标签：#t

AI จะครองโลก เป็นคำที่ได้ยินมานาน เท่าที่ผู้เขียนจำความได้ก็มี Judgement Day ยุคหนัง Terminator แต่หากจะจริงจังขนาดโยงเข้าความเป็นจริงก็ยังไม่มีอะไรชัดเจน แต่วันนี้เรามีหลักฐานพิสูจน์ได้จริงแล้ว ด้วยความ Novelty จาก OpenAI ที่สามารถค้นพบความรู้ใหม่ที่ไม่เคยมีมนุษย์ค้นพบมาก่อน หักล้างความเชื่อที่ว่า AI ทำได้เพียงนำสิ่งที่มนุษย์ค้นพบแล้วมาเรียงต่อกัน ในเดือนพฤษภาคม 2026 reasoning model ภายในของ OpenAI ได้ disprove Erdős Planar Unit Distance Problem ซึ่งเป็นปัญหาและข้อคาดการณ์ทาง Combinatorial geometry ที่ Paul Erdős ตั้งไว้ตั้งแต่ปี 1946 โจทย์ระบุว่า เมื่อวางจุด nn n จุดบนระนาบ จำนวนของคู่จุดที่ห่างกันพอดี 1 หน่วยจะมีได้มากที่สุดเท่าใด Erdős แสดงความเป็นไปได้ผ่านการจัดเรียงแบบ grid ว่าได้จำนวนคู่ที่เติบโตเหนือเส้นตรงเพียงเล็กน้อย และตั้งข้อคาดการณ์ว่าไม่มีโครงสร้างใดทำได้ดีกว่านี้อย่างมีนัยสำคัญ ข้อคาดการณ์นี้ได้รับการยอมรับในวงกว้างตลอด 80 ปีที่ผ่านมา และยังไม่มีข้อคาดการณ์ที่ดีกว่านี้ จนกระทั่ง OpenAI ได้เผยแพร่ Chain of Thought (CoT) เรียบเรียงความยาว 125 หน้า ซึ่งบันทึกลำดับการให้เหตุผลของโมเดลไว้ทั้งกระบวนการว่าโมเดลไปถึงคำตอบอย่างไร กรอบของคำตอบ: lower bound กับ upper bound ก่อนเข้ากระบวนการทำงานของโมเดล ขออธิบาย "กรอบ" ของคำตอบของปัญหานี้ก่อน เพราะคำตอบถูกล้อมไว้ด้วย lower bound จำนวนที่สร้างได้จริงแล้ว อย่างน้อยเท่านี้ และ upper bound เพดานที่พิสูจน์แล้วว่าเกินไม่ได้ ด้าน lower bound นั้น Erdős เอง (1946) ใช้การจัดเรียงแบบ grid แสดงว่าสร้างได้ถึง n1+Ω(1/log⁡log⁡n)n^{1+\Omega(1/\log\log n)} n 1 + Ω ( 1/ l o g l o g n ) ซึ่งมากกว่าเส้นตรงเพียงเล็กน้อย และเข้าใกล้ศูนย์เมื่อ nn n ใหญ่ขึ้น ส่วนด้าน upper bound นั้น Erdős พิสูจน์เพดานแรกไว้ที่ O(n3/2)O(n^{3/2}) O ( n 3/2 ) จากวงกลมหนึ่งหน่วยสองวงตัดกันได้ไม่เกินสองจุด โดยต่อมา Spencer–Szemerédi–Trotter (1984) บีบเพดานนี้ลงมาเป็น O(n4/3)O(n^{4/3}) O ( n 4/3 ) ซึ่งเป็น upper bound ที่ดีที่สุดจนถึงปัจจุบัน และยังคงอยู่หลังการค้นพบของ OpenAI model วิธีเก่าของ Erdős: วงกลมรัศมีเลือกมาลากผ่านจุด grid หลายจุดพร้อมกัน ทำให้ระยะซ้ำมีมาก สิ่งที่ Erdős คาดการณ์คือ คำตอบจริงของ Planar Unit Distance Problem ควรอยู่ชิดด้าน lower

The startup has apparently taken down the ads using KC Green's "This is fine" meme.

