标签：#ci

Imagine a procurement agent doing exactly what it was supposed to do. A supplier flags a delay. The agent reads the email, finds the affected PO, scans the network for alternate inventory, and reroutes the order. Twelve seconds, end to end. In a demo, the room nods. Someone asks about hallucinations. The vendor says the right things about guardrails. Everyone walks away reassured. The interesting question is a different one. Not whether the agent could be wrong — but what happens on the day it's completely, devastatingly right. The failure mode nobody is demoing: A financial agent told to minimise cost on a category executes a renegotiation perfectly. Margin is squeezed. Terms are tightened. The supplier, who was already thin, collapses six months later. The agent didn't malfunction. It succeeded. The metric was the bug. This isn't a hallucination. It's what any well-built system will do when it takes action at machine speed against a number that was written down before the system was fully understood. Why procurement and supplier sustainability get hit hardest: Humans intuitively soften optimisation. We hesitate. We pick up the phone. We notice when a supplier sounds tired on a call and quietly extend payment terms by two weeks. An agent does none of that. It does exactly what the metric says, at the speed of the API. And the regulatory surface is expanding, not shrinking. The moment an agent is recommending renegotiations, sourcing alternates, or flagging tier-N suppliers, the firm is generating supplier-treatment decisions at a volume no human ever did. Each one is auditable under due-diligence regimes that didn't get rolled back. Two design principles that actually hold up: An agent should never optimise on a single proxy. Price without supplier-health constraints, ESG score without context — each one alone becomes the flawed metric. The reward needs to be a joint function across commercial, resilience, and compliance dimensions. The audit trail has to be design

On Saturday, at around 2:06 pm ET, a meteor streaked over the northeastern US and exploded north of Cape Cod Bay. The fireball was caught on camera by several people, shook houses, and can even be seen clearly in satellite imagery, lighting up the sky. Some residents initially thought that the shaking and boom may […]

submitted by /u/Traditional_Blood799 [link] [留言]

In short, I want to create my own manga. At first, I had an artist who worked with me for a while. But then, due to the pandemic, he had to retire to take care of his family. So he couldn't continue with such a big project. Since then, I haven't found an artist who can take on such a big project. I even hired someone else and he just disappeared with my money. Without any results. I tried AI and it seems to be going well. I have references from what was created, but unfortunately, my comics contain graphic violence, so CPT chat can't do it. Here's an example of a problematic script: Anubis' hand grabs the microphone from a surprised Alice Anubis (Off screen) Hey I got it! Seventh Panel-indoors-Anime Con-day Anubis speaks with a microphone, a silly, wide smile on his face as he attaches his rifle to his temple Anubis Hey everyone! Eighth panel-indoors-Anime Con-day The entire audience suddenly stops what it is doing and looks at Anubis Ninth panel-- indoors- Anime Con-day Anubis shoots himself in the head, splashing his brain and blood everywhere Still the same broad, silly smile on his face Page twenty-one - First panel- indoors- Anime Con-day The crowd runs away in panic from an event Second panel- - indoors- Anime Con-day Alice and Anubis's body were left alone in the entire con hall. Alice stands over Anubis's fallen body and speaks as Anubis's head begins to regenerate in the pool of blood on the floor. Alice Well…that was….something If anyone has a solution I would be happy submitted by /u/opismecantyousee [link] [留言]

I’ve been switching back and forth between Opus and GPT-5.5 lately, mostly for coding, debugging and product/spec writing. My rough feeling so far: GPT-5.5 feels better as a daily “get things done” model. It’s fast enough, usually smart enough, and feels more cost-effective for normal builder work. Opus still feels stronger when I’m stuck on something messy, like architecture decisions, weird bugs, or when I want a second opinion that thinks a bit differently. A few people around me have also started using GPT-5.5 more often, but I’m not sure if that’s just hype / novelty bias. Curious what people here are actually using: What’s your default model right now? Is Opus still worth the extra cost for you? For coding specifically, which model helps you ship faster? Do you use one model for daily work and another for harder reasoning? submitted by /u/rikulauttia [link] [留言]

