标签：#mac

This is just an opinion of what I experience and am witnessing, but looking at how LLMs scale feels like I've seen it before: with CPUs trying to outrun Moore's Law and break the rules of physics. Heat, power leakage, and diminishing returns made it increasingly expensive to squeeze out even small gains in clock speed. The GHz race shifted because it had to. For LLMs, more compute, more data, more parameters, and everything just keeps getting better? That curve seems to hit a ceiling and innovation needs to succeed the scaling race now. History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes. What learnings can we make from history to "predict" a potential future? History In the early 2000s, CPUs ran into a wall, a very physical one ^^ So makers adapted. Instead of crunching every single watt out of a single core, multi-cores became common. Athlon 64 x2, Pentium D, PS3 with its heavy Cell approach. From linear to parallel. From sequential to multi-threaded (and funny race conditions ;). Talks of distributed systems, SIMD/MIMD and new benchmarking spawned into what we have today. We still use CPUs, but differently. We still have Memory, but think about Cache, RAM, GPU or Unified. Same same, but different. Innovation because of limitation. Present I feel something similar is about to happen to gen AI. Yes, there are improvements in different areas, some in scaling, some optimisation, some performance, but the slope is becoming slippery. The last 12 months went from "Opus 4.5 is the pinnacle" to "What the hell is wrong with Claude?". The perfect (business) storm of scaling execution! But the low-hanging fruits have been eaten and the crops don't grow as fast anymore. Costs rise quickly, latency becomes a constraint, and even large context windows feel more like extensions than breakthroughs. What remains is more incremental, more expensive, and more complex. You could argue the whole venture of "agents" is the same multi-core experience repeating itself. A different kind of orch

My question on live continual learning use cases was removed by moderators here because they think i asked basic level question about live continual learning which i thought is a frontier level research. But anyways. Is anyone interested in talking about continual learning (live) and catastrophic forgetting? submitted by /u/fourwheels2512 [link] [留言]

After testing each of the MacBooks myself, here's my honest advice on which is right for you.

I've been developing an AI product using LLM APIs (from OpenRouter) but want to deploy an open-source LLM in my own Prod env. which I can control. Few reasons behind this are: - I wanna own the complete stack around my product. - Second I wanna fine-tune the model around my usecase. So, what's the most affordable but a good platform for this? I'm not an AI engineer so don't wanna stuck in CUDA or Transformers hell, anything which can give me a straight path towards my private deployment. Thanks, submitted by /u/Necessary_Gazelle211 [link] [留言]

Sharing a project I have been working on called Third Eye. It does visual geolocation. Given a video, it figures out where it was filmed using only the image content, and draws the route on a map. Pipeline in short: per frame place recognition against a street imagery index a trajectory search that stitches the frames into one coherent path a geometric verification step to catch false matches per frame confidence so weak frames are flagged, not faked I ran it on real dashcam footage and it traced the route quite well. Cross domain matching like this is genuinely hard, so a fair amount of the work went into making it honest about uncertainty. Keen to hear feedback on the matching and trajectory side. Video Demo: https://youtu.be/U3sItFlvq6E?si=-KJrwb0gSlk-GxVH The Index was covering a 12KM 2 Area around NYC. submitted by /u/Ok-Apricot956 [link] [留言]

A deep dive into the podcasts, papers, tweets, and tutorials of the engineer who made me add a fifth...

