找到 926 篇相关文章
Australia was the first country to issue a ban in late 2025, aiming to reduce the pressures and risks that young users may face on social media, including cyberbullying, social media addiction, and exposure to predators.
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]
Three years ago, when the women's World Cup kicked off in Australia and New Zealand, my social feeds were in a strange place. Twitter had just transformed into X, newcomer Threads was seemingly ascendant, and places like Bluesky had yet to garner much momentum. It left me with an odd, and admittedly silly, dilemma: I […]
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
Good system. One addition that moved the needle for me: I track "capacity conversion" -- when AI saves me 3 hours on a task what do those 3 hours actually become? Most people save time with AI and then fill it with more busywork. The ROI only materializes when you deliberately redirect saved time toward higher-value activities. I keep a simple log: "AI saved X hours on [task]. Redirected to [activity]. Value of redirected time: [$amount]." After 6 months, my actual ROI was 4x higher than the "time saved" metric suggested because of where the saved time went. submitted by /u/JaredSanborn [link] [留言]
When a platform started with total developer autonomy, teams felt overwhelmed and ended up solving the same problems in completely different ways. The company shifted to enablement over support, working together with teams intensively, and helping teams feel confident and capable, turning the right way into being the easiest way. By Ben Linders
Bluesky is launching a communities feature this year, according to its head of product.
Google DeepMind is funding research into the potential dangers of situations where millions of different AI agents interact with each other online. According to Rohin Shah, who directs the company’s AGI safety and alignment research, the mass-market arrival of agents that can carry out tasks without human oversight and follow instructions given to them by other…
A lot of discussion about Fable 5 has focused on the visible restrictions: cybersecurity, biology, certain chemistry. You hit a wall, you get a notification, you get redirected to Opus 4.8. That's frustrating, but at least it's honest. At least you know the model stepped back. Here's the part that's really disturbing, buried in a 319-page system card: There's a second category of restriction. For AI development and research work, Fable 5 doesn't redirect you. It doesn't notify you. It responds. It just delivers a deliberately weakened answer, and the system card describes this explicitly as "not visible to the user." Anthropic walked this back within 24 hours after fierce backlash. They apologized. "We made the wrong tradeoff." Good. But sit with what actually happened here, because the reversal is being treated as the end of the story when it's the beginning of a much harder problem. We now know three things we cannot unknow: Anthropic built this. They shipped it. And they only reversed it when the backlash was loud enough. The question isn't whether this specific invisible downgrade still exists. The question is what else might they be doing, in categories that don't generate the same backlash, that isn't disclosed in a document most people will never read anyway. This is a new kind of problem. And to understand why, you have to take a step back for a second. The pattern In January 2026, OpenAI announced that they would retire GPT-4o. Hundreds of thousands of daily users had built working relationships with that model over months: preferences it learned, corrections they made, communication styles that developed through hundreds of sessions. Gone. In February 2026, Gemini users found their chat histories had quietly vanished. No warning. No export. In April, Anthropic cut off Claude Pro and Max subscribers from using their subscriptions with third-party tools. Workflows that people depended on broke overnight. Each of these was framed differently. Model retirement
Every layer of AI solved the problem the last one left behind. The unsolved one: a shared, measurable standard for how to RUN intelligence — yours and the AI's, together. I spent 10+ years writing it down and it's falsifiable (pre-registered tests, failure lines locked before data). Asking for your strongest critiques Essay: https://joshmason573557.substack.com/p/colive-the-missing-standard-for-the submitted by /u/Useful-Ad-7895 [link] [留言]
I think it is but I'd just like to get some second opinions, especially from music creators. This is their spotify page https://open.spotify.com/artist/4dSJvPjnA1RU6KcngvaZ96 The artwork is definitely AI and there's no real composer name so some red flags there already. submitted by /u/WelderRound2925 [link] [留言]
submitted by /u/Tiny-Independent273 [link] [留言]