标签：#learning

Four days into a new supplier's first batch, my invoice extraction agent had filed 31 documents with amounts shifted by a decimal. Nothing raised an error. The downstream system accepted every record. The agent returned a 200 each time. The demo had run on five clean PDFs. Clear fonts, properly formatted dates, consistent layout. The extraction agent pulled vendor name, amount, due date, line items. Every field populated, every output valid. I ran it for the stakeholder meeting and it looked exactly like something you would ship. Three months in, the agent had processed around 800 invoices without complaint. Then a new supplier switched to scanned documents. Slightly rotated, thin fonts, OCR doing what it could on degraded source material. The model found text that resembled amounts and dates, and returned confident structured output. 1,247.50 read as 12,475.0. A due date resolved to a valid date three years in the future. The confidence was the problem. The model had no mechanism to say it was uncertain. It just answered. Nobody caught it for four days. What I built after The problem was not the model. The model did what it was designed to do. Find structure in text and return it. The straight pipeline from input to output had no gate in it. The fix was not more prompting or a better model. I added a validation layer between the agent output and the downstream system. It runs synchronously, takes about 80ms, and checks four things: Every required field is non-null. Amounts parse as positive numbers within a configured range for that supplier type. Dates fall within a 90-day future window. Extracted totals are consistent with line item sums, within a small tolerance. Anything failing a check routes to a review inbox instead of the queue. A human looks at it, corrects it if needed, marks it resolved. The system logs which check triggered and what the input looked like. In the first week after deployment, the layer caught 23 documents out of about 1,400. Eleven were b

Third in a series of papers tracking learning rules vs. human fMRI (THINGS dataset, V1–IT, N=3 subjects). Previous finding: untrained CNNs match backprop at V1. This paper asks: when does training break that, and does the learning rule matter? Setup: RSA alignment measured at 8 checkpoints (epochs 0, 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 30, 40), 5 seeds per rule, same architecture throughout. Main findings: BP drops 90% of V1 alignment after one epoch (r: 0.102 → 0.011, p = 0.031, consistent across all 5 seeds). FA drops 49%. PC and STDP drop only 25–31% and stabilise. By epoch 40: PC (r = 0.064) > STDP (0.059) >> BP (0.022) ≈ FA (0.019). Cohen's d > 5 for PC/STDP vs BP: extremely consistent across seeds. Opposing trend at LOC: BP shows a small increase in object-selective cortex alignment (+0.011) while local rules show nothing. Suggests a fundamental trade-off: global error signals build higher representations but destroy early ones. Degradation rate tracks error signal globality: exact gradients (BP) > random feedback (FA) > local prediction errors (PC, STDP). Limitations worth noting: 5 seeds caps permutation test resolution at p ≈ 0.031 Training on 32×32 CIFAR-10, evaluated on 224×224 THINGS, resolution/domain shift is a confound LOC increase not tested for significance, treated as suggestive Paper: arxiv.org/abs/2605.30556 Companion: arxiv.org/abs/2604.16875 Code: github.com/nilsleut Curious whether anyone has seen similar dynamics in larger architectures, the prediction would be that deeper models show the same pattern but more slowly. submitted by /u/ConfusionSpiritual19 [link] [留言]

I've been running AI infrastructure for startups long enough to know one painful truth: when you're iterating fast, GPU costs will eat your runway before your product finds product-market fit. Last quarter alone, I watched a promising seed-stage company burn through $12,000 on self-hosted inference before they had 100 paying users. That's not scale — that's a funeral. Let me share what I've learned about making open-source models production-ready without bleeding cash. This isn't theory. This is what I've deployed across three startups, and it's saved us roughly 70% on inference costs while keeping our iteration speed at hyperscale. The Real Cost of Self-Hosting (Spoiler: It's Not Just GPUs) Here's the thing nobody tells you about self-hosting. The GPU rental is just the headline number. The real cost — the one that kills startups — is the hidden infrastructure tax. Model GPU Requirements Cloud Rental (Monthly) On-Prem (Amortized) 7-9B 1× A100 40GB $400-800 $200-400 13-14B 1× A100 80GB $600-1,200 $300-600 27-32B 2× A100 80GB $1,000-2,000 $500-1,000 70-72B 4× A100 80GB $2,000-4,000 $1,000-2,000 200B+ 8× A100 80GB $4,000-8,000 $2,000-4,000 Cloud pricing based on Lambda Labs / RunPod / Vast.ai reserved instances. But here's the kicker — and I learned this the hard way after two months of burning cash on a 32B model that got 50 requests per day: Hidden Cost Monthly Estimate GPU servers (idle or loaded) $400-8,000 Load balancer / API gateway $50-200 Monitoring & alerting $50-200 DevOps engineer time (partial) $500-3,000 Model updates & maintenance $100-500 Electricity (on-prem) $200-1,000 Total hidden costs $900-4,900/month That DevOps line alone is brutal. At scale, you need someone who can handle model updates, handle crashes at 3 AM, and optimise inference. At a startup, that's either your CTO (me) or a contractor who costs $150/hour. Neither is sustainable when you're trying to ship. The Break-Even Math That Changed My Architecture Decisions I ran these numbers befor

