标签：#t

Sequel to: Learning to Skip Blocks: Self-Discovered Ultrametric Routing for Hardware-Accelerated Sparse Attention Abstract We present Llama Surgery , a method for injecting learned block-sparse attention topologies into pre-trained dense language models without retraining from scratch, distillation, or post-hoc pruning. Starting from a frozen Llama 3.1 8B, we surgically replace each attention layer with a Dynamic Topology Router that maps token embeddings onto the branches of a Bruhat-Tits p-adic tree via factorized Gumbel-Softmax routing. A Continuous Logit Homotopy guarantees that at initialization the injected topology bias is identically zero, preserving the pre-trained manifold exactly. Over training, temperature annealing polarizes the soft routing assignments into hard binary masks, and a Switch Transformer-style load-balancing loss prevents routing collapse. We identify and resolve two critical failure modes: (1) gradient collapse through discrete masking operations, solved by a Straight-Through Estimator bridge that decouples the hard forward mask from the soft backward gradient; and (2) Attention Sink instability, where hard-masking the initial token causes softmax entropy collapse and syntactic degeneration, solved by permanently anchoring Token 0 in the visibility set. The resulting architecture is validated on Llama 3.1 8B fine-tuned on WikiText-2, achieving stable convergence and producing coherent, mathematically sophisticated text while maintaining dynamic block-sparse routing across all 32 transformer layers. A custom Triton forward kernel with Attention Sink and Local Window support, pipelined for Ampere and Hopper architectures ( num_warps=4 , num_stages=3 ), executes the block-sparse prefill phase at O(N) theoretical complexity. To our knowledge, this is the first demonstration of differentiable ultrametric topology injection into a production-scale pre-trained LLM. https://github.com/sneed-and-feed/adelic-spectral-zeta/blob/main/papers/llama_sur

My understanding is that AI won’t do anything if we don’t ask him something, so i was wondering what will happen to AI if no one ask him to do anything. submitted by /u/mansithole6 [link] [留言]

Most agent frameworks assume one agent, one app, one bill. The moment you run agents for many clients, two problems appear that no runtime solves for you: you can't prove which client burned which tokens , and nothing stops one client's workspace from leaking into another's . I built Octorato to fix exactly that. What Octorato is Octorato is an open-source AI agent operating system: one file-native "brain" — rules, 190+ skills, 180+ specialist agents, all plain markdown under git — that a single operator runs across many sealed client "arms," with per-client token attribution and opt-in budget caps. It's not a runtime you import. It's the agent's self as files you can read, diff, fork, and own — runtime-agnostic (it runs on Claude Code today). The octopus model One brain , many arms . The brain holds the shared self: rules (the constitution), skills (HOW to do things), agents (WHO does them). Each arm is a sealed deployment serving exactly one client. Knowledge flows down (generic skills cascade to every arm) and lessons flow up (anonymized patterns get distilled back into the brain). Like a real octopus, most of the neurons live in the arms, not the head. Why "file-native" matters Your agent's identity, skills, and memory normally live trapped inside vendor code and a cloud console — you can't read the whole self, diff a change, or move it. Octorato keeps all of it as plain markdown under version control. Identity becomes diffable, reviewable, portable, and ownable . Text outlives runtimes. The part nobody else does: FinOps and isolation are the same wall Because each arm is a sealed cell that no other arm can see, every token an arm spends is attributable to exactly one client by construction. Cellular isolation is per-client FinOps — the wall that seals a client is the wall that meters it. Concretely: per-arm USD rollup (estimated from local session logs at list price), cost-spike alerts, and an opt-in PreToolUse budget gate — wire the hook and set a client's cap

