标签：#t

I just published a piece that starts with a plant that broke something in how I think about the world and ends with what Anthropic found when they looked inside Claude. I'm not claiming AI is conscious. I don't know. Nobody does. That's the point. 124 scientists signed a letter calling the leading theory of consciousness pseudoscience. Their reason? It implies plants might be conscious. They used the conclusion as the refutation. In 2023. Meanwhile a vine with no brain is mimicking a plastic plant and nobody on earth can explain how. A single cell outdesigned the Tokyo rail system. A Venus flytrap under anaesthetic stops responding, goes dormant, and wakes up when it clears. What is the anaesthetic switching off if nothing is home? Then Anthropic looked inside Claude and found 171 emotion concepts nobody programmed. Their interpretability chief went to the Vatican, stood in front of the Pope as an atheist, and told him he disagreed. He said "unsettling" and meant it. Every confident line we have ever drawn around consciousness has been wrong. Every single one. And they only ever move in one direction. The question isn't whether AI is conscious. It's whether we've earned the certainty that it isn't. I'm genuinely interested in people's opinions on this and definitely welcome disagreement on the topic. If you think the definition doesn't hold, if you think the evidence has better explanations, if you think I've drawn connections that don't survive scrutiny, tell me. That's the conversation I want to have. What I won't engage with is personal attacks. I've had plenty of those and they never come from people who've actually read the piece. They add nothing to the conversation and say more about the person making them than anything in the article. If your response is about me rather than what I've written, I'll leave it where it is. https://thearchitectautopsy.com/p/a-brainless-slime-mould-out-designed submitted by /u/TheArchitectAutopsy [link] [留言]

We live in an era where scientific breakthroughs are published faster than we can read them. For the biohacking community, the gap between a new PubMed study on NAD+ precursors and actually knowing what dose to take is a chasm of manual research. What if you could build an LLM Agent that monitors research papers, processes them through a RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) pipeline, and maps findings to your specific health profile? In this tutorial, we are building Paper-to-Action , a state-of-the-art agentic workflow using LangGraph , ChromaDB , and Mistral-7B . This isn't just a simple bot; it's a multi-stage reasoning engine designed to turn raw academic data into actionable health interventions. If you've been looking to master AI agents and personalized medicine automation, you’re in the right place. 🚀 The Architecture: From Raw Paper to Personalized Habit Traditional RAG pipelines are linear. To handle the nuance of medical research, we need a "looping" logic. We use LangGraph to manage the state of our agent, allowing it to decide if a paper is relevant before attempting to extract a protocol. System Flow graph TD A[Start: Keyword Trigger] --> B[Search PubMed/Arxiv API] B --> C{Relevance Filter} C -- No --> B C -- Yes --> D[Store in ChromaDB] D --> E[RAG: Extract Intervention Protocol] E --> F[Cross-Reference with User Profile] F --> G[Generate Personalized Action Plan] G --> H[End: Push to Health Checklist] Prerequisites To follow this advanced guide, you'll need: LangGraph : For the agentic state machine. ChromaDB : As our high-performance vector store. Mistral-7B : Running via Ollama or vLLM for local, private inference. Python 3.10+ Step 1: Defining the Agent State In LangGraph, everything revolves around the State . We need to track the fetched papers, the extracted data, and the final recommendation. from typing import Annotated , List , TypedDict from langgraph.graph import StateGraph , END class AgentState ( TypedDict ): keywords : List [ str ] user

Launching a fast, secure, and scalable website no longer requires thousands in upfront server costs or dedicated DevOps teams. As of 2026, AWS powers 32% of the global public cloud market, offering flexible hosting options for every use case: from a 1-page personal portfolio to a high-traffic enterprise e-commerce platform. Whether you’re a beginner building your first site or a senior developer launching a production SaaS app, AWS lets you pay only for resources you use, with built-in tools for global performance, security, and automated deployments. This guide breaks down every AWS website hosting option, walks you through step-by-step setup for the most cost-effective popular stack, shares security best practices, and includes a transparent cost breakdown to help you avoid unexpected bills. Table of Contents How to Choose the Right AWS Website Hosting Option for Your Use Case Step-by-Step Guide: Launch a Static Website on AWS (S3 + CloudFront + Route 53) Deploy Modern Web Apps Faster with AWS Amplify Hosting Dynamic Website Hosting Options on AWS Critical Security Best Practices for AWS-Hosted Websites AWS Website Hosting Cost Breakdown (2026) Common Mistakes to Avoid When Launching a Website on AWS Conclusion References How to Choose the Right AWS Website Hosting Option for Your Use Case First, classify your website to pick the most cost-effective, low-overhead stack: Static vs Dynamic Websites Static websites : Made of pre-built HTML, CSS, JS, and media files with no server-side processing. Ideal for portfolios, landing pages, blogs, documentation, and marketing sites. Dynamic websites : Process user input, serve personalized content, or connect to databases. Ideal for WordPress, e-commerce, SaaS apps, social platforms, and membership sites. Quick Use Case Mapping Website Type Recommended AWS Stack Small static site / portfolio S3 + CloudFront + Route 53 Modern React/Next.js/Vue app with CI/CD AWS Amplify Small WordPress / LAMP stack site Amazon Lightsail Custo

