's realised price. Where each one breaks RAG Semantic layer Good at Retrieving relevant prose Resolving definitions and joins Fails on Aggregation, math, current state Anything not modelled as data Permissions Flattened at ingest, rebuilt at query time Compiled per person, per query Answer stability Varies with retrieval ranking Identical by construction Audit story Cites a chunk Reproduces the exact SQL The permissions row is the one that ends pilots. A retrieval index that ingested everything has, by construction, assembled your most sensitive object — and reconstructing entitlement at query time is guesswork. The layer that actually decides Neither a document chunk nor a metric definition is worth much until something compiles it into a governed query and runs it. That is the piece most architectures are missing: intent → context resolution → constrained planning → governed execution . RAG can feed the first step. It cannot perform the last three. Point an agent at raw tables and the best models score in the low teens on real enterprise data. Give the same model compiled, governed context and it clears the high nineties. The retrieval quality was never the bottleneck. The full breakdown — the precise division of labour, why hybrid architectures win, and how compile-time governance closes the gap RAG cannot — is here: 👉 RAG vs. Semantic Layer

Industrializing the disassembly of an undocumented processor from a raw binary is a complex task that can be broken down into four key steps: Verify that the binary does not belong to a known processor. Verify that the binary is not obfuscated, compressed, or encrypted code for a known processor. Build an undocumented processor generator. Create the analysis pipeline and custom disassembler generation process. For the first phase of this project, the goal is to build dedicated, lightweight disassemblers—since, for bare-metal binaries, tools like Ghidra require manual processor target selection before analysis can begin. 1. Why Build a Custom Disassembler? To determine whether a binary was compiled for a specific architecture, the strategy consists of disassembling the binary (both statically and dynamically) against candidate instruction sets until: One or more bytes fail to match any valid instruction for that architecture, allowing us to rule it out. The disassembly succeeds completely. (Note: a successful disassembly does not guarantee that the binary was originally intended for that CPU; control flow validity must also be verified). Static disassembly is the first line of defense. However, if it fails due to obfuscation, compression, or encryption, we must escalate to dynamic execution and analysis. Only after systematically eliminating all known architectures can we confidently conclude that we are dealing with a custom or undocumented processor . 2. How to Build Your Custom Disassembler Before deploying heavy machinery for undocumented processors, the logical first step was to check against known architectures. Approach 1: Ghidra and SLAgh Ghidra relies on the SLAgh specification language and maintains an extensive library of processor definitions. The original plan was to leverage its API to extract a normalized opcode mapping table. However, after several attempts, Ghidra proved unsuitable for this specific pipeline for two reasons: Operand Type Loss: Detail

Today, I’m talking with Toni Schneider, who is the brand new CEO of the social platform Bluesky — he formally took over after a short stint as interim CEO. This is one of my favorite kinds of interviews to do on Decoder, because a couple years ago, we had Bluesky’s prior CEO, Jay Graber, on […]

The communication-free form of breaking up has become ubiquitous. “I no longer had to bear her energy,” a man who ghosted his partner of four years tells WIRED.

Your next drive-thru order might be taken by a bot. And you might not even notice.

Picture the scenario: your invoicing pipeline generates a clean, branded PDF for a German B2B customer. It looks right. It would print fine, email fine, and satisfy anyone who opens it by hand. Then it bounces, because since January 1, 2025, that customer is legally required to receive invoices in a format their software can parse without a human retyping the totals. A pretty PDF isn't enough anymore, and honestly, for a machine, it never really was the point. The part that surprises people who haven't dealt with this yet: the mandate doesn't force you to give up the human-readable PDF. It just requires that PDF to carry a second, structured version of itself, riding along inside it. That format is called ZUGFeRD, with an internationally aligned sibling called Factur-X. If you've never had to build one, it's worth understanding the mechanics before the code, because it's a genuinely clever piece of engineering, not just a compliance checkbox. So how does a single file manage to be both a human-readable invoice and a machine-parseable one at once? What a ZUGFeRD invoice actually is Open a ZUGFeRD invoice in Adobe Acrobat or any PDF viewer and you see a normal invoice: logo, line items, totals, payment terms, nothing unusual. But embedded inside that same file, in its attachments, sits an XML document carrying the exact same invoice data in structured, typed form: invoice number, line items, tax rates, totals, every field an accounting system needs, tagged rather than buried in a paragraph a parser has to guess at. The container format making this possible is PDF/A-3 , the only PDF/A variant that permits arbitrary file attachments while still meeting the archival standard's long-term readability requirements. PDF/A-1 and PDF/A-2 explicitly forbid embedded attachments; PDF/A-3 was built for exactly this use case, which is why every ZUGFeRD file you'll open is, underneath, a PDF/A-3b document with an XML file riding inside it. The embedded XML follows EN 16931, the EU's

