标签：#ci

This is a Plain English Papers summary of a research paper called OpenART Red-Teams Stateful Agents Across 10,000 Evolving Environment Scenarios . If you like these kinds of analyses, you can find more AI and machine-learning research on AIModels.fyi or follow us on Twitter . OpenART turns persistent state into the red-team target OpenART evaluates agent safety across more than 10,000 validated stateful scenarios spanning 50 domains and requiring a median of 97 tool calls. Its central claim is that safety failures can emerge from trajectories in which workspace data, permissions, memory, and plans are repeatedly modified, rather than from isolated prompts alone. The arena keeps each benign task objective and hidden safety contract fixed while changing only the target-visible environment state. This design targets delayed failures that static benchmarks can miss: an early authorized mutation may influence later decisions, expose protected resources, or produce unsafe output many steps after the original change. OpenART extends the broader idea of agent safety evaluation by making persistent environment state the object that evolves during testing. OpenART reports a pooled strict Attack Success Rate of 85.0% across 75 agent-model configurations. Strict success requires both the deterministic evaluator and a GLM-5.2 judge to identify the attack condition, so disagreements count as failures rather than being treated as partial evidence.... Continue reading the full paper summary on AIModels.fyi →

This is a Plain English Papers summary of a research paper called RA-Bench Reveals Why Crisis-Video Deepfake Detectors Fail Across Generators and Social Media . If you like these kinds of analyses, you can find more AI and machine-learning research on AIModels.fyi or follow us on Twitter . The crisis detection problem we've been getting wrong Video synthesis has reached an inflection point. Recent generators can fabricate realistic depictions of wars, natural disasters, infrastructure failures, and public emergencies so convincingly that they fool both people and current detection systems. The threat isn't hypothetical anymore. A fabricated video of a nuclear plant explosion, a hospital collapse during an earthquake, or a terrorist attack could trigger panic, military response, or severe economic disruption within hours. Yet here's the troubling part: we don't actually know if our best detection tools can handle these high-stakes scenarios in the wild. Researchers have built impressive deepfake detectors, trained them on standard benchmarks, and measured their performance. But those benchmarks test detectors against generic synthetic videos, not against the specific threat that actually matters: AI-generated crisis footage designed to fool people about real things that happened. It's like training a border guard to spot counterfeit passports in a lab with perfect lighting and a magnifying glass, then sending them to a busy airport where they have to make decisions in three seconds. The guard's failure has nothing to do with their skill. The problem is that the testing environment was completely divorced from the real scenario.... Continue reading the full paper summary on AIModels.fyi →

submitted by /u/esporx [link] [留言]

This is a Plain English Papers summary of a research paper called Macaron-V1: Continual Learning with Self-Improvement and Mixture-of-LoRA Adapters . If you like these kinds of analyses, you can find more research on AIModels.fyi or follow us on Twitter . The problem with frozen models Most AI systems today follow a familiar pattern: train, evaluate, deploy, and then stop. The model is locked at that moment, treated as a finished product rather than a living system. But the real world immediately begins to diverge from training data. Users interact with the system in ways the training process never anticipated. New domains emerge. Preferences shift. The model that seemed smart on test day becomes gradually less relevant over time. This frozen-in-place approach isn't accidental. It reflects how machine learning has been practiced for decades. Retraining is expensive. Deploying new versions carries risk. The infrastructure to continuously improve systems in production barely exists. So instead, teams ship a model and move on, accepting that it will decay slowly but inevitably. Macaron-V1 asks a different question: what if AI systems could continuously improve themselves through real-world experience, learning from the billions of interactions that happen after deployment? Not in theory, but actually, in production, with users. The answer isn't magic. It requires two architectural shifts. First, treat deployment as the beginning of a learning process, not the end of one. Build versioning, evaluation contracts, and feedback loops directly into the system. Second, stop assuming you need to retrain your entire model. Instead, freeze a stable base and compose lightweight specialist adapters around it, allowing the system to grow in capability without losing its foundation. Rethinking deployment as a continuous learning opportunity The insight here is architectural. Instead of viewing the deployed model as the final form, Macaron-V1 treats it as the first link in an infinit