Apple has dramatically jacked up the price of MacBooks, making the current Prime Day pricing that much more enticing.

source files + final paper pdf. ZIP containing the source files and final paper.pdf. Where does the supplemental materiel get uploaded? Because in that email it says include it in a "supplementary_materiel" folder. this is all very confusing. can someone clarify? submitted by /u/redskydawns [link] [留言]

I've been experimenting with a compiler/runtime project that I'm not entirely sure is a good idea, so I'd love some feedback from people who've worked on deployment systems. The idea is to compile an exported PyTorch model into a self-contained package that contains: graph binary weights backend kernels (currently WGSL) runtime metadata A lightweight runtime loads that package and executes it directly in the browser with WebGPU. No Python, no server inference, and no dependency on a heavyweight runtime. Right now the attached demos are just neural video representations because they were easy to test, but the motivation is actually operator networks and scientific ML, where I like the idea of distributing a single portable artifact. The repo is here: https://github.com/Slater-Victoroff/Kuma I'm mostly looking for architectural feedback. Some questions I'm wrestling with: Is embedding backend kernels in the artifact a terrible idea? Is this solving a real deployment problem or just reinventing ONNX Runtime? Are there existing systems I should study that take a similar approach? If you were designing a deployment format today, what would you change? I'd especially appreciate thoughts from people who've worked on ONNX, IREE, TVM, ExecuTorch, MLIR, or similar compiler/runtime projects. submitted by /u/svictoroff [link] [留言]

Since the steam sale is live I wanted to post a Dev log on my personal project https://nextsteamgame.com/ sharing some outcomes from the web traffic and how I changed the project from the great feedback I got! I made a post about a month ago explaining how I made this opensource explainable search engine built around steam reviews to people find new video games, Not through Relevancy but through aspect based similarity. Check out the old post for a better explanation if you want! https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/1tb8k3n/steam_recommender_using_similarity_undergraduate/ I wanted to say thank you to all the people of r/datascience and r/MachineLearning that gave me feedback and tried out my tool! I improved the UI/UX of the website to make the vectors more clear and controllable, I Implemented a thumbs up and down feature on recommendations to see if users even like the tool. I also wanted to share the after effects of promoting this tool on reddit! from the 2,652 searches I got in the website 913 of them resulted in steam clicks! the games that were discovered were all in a uniform distribution and did not share much of a pattern showing me that the engine did its job in helping people find niche games across all genres! (More images attached to post to see data viz) I wanted to disclose that I made this tool to not make any profit of some kind, but it does use posthog so I can collect diagnostics now. submitted by /u/Expensive-Ad8916 [link] [留言]

In the recent Springer/Meteor email, it says: The deadline for the upload of the camera-ready manuscripts and source files is 30 June. This is a hard deadline and will not be extended. However, in the same email, the Meteor submission line for my paper says: submission due: June 27, 2026 A previous email from the ECCV Program Chairs also stated that the camera-ready deadline had been extended to 30.06 AoE and that this deadline is final. Does anyone know whether June 27 is just an internal/default Meteor due date, or whether it is the actual deadline for uploading in Meteor? Since the email says there is only one upload and the first upload is final, I want to avoid uploading too early if June 30 is the correct deadline. this is really confusing. submitted by /u/National-Resident244 [link] [留言]

What if there was a new programming language where the meaning of each token was so dense (or perhaps so specific) that an LLM could write robust code with fewer tokens and faster inference? Assuming there’s enough training data, do you think something like this allow an LLM to write better code faster? Rationale: 1) It would allow for faster inference. Fewer tokens required to do the same thing in Python = finish faster. 2) It would allow for more information in a 1M context window. Whatever you could fit in 1M tokens of Python, you could do 100x that in this theoretical language. 3) It would effectively remove the “noise” from human readable language (semi-colons, curly braces for example) which I would think would make the LLMs coding ability stronger. I could be wrong about this of course. submitted by /u/Spongebubs [link] [留言]

Token-based billing is causing my company to reevaluate small language models. I came across this paper that shows SLM supervised fine-tuning on traces from orchestration of frontier models can be nearly as performant and much cheaper. Has any tried this in the real world? submitted by /u/ThirdWaveCat [link] [留言]

Worried recruiters see "ML/AI engineer" on a resume and assume zero security depth, even with real hands on work in the space. Anyone hired into security from a non-traditional background like this — how'd you frame it? submitted by /u/Xorphian [link] [留言]

