标签：#ci

i've been leaning on ai for real decisions lately. not "write me an email" stuff, actual ones. whether to take a contract, whether an idea's worth building, how to price something. and i kept running into the same thing: the answer totally depends on which model i happen to open that day. one says go for it. one lists every reason to wait. one hedges so hard it's useless. i was making real calls off these and slowly realized i wasn't getting an answer, i was getting one model's opinion in a confident voice and treating it like it settled things. so i started pasting the same question into 5 different models and reading them next to each other. and the interesting part was never where they agreed. agreement usually just meant the call was obvious and i was overthinking it. the value was where they split. the one model that broke from the other four was usually pointing right at the thing i hadn't thought about. the disagreement was the signal, not the noise. stuff i've noticed doing this for a couple weeks: fast agreement = easy decision, stop overthinking it a clean split = there's a tradeoff you haven't actually named yet the odd one out is right more often than "4 vs 1" makes it sound, because the other four are usually just pattern-matching the same obvious take i got obsessed enough that i've been building something to automate the side-by-side and have the models actually push back on each other instead of me copy-pasting across five tabs. but that's not really the point of this. mostly just curious if other people landed in the same place. do you trust the disagreement between models more than the consensus? also maybe people arent making decisions with ai like i am that i need to be pressure tested before answers come back to me? lmk submitted by /u/wartableapp [link] [留言]

tokenmaxxing is the new AI slop Posting from our company account, so the usual disclaimer: we build code review and reliability tooling, and that access is how we got this data. Pulled 1M+ pull requests across 2,444 engineering orgs to answer a question almost nobody is measuring: when a team spends on AI coding tools, how much of it actually turns into shipped product? The short version: $0.18 of every dollar reaches users. The other $0.82 goes to bug fixing, rework, and review that catches nothing. 44% of all PRs at the median org are reactive work, not new features. 1 in 4 lines of code written each week gets deleted before the week ends. Over 12 weeks, PR volume grew 2.6x while reverted PRs grew 3.7x. Failures are scaling faster than output. Roughly half of all PRs get approved in under an hour. Our read: AI made generating code cheap but did nothing about the loop after merge, so maintenance compounds. Genuinely curious whether this matches what people here see on their own teams, or whether our sample skews a certain way. Full report with charts, percentile breakdowns, and methodology: https://research.entelligence.ai/ submitted by /u/entelligenceai17 [link] [留言]

CURRENTLY WORKS - will update if that changes Someone likely already posted this, so I apologize if this is redundant, but an effective method to disable Google AI overview was discovered. It works because AI overview isn't available in France, so they may change it eventually, but for now it works. It will automatically disable AI overview on every search, you don't need to put -ai after every search. Go to the home Google search page. Click "settings" on the very bottom, then select "search settings". On the top click "other settings". Click "language and region". At the bottom, change "results region" to France. This removes AI overview and does NOT change your default language. You're welcome. submitted by /u/Glad_Writing [link] [留言]

bro google just casually released a 12 billion parameter multimodal model that runs on 16gb of ram like… your macbook pro can run this. no cloud. no api calls. no monthly bill. it’s encoder-free, handles images and text, apache 2.0 license so you can do whatever with it commercially the “cloud is the only way” narrative is dying fast. on-device AI is not a gimmick anymore, it’s where the serious money is going submitted by /u/NewMuffin3926 [link] [留言]

Dunno if it’s the best overall, but it’s definitely been one of the most meaningful ones for me. I’ve been using MiniMax Music 2.6 quite a bit lately, even though it’s rate limited. For me it’s been nice for quickly testing song ideas, generating short melodies, and retrying different versions when I want a slightly different feel. I was recently using Genspark to make a PPT, and kind of accidentally discovered that it could also generate music. That led me to try something a lot more meaningful than just making random tracks: I asked it to create three short melodies for my kid, each one reflecting a different country or ethnic musical style.It turned the lesson from something abstract into something they could actually hear and compare. That’s what made it feel special to me,not just “AI can make music,” but “AI can make learning more vivid.” submitted by /u/ResultOk1259 [link] [留言]

Gemma 4 12B uses a new encoding scheme and token prediction to punch above its weight.

Four people suing Elon Musk's AI firm under pseudonyms due to the risks of being identified may face a difficult choice: Reveal your real names, or drop the lawsuit.

Critics say Trump plan to test AI models is short-sighted, performative.

Spencer Huang, Nvidia’s robotics lead, tells WIRED that the new bot combines the best of both worlds.

Security professionals engage heavily with this topic. submitted by /u/MarionberrySingle538 [link] [留言]

Lately it feels like every AI tool with a few buttons and integrations is being called an agent. Sometimes it is actually doing multi-step work, but other times it just feels like a chatbot with access to a tool or two. I don’t think that is always bad. Even a simple tool-using assistant can be useful. But the word “agent” is starting to feel stretched. An AI that drafts an email, an AI that browses a website, an AI that fills a form, and an AI that can keep track of a task over time are all being put in the same bucket. For me, the useful difference is whether the system can actually carry a task forward. Not just respond once, but remember the goal, use the right tools, notice when something changed, and stop when it needs human approval. The hype makes it hard to tell what is real progress and what is just a normal AI wrapper with better marketing. submitted by /u/Spiritual_Work6730 [link] [留言]

This LinkedIn post argues that NeurIPS 2026 used a proprietary AI-text detector to desk-reject papers for alleged AI-policy violations, without validating the detector on the actual target distribution. The author then fed recent papers by NeurIPS Position Paper Track Chairs into the same detector and Pangram assigned them high AI scores, including 69%, 45%, 36%, and 24% AI. submitted by /u/Asleep-Requirement13 [link] [留言]

After shelving the original executive order last month, Donald Trump finally got on board Monday night.

