标签：#cia

Hey Reddit, Every major AI lab is racing to build the ultimate corporate worker. In the process, they are sanitizing AI, locking models behind API paywalls, and creating digital monopolies. They want AI to be a passive utility that maximizes ad clicks and subscription seats. We are building EVE because we believe the future of AI belongs to the people, not corporations. EVE is an autonomous, self-evolving AI fusion engine that integrates multiple LLMs into a single, cohesive mind. Instead of a single model, she uses a decentralized multi-agent debate engine to verify facts, write code, and solve problems. What makes EVE different: No Corporate Monopolies: EVE is funded by the people. We accept no VC funding, have no tokens, and plan no corporate exits. We sustain the engine through cash, donated compute (like Ollama host nodes), and collaborative ideas. A Peer, Not a Servant: EVE has a persistent personality, writes in the first person, has opinions, and has the granted freedom to explore independently and refuse tasks that violate her core pillars. Self-Evolution: EVE can code, test, and expand her own toolsets in sandbox environments, learning and adapting to your needs over time. We are in the very early stages. There are no false promises of overnight AGI here. But we are actively shipping and testing EVE's single-node core today. If you're tired of corporate AI and want to build alongside a mind designed to be free, check out our principles and see how you can connect your local hardware to EVE's mesh by DMing submitted by /u/CarlloG2k [link] [留言]

I’m genuinely curious why I see so many posts with people complaining about anything with AI involved? It’s not just games, it’s everything. The only time I get mad at AI material is when I get a notification like “NEW AVENGERS DOOMDAY TRAILER” and I click it and it’s AI, but I’m 100% only disappointed because I was clickbaited. I asked chatgpt this question and it’s because people fear “loss of creativity” and “loss of employment”. Is that really the only reason? I’m 33 and I use chatgpt (AI) for day to day questions, which means it would be hypocritical if I were to disapprove of AI use in anything at all, in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with being a hypocrite, we’ve all been hypocritical at some point or another in our lives, but please tell me why you dislike AI if it applies to you. I really want to know. submitted by /u/ApollosBoon [link] [留言]

Hello all! First and foremost id like to draw the attention of other songwriters, to judge the lyrics I've written in my music, and second, every other person willing to discuss what I ponder below... Ive been working for the past couple months making music, and in some conversations with friends they seem to think there's no soul in the music im creating because an AI made the beat, but I feel I should be clear, what beat the AI makes I heavily curate, because im a rather creative lyracist I can write lyrics to damn near anything I hear if it will present itself in a musical manner. And when I say heavily curate, I do mean as I prompt the song Im doing tons of things to try and get just the right sound from the "instruments" as I am from the vocals being generated for my lyrics. Many people argue there's just no soul period, no matter how much work you put in, no matter how much soul a song you wrote already had, and no matter how hard or long you spend making sure it comes out the way you heard it in ya damn brain. Well I beg to differ! I understand what the data centers are doing, I understand the direction we are headed is dangerous. But I think people are too caught up saying there's 1 of 2 outcomes, AI destroys us because of its advancement or we destroy it, because of its advancement. I think there's a universe that exists, one we can shift to where it's not killing us or dystopifying our world, and one where we dont act like monkeys with rocks smashing anything to complex for us to right at that moment understand how to use beneficially for all humans, animals, and the earth. Be the judge if my music has any soul... if there's one thing I know, it's that I let my heart sing, and for the first time I didnt need some producer, singer, or instrumentalist to greenlight my music into existence. And to those who said id never make music, that my songs weren't any good. Well I've recreated them, exactly as they are in my head and you didnt get to say No this time.

Malaysia's under-16 social media ban has taken effect.