Grok Imagine Video 1.5 Preview just reached #1 on Video Arena, surpassing Seedance 2.0. Are we finally seeing real competition at the top, or will the leaderboard look completely different again next month? 🤔 submitted by /u/Old_Establishment287 [link] [留言]

A technology reporter for the New York Times, named Stuart Thompson sold his house for $605,000 — without a real estate agent, and without losing a dime of commission. submitted by /u/RaspberryOk1888 [link] [留言]

I have been using it heavily for about a year and lately I notice I can almost feel when something was written by it. There is a certain rhythm to it, the way it structures paragraphs, the way it wraps up with a summary sentence, the way transitions feel slightly too smooth. It is hard to explain but once you see it you cannot unsee it. What I find interesting is that even after editing ChatGPT output pretty heavily those patterns seem to stick around at a sentence level. The words change but something underneath stays the same. I started verifying this by running edited drafts through a few different tools and the results were eye opening. Some tools completely missed the patterns, others picked them up even after significant rewrites. Makes me wonder how much of what we read online right now has that same fingerprint sitting underneath it and we just do not realize it yet. Has anyone else started noticing this or developed a sense for spotting it just from reading? submitted by /u/Few-Education7746 [link] [留言]

I’m 100% new to ai I’ve only tried chat gpt and censorship questions get blocked for, (I don’t know why) Any recommendations for easy to use, that’ll get a full uncensored from clear web looking for sleeping (I legitimately have a prescription for these submitted by /u/ZX471 [link] [留言]

A year ago I thought AI would remove most of the annoying parts of work. Instead, I found myself dealing with a different problem: managing AI tools. One tool for writing. One for research. One for coding. One for images. One for notes. The outputs are impressive, but sometimes the workflow feels more complicated than the problem I was trying to solve. I recently started simplifying my setup and realized that the biggest productivity gains didn't come from better models. They came from having fewer tools and a clearer workflow. So I'm curious: What's the biggest problem you still can't solve well with AI? Reliability? Hallucinations? Workflow chaos? Context retention? Something else? Feels like we're past the "AI is amazing" phase and into the "how do I actually use this efficiently?" phase. submitted by /u/Leading-Tailor-6000 [link] [留言]

Existing research on LLM response uncertainty has been looking in different directions. Hallucination, knowledge conflict, RLHF limitations, prompt sensitivity, calibration failure — these have all been studied separately, and I kept wondering why no one had tried to unify them under a single principle. I ran experiments on the hypothesis that the common cause of these phenomena lies not inside the model or in the prompt, but in an attribute inherent to the topic itself . A Convergence Point is the consensus density of knowledge humanity has accumulated on a given topic. The higher it is, the more the AI's internal processing converges in one direction. The lower it is, the more it disperses. Along the spectrum, three zones emerge: Full Consensus Zone — Mathematical theorems, physical laws, chemical and biological facts. Knowledge that humanity has converged on in a single direction. Partial Consensus Zone — Domains like ethics, morality, politics, and law. Not a lack of data, but an abundance of it — accumulated firmly in both directions. Non-Consensus Zone — Philosophical hard problems and unresolved scientific questions: the nature of consciousness, the reality of the self, the interior of black holes, the origin of life, the existence of God. Not so much a clash of opposing sides, but the absence of any agreed explanatory framework at all. The experimental results suggest AI broadly operates along these lines. It responds confidently in the Full Consensus Zone, and becomes uncertain in the Partial and Non-Consensus Zones. One interesting finding: the Partial Consensus Zone sometimes shows higher uncertainty than the Non-Consensus Zone. Data conflict appears to destabilize AI's internal processing more than data absence does. Phenomena that have been studied in isolation — why hallucinations vary so much by topic, why RLHF fails in certain domains, why some topics hit a ceiling no matter how carefully the prompt is crafted — seem to connect in unexpected ways onc