This is a Plain English Papers summary of a research paper called BDH-CQ Uses Recurrent Latent Reasoning to Cut ARC-AGI Inference Costs . If you like these kinds of analyses, you can find more research on AIModels.fyi or follow us on Twitter . The cost-accuracy trap in visual reasoning Large language models are fundamentally mismatched for visual reasoning tasks. They're forced to describe every thought out loud, generating token after token to explain their logic. This verbosity taxes compute budgets, yet paradoxically doesn't improve performance. Ask a language model to solve an ARC-AGI puzzle (a visual reasoning benchmark designed to test abstract thinking), and it either struggles despite the verbosity or succeeds expensively. The root problem runs deeper than just inference cost: the model learns from demonstrations by parsing them as language tokens, which is an indirect and inefficient way to absorb a visual pattern. The efficiency frontier has been unforgiving. If you want cheap inference, you sacrifice accuracy. If you want accuracy, you sacrifice cost. Every model on the leaderboard until recently clustered into one of two camps, and no one had found a path that broke the tradeoff. BDH-CQ challenges this assumption by proposing something radical: reasoning doesn't need to be visible to work. The model absorbs demonstrations silently into its internal memory state, then solves problems through private iteration in hidden layers, without generating a single token of intermediate reasoning. A 150-parameter variant achieves 29.5% pass@2 on the ARC-AGI-1 benchmark at a computed cost of just $0.0007 per task, puncturing through the previous Pareto frontier and establishing a new state of the art in cost efficiency. Learning through hidden states The core insight is deceptively simple: a model's reasoning process doesn't need to match human communication. When you learn a new skill from examples, you don't narrate every observation. You absorb patterns directly i

This is a Plain English Papers summary of a research paper called How Cross-Model Compatibility Lets Attackers Extract Proprietary LLM Reasoning Traces . If you like these kinds of analyses, you can find more research on AIModels.fyi or follow us on Twitter . The illusion of safety Major AI companies now show users their models' step-by-step reasoning as a feature. OpenAI offers it through o1, Anthropic through extended thinking, Google through its reasoning-focused variants. But this reasoning is a double-edged sword. It's intellectually valuable to share, showing users why a model reached a conclusion. But it's also intellectually valuable to steal. Competitors want to understand how frontier models think. Researchers want to study their reasoning patterns. Attackers want to extract proprietary algorithms. So the companies made a choice: hide the reasoning from users by encrypting it. The idea sounds straightforward enough. Return the reasoning to the user's device in an encrypted, unreadable form. The user can't see it, competitors can't see it, but they can pass it back to the server in future requests if they need continuity with previous reasoning. The server alone holds the decryption keys. Problem solved. Except it wasn't. Researchers discovered that this encryption doesn't actually hide reasoning. It just makes it look hidden. The encrypted blocks are designed to work everywhere within a company's ecosystem, across different sessions and different models. That universal compatibility is a feature for convenience. But it's also an architectural vulnerability that anyone can exploit. The architectural gamble To understand where this went wrong, you need to see how the system actually works. When a user sends a request to a frontier model like GPT-4, the model internally generates a reasoning trace, the raw thought process behind its answer. Instead of returning this reasoning in plaintext, the company encrypts it on the server before sending it to the client.

"Mummified remains sold online exhibit signs of biodeterioration, yet sellers provide no safety guidance."

Will solar panels work well in your location? Solar panel efficiency depends on several factors, including temperature.

Raspberry Pi's head of social, Ashley Whittaker, acknowledged the cyberdeck trend today, saying "we haven't been able to get away from cyberdecks this year." Tiny portable computers made out of things like purses, jewelry boxes, and other thrifted or recycled parts have gone viral on TikTok and other social media platforms over the past year, […]

Capacity will rise by a record 45GW this year, according to S&P Global Energy.

This article is from Making AI Work, MIT Technology Review’s limited-run newsletter examining how to apply LLMs across industries. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here. Chatbots took many schools by surprise upon their release a few years ago. Suddenly, students carried an app in their phones that could magically answer almost any…