In the previous article, we defined the forward pass for our neural network. Now, we will provide...

presenting a poster there, and have registration covered. but they are placing me on waitlist for travel funds. As my travel depends on whether I get the travel grant, I need to get this off of my mind, either invite me or just say no. I'm waiting forever for this, more wait again? should i ask for a decision, or what to do. submitted by /u/Active-Tip3130 [link] [留言]

I built CVE-Bench: 20 real-world CVEs across 18 Python projects (Pillow, GitPython, yt-dlp, urllib3, others), 5 frontier models, 3 prompt conditions, 300 runs total. Each agent runs in a sandboxed container and is scored against a hidden test_security.py derived from the maintainer's own fix. Binary pass/fail (a 90%-patched vulnerability is still a vulnerability). To better understand failure modes, I've tested three prompt conditions : advisory (full GHSA report), diagnose (exploit description only, no file or function), and locate (exact file and function, no description of the flaw). The three conditions test meaningfully different things. A model that does well on advisory but drops on diagnose can’t translate a behavioral description into a location in the codebase. A model that holds up on locate is recognizing dangerous code on its own. The leaderboard isn't the finding. Best solve rate is 50% overall, 60% under advisory. Cross-family separation (OpenAI vs Laguna) is confirmed under McNemar's test with continuity correction (all four pairs cross α = 0.05). Within-family gaps are noise: a power analysis puts the task count needed to detect a meaningful within-family edge at ~700. That cuts both ways: if the expensive models had a large true advantage, 20 tasks would have been enough to surface it. gpt-5.5 at 12× the cost of gpt-5.4-mini is not the rational choice. All four cross-family pairwise comparisons reach statistical significance at α = 0.05 (McNemar test with continuity correction, n = 60 tasks per model pair): gpt-5.5 vs laguna-m.1 (p = 0.015), gpt-5.4-nano vs laguna-m.1 (p = 0.017), gpt-5.5 vs laguna-xs.2 (p = 0.028), gpt-5.4-nano vs laguna-xs.2 (p = 0.040). Within-family comparisons remain far from significance; those rankings should be read as approximate. The failure taxonomy is the most interesting finding. Wrong-search drift — model finds the right file early, makes one incorrect inference, spends the remaining turns chasing it. Budget expires,

https://preview.redd.it/se5nr2z7tt4h1.png?width=3046&format=png&auto=webp&s=7db15b73afb749da236e5bb50ff96372f6a3239b Hi, Niels here from the open-source team at Hugging Face. It's been 2 weeks since I launched paperswithcode.co , a revival of the website we all loved. It allows us to keep track of the state-of-the-art (SOTA) across various domains of AI, from agents to computer vision and time-series forecasting. I've just added conference support as a new feature. The idea is that you should be able to easily browse all papers of major AI conferences like NeurIPS, CVPR, and ICML. As CVPR 2026 takes place next week in Denver, USA, I've indexed all papers with corresponding arXiv IDs. They are categorized by task, and tagged with linked GitHub and project page URLs, Hugging Face artifacts, and evals. You can also browse the papers which were accepted for an Oral presentation as well as the Spotlight papers. You can try it at https://paperswithcode.co/conferences ! Feel free to leave feedback. submitted by /u/NielsRogge [link] [留言]

A hands-on knowledge-distillation project: Qwen2-VL-7B → 2B for UI-screenshot understanding, trained, evaluated and benchmarked end-to-end on an M4 Pro. 2.4× faster — and why the teacher lost on ROUGE-L.