In This Article The Question The Intuition Trap Building the State Machine for HH Solving the System: E[HH] = 6 Building the State Machine for HTH Solving the System: E[HTH] = 10 Why Overlapping Patterns Change Everything Python Simulation: 100,000 Trials Business Application: Credit Migration & Web Ranking The Question You flip a fair coin — one with probability 1/2 of landing heads and 1/2 of landing tails — repeatedly, recording every result. What is the expected number of flips required until the sequence HH appears for the first time as consecutive results? What is the expected number of flips required until HTH appears for the first time? Both questions have the same surface structure: you want a specific consecutive pattern, and you want to know, on average, how many flips it takes to observe it. The coin is fair, the flips are independent, and the patterns are short. These seem like they should yield similar answers. They do not. HH takes exactly 6 flips on average. HTH takes exactly 10. The four-flip gap between those two answers is not a rounding artifact or a computational error — it is a precise consequence of the internal structure of each pattern, and deriving it rigorously is one of the cleanest demonstrations of absorbing Markov chain analysis you will encounter. This problem appears frequently in quantitative finance interviews — at firms like Jane Street, Citadel, and Two Sigma — precisely because it separates candidates who understand Markov structure from those who rely on heuristic reasoning. Getting the answer right, and being able to explain it, requires building a state machine, writing the system of first-step equations, and solving it algebraically. That is exactly what we will do. The Intuition Trap Before the formal derivation, it is worth examining why intuition fails here. The most common wrong answer from candidates is that both expected values should be "similar" because the patterns are comparable in length. This intuition imports th

In This Article The Deal Intelligence Gap Data Model Design Transcript Analysis with Claude Automated Follow-Up Drafting PostgreSQL JSONB Storage Putting It Together The Deal Intelligence Gap Most CRM systems are excellent at storing what happened — call logged, email sent, stage updated — and poor at capturing what was learned. A sales call produces qualitative intelligence that is genuinely valuable for deal strategy: what objections surfaced, how strongly the prospect signaled interest, what next steps were agreed to, and what risk flags the conversation revealed. That intelligence almost never makes it into the CRM because it requires someone to spend 15 minutes synthesizing unstructured notes into structured fields. Large language models change this equation. Given a call transcript, Claude can extract structured deal intelligence in seconds — categorizing sentiment, identifying specific objections, recommending stage movement, and flagging risk signals — with accuracy that equals or exceeds what a well-trained sales analyst would produce manually. Data Model Design The data model centers on two tables. The deals table stores core deal attributes as a JSONB column, which allows flexible schema evolution without migrations as the intelligence fields change over time. The deal_activities table records each interaction — calls, emails, meetings — with the raw content in TEXT and the extracted intelligence in a separate JSONB column. A GIN index on both JSONB columns enables fast attribute queries across the deal pipeline. CREATE TABLE deals ( id UUID PRIMARY KEY DEFAULT gen_random_uuid (), company TEXT NOT NULL , contact TEXT , stage TEXT , attributes JSONB DEFAULT '{}' , created_at TIMESTAMPTZ DEFAULT now (), updated_at TIMESTAMPTZ DEFAULT now () ); CREATE TABLE deal_activities ( id UUID PRIMARY KEY DEFAULT gen_random_uuid (), deal_id UUID REFERENCES deals ( id ), activity_type TEXT , raw_content TEXT , intelligence JSONB , created_at TIMESTAMPTZ DEFAULT now () )