Hello, I'm currently working on my dissertation and feel like I could really use some advice from someone who looks at the problem with fresh eyes. I appreciate all input. The Problem: Multi Agent Path Finding is the problem of finding paths for several agents to their destinations. Lifelong MAPF is the same, but upon task completion an agent is assigned a new task. For my dissertation (and usually in research) agents move on a grid-like graph and time is discrete. Each timestep an agent can move to an adjacent tile or wait. A good LMAPF algorithm creates paths which maximise average jobs completed per timestep. Some LMAPF algorithms can also work on weighted graphs where each edge to an adjacent node (or itself) has its own cost. Such a graph is called guidance graph and the choice of edge weights can influence which paths the LMAPF algorithm creates also impacting throughput. My supervisor wanted to explore whether Evolutionary algorithms can be suitable for finding a guidance graph that improves throughput without changing the underlying LMAPF algorithm. A guidance graph is scenario specific meaning it is optimised for a specific LMAPF algorithm, map, and agent count. My algorithm so far: So far I've implemented a very basic evolutionary algorithm. An initial population of guidance graphs is randomly initialized (Limited to 10 at the moment). Then each candidate is plugged into the LMAPF algorithm for a certain amount of time steps and the completed jobs are counted to create that candidates fitness score. The top (2) candidates are selected and the rest are discarded. The top candidates are used to make a new set of candidates (no crossover). These step are repeated indefinitely. Issues I've has so far: The simulation can use a seed and is deterministic. The seed determines which nodes the jobs appear on. Using the same guidance graph but different seeds yields random fitness scores. The higher the simulation time the lower the coefficient of variation (standard

In the last essay I played a game with twelve people. Twelve apostles, one teacher, one set of events — and twelve sharply distinct ways of failing and succeeding to understand the same thing. Peter acts before he reflects, Thomas demands the marks in the hands, Matthew counts and structures, Judas asks what you'll give him. I called it pre-cognitive-science cognitive science: the Gospels did the hard work of selecting twelve incompatible human responses to one encounter, and every century since has projected its newest psychology onto that fixed set and found it fits. That essay had a quiet move in it I want to pull on now. The thing that doesn't change, I wrote, is the twelve people. The cognitive vocabularies come and go; the diversity of minds is the invariant. So here is the obvious next question, the one I couldn't stop turning over after I published: what happens when you stop counting people and start counting cultures? Not twelve apostles meeting one teacher, but N civilizations meeting one world. The same exercise, zoomed out A culture is not just a cuisine and a flag. It is a way of thinking that a few million people inherited without choosing it — an implicit operating system for what counts as obvious, what counts as rude, what counts as a good life, what counts as a threat. And like the apostles, each one is an answer to a question . You can describe any of them, I think, with three coordinates. A driver — the deep need the culture is organized around. Survival, honor, harmony, freedom, salvation, mastery, belonging. The thing that, if you threaten it, the culture treats as an attack on existence itself. A provoking question — the founding question the culture exists as a standing answer to. How do we survive the winter together? How do we live rightly before the gods? How do we stay free? How do we keep the harmony so the group doesn't tear itself apart? Cultures are old answers to questions most of their members have forgotten were ever asked. A thin

Hello everyone! I'm posting our research work as you might be interested in how we used ML to map part of the brain cells of the human hippocampus :) We used various human brain slices at high resolution (1 micrometer per pixel) and developed a custom segmentation pipeline that uses SoTA whole slice cell segmentation networks, like CellPoseSAM with good zero shot performances. We then refined semi-automatically those annotations and ensembled more finetuned models within the pipeline, adding a merging algorithm and a cell classification for 3 classes (excitatory and inhibitory neurons, and glial cells). But the high-res slices covered only a few parts of the hippocampus with respect to other slices scanned at 20x less the resolution where the cell nuclei are only 1 pixel wide. So we tried to map the high-res annotations we obtained to the low-res corresponding slices, and used a small UNet to supervise a density estimation task for 3 classes. We obtained a network that outputs a density map that can be sampled to obtain a probabilistic map of the cellular positions. Finally, to reconstruct the volume, we stacked together all the low-resolution density maps from all the slices that covered the hippocampus and obtained a point cloud, which you can see in the GIF along the corresponding anatomical CA (Cornus Ammonis) areas. The performances are still limited by the quantity of data and low-resolution slices, but we showed that the results were biologically plausible given previous estimates by other researchers. The paper was accepted at MICCAI 2026 a few weeks ago! Feedback is very welcome, especially on the density-estimation formulation and possible uses of the generated point cloud. submitted by /u/V_ector [link] [留言]