Over the past few months, I've been working on a high-scale scraping pipeline to aggregate listings directly from company job boards and applicant tracking systems. Mapping over 100,000 distinct companies to their career pages turned out to be a massive engineering headache, but it's finally stable. The result is a unified database of more than 2 million active job postings, which I'm opening up to everyone for free. I am running daily delta refreshes to keep it current. Dataset Overview Scale: 2M+ active job listings across 100,000+ unique companies. Format: Parquet. (To keep storage costs to minimum) Core Fields: job_title, company_name, company_website, job_description, location, post_date, and the original tracking URL. For more detailed info check here . Update Cadence: Refreshed daily straight from the source. View the stats here . (Currently it contains only minimal stats, but I plan on improving it based on the comments) Why I Built This Finding a clean, scaled, and up-to-date job dataset is surprisingly difficult. Most available options are either heavily gatekept by expensive subscription APIs or restricted to a single job board like LinkedIn. By scraping the actual employer sites directly, this collection sidesteps the noise and captures a much cleaner cross-section of the live market. How to Access It I set up a dedicated project space where you can grab the data directly: Open Job data Let me know what kind of analysis or projects you end up running with it. If you have questions about the engineering architecture behind handling this scale, or ideas for specific fields you'd like to see enriched next, let's discuss in the comments. submitted by /u/Invicto_50 [link] [留言]

Why C Is Still the GOAT (And Why People Like Me End Up Hating C++) Disclaimer: This is a personal opinion from a developer who enjoys simple tools, simple languages, and simple debugging sessions. The Eternal Question Every few months, somebody asks: "Why are you still writing C in 2026?" My answer is always the same: Because C knows exactly what it is. No hidden magic. No surprise abstractions. No template metaprogramming black holes. No compiler errors longer than my source code. Just you, a compiler, and a Segmentation Fault waiting patiently around the corner. C Is Honest One thing I love about C is that it never pretends to protect me. If I allocate 8 bytes and write 16 bytes? Boom. If I dereference a bad pointer? Boom. If I forget to free memory? Boom (eventually). But here's the important part: I know exactly why I got cooked. The language didn't hide anything from me. C basically says: "Here's the loaded foot-gun. Try not to shoot yourself." And honestly? I respect that. Meanwhile in C++ C++ often feels like this: template < typename T > concept SomethingComplicated = requires ( T t ) { // 300 lines of magic }; Then the compiler responds with: error: instantiation of recursive template ... required from ... required from ... required from ... required from ... ...followed by 14 pages of diagnostics. At this point, I'm no longer debugging my code. I'm debugging the language itself. My Personal Villain Origin Story I started using Visual C++. You know. The gigantic Microsoft ecosystem. The IDE. The project files. The build settings. The mysterious compiler flags. Eventually I found myself spending more time fighting tools than writing software. And somewhere along the way, I started associating that frustration with C++ itself. Fair or unfair? Probably unfair. But emotions aren't always rational. Modern C++ Feels Like Three Languages Wearing a Trench Coat Old-school C++? Pretty understandable. Modern C++? Sometimes it feels like: C Object-Oriented C++ Template

Most people use these technologies every day. Almost nobody knows they exist. Every time you open YouTube, browse Instagram, join a Zoom meeting, or play an online game, your router is quietly performing a series of networking tricks behind the scenes. Those tricks have names: NAT SNAT DNAT PAT Port Forwarding They sound intimidating. They're actually much simpler than they appear. Let's break them down using something familiar: your home Wi-Fi. The Problem the Internet Had to Solve Imagine a family of five living in one house. Everyone owns a device: Laptop Phone Smart TV Gaming Console Tablet Each device needs internet access. The problem? Your Internet Service Provider usually gives you only one public IP address . Something has to manage all those devices sharing a single internet connection. That's where NAT comes in. NAT: The Receptionist of Your Network NAT stands for Network Address Translation . Think of NAT as a receptionist in an office building. People inside the building have room numbers: Laptop = Room 101 Phone = Room 102 TV = Room 103 But when communicating with the outside world, everyone uses the building's main address. The receptionist keeps track of who sent what. Your router does exactly the same thing. What Happens When You Visit Google? Inside your home: Laptop 192.168.1.10 Your router: Public IP 49.x.x.x When you open Google: 192.168.1.10 ↓ Router ↓ 49.x.x.x ↓ Google Google never sees your private IP. It only sees your router's public IP. That's NAT in action. SNAT: Changing the Sender's Address SNAT stands for Source Network Address Translation . The keyword is: Source It changes the sender's address. Before leaving your network: Source: 192.168.1.10 After SNAT: Source: 49.x.x.x The router replaces your private IP with its public IP. Without SNAT, websites wouldn't know how to send responses back to you. Real-Life Example Imagine mailing a letter. Instead of writing your bedroom number as the return address, you write the house address. Tha

I don't identify as a gamer. I occasionally participate in board games or an amateur football match,...

The dominant production failure mode for LLM agents in 2026 isn't bad reasoning — it's capacity. Here's what the data shows, why nobody demos it, and the capacity-engineering patterns that actually keep agents alive under load.