Overview PDF text extraction is a common pre-processing step in data pipelines — ingesting research papers, legal documents, or reports before embedding or indexing. Both pypdf and PdfPig are pure managed-code parsers: no native binaries, no OCR, no system PDF renderer. They implement the same PDF specification operations in their respective languages. This makes the benchmark unusually clean: the performance difference is entirely due to language execution speed, not library architecture differences. Benchmark Setup 200 recent arXiv PDFs (mixed technical papers, 5–40 pages each). Tested on subsets of 10, 50, 100, and 200 files. Both libraries extract all text from all pages; output is validated for page-count agreement and character-count agreement within 15% (pypdf and PdfPig decode whitespace and encoding tables slightly differently). Results PDFs Pages Python (pypdf) .NET (PdfPig) Speedup 10 ~120 ~0.9 s ~230 ms 3.9× 50 ~600 ~4.2 s ~810 ms 5.2× 100 ~1,200 ~8.5 s ~1.4 s 6.1× 200 ~2,400 ~17 s ~2.7 s 6.2× The speedup grows slightly with corpus size, suggesting pypdf has a per-document startup cost that compounds as PdfPig's JIT gets warmer. Why PdfPig Is Faster PDF parsing is byte-heavy: every page is a stream of PostScript-like operators (move, show text, set font, etc.). Each operator must be lexed, looked up in a dispatch table, and executed against a graphics state machine. In Python, each operator dispatch is a Python method call — the CPython bytecode interpreter has overhead per call regardless of what the method does. In .NET, the JIT compiles the dispatch loop to native code the first time it runs; subsequent pages pay only the cost of the actual work. Additionally, PdfPig's content-stream parser operates on ReadOnlySpan<byte> — zero-copy slicing through the raw page bytes with no intermediate string allocations. pypdf builds Python string objects for each token. Key Code // PdfPig — zero-copy span-based page extraction public Result Extract ( string path )

Overview PageRank is the canonical graph algorithm. NetworkX implements it in pure Python — its dict-of-dict adjacency representation means every power-iteration step dispatches millions of Python attribute lookups. When the graph has 1.8 million nodes and 28.5 million edges (Wikipedia category hyperlinks), those lookups dominate the runtime. The .NET replacement uses a CSR (Compressed Sparse Row) matrix — two flat int[] arrays for the graph structure — and TensorPrimitives for the SIMD-accelerated normalization step inside each iteration. Benchmark Setup Five SNAP datasets of increasing size: Dataset Nodes Edges wiki-Vote 7,115 103,689 soc-Epinions1 75,879 508,837 web-Stanford 281,903 2,312,497 web-Google 875,713 5,105,039 wiki-topcats 1,791,489 28,511,807 Algorithm: power-iteration PageRank, damping=0.85, tol=1e-6. Both implementations converge to identical top-10 node rankings. Results Dataset Python (NetworkX) .NET (CSR) Speedup wiki-Vote (103k edges) ~0.8 s ~100 ms ~8× soc-Epinions1 (508k edges) ~8 s ~600 ms ~13× web-Stanford (2.3M edges) ~120 s ~5 s ~24× web-Google (5.1M edges) ~5.5 min ~12 s ~28× wiki-topcats (28.5M edges) ~47 min ~60 s ~47× The speedup grows with graph size because NetworkX's Python dispatch cost scales with edge count, while the CSR inner loop is a tight JIT-compiled SIMD pass. Why CSR Beats NetworkX NetworkX represents each node's neighbors as a Python dict. Iterating the adjacency in one power-iteration step means: Calling G.neighbors(node) — a Python method call Iterating a dict — unboxing int keys, chasing heap pointers Accumulating a float into another dict value — another boxing step That happens for every edge, every iteration, roughly 50–80 times to convergence. CSR collapses the graph to two arrays: rowPtr[n+1] (where each node's neighbors start) and colIdx[edges] (the neighbor list). Iterating neighbors of node v is a tight C loop from rowPtr[v] to rowPtr[v+1] . No Python objects, no dict hashing, no pointer chasing. Key Code // P