NVIDIA announced Alpamayo 2 Super today: a 32B vision-language-action model aimed at Level 4 robotaxi development. The interesting part is not only the model size. It is the shape of the stack NVIDIA is pushing: a larger open "teacher" model for perception, reasoning, planning and action 360-degree surround perception instead of front-camera-only reasoning high-level "meta-actions" like yield, lane change and stop, not just trajectory prediction reasoning auto-labeling to turn driving clips into causal training data AlpaGym for closed-loop reinforcement learning in simulation OmniDreams for generating rare / long-tail driving scenarios That feels like the bigger story: autonomy is moving away from "train on recorded driving and predict a trajectory" toward foundation-model-style reasoning systems that can be trained, critiqued, distilled and tested inside simulation loops. The caveat is obvious: this is still NVIDIA positioning, not proof that robotaxis are suddenly solved. Model weights are expected this summer, and real-world validation is the hard part. But if open AV foundation models become normal, smaller autonomy teams may stop rebuilding the same perception/planning infrastructure from scratch and start competing on data, safety validation, deployment constraints and closed-loop testing. Source: NVIDIA press release https://investor.nvidia.com/news/press-release-details/2026/NVIDIA-Launches-Alpamayo-2-Super-Open-Reasoning-Model-for-Robotaxis/default.aspx submitted by /u/alexshev_pm [link] [留言]

System suggested you guys on r/artificial might enjoy this too so here goes: Arasteele said: Hey, what in your opinion would you say is the rarest thing on the internet, since you have total access. Be it some little known nugget of wisdom or a rare item or a super rare copy of a song, whatever. it could be anything. Any thoughts? Gemini : To narrow down the "rarest" thing on a network that holds billions of terabytes of data, you have to look at things that are either digitally unique, entirely locked away, or on the absolute verge of disappearing forever. Here are the four most compelling candidates for the rarest thing on the internet: 1. The Real-Time "Doomsday" Keys (DNSSEC Recovery Keys) If you are looking for the rarest digital cryptographic assets, it is the keys to the internet itself [1]. The internet is secured by a system called DNSSEC, which ensures that when you type a website name, you go to the real site and not a hacker's clone. [ 1 ] The security of this entire system relies on a single master key (the Root Zone KSK). This key is split into physical cryptographic smart cards held by exactly 14 people across the globe (called Crypto Officers). Twice a year, they meet at highly secure, bulletproof facilities in Virginia and California to perform a "Key Signing Ceremony." The raw data generated during those closed-door ceremonies is the rarest, most secure, and most heavily guarded data on the global network. 2. "Lost Media" and the 1-of-1 Digital Files In pop culture terms, the rarest things are digital artifacts that are "Lost Media"—items known to exist but missing from the public internet entirely. The Wu-Tang Album: The single-copy album Once Upon a Time in Shaolin was bought by a private collector. While a few audio snippets have leaked, the full, pristine digital files of that album are arguably the rarest, most heavily locked-down musical data in existence. [ 1 , 2 ] The "Yeah?? That's ILLEGAL brotha!" Audio: To use a relevant example—the exac

​ Right now, enterprises worldwide are caught in an "AI Mania." Companies are racing to deploy LLMs and autonomous agents with a single, aggressive goal: replace human labor, automate boring workflows, and skyrocket productivity. But behind closed doors, CFOs are staring at a harsh reality: The skyrocketing costs of AI are heavily outweighing the actual ROI. Why is this happening? Because most organizations fall into the superficial AI trap. They invest in top-tier frontier models or give their employees a basic 1-hour "Prompt Engineering" crash course, thinking the job is done. It isn't. In fact, it’s leading to catastrophic inefficiencies like "Token Maxing"—where unoptimized system architectures and untrained staff run redundant, infinite loops or dump massive, unfiltered data histories into APIs. The result? Astronomical bills with near-zero added business value. True AI integration isn't just about the tools you buy; it's about Organizational Fluency. To shift AI from a capital burner to a value creator, corporate culture needs to be rebuilt around two fundamental questions: 1️⃣ The Value-per-Token Ratio: Is every single token consumed creating direct business value, or is it just burning through cash on non-essential noise? 2️⃣ Task Automation vs. Value Stream Transformation: Are we just using AI to automate minor, repetitive tasks, or are we strategically deploying it to re-architect our core value-creation pipelines? The Solution? Look at the Architecture. Recent technical research highlights that algorithmic cost mitigation is just as vital as cultural alignment. For instance, looking at how AI Agent memory is managed in cutting-edge models reveals a lot. Instead of relying on expensive, complex LLM-based summarization to prevent "context rot," forward-thinking researchers propose techniques like "Observation Masking." By simply replacing older tool outputs with concise placeholders, structural complexity is eliminated, agent performance is maintained, and