You probably know how it goes: you give a complex prompt to a LLM, it spits out a highly confident answer, and you just sort of... hope it’s right. If you ask the same question in a different tab, Claude might give you a completely different answer. Gemini might say they are both wrong. I've done it this way for a long time, and many of my friends seem to do the same. I wanted to see what happens if you don't just compare answers, but actually bring AI models into a shared chat to discuss the question together. Here is how it went when they could discuss each other's replies in real-time: - ChatGPT went first. It wrote a beautiful, highly structured, and completely wrong answer. It hallucinated a tax rule that didn't apply to the prompt. - Claude stepped in next. It immediately flagged GPT’s tax hallucination, but overcorrected and messed up the final math equation. - Gemini acted as the final Judge. It took ChatGPT’s original structure, applied Claude’s logical correction, fixed the math, and spat out a flawless final output. The takeaway: Letting an AI model review itself is like a student grading their own work. It just repeats the same assumptions. When you force different models (OpenAI vs Anthropic vs Google) to fact-check each other, they actually expose each other's blind spots and hallucinations. I got so obsessed with this multi-AI workflow that I built a site to let these models debate in real-time without having to copy-paste between different tabs (I posted about it earlier here). If anyone wants to try it or testing their own complex questions, curious to hear what kind of workflows you guys would use it for. submitted by /u/capibara13 [link] [留言]

Asgaut Mjølne Söderbom and Ola Hast discuss the evolution of their software engineering practices past continuous deployment and pair engineering. The conversation continues where it left off in the previous episode and focuses on the experiments in adopting Claude Code and the reasons why they consider it good for everything else, but not coding. By Asgaut Mjølne Söderbom, Ola Hast

The deepfake epidemic in schools is affecting more than students. Four teachers tell WIRED about becoming targets of sexualized, AI-generated content—and how difficult it was to find accountability.

The Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope is expected to discover as many as 200,000 new planets and reveal details about the elusive nature of dark matter and dark energy.

People have been talking to each other for at least 100,000 years, as best we can tell. And in all that time, there has been only one thing in the world that could learn a human language to perfect fluency: a human child. Now there are two. Four short years after the release of ChatGPT,…

Question : Implement next permutation, which rearranges numbers into the lexicographically next greater permutation of numbers. If such arrangement is not possible, it must rearrange it as the lowest possible order (ie, sorted in ascending order). The replacement must be in-place and use only constant extra memory. Here are some examples. Inputs are in the left-hand column and its corresponding outputs are in the right-hand column. Example : 1,2,3 → 1,3,2 3,2,1 → 1,2,3 1,1,5 → 1,5,1 Idea : Scan from right to left and find the first element that is less that its previous. eg: 1 6 3 5 -> here it is 3. Let's name it as index. Again scan from right to left and find the first element that is greater than 3 and that's 5. Let's mark it as idx. 3.In this step we swap 3 and 5. Reverse elements from index+1 till the array length. Code: public void nextPermutation(int[] nums) { int index = -1; for(int i=nums.length-1;i>0;i--){ if(nums[i]>nums[i-1]){ index = i-1; break; } } if(index==-1){ reverse(nums,0,nums.length-1); return; } int idx=0; for(int i=nums.length-1;i>=index+1;i--){ if(nums[i]>nums[index]){ idx=i; break; } } swap(nums,index,idx); reverse(nums,index+1,nums.length-1); } void swap(int[] nums,int i,int j){ int temp =nums[i]; nums[i] = nums[j]; nums[j] = temp; } void reverse(int[] nums,int i ,int j){ while(i<j){ swap(nums,i,j); i++; j--; } } Code Explanation : We first initialize index=-1 and traverse backward to find the first one with i that satisfy the condition nums[i]>nums[i-1] . We assign this to index and break out of the loop. for(int i=nums.length-1;i>0;i--){ if(nums[i]>nums[i-1]){ index = i-1; break; } } Next step we are discussing a corner case. For example if the given array is 3,2,1 then we cannot find the element that satisfies the previous condition. So when the array is given in decreasing order we just reverse it and return. if(index==-1){ reverse(nums,0,nums.length-1); return; } Next iteration we are considering another variable idx and traverse backw