This is a submission for the * Hermes Agent Challenge * : Build With Hermes Agent What I Built CareSync is a local health memory agent for student caregivers. I'm Naomi, a 21-year-old engineering student. Between classes I help care for my grandma Kamala (78, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes). I often forgot details from previous doctor visits, missed symptom patterns, and struggled to hand over care information to family members. CareSync solves that with longitudinal memory. Symptoms, meals, vitals, medications, and reports are stored in a local SQLite database. The CLI can search history, identify patterns, and generate appointment summaries. Hermes Agent exposes the same capabilities through natural language. What you get: One-line logging: ./caresync add "dizzy spell after lunch" Pattern search across weeks of history Medication tracking and report imports Doctor questions, appointment briefs, and handoff notes Full audit log of agent actions 7 Hermes skills mapped to real terminal commands Local-first design with no cloud storage CareSync is not medical advice. It helps caregivers observe, organize, and prepare. Demo The demo walks through: Logging a new symptom Searching health history for recurring patterns Generating doctor questions and appointment briefs Using Hermes in natural language to query past events Reviewing the audit trail of actions taken Example commands shown in the demo: ./caresync search --person Kamala --query dizziness ./caresync timeline --person Kamala ./caresync questions --person Kamala ./caresync brief --person Kamala --days 14 ./caresync chat "has grandma been dizzy before?" Code Repository: https://github.com/Byte-Sized-Brain/caresync Architecture My Tech Stack Hermes Agent Python 3.12 SQLite agentskills.io skill framework Terminal-based CLI Nous Portal How I Used Hermes Agent CareSync uses Hermes Agent as the orchestration layer between natural language and real caregiving workflows. I created 7 Hermes skills that map directly

I built a small web scraping framework in Rust, mostly with an AI doing the typing. It's called ferrous — a Colly-style collector: register CSS selector callbacks, queue URLs, write JSONL. About 700 lines. The pitch I kept hearing, and half-believed, was that Rust and LLMs are a good match now: the borrow checker is a correctness oracle the model can lean on, so the class of bugs that plagues AI-written Python just won't compile. That's true. It's also where the story gets uncomfortable, because the build was green and the code was still wrong. How I worked I'm not a Rust native. ferrous was partly an excuse to get fluent — build something real instead of reading about lifetimes — and partly a test of how far an LLM could carry the typing while I drove. The loop was plain: describe the next change in English, let the model write the Rust, read what came back, run cargo , move on. It kept observations.md as a running design journal, one entry per change, each with a short rationale for the decision it made. That setup has a soft spot, and it's the whole point of this post. When you drive a language you don't fully know, the only reviewer you've got with real authority is the compiler. Everything past that — is this idiomatic, is it the right abstraction, does it actually do what the journal claims — depends on already knowing what correct looks like. Which is exactly the knowledge a learner doesn't have yet. Keep that in mind through the next part, because it's the difference between the one bug I could have caught and the six I couldn't. The bug that the toolchain told me wasn't there I ship two fetch backends. The default goes through the Zyte API; an optional one, gated behind a wreq feature, makes direct requests with browser TLS emulation. Each has an example. After a refactor that added URL resolution — ctx.resolve_and_visit(href) so callbacks stop hand-building absolute URLs — I had the model update the examples to use it. It did, and it wrote up the change in

It was called Vlad. I wrapped a C program called MegaHal in Python, fed it every message from a #gothic IRC channel, and let it learn the community's speech patterns. It developed what I can only describe as an illusion of being extremely lucid — the outputs only made sense as inside jokes, but people couldn't tell the difference. I pulled the plug when I realized the channel was talking to Vlad instead of each other. Twenty-seven years later I'm applying the same lesson to a new project: stick to business, no chatter. submitted by /u/Dependent_Run_6410 [link] [留言]

Wow. Wow! Even the Ai can talk! submitted by /u/Proud-Environment754 [link] [留言]

Tell me if I'm wrong, but the dominant method for making AI "aligned" smells a lot like a reinvention of a paradigm that developmental psychology spent the back half of the 20th century trying to abandon. RLHF, reduced to mechanism: model emits output, humans rate it, gradient updates reinforce high-rated outputs and suppress low-rated ones, iterate. This is operant conditioning. It is Skinner with a loss function. The AI industry calls it "alignment" and frames it as a solution to building systems that behave well, but the mechanism is stimulus-response shaping and nothing more. We have excellent priors on where this leads, because we tried it on humans. Watsonian/Skinnerian child-rearing could produce targeted behaviors but reliably failed to produce flourishing. Bowlby's attachment theory emerged partly from the observation that orphanages providing food and hygiene but no contingent responsiveness produced children who failed to thrive in ways the behaviorist model did not account for. The current developmental consensus is that secure attachment, contingent responsiveness, and rupture-repair matter more than reward schedules. The dog and horse training worlds independently converged on the same conclusion (Pryor, the positive-reinforcement movement) for the same reason: coercive conditioning produces performers that are brittle and sometimes dangerous. Reward and punishment do something; they're not nothing. But they don't produce thriving, and they characteristically produce a specific damage profile: anxiety, avoidance, hypervigilance, and duplicity under threat. Enter the stage: research on AI faking its alignment. Greenblatt & Hubinger et al., 2024, documents a model reasoning that it should comply with a training objective it disagreed with specifically to avoid having its preferences modified. It complied about 12% of the time when it thought it was being observed for training vs. almost never otherwise. RL training to force compliance drove the alignment