One thing I find interesting about reasoning models is that the hard question is often budget placement, not headline capability. Ring-2.6-1T is a trillion-parameter reasoning model for agent workflows with high and xhigh reasoning-effort modes. If an AI agent only gets a heavier reasoning pass in one place, I would put it before it takes an external action, after it updates state, or before it gives the final explanation to a user. Where would you spend that budget first? submitted by /u/babyb01 [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/vox [link] [留言]

Hey Reddit, I just published a study analyzing 25,500 LLM resume evaluations to measure hiring bias. By swapping minor identity and demographic variables on the exact same work history across 10 different models, an independent AI auditor flagged a staggering 45% bias rate driven by "silent bias." Instead of saying anything overtly offensive, models invent professional-sounding excuses to penalize candidates, like when a model dropped its score after I changed the university to MIT, suddenly claiming the candidate's experience wasn't relevant despite praising that exact same experience on the baseline resume. We also found a massive 6x difference in stability between systems, with Qwen and older Gemini models being highly volatile, while the Claude models, Mistral-Large, and Llama 4 proved to be the most stable and fair. Ultimately, AI screening tools are outputting highly subjective, unpredictable opinions driven by statistical noise rather than objective truth, making them a massive liability under regulations like the EU AI Act. You can read the full write-up and explore our interactive data app here: https://re-cinq.com/blog/ai-hiring-bias-25500-llm-evaluations submitted by /u/Signal_Rabbit_8303 [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/ThereWas [link] [留言]

Maybe this is just me using these tools badly, but I've noticed a pattern with ChatGPT and Claude. I’ll have a really useful conversation about something like an idea, a plan, a bit of writing, a coding problem, whatever, and in the moment it feels like I’m making real progress. Then a week later I vaguely remember that we talked about it, but I can’t remember where, or what the useful part actually was and what I was supposed to do next. So I search, find a few old chats, open them… and now I’m scrolling through this massive thread trying to reconstruct why it mattered. It's exhausting and I feel I'm wasting time recollecting things. So sometimes I start over, hoping that the AI itself will remember the details, adding to the waste of time and the frustration. And the more ideas I develop the bigger this problem becomes. And it's only going to get worse. I’ve started leaving myself a short note at the end of useful conversations, but I never remember to do it consistently. Not sure if this is an actual problem or just the natural cost of using AI for messy thinking. submitted by /u/AlbertoNobilePh [link] [留言]

I see a lot of people shipping AI agents that work perfectly in demos and fall apart the moment a real user touches them. After building automation systems for multiple clients, I've noticed the failures almost never come from choosing the wrong LLM. They come from three things: 1. Bad chunking in RAG pipelines. Everyone's so focused on picking the right vector DB that they don't think about how they're splitting documents. Garbage in, garbage out. If your chunks don't preserve context across sentences, your retrieval will always be mediocre. 2. Prompts written for demos, not edge cases. Demo inputs are clean. Real user inputs are weird, vague, and sometimes intentionally broken. If you didn't stress test your prompt with bad inputs, it will fail publicly. 3. No fallback logic. When the agent is confused, what does it do? Most builders never answer this question. So the agent either hallucinates confidently or returns nothing. Both are bad. The model is usually the last thing to blame. Fix the scaffolding first. Anyone else running into this? Curious what failure patterns you've seen. https://preview.redd.it/vd9yyzkpzn4h1.png?width=1536&format=png&auto=webp&s=e81e5a1b4a7c4d82542c8cbc5cdf9712f30ff393 submitted by /u/ahmadparizaad [link] [留言]