Let me start with a confession: I'm a data scientist who's been burned by hype more times than I care to admit. When everyone told me "Model X is the next GPT-killer," I'd run my own benchmarks and find... well, let's just say the results were rarely as advertised. So when I started seeing claims about Chinese AI models catching up to (and sometimes surpassing) Western counterparts, I did what any self-respecting data nerd would do: I put them through my own rigorous testing pipeline. Over the past three months, I've run over 2,000 API calls across four major Chinese model families — DeepSeek, Qwen, Kimi, and GLM — using Global API's unified endpoint (more on that later). I tracked latency, token costs, output quality across multiple benchmarks, and even threw in some real-world tasks that mattered to me personally. Here's what I found, with all the numbers you'd expect from someone who still gets excited about statistical significance. The Testing Methodology (Because Anecdotes Aren't Data) Before we dive into results, let me be transparent about my approach. I ran each model on the following standardized tests: Code Generation : HumanEval (Python) and MBPP (multi-language) — 164 problems total Reasoning : GSM8K (math word problems) and MMLU-Pro (general knowledge) — 1,200 questions Chinese Language : CLUE benchmarks (text classification, NER, reading comprehension) — 3,500 samples English Language : LAMBADA and Hellaswag — 2,000 samples Speed : Average tokens per second over 100 consecutive requests with consistent prompt lengths I also tested vision tasks where applicable, but let's be real — Kimi doesn't support vision at all, and DeepSeek's implementation is... experimental at best. More on that later. All tests were conducted using the same global-apis.com/v1 endpoint, which normalizes API compatibility to OpenAI's format. This isn't an ad — I genuinely found it made my testing easier because I could swap models without rewriting code. The Big Picture: Pricing

Please post your personal projects, startups, product placements, collaboration needs, blogs etc. Please mention the payment and pricing requirements for products and services. Please do not post link shorteners, link aggregator websites , or auto-subscribe links. -- Any abuse of trust will lead to bans. Encourage others who create new posts for questions to post here instead! Thread will stay alive until next one so keep posting after the date in the title. -- Meta: This is an experiment. If the community doesnt like this, we will cancel it. This is to encourage those in the community to promote their work by not spamming the main threads. submitted by /u/AutoModerator [link] [留言]

79% of enterprises have adopted AI agents. Only 11% run them in production. We've spent the past year building agent systems for banks, clinical operations teams, and engineering orgs. The problem isn't that agents don't work — they work fine. The problem is that every framework leaves compliance, cost governance, and crash recovery as exercises for the team. After the framework fails them in production. We built MeshFlow to close that gap. **The core idea:** treat governance as infrastructure, not middleware. Every agent step passes through a 15-step kernel that handles identity, rate limiting, budget enforcement, compliance profiles, input/output guardrails, PII detection, risk classification, tool permission, the LLM call itself, audit ledger write, and SLA recording — in that order, always, without configuration. ```python from meshflow import Workflow, CostCap, Agent wf = Workflow(cost_cap=CostCap(usd=5.00)) wf.add(Agent('researcher'), Agent('analyst'), Agent('writer')) result = wf.run('Write a competitive analysis of our market') # Compliant. Durable. Audited. Cost-capped. Done. ``` ```bash pip install meshflow ``` **What's technically interesting:** **Token optimization layer** — five compounding mechanisms that reduce LLM spend 70-85%: - `cache_control` on every system prompt and tool definition (Anthropic: 10% of normal price on cached tokens) - `ModelRouter`: task-type classification routes simple tasks to nano models (keyword + token-count heuristic, zero LLM call) - `ContextCompactor`: sliding window summarization activates at configurable token threshold - `RAGTokenBudget`: hard `max_chars` cap on knowledge injection with truncate/drop/tail strategies - `ContextDeduplicator`: shared context sent once for N parallel agents, not N times **SHA-256 audit chain** — each step record stores `prev_hash` (SHA-256 of the previous record) and `entry_hash` (SHA-256 of its own canonical fields). Modify any log entry and `verify_chain()` breaks. This is the artifact