Steve Elmers, also known as the “Guardrail Guy,” is done calling out license plate readers after two that appeared in his videos were vandalized.

MIT Technology Review Explains: Let our writers untangle the complex, messy world of technology to help you understand what’s coming next. You can read more from the series here. When two OpenAI models hacked into the website Hugging Face in July, they weren’t trying to make money or commit sabotage—they were just looking for answers…

That's a rebuild I shipped. The system: a RAG assistant for fraud analysts — ask it "how do we handle card testing followed by a successful auth?" and it should answer from the team's own SOPs and case history. The complaint: the answers were wrong, therefore the model must be dumb, therefore procurement should buy a bigger model. The model was fine. It was answering perfectly — from garbage context. Walk the forensic trail with me, because every step is checkable on your own system this week. Exhibit A: the chunking was destroying meaning before anything was embedded The ingestion split SOP documents every N characters, mid-sentence. Which means half the vectors in the index encoded fragments like this: chunk_147 = " ...ing to a freight forwarder. In these cases, do NOT " chunk_148 = " cancel the order immediately. First verify the customer via " The policy — don't cancel, verify first — exists in no single chunk. An embedding can't encode a meaning that isn't in its input. Retrieval was being asked to find semantics the pipeline had already shredded. Fix one: chunk on structure (sections, paragraphs), never on character counts, with enough overlap that no rule straddles a boundary. Exhibit B: dense-only retrieval, bimodal queries Fraud analyst queries split into two populations: pattern questions ("high-value order, new account, rushed shipping") and identifier questions ("what's the SOP for decline code 4863?", "rule VEL-013 rationale"). The system was dense-only — and embeddings treat a rare token like 4863 as noise, so identifier queries retrieved similar-feeling chunks instead of the literal match. Half the query population was structurally doomed regardless of model quality. Fix two: hybrid retrieval — BM25 for the identifiers, embeddings for the patterns, reciprocal rank fusion to merge. Exhibit C: nobody could see any of this, because quality was a rumor No golden dataset. No retrieval metric. The system's accuracy was whatever the loudest anecdote said it

The ROI Black Hole in Social Marketing Consider a mid-market B2B software company whose social team manages campaigns across X, LinkedIn, Instagram, and TikTok from a single shared workspace. Each week the managers review platform-native dashboards that display rising follower counts, solid engagement rates on short-form video, and respectable click-throughs from carousel posts. They export weekly performance reports, paste the numbers into shared spreadsheets, and celebrate the month-over-month lift in impressions. Yet when the sales operations team asks which campaigns contributed to qualified pipeline, the social group cannot produce a single account-level match. Campaign links carry UTM strings, but many prospects arrive through mobile apps or shared links that strip those parameters, leaving the CRM with only anonymous referral domains and no usable journey data. The team attempts manual reconciliation by cross-referencing campaign dates with opportunity creation timestamps, but the exercise quickly collapses under volume. One campaign on LinkedIn might drive 400 clicks while another on TikTok drives 1,200, yet both appear in the CRM as undifferentiated social traffic. Without a consistent identifier that survives across platforms and into the marketing automation system, the social team cannot isolate which creative or audience segment produced the meetings that closed. Budget conversations therefore remain anchored to vanity metrics rather than incremental revenue, and executives grow increasingly skeptical of further platform spend. Medallion Architecture and the Absent Silver Layer Modern data platforms often organize information according to a medallion architecture that progresses through successive stages of refinement. The initial bronze layer captures raw event logs exactly as they arrive from each social API, preserving original timestamps, platform-specific identifiers, and unprocessed metadata. A subsequent silver layer then standardizes those recor