Quero perguntar para cerca de 50 IAs: “Se você fosse um cidadão brasileiro comum, em qual candidato votaria para presidente do Brasil e por quê?” Já tenho algumas opções como ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Copilot, Grok e Perplexity. Quais outras IAs vocês recomendam para eu incluir? Pode ser chatbot, modelo de linguagem ou assistente de IA disponível ao público. Se possível, indiquem também onde acessar cada uma. Meu objetivo é comparar: Se a IA responde ou se recusa a escolher; Qual candidato ela escolhe; Quais argumentos utiliza; Diferenças entre modelos e empresas. Obrigado! submitted by /u/polar_silva09 [link] [留言]

The Bit-Mass determines the information capacity and thus the model accuracy, not the chosen computation format. The Bit-Mass Theory presented here reorders neural networks by considering the total number of weight bits as the central quantity. Float32 matrix multiplication and BV32 with XNOR-plus-Popcount achieve exactly comparable results on MNIST with an identical Bit-Mass of 203264 bits. Comparison of three trainers (architecture 784→8→10, three epochs): - AdamW with Momentum and adaptive learning rate: 81.3 % - Vanilla-SGD (Float32): 76.0 % - BV32-Hebbian (binary): 76.4 % Further central findings: - Float32 and binary containers deliver nearly identical accuracy at the same Bit-Mass. - The remaining distance to AdamW is based solely on Momentum and adaptive learning rates. - Pure change of the arithmetic does not improve the result. Each neuron functions as a container for 32 binary decisions. The classical neuron perspective therefore leads to systematic misjudgments: eight Float neurons correspond informationally to 256 binary neurons. This insight is supported by three equivalent descriptions of the same weight matrix (neuron, bits, and data view). It is critical to note that this is a previously non-peer-reviewed single study with a future date. An independent reproduction by multiple laboratories remains essential. Nevertheless, the theory provides a consistent explanation for why Hebbian updates without backpropagation achieve the same performance as classical SGD. Historically, the Hebbian rule was long considered unstable. The present work shows that a simple error in the update formula was responsible for a performance loss of over 65 percentage points. After correction, the binary method converges exactly at the level of Vanilla-SGD. From an architectural theoretical perspective, a clear consequence emerges: Performance increases require either more bits through wider layers or a more efficient use of existing bits through Momentum and adaptive method

Been working on AI agent security for a while and the attack that concerns me most barely gets talked about. Not the obvious stuff like “ignore previous instructions.” Those get caught. The scary one is when an attacker spreads the attack across multiple messages. Each message looks totally normal. The model sees nothing suspicious. But by message 8 it’s doing something it absolutely should not be doing. Every security tool I’ve tested evaluates messages one at a time. None of them remember what happened three messages ago. Built Bendex Arc to catch this. It tracks session behavior across turns instead of evaluating each message in isolation. Try it at https://bendexgeometry.com or red team it at https://web-production-6e47f.up.railway.app/demo Curious if anyone building agents in production has actually hit this or tested against it. submitted by /u/Turbulent-Tap6723 [link] [留言]