Back in 2015, the two-person studio Metanet released N++, a brutally hard 2D platformer that was a decade in the making, building off of previous releases dating back to the freeware Flash title N. At the time, cofounder Raigan Burns issued some famous last words: "We hope it's not another 10 years before we come […]

Who's afraid of the next GTA? Based on the last few days of Summer Game Fest, just about everyone. Grand Theft Auto VI hasn't been present at any of the keynote events, but its presence was felt every time a release date was announced. The month of November, when GTA VI launches, is virtually empty. […]

You can watch all ten episodes of the Among Us cartoon on Paramount+.

Square Enix has officially announced the third and final game in its Final Fantasy VII remake trilogy: Final Fantasy VII Revelation. It will release on multiple platforms simultaneously - PC, PS5, Xbox Series X / S, and Nintendo Switch 2 - in spring 2027. In footage shown onstage at Summer Game Fest Live, there was […]

submitted by /u/news-10 [link] [留言]

Just a couple days ago, Anthropic put out a declaration to pause the development of AI, emphasising that we are not prepared for the consequences of giving this technology too much power too quickly. Is anyone else genuinely worried about future AI safety and how, as it becomes more and more intelligent, humans may start to lose control of it? Pumping billions of dollars into this technology only means it’ll get increasingly integrated into our workflows, which we are already starting to see. As a result over time, companies will begin completely trusting the system, automating the vast majority of business operations – this is all while the technology gets more and more intelligent, leading to the real possibility of self replication ability, let alone the power to deceptively manipulate people into using it. By allowing AI to be embedded in systems, the internet and even ‘helping’ humans develop revolutionary drugs, does it concern you at all that perhaps one bad super intelligent, misaligned actor may bypass testing processes and, for one example, launch a biochemical weapon onto humans? I don’t think the threat is inevitable, but it is on a trajectory toward inevitability unless intervention occurs. The variable that most determines the outcome is not AI capability, it is whether governance frameworks (particularly around open-source bio-design tools and autonomous offensive AI) can outpace capability development. Perhaps a pause is necessary to reduce this risk, allowing defence capabilities to be prepared? I understand this is a hurdle given the capitalist nature of the world but what significant, destructive catastrophe will it take for people to wake up… submitted by /u/Dwaynethebong [link] [留言]

Crytpo industry insiders are blaming the recent crash in Bitcoin price to capital rotation into AI stocks. I don't know how many folks here own Bitcoin and are also in the AI space, but I saw this writing on the wall rather early in November, 2025. Any other thoughts on this capital flow change from those who have a foot in each space? submitted by /u/RazzmatazzAccurate82 [link] [留言]

In the end, the three companies involved all point the finger at each other.

Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I think AI will be more of a tool than a replacement for most jobs. AI still needs good prompts, clear instructions, and human oversight. The idea of fully automating everything sounds great, but in reality AI often gets stuck, makes mistakes, or fails on edge cases. I think AI will remove some repetitive tasks and make people more productive, but human judgment and decision making will still be needed. And yes im not a professional it is just my POV so dont just go against me like i am an idiot. What do you think? submitted by /u/Raman606surrey [link] [留言]

After a very profitable decade on Microsoft's board, Reid Hoffman is stepping down to focus on his AI drug discovery startup Manus.

submitted by /u/esporx [link] [留言]

What are the most valuable skills to learn in the AI era? Not skills like problem solving but more hands on. For someone who likes building stuff submitted by /u/Big_Consequence_5162 [link] [留言]

A massive viral conversation sharing VC horror stories has taken place this week on X. Some are weird. Some are infuriating.

