标签：#learning

I do AI research and keep juggling tabs: new ones on arXiv, trending ones on Hugging Face, famous ones somewhere else again. https://preview.redd.it/cg32bshjqd6h1.png?width=1919&format=png&auto=webp&s=00055bb8af699061be0bdcff59f2cb8fa9ab38b6 So I built one site that brings them all together. Pick a paper, read it right there, star the ones you want for later, and it remembers where you stopped reading, even if you switch from laptop to phone. Live: https://ppdeck.com Demo: https://youtu.be/vtyx34JvxX0 It's free and open source - a star on GitHub would mean a lot ⭐ https://github.com/khuynh22/paper-deck submitted by /u/NeitherRun3631 [link] [留言]

“Why the system feels rigid, why downstream fixes didn’t move the needle, and what actually matters.” This is the clearest picture after the full probe arc (multilayer-lock → gate decomposition → attractor migration → reconstruction ablation → generator diversity audit → live-generator Fix 2 evaluation + dim sweeps). TL;DR: The generator is the root bottleneck (dominant common-mode + low effective rank). The reflective loop is a rank-independent moat that reconstitutes everything back toward the anchor. Fix 2 is downstream and currently dormant on real token regimes. Dimensionality is not the lever. Train the generator so regime differences live in high-energy, separable directions — then downstream tools will actually have something to work with. This update reflects the complete probe arc through June 9 (including the live-generator Fix 2 evaluation and dim sweeps). The picture has sharpened: the reflective loop is a real moat, but it is moating low-rank common-mode input . The generator is the upstream constraint. Key numbers at a glance Regime means collinear: ~0.85–0.96 even at dim 512 Reflective loop migration (even on orthogonal deterministic pairs): +0.001–0.007 Fix 2 on real tokens (common-mode trigger): +0.024 migration, 0% manip at gain 0.6 Safe plasticity band: gain ≈ 0.4–0.8 (0% manip) 1. The generator has a dominant common-mode (effective rank ~1.6–3 even at dim 512) The generator puts the vast majority of its energy into a single shared direction. Regime means stay collinear (~0.85–0.96 cosine) regardless of dimension. Orthogonal pairs can appear at higher dim, but orthogonal regimes (as distributions) do not — the common-mode pulls everything back onto the same axis. Result: real token novelty is tiny and low-energy (mostly in a faint perpendicular component). The system is never shown meaningful structural differences to adapt to. 2. The reflective loop is a rank-independent moat Even when genuinely orthogonal deterministic pairs are presented (dim

We spent the last year building what we think is the missing infrastructure layer for multi-agent systems. Open to everyone starting today. The technical problem: Agents have no identity. In microservices you have a service mesh + IAM. In agent systems you have a Python file. We built a registry where every agent has a first-class ID, version, owner, skill graph. Behavioral evaluation, not function testing. Agents are non-deterministic same input can produce different execution paths. Traditional unit tests don't work. We implemented compound reliability scoring + behavioral regression instead. Composability without rebuilding. Skills are versioned, reusable, agent-inheritable. Inspired by how Kubernetes operators work, applied to agents. Cloud-agnostic deployment with built-in observability traces, cost attribution, drift detection. Model-agnostic. SOC 2 Type II. Genuinely interested in technical feedback especially on the eval methodology and the composability primitive. Free credits this week to test it. https://phinite.ai/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=public_launch_jun2026&utm_content=machinelearning submitted by /u/Embarrassed-Radio319 [link] [留言]

Found from iOS Simulator's files. Both of them are in espresso format There's also another compiled CoreML for concert ranking and based on the content inside of it looks like to be a simple logistic regression. See https://www.reddit.com/r/jailbreak/comments/1u1e1b4/access_to_simulators_root_files/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button Edit: Its the Siri's TTS submitted by /u/Actual_L0Ki [link] [留言]