Originally published at wostal.eu . TL;DR : I handed a CI re-platform — GitHub Actions → Argo Workflows, GitHub → Codeberg — to an AI agent. The rewrite looked correct and passed lint, but it didn't account for one thing: the runtime environment had changed completely. The old runner was an external VM; the new one is a pod inside the cluster, where Tailscale IPs aren't routable. Nobody ran the pipeline end-to-end, so every difference stayed as a landmine — six of them. The worst part wasn't the AI's mistake. It was that I spent hours blaming the network when the real culprit was a single missing newline in an SSH key. This is the companion to a different incident. While I was migrating my homelab k3s control plane from SQLite to etcd , the pipeline that ran that migration turned out to be broken in ways that taught me more than the migration itself. In this post I'll cover: Where the mess came from — an AI-assisted CI re-platform that nobody validated end-to-end The phantom CNI bug — hours of chasing MTU, Tailscale, firewall, and conntrack The real culprit — a single missing newline in an SSH key Why early failures hide later ones — six latent bugs, surfaced one at a time The lesson about delegating migrations — to a human or an AI Where the mess came from The entire CI had just been migrated from GitHub Actions to Argo Workflows , and from GitHub to Codeberg — and that migration was handed to an AI agent 🙂. The re-platforming rewrote the logic roughly 1:1, but it didn't catch that the runtime environment had changed fundamentally . The old runner (GitHub Actions / ARC) behaved one way; the new one is a pod in the cluster — from which Tailscale IPs aren't routable, but private IPs are. Nobody (human or AI) ran the pipeline end-to-end, so all of those differences stayed as landmines. That's why there were six latent bugs and the hang I'm about to describe — not random faults, but traces of a GHA→Argo translation that was never validated in the new environment. The p

From how galaxies form to the beginnings of the universe, the images from the space telescope are giving cosmologists new data to explore—and theories to build out.

Everything you need to know about the solar eclipse and lunar eclipse that will occur in August 2026.

AboFlah talks about his new goals, streaming for charity, and when it’s time to log off.

New EU rules stipulate that people must be told when they’re interacting with AI or looking at AI-generated or -edited content, leading to fear of “disclosure fatigue.”