Adding an AI feature looks deceptively easy. You sign up for an API key, paste in a prompt, and within an hour you've got a working demo that makes the whole team lean over your shoulder. Then you ship it, traffic arrives, and two things happen at once: your latency graph develops a long, ugly tail, and your monthly bill arrives with a number that makes finance schedule a meeting. The gap between "impressive demo" and "production feature" is almost entirely about cost and latency engineering. The model is the easy part. Here's how to cross that gap. First, understand what you're actually paying for Most LLM APIs bill by tokens — roughly ¾ of a word each — and they bill both directions: the tokens you send (input) and the tokens the model generates (output). Output tokens are usually several times more expensive than input tokens, which has a non-obvious consequence: a verbose prompt is cheaper than a verbose answer. This reframes optimization. People obsess over trimming their prompts while letting the model ramble for 800 tokens when 80 would do. If you want to cut cost, the highest-leverage move is almost always constraining the output : ask for JSON, ask for a single sentence, set a max_tokens ceiling, and tell the model explicitly to be terse. Latency follows the same logic. Generation is sequential — the model produces one token at a time — so output length is the single biggest driver of how long a request takes. A 50-token answer is fast almost regardless of model. A 2,000-token answer is slow even on the fastest infrastructure. Lever 1: Don't call the model when you don't have to The cheapest, fastest LLM call is the one you never make. Two techniques eliminate a startling share of traffic. Caching identical and near-identical requests. Many real-world prompts repeat — the same FAQ-style question, the same document summarized twice, the same classification of similar inputs. A cache keyed on the normalized prompt turns a repeat request into a sub-millisecond

Google’s Search history update stores media uploads from your interactions, like images used in reverse image searches, for training its AI models.

Your product might rank on page one of Google and still be invisible to AI. When someone asks ChatGPT "what's the best project management tool for small teams," does your product show up? For most SaaS companies under 50 employees, the answer is no. At Inithouse, we built Be Recommended to answer that question with a number: a single AI visibility score from 0 to 100 that tells you exactly where you stand across four major AI engines. Here is how the scoring works under the hood. What the score measures The Be Recommended score captures how often, how prominently, and how positively AI engines mention your product when users ask category-relevant questions. A score of 0 means no AI engine mentions you at all. A score of 100 means every tested prompt across all four engines names your product as a top recommendation. The four engines we test against: ChatGPT (OpenAI), Perplexity , Claude (Anthropic), and Gemini (Google). Step 1: Prompt generation We start by building a bank of 50+ real prompts that a potential customer would actually type into an AI assistant. These are not keyword-stuffed test queries. They mirror how real people ask for recommendations. For a CRM product, that looks like: "What CRM should a 10-person startup use?" "Best alternatives to Salesforce for small businesses" "Compare CRM tools with good API integration" "Which CRM has the best free tier in 2026?" We group prompts into three categories: direct (user names the product category), comparative (user asks for alternatives or comparisons), and situational (user describes a problem without naming a category). Each category tests a different signal: brand recognition, competitive positioning, and contextual relevance. Step 2: Multi-engine querying Each prompt gets sent to all four AI engines through their APIs. We capture the full response text, not just a yes/no for whether your product appeared. The raw responses go into a structured analysis pipeline. We run queries from neutral accounts with n