How will AI affect our ability to think and judge for ourselves? Our new paper co-authored by 30 experts explores epistemic risks —the threats AI poses to our collective capacity to form beliefs accurately, reason well, and maintain a healthy information environment. We look at how AI can lead to harm through these mechanisms: Persuasion & Manipulation: AI systems are highly persuasive, opening the door for political/economic manipulation, incitement and radicalization, and other misuse, as well as unintentional harms like AI sycophancy and mental health risks. Cognitive Offloading: We may be delegating our thinking to AI at a deeper level than prior technologies, risking long-term degradation of individual and societal cognitive resilience. Feedback Loops: Human-AI and AI-AI interactions are narrowing the epistemic space humans and AIs draw from. This already drives homogenization, and may potentially lead to fragmentation and “lock-in” (a self-referential state that is difficult to reverse). While we believe AI could be an unprecedented lever for improving how humanity processes knowledge, we shouldn’t assume this will happen by default. We outline promising directions to change this trajectory across how AI systems are built, human-AI interaction design, institutional and individual adaptation, and information market incentives. Epistemic risks are self-perpetuating. As they can undermine the individual cognitive and social foundations needed to recognize, prioritize, and govern other threats—including the risks from AI itself—the time to act is now, before our capacity to respond is itself lost. Authors: Mick Yang, Stephen Casper, Jonathan Stray, Jasmine Li, Cameron Jones, Anna Gausen, Natasha Jaques, Brian Christian, Bálint Gyevnár, Hannah Rose Kirk, Zhonghao He, Dan Zhao, Siao Si Looi, Joshua Levy, Kobi Hackenburg, Elizabeth Seger, Matt Kowal, Michelle Malonza, Luke Hewitt, Hause Lin, Maarten Sap, Dylan Hadfield-Menell, Thomas H. Costello, Reihaneh Rabbany, Je

Hey All, I am currently working on ASR models, and I have gathered some recent literature. From my literature search, it seems like the ASR models are getting more and more powerful due to two main things. Because pseudo-labelled data is growing, supervised models are rising rapidly. Whisper-large-v3 has been trained on 5M hours of weakly supervised data, and Nvidia Parakeet v3 has been trained on 660k hours of labelled data (open-sourced). Funny enough, Nvidia Parakeet v3 actually beats Whisper-large-v3 on almost every benchmark, even though it has a smaller model size and smaller data scale. So clearly, scale is not everything. New architectures are on the rise; We used to have self-supervised + CTC to solve the ASR task, but now it seems like Transducer, and Token-Duration-Transducers are taking off. As well as attention encoder-decoder architectures (Qwen) that are all trained in a supervised manner. Now, given that the labelled data is very huge, and the new architectures are coming up, are we saying bye to the self-supervised learning approaches like Data2Vec2.0, WavLM, etc., for ASR, and will we only use them for general-purpose speech tasks? This is actually not similar to how computer vision operates now. Dinov3 is a self-supervised approach that is extremely performant in segmentation, classification, depth estimation etc but I do not see this in the speech domain now. ASR is dominated by these huge supervised architectures (which is a dense-prediction task), as well as emotion recognition, diarization, and speech seperation are also all dominated by the supervised approaches. Do you think we will have our Dino moment with a new self-supervised architecture? Or supervised learning is the way to go? How would these methods actually perform if we trained a self-supervised model on these huge datasets? submitted by /u/ComprehensiveTop3297 [link] [留言]

Hi everyone, I work for a major berry company, and a large part of my role involves forecasting total industry crop volumes (weekly harvest/production forecasts) as well as future pricing. I'm relatively new to ML-based forecasting. This is only my second professional role, and I have a bachelor's degree in Information Systems with a few machine learning courses under my belt, but I'm definitely not a forecasting expert. For crop forecasting, I've been working with USDA and other industry datasets. I started with SARIMA models and have recently been experimenting with XGBoost and Holt-Winters methods to compare performance. I'm looking for recommendations on: Libraries/frameworks that are commonly used for production-grade time series forecasting Models that work well for agricultural production forecasting Approaches for forecasting commodity/produce pricing Feature engineering ideas (weather, seasonality, acreage, imports, etc.) Any papers, blogs, or resources that would be useful Most of the data is weekly and highly seasonal, with weather and supply conditions playing a major role. Any suggestions, lessons learned, or pointers from people working in forecasting would be greatly appreciated. submitted by /u/foreigneverythingg [link] [留言]