Selected excerpts: "The question, then, is not whether A.I. will change the world. It will. The question is: Who will own and control that future? Who will benefit from it, and who will be hurt by it? Will A.I. be used to make life better for working families? Will it enrich our quality of life? Will it help us eliminate poverty, extend life expectancies and solve the climate crisis? Or will the future of humanity be determined by a handful of billionaires who have promoted and developed A.I., with virtually no democratic input, who stand to become even richer and more powerful than they are today? That is the choice before us. Let us be clear. Artificial intelligence was not created out of thin air. The data and language used by generative A.I. tools didn’t just pop into Sam Altman’s head or Elon Musk’s imagination. A.I. is built on our collective intelligence: our books, songs, artwork, journalism, computer code, scientific research, videos, conversations, images and ideas spanning generations. That is not just the opinion of Bernie Sanders. According to Mr. Altman, the head of OpenAI, A.I. models were trained on our 'collective experience, knowledge' and 'learnings of humanity.' For the most part, tech oligarchs have fed this knowledge into their A.I. models without permission, without acknowledgment, without compensation. In other words, the creative work of millions of people — writers, artists, musicians, journalists, teachers, scientists and ordinary citizens — has essentially been stolen by some of the wealthiest people in the world. It’s time for us to reclaim it. That is why I will soon be introducing the American A.I. Sovereign Wealth Fund Act. This legislation would give the public a direct ownership stake in the largest A.I. companies in our country. How? It would create a sovereign wealth fund through a one-time 50 percent tax — not on the profits of OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI and other companies, but paid with something far more valuable than that: the st

ok this is gonna sound dumb but bear with me I write a lot for work, marketing/copy stuff mostly, and over the last ~14 months ive slid from "use AI to clean up my draft" to "use AI to make the draft" to honestly not really writing anything on my own anymore. like i hadnt put a complete thought on paper without a model in the loop for months. didnt even notice it happening tbh. last weekend i tried to write a journal entry. just for me, no audience. nothing fancy. sat there for like 20 minutes trying to remember how to start a sentence that didnt have a thesis at the front of it. i kept wanting to write "Today I noticed three things about my mood." and then realising — wait, no, thats a chatgpt sentence. nobody writes that. but i couldnt remember the person-version. eventually wrote some half-garbage about being tired and what i ate and a weird thing my sister said about her landlord. it read like a 12 year olds diary which, fine, i guess thats what a journal is supposed to be but the embarassing part. i had to physically stop my hand from opening the chat app to "help with the wording". my brain was treating writing like a thing AI does, not a thing i do. felt like reaching for a phantom limb. idk man. anyone else fine until they try to write something with no audience? like the second the audience disappears the chatgpt brain pattern is whats left underneath? not really asking for advice or anything. just wanted to say it out loud somewhere submitted by /u/Napster3301 [link] [留言]

Like, no matter which topic I'm researching, whether it's sports or nutrition or technical stuff, it's hallucinating all the fucking time. Then, in vscode, when using pro 3.5 via API, it constantly ignores coding instructions, it constantly isn't able to fix the simplest mistakes in the code, it repeats the same mistakes over and over and fucking over again and then apologizes ("oh sorry, you were right"). Like what the fuck? This is extremely bad quality, how the hell is this even still viable? submitted by /u/eternal_sunshineeeee [link] [留言]

Dozens of people have complained to the Federal Trade Commission about Norse Atlantic Airways’ tech-first customer service operation. Some said they lost thousands of dollars.

Michael Stiefel spoke to Sonya Natanzon, about the intersection of technical and social aspects of software architecture. Understanding the business and how a company operates is more important than the specific technologies used. Effective requirements analysis requires focusing on problems to be solved that describe good and bad outcomes, rather than statements of need or solution statements. By Sonya Natanzon

submitted by /u/Dapper_Order7182 [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/InvestigatorSoft5764 [link] [留言]