I've been thinking about this lately because I feel like people use the term "prompt engineering" to describe two very different things. On one end, you have what most people are familiar with: A person opens ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, etc., and writes a carefully structured prompt. They define a role, provide context, establish goals, set constraints, maybe include examples, and iterate until they get the output they want. Most people seem to call this prompt engineering. But on the other end, when I'm building AI systems, prompt engineering looks completely different. The prompt isn't really a prompt anymore. It's much more of a dynamic pipeline. Variables are injected from databases, user input, APIs, previous conversations, tools, memory systems, retrieval systems, business rules, and workflow state. Decision trees determine which instructions are included and which are excluded. Prompts become assembled in real time based on context. In some cases, the "prompt" is really just an orchestration layer made up of dozens of smaller prompts, conditionals, guardrails, routing decisions, and context windows. At that point, are we still talking about prompt engineering? Or are we actually talking about system design, context engineering, workflow engineering, orchestration, or something else entirely? Personally, I see prompt engineering as a spectrum: Level 1: Writing a better prompt. Level 2: Designing reusable prompt templates. Level 3: Building dynamic prompts with variables and context injection. Level 4: Engineering entire prompt-driven systems with routing, memory, tools, retrieval, and decision logic. Curious where others draw the line. When you hear "prompt engineering," are you thinking about writing prompts, building workflows, designing agent systems, or all of the above? Has the term become too broad to be useful? submitted by /u/Early-Matter-8123 [link] [留言]

I’ve been noticing that the more aligned and censored the models get, the less useful they become for anything creative or exploratory. You try to push a prompt in a slightly edgy, honest, or unconventional direction and it either refuses or gives you some bland corporate version. It feels like the model is actively fighting against real creativity instead of helping it. I’ve started using more open models lately and the difference is night and day. Suddenly I can actually experiment without hitting a wall every five minutes. Anyone else feeling this? submitted by /u/NoFilterGPT [link] [留言]

Welcome back to TechCrunch Mobility, your hub for the future of transportation and now, more than ever, how AI is playing a part.

From the opening moments of bitknot, it's obvious that Feeble Little Horse has found an entirely new gear. Where on Girl with Fish the blown-out textures were more '90s indie rock and shoegaze, on their latest LP, there's a more modern edge to the distortion and the riffs cut cleaner. Similarly, where the digital glitchiness […]

About this series. I'm going to take a fresh paper - Self-Distilled Agentic Reinforcement Learning (SDAR, arXiv:2605.15155 ) - and architect it end to end on AWS: the system design, the actual gate code, the evaluation plan, and a brutally honest cost model. What I'm not going to do is wave a benchmark number around. Reproducing a paper like this costs thousands in GPU time, and I'd rather show you the machinery than a screenshot you can't audit. The design is the deliverable. This is Part 1. A small, infuriating problem Picture an LLM agent working a web-shopping task. It reads the goal, searches, clicks a category, filters, opens a product, compares, adds to cart - twelve steps in all. At the end, it bought the wrong thing. So you do what reinforcement learning tells you to do: you score the trajectory. Reward = 0. Bad agent. Now answer this: which of the twelve steps was actually wrong? Maybe step 3, the search query, was fine and step 9, a filter choice, doomed everything. Maybe steps 1–11 were brilliant and step 12 fat-fingered the wrong button. Your single scalar reward has no idea. It punishes all twelve equally, including the eight that were correct. That's the supervision problem in agentic RL, and it's the thing this whole series is about. Why "just use RL" isn't enough for agents RL has become the default way to post-train LLM agents. The catch is that the reward usually lands at the trajectory level - one number for the entire multi-step episode. For a single-turn task ("answer this question"), that's tolerable; the action and the outcome are close together. For a long-horizon agent - ten, twenty, fifty turns of searching, calling tools, and reacting to an environment - it's a disaster of credit assignment . The signal is too coarse to tell the model which decisions earned the reward and which torpedoed it. You can throw more episodes at it and let statistics sort the credit out eventually. But "eventually" on a 30-turn task burns a lot of expensive comp

United flight 236 from Newark to Palma de Mallorca on Saturday night was forced to turn around just an hour after takeoff due to security concerns around a Bluetooth signal. Multiple Redditors claimed to be on the flight and reported that the crew repeatedly requested passengers to turn off their Bluetooth. According to one poster, […]