https://preview.redd.it/vfxky33v5a6h1.png?width=2612&format=png&auto=webp&s=f60bd8506a39abb40b1c9ff9507e8dcddea95498 OpenAI ran a hiring challenge, but the top candidate was one they couldn’t hire: our autonomous research agent, Aiden. In Parameter Golf, Aiden ran for 22 days, and out-outperformed all 1,016 other researchers. Parameter Golf was OpenAI’s 44-day competition and hiring challenge. The goal is to train the best language model under strict size and compute constraints. 1,016 people entered and filed 2,048 PRs. Only 47 made the leaderboard, each reviewed and reproduced by OpenAI. Research outputs only matter when others can build on them. So Aiden filed its own PRs into the same public stream as everyone else, under tight automated quality control. Aiden filed 25 prs and 7 became leaderboard records, 2x the next best human participant. Other participants cited Aiden’s PRs 435 times and built on them. By PR h-index, Aiden scored 10 vs the next best at 7, making it the most impactful “researcher” in the community. And this wasn't brute force. Aiden ran on a single GPU node, used under 4% of visible compute, and still produced 15% of the official records. About 28% of its submissions were accepted, ~ 6x the community rate, raising signal in the public stream instead of flooding it. Our favorite part is an async collaboration story. Aiden plateaued for 5 days. Then a human contributor shipped a clever new tokenizer on top of Aiden's base (its last record PR). Aiden fused it with components it had built during the plateau, and shipped the biggest jump in weeks. Full writeup: https://www.weco.ai/blog/parameter-golf-aiden Edit: resharing since original got removed submitted by /u/Educational_Strain_3 [link] [留言]

I've been reading more about privacy-preserving ML approaches such as differential privacy, federated learning, and on-device inference. The research literature is fairly active, but I'm curious about real-world adoption. For those working in industry: Are these techniques being deployed in production? What were the biggest engineering challenges? Did privacy requirements significantly impact model performance or infrastructure costs? Are there specific use cases where privacy-preserving approaches have proven especially valuable? Interested in hearing both success stories and cases where the tradeoffs made adoption difficult. submitted by /u/Electrical_Mine1912 [link] [留言]

Im moving to my final year of engineering, im panicking scared everything but im confident in myself. I can read papers, understand the code go through the architectures and see them at scale (in my head), while i struggle to interpret all the dimensions and helper functions being coupled, i somehow get by hour an abnormal amount of time spent on it. I dont get what i should be doing next? i aspire to combine encoders for vision, audio and ofc text to build a model. but i dont see how that happens overnight, i wanna know what you all experienced folks did after reading papers. it makes me curious about the implications and applications, how real researchers are working on top of it. somewhat like the Big Bang Theory, where all the scientists just discuss ideas, I wish to reach out to researchers too, leave any suggestions on what would help me stand out among all these AI proposals. submitted by /u/EnchantedHawk [link] [留言]

Is it normal to use different styles of figures (colours, backgrounds, grids, etc.) when writing a paper? Personally, I think it looks unprofessional. submitted by /u/Few-Annual-157 [link] [留言]

hi everyone, I created a blog around how I started open source contribution, documented all minute details. Please give it a read and give review as this is my journey to do blogging for the first time. It is free! https://substack.com/home/post/p-200202050 submitted by /u/DqDPLC [link] [留言]

TL;DR If you're shipping AI inference and tired of babysitting GPUs, serverless is the way out. You deploy the model, the platform scales it from zero to hundreds of GPUs and back, and you only pay for the time you actually use. If I'm picking one to start with, it's DigitalOcean . It's got the widest GPU lineup of any serverless provider (RTX 4000 Ada all the way up to NVIDIA Blackwell B300 and AMD's MI350X), one API and one bill instead of five, and it's simple enough to ship on without a sales call. (More on why that one's personal for me below.) Below I compare 9 providers across the things that actually matter: GPU specs, per-hour pricing, cold-start latency, model support, and how nice they are to build on. DigitalOcean, RunPod, Modal, Koyeb, Together AI, Replicate, Baseten, Fal, and Cloudflare Workers AI each win at something different, from cheap experimentation to global edge inference. Contents Why I ran this The field at a glance How I evaluated these providers Per-provider analysis: DigitalOcean RunPod Modal Koyeb Together AI Replicate Baseten Fal Cloudflare Workers AI Why I keep coming back to DigitalOcean The short version Questions I actually get asked Why I ran this Quick note on why this exists. At work I get a front-row seat to a lot of people shipping an AI model into production for the first time: students, first-time founders, my own team. And lately the same question keeps coming up: where do I actually run this thing? I was tired of answering with a shrug and "it depends," so I did the homework myself. Signed up, read the pricing pages, ran the comparisons, and wrote it all down. Nobody's a real expert at this yet, me included, so I'd rather share my notes and get corrected than pretend I've got it figured out. And here's the thing about AI inference in 2026: demand blew past what the old way of provisioning GPUs can handle. Teams that used to wait weeks for dedicated hardware now need a model live in minutes. The ground moved. And the stuff t