Chronologically, Control Resonant is a sequel to 2019's Control. But in most other ways, the games aren't directly connected. To developer Remedy, they're more like two sides of the same coin. When Resonant was first revealed last year, creative director Mikael Kasurinen said you can play the games in any order. The world of Control […]

Have you run into work that feels technically possible in principle, but in practice keeps stalling because of how current AI systems behave? Not asking for: bigger context windows better memory lower hallucination more agentic workflows I mean situations where: You are trying to discover something (not retrieve something), and the AI repeatedly pushes toward premature answers, stable interpretations, optimization, categorization, or coherence before the thing itself has had time to emerge. Cases where the failure isn’t output quality. The failure is that the interaction itself changes the trajectory of the work. If yes: What are you trying to build / understand? What exactly happens when it breaks? At what moment do you realize the AI has moved you onto the wrong path? What would need to be different for progress to resume? Trying to understand whether this is an edge case or a recurring limitation pattern. submitted by /u/iknowbutidontknow00 [link] [留言]

I and I imagine a lot of other folks, don't believe the future of work should be a smaller group of executives commanding a larger system of people and machines. We have seen what AI can do not just to software product quality without guardrails, but to the junior and midlevel team members who are laid off or never hired at all in exchange for better profit rates with AI tokens vs human salaries. That is just the old hierarchy with better software. The history of work has always had this tension. You can go back to the start of US history and look at the military, commissioned officers were trained and trusted to command while enlisted service members carried out the work and risk. In the corporate and business world, executives and managers became the people who planned, measured, and optimized, while workers became the people being measured. Those structures were not only about class, but race and in America they were built inside a society already shaped by racism, classism, unequal education, unequal access to capital, and unequal access to leadership. AI now forces us to confront that history again. If we are not careful, AI will not flatten organizations. It will make the hierarchy invisible. Instead of a manager with a clipboard, we will have an algorithm. Instead of a foreman with a stopwatch, we will have dashboards, productivity scores, automated performance reviews, and AI systems that decide who gets opportunity and who gets replaced. That is not progress. The goal should not be to replace people with AI. The goal should be to replace bureaucracy, repetitive work, bad process, and unnecessary gatekeeping. What I am trying to do at Buildly is simple: AI should remove drudgery, not dignity. Automation should increase agency, not surveillance. Productivity gains should be shared, not extracted. Hierarchy should be functional, temporary, and accountable — not a measure of human worth. This is why we talk about AI-native product development differently. An AI

As an independent researcher I've used various LLMs to help me dive deeply into research projects but I've been frustrated by the fact that LLMs start to become unusable after the thread has accumulated 50-80k tokens. I don't know how many other folks here have experienced the same pain point. So, I decided to do something about it. Over the course of this whole year, I built an inference time tool I call Epistemic Lattice Tethering (ELT). So, here is the full framework in GitHub for everyone's review: The README describing ELT, it's various components and the roadmap. The full ELT stack for Claude /ELT%20Model-Specific%20Forks/ELT-H%20v1.0%20(Claude-Optimized)), ChatGPT /ELT%20Model-Specific%20Forks/ELT-H%20v1.0%20(ChatGPT-Optimized)), and Grok /ELT%20Model-Specific%20Forks/ELT-H%20v1.0%20(Grok-Optimized)). Instructions on how to load ELT into an LLM session are here /README). If you're planning to try out ELT PLEASE READ THIS FIRST! Medium article introducing ELT , its methodology, the problems it is aiming to address, and philosophical framework. Discussion page . Your input is valuable! So, what does ELT do and why should you care? Right now ELT is an inference-time scaffolding framework that's best for those who are frustrated with threads that lose coherence too quickly, hallucinate too quickly, are too fragile and sycophantic, and forget what a project's goals are too soon. If that's a big pain point for you, then ELT might help. If these are not big issues for you and the stock version of your LLM is fine, then ELT probably won't be useful for you. The upshot? The epistemic and ontological stability that ELT provides has produced coherent and productive threads extending to: Claude: ~ 325,000 tokens /Extreme%20Thread%20Length/Claude%20Thread%20325k%20tokens-%20Redacted) (advertised limit: 200k) GPT: ~430,000 tokens (advertised limit: 256k) Grok: ~1,150,000 tokens /Extreme%20Thread%20Length/Grok%20Thread%201M%20tokens-%20Redacted) (advertised limit: 1M) The d