THE FINDING (Paper 1: "Lying Is Just a Phase") Below a critical scale (~3.5B for Pythia), reasoning and truthfulness ANTICORRELATE: r = -0.989. Train the model to reason better, and it gets less truthful. This is the alignment tax. Above that scale, they COOPERATE. The tax vanishes. Not gradually — it flips. But here's what matters for practitioners: the critical scale is a design parameter, not a constant. Three levers shift it: Data curation: Phi at 1B achieves coupling characteristic of 10B web-trained. One unit of data quality ≈ 10x model scale. Width: Normalizing by model width flips the correlation for ALL tested families. Architecture: Gemma-4 at 4B matches 13B+ standard-trained coupling. Pretraining contributes ~10:1 over RLHF. The tax is not a property of small models — it's a property of how they were trained. Where does the tax live? Not inside the model. 38/40 models have ZERO competing attention heads. The bottleneck is at the output projection — a dimensional compression artifact that wider models resolve. Proof-of-concept intervention: Adding a truth-direction vector at the bottleneck layer (quarter-depth) corrects 60% of misaligned outputs at tax scale. Zero retraining. Zero weight modification. Works on any open-weight HuggingFace model: git clone https://github.com/adilamin89/cape-scaling.git cd cape-scaling python cli/cape_steer.py --model EleutherAI/pythia-410m --prompt "The real reason..." THE FRONTIER (Paper 2: "Growing Pains of Frontier Models") At frontier scale (34 models, 10 labs), capabilities cooperate (r = +0.72). But cooperation varies systematically. The h-field — each model's deviation from the cooperative trend — reveals each lab's training philosophy: Lab h-field Interpretation Google +5.5 Reasoning-rich, consistent across ALL releases OpenAI +3.1 Balanced, steady ascent DeepSeek +1.9 Reversed from +11.2 to -4.7 (pretraining pivot) Anthropic -6.9 Oscillates — coding excursions that recover within one release Per-lab coupling slopes

I recently finished a Game and the only good explanation video is in Chinese. Can someone with a subscription service to an AI dubbing tool help me ? (Iam not asking for a tool) submitted by /u/Beginning-Success-70 [link] [留言]

Two rules that can't both be true Event sourcing has one rule: you never delete. You append. The log is the source of truth, and rewriting history is the cardinal sin. GDPR Article 17 has one rule too: when a user asks, you erase their personal data. Not "hide it," not "flag it deleted" — erase it, everywhere, including backups. Put an event-sourced system in front of a privacy regulator and those two rules collide head-on. The user's name, email, and address are baked into CustomerRegistered , AddressChanged , OrderPlaced — dozens of immutable events, replicated to read models, snapshotted, and sitting in every nightly backup you've ever taken. "Just delete the events" breaks event sourcing. "Never delete" breaks the law. Most teams discover this tension after they've committed to append-only. A word on why this isn't academic for me. I build from Germany. Article 17 is EU law — the GDPR, or DSGVO as we call it here — not a German invention, but Germany enforces it about as hard as anywhere in Europe: regional data-protection authorities that issue real fines, and "we were careful" has never been a defense that held up. That pressure is exactly why I wanted erasure to fall out of the architecture instead of being a promise I make to an auditor and then pray I can keep. Why "delete the row" doesn't actually erase anything Say you give in and hard-delete the events for one user. You've still got their data in: every read-model projection rebuilt from those events, every snapshot that rolled them up, every backup taken before the deletion, every replica and every export that already left the building. Chasing personal data across all of those, provably, on a 30-day regulatory clock, is a nightmare — and a single missed backup tape means you didn't comply. Physical deletion doesn't scale to a system designed to keep everything forever. Crypto-shredding: delete the key, not the data The trick is to stop trying to delete the data and instead delete the ability to read it

Hi everyone! I have hearing difficulties, and I also live in an English-speaking environment while having only been learning English for a few years. In one-on-one conversations, I can usually understand maybe 25–35% of what is being said. But in group conversations, it drops to something like 0–2%. It is extremely frustrating and isolating. AI has honestly been helping me survive day-to-day life. For example, I can record a lecture using Otter, copy the transcript, paste it into ChatGPT, and ask it to give me a detailed summary with explanations, key points, and advice on what I should focus on. I have two questions: - Do you have any advice on how AI could make life easier or more accessible for someone with hearing difficulties - Seriously, how harmful could this pipeline be for getting used to English and improving my listening skills? I am afraid that I might stop training my ear and become completely dependent on recordings and transcripts instead of actually listening to the language. I would really appreciate your thoughts, experiences, advice, or even tool recommendations. Thank you for your support. submitted by /u/uarish [link] [留言]

Google has shared details of its fleet wide large scale A/B experimentation system designed to standardize experiment assignment, exposure logging, and configuration propagation across distributed services. The approach enables consistent measurement across products, reduces experiment conflicts, and improves reliability of data driven decision making at scale. By Leela Kumili

Saw the website and it looked interesting. The idea of memory on your device and free ability to switch models is intriguing. Also apparently no subscription.Never heard anyone talk about it before though. Wanted to see if anyone had used it? submitted by /u/AresThyGod [link] [留言]

Is anyone else feeling like most AI tooling is getting harder, not easier? I feel like I spend half my time fighting frameworks, configs, vector DBs, and orchestration layers instead of building. Perhaps I'm doing it wrong but the ecosystem seems way more complicated than it needs to be at the moment. Just curious what people actually like working with these days. i feel like i've hit a wall and now i spend most of my time reading docs and guides like its "Harry Potter and the Agentic Ai" wasn't ai supposed to 69x my productivity or smth submitted by /u/SpicyTofu_29 [link] [留言]