Hey ML community, We’ve just open-sourced **MeshFlow** , a code-first, framework-agnostic runtime designed for governing and optimizing multi-agent systems in production. Most agent frameworks focus on rapid prototyping, but ML and platform engineering teams usually run into hard bottlenecks around LLM cost scaling, evaluation alignment, and execution safety. MeshFlow tackles these from a runtime/infrastructure perspective. Here are the key ML and system features: * **Task-Based Model Routing** : Before an agent executes a node, MeshFlow runs an evaluation on task complexity, routing the execution to one of four model tiers (`nano`, `small`, `medium`, `large`). This cuts overall API costs by 50-60% by utilizing smaller local models (e.g. LLaMA-3-8B) for standard formatting or extraction and reservation of frontier models (e.g. Claude Opus) for high-complexity reasoning. * **Context Compactor & Summary Pruning Middleware** : Implements sliding window summarization and context deduplication across parallel agent teams to limit prompt length growth. * **System Prompt Caching** : Native injection of Anthropic `cache_control` tags when system prompts exceed 1024 tokens. * **Cost Regression Evaluation Gate** : Integrates with CI pipelines to evaluate agent changes against a golden scenario baseline, throwing failures if code updates introduce token cost regressions. * **Resilient State Persistence** : Multi-backend state serialization (Redis, PostgreSQL, S3) that preserves checkpoint frames and allows resuming paused workflows. Here is the basic API contract: ```python from meshflow import Workflow, Agent, CostCap wf = Workflow(cost_cap=CostCap(usd=5.00)) wf.add(Agent('researcher'), Agent('critic'), Agent('writer')) result = wf.run('Compile comparative literature review of LLM reasoning pathways') print(result) ``` We'd love to discuss: 1. How do you handle token budget enforcement and model routing in your agent loops? 2. What evaluation pipelines do you use to detect co

Hi everyone, I missed the ICML conference tickets because I was waiting for some travel funding confirmation and now they are sold out. Do you know any other ways I could still purchase one? There seems to be no waiting list… or if you know anyone who needs to cancel theirs, please let me know 🙏🏻 submitted by /u/TopPerformance1255 [link] [留言]

It seems that there are two ways to build voice AI: Half-duplex: strict turn-taking. You speak, the other side waits until you’re done, one direction of speech at a time. ← This is how almost every voice assistant works today. Full-duplex: two channels, both sides can talk at any time - no more waiting for your “turn”. ← This is the way humans actually talk. In fact, there are three crucial things half-duplex voice models can't really do: Overlap - talking and listening at the same time without falling apart Backchannels - the "mhms," "rights," and "yeahs" you drop in while the other person is still going Barge-in - getting interrupted mid-sentence and recovering gracefully These three features are a big reason why voice agents still feel “robotic” to this day. But what exactly is the spectrum from half-duplex to full-duplex? Is a Moshi-style architecture the only way to approach full-duplex natural voice conversations? What are ways half-duplex systems could imitate full-duplex? Would love to hear others' thoughts on this. submitted by /u/Chilly5 [link] [留言]

This article was originally published on davidohnstad.net . I cross-post here to reach the Dev.to community. { " @context ": " https://schema.org ", " @graph ": [ { "@type": "Person", " @id ": " https://davidohnstad.com/#author ", "name": "David Ohnstad", "url": " https://davidohnstad.com ", "sameAs": [ " https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidohnstad/ ", " https://orcid.org/0009-0007-9023-7456 ", " https://davidohnstad5.mystrikingly.com/ ", " https://github.com/davidohnstad40-netizen ", " https://hashnode.com/@davidohnstad ", " https://davidohnstad.com ", " https://davidohnstad.net ", " https://davidohnstad.info ", " https://david-ohnstad.com ", " https://davidohnstadminnesota.com " ], "jobTitle": "Senior Data Product Manager", "worksFor": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "Veeam Software", "url": " https://www.veeam.com " }, "alumniOf": { "@type": "CollegeOrUniversity", "name": "College of St. Scholastica" }, "address": { "@type": "PostalAddress", "addressLocality": "Duluth", "addressRegion": "MN", "addressCountry": "US" }, "description": "Senior Data Product Manager at Veeam Software, MS and MBA from the College of St. Scholastica, based in Duluth, Minnesota. Specializes in data architecture, AI/ML integrations, and SaaS platform development." }, { "@type": "Article", " @id ": " https://davidohnstad.net/why-enterprise-ai-projects-fail-platform-first#article ", "headline": "Why Enterprise AI Projects Fail: Platform-First Thinking", "description": "David Ohnstad reveals why enterprise AI initiatives fail despite massive investment. Learn the platform-first trap and how successful teams build differently.", "url": " https://davidohnstad.net/why-enterprise-ai-projects-fail-platform-first ", "datePublished": "2026-05-29T14:06:46Z", "dateModified": "2026-05-29T14:06:46Z", "author": { "@type": "Person", " @id ": " https://davidohnstad.com/#author " }, "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "David Ohnstad", "url": " https://davidohnstad.net ", "logo": { "@type": "Ima