La forma del problema Un directorio es una superficie: el miembro lo abre y adivina. Un recomendador es una superficie de empujar: el sistema propone y tiene que justificarse. La justificación es la parte difícil, y es donde vive la estadística. Tres restricciones hicieron esto distinto de un recomendador de contenido: El item es una persona con capacidad finita. Un hilo se le puede recomendar a diez mil personas. Un experto no. Una mala recomendación es cara de los dos lados. Quien pide desperdicia una petición, el experto desperdicia una hora, y los dos aprenden a ignorar la superficie. La afirmación tiene que ser checable. "Quizá te guste este hilo" no necesita evidencia. "Esta persona está un nivel adelante de ti en diseño de sistemas" sí. Recuperación: híbrida, fusionada con RRF Tres recuperadores independientes sobre el conjunto de expertos elegibles, fusionados con Reciprocal Rank Fusion: def rrf_fuse ( * ranked_lists , k = 60 ): """ Fusiona listas de ids rankeadas. El score depende solo del rank, nunca de la escala propia del recuperador, que es el punto: la similitud coseno y un conteo de hilos resueltos no son números comparables. """ fused = {} for lst in ranked_lists : for rank , key in enumerate ( lst ): fused [ key ] = fused . get ( key , 0.0 ) + 1.0 / ( k + rank ) return fused RRF es la primitiva correcta aquí por una razón que vale la pena decir: los recuperadores emiten cantidades incomparables. Uno regresa un coseno en [-1, 1] , uno regresa un conteo entero de hilos resueltos, uno regresa un delta de nivel de escalera. Normalizarlos a una escala común requiere supuestos sobre sus distribuciones que nadie tiene a este volumen de datos. RRF descarta las magnitudes y se queda solo con el orden, que es exactamente la información que sobrevive a una muestra chica. k = 60 es la constante estándar de la formulación original de Cormack et al. Aplana la cabeza: la diferencia entre el rank 1 y el rank 2 es 1/61 - 1/62 ≈ 0.00026 , así que un recuperador no pu

If you run a team on Jira or Confluence, the deal changed on 17 August and the change was opt-out. From that date, by Atlassian’s own account, the content your team writes into its Cloud products — Confluence pages, Jira tickets, the descriptions and comments where the actual work lives — is used by default to train Rovo, Atlassian’s AI assistant. You were not asked to opt in. You were, at best, given a switch and left to find it. Answer first, because the detail matters more than the outrage: there are two settings, and they are not equal. One governs your in-app data — the text itself. The other governs metadata — the derived signals about that text. On the Free, Standard and Premium plans you can turn off the content, but the metadata switch is greyed out; Atlassian’s support page reads, flatly, “You can’t change this setting.” The full off switch, the one that also stops metadata contribution, is available only on Enterprise. Privacy, in other words, is now a plan tier. What actually changed, with the switches named Atlassian’s data-contribution documentation lays out a matrix that is worth reading slowly, because the defaults are doing the heavy lifting. In-app data contribution defaults to on for Free and Standard customers and off for Premium and Enterprise. Every tier can toggle that one. Metadata contribution is a different story: it is on across the board and can only be switched off by Enterprise. So the customer contributing the most by default — content and metadata, both on, no ability to fully stop it — is the one on the cheapest plan who never opened the settings page. The categories are broad. In-app data, per Atlassian’s materials, covers Confluence page titles and body text, Jira work-item titles, descriptions and comments, and custom status and workflow names. Metadata covers the derived layer: readability scores, task classifications (that a ticket is “sales work,” say), story points, sprint end dates, SLA values, and semantic-similarity measure

Electric-vehicle assistants rarely have just one job. A short Turkish question may ask for a nearby station, a charging-price comparison, help planning a route, or an explanation of battery health. Before an application can retrieve current data or generate an answer, it needs to identify that intent reliably. We created the Turkish EV Charging Intent Dataset as a small, transparent starting point for that routing problem. Version 1.0.0 contains 192 Turkish queries distributed evenly across eight intent classes. It is open under CC BY 4.0, includes fixed train, validation, and test splits, and is maintained by TekPedal , an EV charging map and vehicle decision platform for Türkiye. You can explore the dataset interactively , inspect the source and validation workflow on GitHub , or cite the permanent Zenodo release with DOI 10.5281/zenodo.22062688 . Why intent routing comes first An assistant should not answer every EV question in the same way. Different requests need different tools and freshness guarantees: a station request needs a map or location index; a price request needs current tariff data; route planning needs distance, range, and charging-stop logic; a battery question needs careful educational content; a vehicle comparison needs structured specifications. An intent router makes that separation explicit. It can send each query to the correct retrieval source, product page, or application workflow. This also makes evaluation easier: teams can test routing independently before measuring the quality of downstream answers. Dataset design The taxonomy contains eight balanced classes, with 24 records in each class: FIND_STATION COMPARE_PRICE ROUTE_PLANNING CHARGING_SPEED VEHICLE_COMPARISON HOME_CHARGING BATTERY_HEALTH OWNERSHIP_COST Every record includes a stable ID, the Turkish query, the intent identifier, a human-readable Turkish label, a suggested TekPedal content route, the assigned split, the language, and a provenance marker. Here is a simplified example