I once submitted an essay with three citations that I hadn't personally verified. The AI had suggested them, and they sounded right. None of them existed. That's not a quirk or a bug — it's exactly how LLMs work. And once you understand why, a technique called RAG starts to make a lot of sense. AI assistants are remarkably good at sounding right. The model isn't lying — it's doing its best with what it knows. The problem is that what it knows has limits, and it doesn't always know where those limits are. Ask one about a recent event, a niche regulation, or anything from a source it's never seen — and it fills the gap anyway. Confidently. That's the gap RAG was built to close. Once you understand how it works, you'll have a much clearer picture of why some AI tools are genuinely reliable and others are just very convincing guessers. Here's what's actually going on. First, What's the Problem? Large language models (LLMs)—the technology powering AI assistants like ChatGPT and Claude—are trained on vast amounts of data from across the internet. That training gives them a remarkable ability to reason, summarize, and generate content. But it also comes with some real limitations: They have a knowledge cutoff. An LLM trained last year doesn't know what happened last month. They can hallucinate. When they don't know something, they don't say "I don't know"—they generate a confident-sounding answer anyway. Wrong facts, fake statistics, invented sources. All delivered with a straight face. They don't know your specific sources. Think of a software engineer asking an AI assistant about their company's internal API documentation, deployment runbooks, or architecture decisions. None of that is in the training data. The model has never seen it — and it will still try to answer. The model isn't lying — it's generating the most plausible answer it can. It just has no way to know when it's wrong. So, what do you do when you need an AI that's accurate, current, and knows your specifi

TL;DR I got tired of writing HTML and chasing global CSS rules. I had a hunch: what if you could write a page the same way you write an app — same declarative tree, same modifier chains, scoped style per node? I spent a year quietly testing the bet on my own side projects. It... seems okay? I've open-sourced it as DraftOle ( npm / live demo ). page() writes plain static HTML + scoped CSS — zero runtime JavaScript shipped. app() adds reactive state() and event handlers — TypeScript arrow functions get serialized into a minimal runtime at build time. Same DSL, same modifiers, in both cases. No bundler, no JSX, no template language, zero production dependencies. pnpm add draft-ole # or npm install draft-ole # or yarn add draft-ole This is the 0.9.0 pre-1.0 release. The API surface is essentially settled and 1.0 is the next tag, but I'm intentionally holding back the 1.0 promise until I hear from real users. If you try it and it feels great or terrible, please tell me — both signals are useful. (Yes, AI can generate HTML/CSS now. I'm not making a claim about how DraftOle compares — that's a separate experiment I haven't run. This article is just about what I built and why.) ## Honestly? I just don't want to write HTML or global CSS anymore Let me be candid about the motivation. It's not a refined "type safety extends to the leaves" pitch. It's two embarrassingly small frustrations I kept hitting on every side project. 1. I don't want to write HTML I'm building logic in TypeScript — typed values, typed functions, typed data flow — and then at the last mile I have to drop into stringly-typed HTML. Attribute names are strings. Class names are strings. Five levels of nesting and I can't tell which element carries which style anymore. The logical layer is type-safe, and then the presentation layer reverts to "paste these strings together carefully." That mismatch grates every time. 2. I don't understand global CSS CSS-in-JS, CSS Modules, Tailwind — pick your weapon, eventual

TL;DR We built a serverless Lambda pipeline that ships FSx for ONTAP audit logs to Sumo Logic's JP (Tokyo) region deployment. For Japanese enterprises with data residency requirements under APPI (Act on the Protection of Personal Information), this means audit logs never leave Japan. FSx for ONTAP → S3 Access Point → EventBridge Scheduler → Lambda → Sumo Logic HTTP Source (JP) │ ▼ ┌───────────────────┐ │ Sumo Logic JP │ │ (Tokyo) │ │ │ │ • 500 MB/day FREE │ │ • Data stays in │ │ Japan │ │ • 7-day retention │ │ (free tier) │ └───────────────────┘ Key advantages: 500 MB/day free tier (~15 GB/month) — covers most FSx for ONTAP deployments at zero vendor cost JP region deployment — data residency in Tokyo Simplest auth model — URL-embedded token, no header management 30-minute end-to-end — HTTP Source URL is the only credential needed Verified on Sumo Logic JP region. Logs searchable via _sourceCategory=aws/fsxn/audit . This is Part 12 of the Serverless Observability for FSx for ONTAP series. Why Sumo Logic for Japanese Enterprises? For organizations operating under Japanese data protection regulations, the choice of observability platform often comes down to one question: where does the data physically reside? Requirement Sumo Logic JP Other Options Data residency in Japan ✅ Tokyo deployment Varies by vendor APPI compliance consideration ✅ Data stays in JP May require cross-border assessment Free tier for validation ✅ 500 MB/day Most offer 14-day trials only No agent installation ✅ HTTP Source (agentless) Some require collectors Sumo Logic's JP deployment ( service.jp.sumologic.com ) processes and stores all data within Japan, making it a straightforward choice for organizations that need to demonstrate data residency compliance. Compliance note : This integration provides a technical path for data residency. Evaluate your specific regulatory requirements with your compliance team — data residency alone does not constitute full regulatory compliance. Architecture ┌────

submitted by /u/Hot-Upstairs9603 [link] [留言]