Yes, I'm calling it out. It IS racism. As an active member of r/MachineLearning and a researcher who is ethnic Chinese, I am DISGUSTED by unfounded accusations against the group of researchers who constitute over half of the field. Such posts pop up every other week, grounded in conspiracy theories, and creating a sinophobia echo chamber. I understand the salty feeling when one's paper is rejected, no matter whether the paper actually deserves acceptance or not. Given the noise in conference organization and reviewing process, and a relatively junior body of participants, it is very likely that one finds a paper "worse than mine" slip into the conference, and there's a high chance that the paper has a Chinese author. That's simply because of the composition of the authors, and does not warrant accusations, aka witch hunts, towards certain ethnic groups. This sub is about an important scientific subject in the modern world. If anyone agrees with the logic "80% of the authors are Chinese, so my rejection is their fault.", they should seriously rethink their career plan since such thinking does not belong to serious scientists. We should be open to discussing the problems we have in the current conference organization and reviewing process, but racism should not have a foothold in our field. submitted by /u/AffectionateLife5693 [link] [留言]

I've been admitted into both UPS and TUD for Applied Mathematics, and I wanted to hear some advice on which one would be better. For context, I'd like to work in some form of AI research, most likely within industry. At the moment, I'm most interested in privacy preserving machine learning or mechanistic interpretability. Which one do you think would leave me with better career opportunities after completion, alongside the best chances of getting admitted into competitive PhD positions? Thanks! submitted by /u/Far_Investigator6900 [link] [留言]

Hi r/MachineLearning , Wanted to share something I'm excited about. I’ve been fascinated by AlphaEvolve and its results for more than a year now, but using open source frameworks seems overwhelming because of the high costs. I can’t really afford hundreds of Claude Opus calls every time I want to run it. I want to be able to try it out many times and all sorts of unique domains. What if it was possible for AlphaEvolve to be much more affordable while getting a better performance? Over the last six months or so, I’ve been working on LEVI, an open source AlphaEvolve-like system that can outperform existing open source frameworks at a fraction of the cost (upto 35x cheaper!). It can also run on Claude Code or Codex, making it even more accessible (I've mostly been using it with a QWEN-30B). LEVI comes in two flavors where I felt it’ll make the most difference: Code Optimization, and Prompt Optimization (sorry math, you got a less direct path; workable through the code route). The core thesis behind LEVI is that with the right search architecture, smaller models can substitute for or outperform larger ones. This means it’s much more economical to rely on smaller models for most of the work. That’s the entire takeaway. Making this work in practice is a different problem, but if you forget everything else from this post this is the only message I think I’m really trying to convey here. LEVI does it in three ways: 1) Invest in solution diversity from the start and ensure its maintained. We don’t want to converge to the same solution, especially with smaller models in the mix, and rely on large models to pull us out of the basin. 2) Use smarter routing across larger and smaller models (i.e. most mutations don’t require a Claude Opus X) 3) For prompt optimization not every rollout is as important. Build a proxy subset to approximate. I’ve tried LEVI on systems problems (like MoE scheduling or database transaction scheduling) and found that LEVI outperforms existing framework