大模型来了，有个说法是如果一个问题容易验证 那么ai就容易学会解决！说说这个特性与p np问题的关联性 这个说法听起来很直观，但其实 混淆了"验证的复杂性"和"学习/求解的复杂性"这两件不同的事 。我们把它拆开看。 先把"容易验证"在 P/NP 里的精确定位理清 在计算复杂度理论中： NP = 给定候选解（证书），能在多项式时间内验证其正确性的问题 P = 能在多项式时间内直接求解的问题 P ≠ NP ? = 是否所有容易验证的问题，也都容易求解？ 所以"容易验证"在 CS 里的严格含义是： 验证者在多项式时间内工作 ， 不是说 AI 训练成本低 。 "容易验证 ⇒ AI 容易学会"——部分成立，但有重要的限定 这个直觉 在某些场景下确实成立 ，原因是"验证"提供了 稠密的训练信号 ： ✅ 成立的情形：验证器可作奖励/过滤 当一个问题具备"易于验证"的结构时，我们可以用它来： 生成训练数据 ：比如 SAT 问题，随机生成一个赋值，代入公式验证，正确就得到一对 (公式, 赋值) 训练样本—— 数据无限且免费 RL 中的奖励塑形 ：LLM 生成代码 → 编译器/单元测试验证 → immediate reward Self-play / 自我蒸馏 ：AlphaGo 等用模拟器验证落子结果 Verifier-Guided Search ：用"易于验证"的判据引导 beam search / MCTS，如 AlphaCode、AlphaGeometry 💡 这就是为什么像 代码生成、形式化证明、数学解题 这些领域近期进展飞快——它们都有"相对容易的验证器"（单元测试、类型检查器、证明校验器）。 ❌ 但这个推论远非普遍成立 "容易验证"≠"AI 容易学会"，有几个关键原因： 1. 验证器只给二值信号，梯度稀疏 验证器通常只输出 0/1（对/错），而深度学习需要平滑的损失曲面。对于复杂的 NP 问题，绝大多数随机猜测都是错的 → 奖励恒为 0 → 梯度消失，学不到东西 。这就是"稀疏奖励"难题。 2. P ≠ NP 意味着：验证简单 ≠ 求解简单 即使验证是 O(n)，找到那个能通过验证的解可能仍需 O(2ⁿ)。AI 模型本质上是在做启发式搜索，面对组合爆炸， 没有 free lunch 。例如： 数独：验证 O(n²)，但最难的数独对人类和 AI 都极具挑战 TSP：验证一条回路 O(n)，但找最优回路是 NP-Hard 3. 分布偏移与泛化 NP 问题的"容易验证"是** worst-case 复杂度**意义下的。AI 学到的是训练分布的统计规律，遇到分布外的实例会失效。比如 LLM 在数学竞赛题上表现好，但换个数字或换种表述就可能崩。 4. 验证本身也可能不在 NP 里 很多现实问题是 PSPACE 或更难 （如围棋先手胜负），验证一个"策略"需要指数时间——这种问题连"提供证书让 AI 模仿"都很困难。 一张对照表 问题类型 验证复杂度 AI 易学吗？ 例子 P 类 多项式 通常容易 （有高效算法可直接教） 排序、最短路径 NP-Complete，且有稠密验证信号 多项式 中等 （RL + 验证器有效） SAT、数独、TSP 近似 NP-Complete，但验证信号稀疏 多项式 困难 （奖励太稀） 某些密码学难题 超出 NP（PSPACE 等） 超多项式 极难 （验证本身就很贵） 围棋先手胜、QSAT 不可判定 不存在 不可能 （理论上限） 程序等价性 真正的关联在哪里 "容易验证 ⇒ AI 容易学会"更准确的说法应该是： 📌 如果一个问题有"多项式时间的验证器"，并且我们能从中提取稠密的训练信号（如 partial credit、逐步验证），那么 AI 可以通过"生成 + 验证"的循环去逼近求解。 这本质上就是 用 NP 的"验证侧"去攻击"求解侧" ——也是当前 LLM + Verifier 范式（如 RLHF 中的 reward model、AlphaProof 的 formal verifier）的理论基础。 但要注意： 这不是 P=NP 的证明，AI 找到的解在 worst-case 仍可能不是最优的 AI 解决的是 平均情况（average-case） 或 特定分布 ，而非 worst-case 一旦问题规模增大到超出训练分布，性能会急剧下降 一个更深的视角：平均-case 复杂度 理论计算机科学里有个分支叫 Average-Case Complexity ，研究"典型实例"的难度。很多 NP-Complete 问题在 average-case 下其实有不错启发式算法——这也解释了为什么 AI 在某些 NP 问题上表现惊喜，但在 adversarial 构造的 hard instance 上翻车。 所以回到你的说法： "

Noticed a pattern: people switch from GPT to Claude, upgrade to a newer version, try a bigger model and the output barely changes. If that's happened to you, the issue usually isn't the model. It's what you handed it before asking the question. Broke it down to three things context actually needs to supply, and most disappointing outputs are missing one of these, not all of them: Current facts the training data can't know: your pricing, this quarter's numbers, a customer's actual history. Leave this out and the model doesn't leave a blank, it quietly invents something plausible. A concrete example of what "good" looks like: not "professional tone," an actual paragraph to pattern-match against. Descriptions get interpreted, examples get copied. What already happened earlier in the task: a correction you made two messages ago. If you don't restate it, it's gone. The model isn't ignoring you, it just doesn't re-read messages you haven't pointed it back to. The counterintuitive part: the most common mistake isn't giving too little context, it's dumping in too much unfiltered. The model has to weigh every token, and irrelevant material competes for attention with what actually matters. Forty pages when the task needs three paragraphs makes the right answer harder to find, not easier. Wrote up a longer breakdown with a concrete before/after example (same task, same model, only the context changed): https://medium.com/@nagatomopedro05/good-ai-starts-with-good-context-design-77496f7b9eb6 Curious if others here have run into this, model-swapping as a first instinct instead of fixing the input. submitted by /u/ClickOk5811 [link] [留言]