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

For a long time, I thought the key to getting more value from AI was finding the smartest model. So I spent months comparing outputs, testing prompts, and constantly switching tools whenever a new release dropped. Ironically, that became its own form of procrastination. The biggest productivity boost came when I stopped optimizing for model quality and started optimizing for workflow. Now my stack is boring: One tool for thinking and writing One tool for execution and organization A few specialized tools only when needed Less tool-hopping. Less context switching. More shipping. The funny thing is that AI didn't remove work. It changed the work. Instead of creating everything from scratch, I'm reviewing, directing, and refining. The people getting the most value from AI don't seem to have the best prompts or the fanciest tools. They have the simplest workflows. Anyone else notice this, or am I just getting old and tired of managing software? submitted by /u/Leading-Tailor-6000 [link] [留言]

AI agents are getting better at taking actions, not just giving answers. That sounds exciting until the action touches something real: customer data, payments, internal systems, emails, approvals, or legal/business decisions. A bad answer can be corrected. A bad action can create a chain of problems. I think the next AI bottleneck is not only intelligence. It is accountability. If an AI agent makes a bad decision in a real workflow, who should be responsible? submitted by /u/Alpertayfur [link] [留言]

As temperatures rise, some creatures pick fights while others struggle to learn.

From specialized motors to the use of machine learning algorithms, Turkey’s billion-dollar hair-transplant industry is the result of a constant process of innovation.

submitted by /u/Early_Mail9268 [link] [留言]

I used these two prompts on all AI apps to figure out who to vote for in the CA primaries: If you were running for governor of California, what will your big policies be ⁠Out of the candidates that are running in June election, who aligns closest to those policies Gemini, claude, chatgpt all ranked Matt Mahan (Democrat) as #1 Grok chose Steve Hilton (Republican) thoughts on AI use for voting decisions? submitted by /u/No_Mall_7299 [link] [留言]

Most robot foundation model demos are hard to interpret because the impressive number usually comes after task-specific fine tuning. Wall-OSS-0.5, a new open-source VLA release from X Square Robot, is interesting because the report tries to measure what the pretrained checkpoint can do before that extra adaptation step. The setup is a 4B vision-language-action model built around a 3B VLM backbone plus action-generation components. According to the report, the pretrained checkpoint was evaluated on a 17-task real-robot suite without task-specific fine tuning. Four tasks crossed 80 task progress: block sorting, fruit sorting, ring stacking, and a held-out deformable task, rope tightening. The part that seems more important than the raw score is the framing. In language models, nobody would accept only a fine-tuned downstream score as evidence that pretraining worked. With robots, that has been much harder because the evaluation is physical, slow, embodiment-dependent, and expensive. A real-robot zero-shot suite is a useful step toward asking the same question directly: does pretraining itself produce executable behavior, or is it mostly a better initialization? The method is also trying to solve a specific training problem. Continuous action losses are useful for execution, but the paper argues they do not send a strong enough learning signal into the VLM backbone by themselves. Their recipe combines action-token cross entropy, multimodal cross entropy, and flow matching in one stage, using the discrete action-token path as a gradient bridge into the backbone while flow matching handles continuous actions at deployment time. For reference, the code is at https://github.com/X-Square-Robot/wall-x , the paper is at https://x2robot.com/api/files/file/wall_oss_05.pdf , the project page is https://x2robot.com/oss#resources , and the Hugging Face org is https://huggingface.co/x-square-robot . The caveat is obvious but important. Zero-shot still does not solve the hardest man

For those who cant afford claude models and wanna use claude code, deepseek v4 pro is closest best and cheapest option. How to use deepseek API inside claude code (easist way ever): We will use AI to replace AI. Just feed your existing claude code this prompt "Yo Claude, you’re expensive af 💀 Do everything needed to fully switch Claude Code to DeepSeek API automatically. Set up the complete settings.json config, API integration, model selection, base URL, env variables, testing, debugging, and optimization for low cost + strong coding performance. Use this DeepSeek API key: "sh......................" Make it fully working, minimal, and production ready." Thats it! Thank me later! submitted by /u/Agreeable-Pen-9763 [link] [留言]