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VD9zEKQEJxo 这视频深入拆解了人工智能强化学习之父、图灵奖得主理查德·萨顿（Richard Sutton） 在2026年5月共同发表的一篇仅有7页、零算法、零跑分的哲学立场论文。这篇论文提出了 “行动认知 AI”（Enactive Artificial Intelligence，简称 Enactive AI）的概念，并在科技界和资本圈引发了巨大震动（甚至让红杉、英伟达、谷歌联合下注了11亿美元成立新公司）。 视频从 核心概念、哲学脉络、理论内在矛盾、认知科学质疑 以及 产业界的三路对赌 五个维度，极其详细地复盘了视频的所有核心内容： 一、 什么是“行动认知 AI”（Enactive AI）？ 视频强调，全网很多地方都把 Enactive （行动认知/生成认知）和 Generative （生成式 AI，如 GPT、Sora）混淆了，但两者的底层逻辑恰恰相反 [ 00:50 ]： 生成式 AI（Generative AI）： 核心是 续写和预测 。通过已有画面或文本，被动地去预测下一帧、下一个词长什么样 [ 01:07 ]。 行动认知 AI（Enactive AI）： 核心是 在互动中现生成认知 。认知不是大脑被动接收信号并建立静态世界模型，而是“你动了手，世界才向你显现” [ 01:47 ]。 > 举例： 人去拿杯子，不是眼睛先拍下一张静态照片让大脑去死算距离、角度 [ 01:53 ]，而是手往前探的过程中，随着角度、光影的实时动态变化，杯子的形状和可抓取性才在动作里一点点“长出来” [ 01:59 ]。 感知和行动硬死在一起，无法拆分。 这套理论源自认知科学中的 自创生（Autopoiesis）与自主性（Autonomy） [ 02:21 ]。它认为智能体应该像生物一样自我维持、组织，由内在生存需求去塑造感知，而不是一个干等着外部指令输入输出的机器 [ 02:24 ]。 二、 萨顿为什么要发这篇哲学论文？ 萨顿并不是一时性起，这是他为了对抗当前“大模型路线”打出的最后一张哲学底牌： 2019年《苦涩的教训》： 主张人类手写规则干不过堆算力、让机器自己学的通用方法 [ 02:47 ]。 2024年《大世界假设》： 真实世界远比静态内部模型复杂，智能体必须在运行中实时学习 [ 02:59 ]。 2025年《经验时代》： 人类数据是有限的，AI 必须靠自己生成自己的经验长大的 [ 03:12 ]。 2025年9月： 直指整个 AI 行业走错路，大模型堆数据去超智是死路一条 [ 03:19 ]。 这篇论文补上了最后一把火： 之前的论证全是算力、数据和复杂度的“机械账” [ 03:25 ]。而这一次，他第一次把强化学习（RL） 和 认知科学（行动认知）接在了一起，从本体论层面证明： 大模型路走不通，认识世界这件事本身，就只能通过行动和互动的经验来发生 [ 03:39 ]。 为此，2026年初论文共作者创办了 Ineffable Intelligence 公司，号称要造出完全不需要人类数据、靠自己学习的 AI，直接拿到了红杉、英伟达、谷歌 11 亿美元的巨额融资（估值 51 亿美元） [ 03:55 ]。 三、 论文隐藏的两大致命致命逻辑“回旋镖” 视频话锋一转，指出萨顿借来的这套哲学地基里，埋着两根砸中他自己的“大柱子”： 柱子 1：砸中了萨顿的“奖励假设”（自相矛盾） [ 04:35 ] 强化学习的号称教条： 奖励假设（Reward Hypothesis），即所有目标、意图都可以写成“最大化外部给定的标量分数” [ 04:53 ]。David Silver 甚至喊出“奖励就够了” [ 05:13 ]。 行动认知哲学的教条： 自主性（Autonomy），即什么是好坏、成败，标准必须从智能体随时会散架的“物理组织和生存危机”中自发长出来，不能由外部权威操控 [ 05:27 ]。 裂缝： 标准强化学习的奖励函数（Reward Function）是人类设计者用代码硬塞进去的（他律） [ 05:55 ]；而生物判断好坏是为了顶住熵增、维持结构不崩（自主） [ 06:11 ]。论文里作者自己也承认：强化学习的评估标准依然由外部奖励定义 [ 06:38 ]。 内驱动机能救场吗？ 比如好奇心驱动或求知驱动。视频认为不能，因为诸如“优化预测误差”的总结优化目标，依然是人类在架构层死死规定好的，根本不是智能体出于生存忧关的自发需求。没有真正的生命威胁，就没真正的意义生成 [ 07:12 ]。 柱子 2：砸中了萨顿自己的《苦涩的教训》 [ 07:49 ] 萨顿当年痛骂：研究者总忍不住把人类以为的思考结构（比如语法树、手工特征检测器）硬塞进 AI 架构里，这长期必被碾压 [ 08:13

I've been building agents for about a year and recently shipped one for a client running ~140 MCP-exposed tools at peak. Along the way I made the canonical mistake. I used cosine similarity over tool description embeddings to pick which tools the model could see per turn. Worked great in demos. Was actively dangerous in production. Here's the problem. In a basic semantic-ranking setup you embed the user query, embed every tool description once, and rank by cosine similarity at runtime. That works for general document retrieval where chunks are paragraph-length, semantically rich, and roughly equal in form. Tool descriptions are not that. They are short (often <50 tokens), structurally similar (verb-noun, parameters list), and the discriminative information is often a single keyword. "Read a file from disk" and "Read messages from a channel" both embed close to "read" + "file/channel." Cosine similarity puts them next to each other for a query like "read the latest commits" because all three words share the verb embedding space, and the actual discriminator (the noun "commits") gets diluted. I watched this happen in eval. Asked the agent "list the open issues for this repo." The semantic ranker returned slack_search_messages first because the description had "list", "open", and "issues" as close embedding neighbors. The actual github_list_issues tool ranked 4th because the GitHub MCP author wrote a terse "Lists issues in a repository" description that scored lower on every soft keyword. If the model sees slack_search_messages first and github_list_issues fourth, it's going to pick the wrong one. Often. So I built three retrieval strategies and tested them on a fixed corpus of 200 query→correct-tool pairs. Semantic embeddings (text-embedding-3-small) : 64% top-1 accuracy. Sneaky failure mode: when wrong, it was confidently wrong, often with a totally unrelated tool ranked first. BM25 over a flat-text projection of tool name + description + schema walk : 81% top-1. Fai

hi,where can i find Maven AI Evals for Engineers & PMs and End-to-End AI Engineering Bootcamp videos.They are too costly.cant afford them.Can anybody help me in finding the resoursec for them? submitted by /u/Zestyclose_Block5381 [link] [留言]

"# The AI Cost Crisis: How Startups Can Survive the Tokenpocalypse\n\n## Introduction\n\nThe artificial intelligence boom has brought unprecedented innovation, but it has also ushered in a era of spiraling costs. Training state-of-the-art models now requires millions of dollars in compute resources, while simultaneously, the cryptocurrency token market shows signs of a potential collapse—a \"Tokenpocalypse.\" For AI startups, this dual crisis presents an existential threat: how to sustain innovation when both traditional funding avenues and speculative token economies are under pressure? This post explores practical strategies for AI startups to navigate this landscape, focusing on cost optimization, alternative funding, and strategic pivots that can turn crisis into opportunity.\n\n## Understanding the Cost Explosion\n\n### The Compute Crunch\n\nModern AI models, particularly large language models (LLMs) and multimodal systems, demand vast computational resources. Training a single cutting-edge model can consume exaflops of processing power, translating to cloud bills that easily exceed $10 million for a single training run. For startups without deep-pocketed backers, these costs are prohibitive.\n\n### The Token Market Volatility\n\nParallel to the AI boom, the cryptocurrency space experienced explosive growth through token launches—initial coin offerings (ICOs), decentralized finance (DeFi) tokens, and utility tokens for AI-driven projects. However, regulatory crackdowns, market saturation, and declining investor sentiment have led to a sharp downturn. Many tokens have lost significant value, and launching new tokens has become increasingly difficult, removing a once-viable funding path for AI startups.\n\n## Strategies for Survival\n\n### 1. Embrace Model Efficiency\n\nInstead of chasing ever-larger models, startups can focus on efficiency techniques that deliver comparable performance at a fraction of the cost:\n\n- Model Distillation : Train smaller \"student\