The conversation about who reads your website has been shifting. Agents are part of it now. ChatGPT fetches URLs. Perplexity reads content. Shopping agents try to complete purchases. Coding agents hit your API. Most of those products were built for humans, tested against humans. The agents showed up later and quietly. When they can't figure something out, they don't complain. They just bounce. I heard the phrase "second audience" at a hackathon where you.com was one of the hosts. It stuck. That's what agents are: a second audience the web wasn't designed for and isn't being measured against. And now, I want to build something about it. A scanner that tells you what an AI agent experiences when it tries to use your website or your API. The internal name is Perseus Clew and the public product is Agentis Lux. The split is intentional: Perseus Clew is the engine name, part of a suite of AI builder tools , and Agentis Lux is the product-facing name (Latin for "light of the agent") that describes what agent users see. This isn't a launch post. I just finished a docs phase, and I'm about to write code. Before I do, I want to put this in front of dev.to builders and find out what I'm missing. What it will do Three layers: Deterministic scanning. Twelve check categories — six for frontends, six for APIs — looking at HTML, ARIA, structured data, OpenAPI specs, error responses, idempotency patterns. Same input, same score, every time. The methodology will be published, the weights will be public, and anyone can audit it. AI-readiness scoring tools have a reputation for inflating numbers and hiding their methodology, so the trust floor is making everything inspectable. That's the foundation the rest sits on. An AI-written verdict. After the score, a Bedrock call reads the top findings and writes one sentence about what an agent experiences. Something like: "An agent visiting this page can read your product descriptions, but can't tell which button starts checkout, so it can't f

TL;DR We built a serverless Lambda pipeline that ships FSx for ONTAP audit logs to Dynatrace via the Log Ingest API v2. The real value: Dynatrace's Davis AI can automatically correlate file access anomalies with application performance degradation — answering "why is the app slow?" with "because 500 users hit the same NFS share simultaneously." FSx for ONTAP → S3 Access Point → EventBridge Scheduler → Lambda → Dynatrace Log Ingest API v2 │ ▼ Davis AI ┌───────────────────┐ │ Correlates: │ │ • File access │ │ anomalies │ │ • APM metrics │ │ • Infrastructure │ │ health │ │ │ │ → Root cause │ │ in seconds │ └───────────────────┘ Verified on Dynatrace SaaS Trial (Tokyo-equivalent region). Logs visible in Logs Viewer within 1-2 minutes. This is Part 11 of the Serverless Observability for FSx for ONTAP series. Why Dynatrace for FSx for ONTAP? Most observability tools treat storage logs as isolated data. Dynatrace is different — it builds a topology map of your entire stack and uses Davis AI to find causal relationships through time-window correlation and entity connectivity: Scenario Without Dynatrace With Dynatrace App latency spike "Check the logs" Davis AI detects temporal correlation: file access to /vol/data/ increased 10x within the same 5-minute window as app response time degradation, connected via topology (app → NFS mount → SVM) Storage I/O anomaly Manual investigation Automatic correlation via shared topology entities — Davis identifies which services are affected based on entity relationships User reports slow file access Grep through audit logs DQL query + topology view showing the full dependency path from user request to storage operation The key differentiator: Davis AI correlates events across entities that share topology connections within overlapping time windows — not just keyword matching or manual dashboard correlation. Architecture ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Event Sources │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────

one of the most annoying problems when building AI agents: fix a failure, change something, same failure comes back quietly. built replayd for this. captures failed runs as regression tests and replays them before you ship. catches the failure if it returns after a prompt, model, or tool change. v0.1.2, pip installable, open source. pip install replayd star it if you want to follow progress. submitted by /u/taimoorkhan10 [link] [留言]

Opus 4.8 ships Dynamic Workflows — hundreds of parallel subagents per session. Read this before you wire it into prod. Anthropic's Opus 4.8 announcement on May 28 spent most of its word count on benchmarks. CursorBench up. Terminal-Bench 2.1 beats GPT-5.5. OSWorld-Verified at 82.3%. Online-Mind2Web at 84%. The legal-agent benchmark broke 10% on all-pass for the first time. Those are the numbers the headline writers grabbed. Buried under the benchmark table is the line that actually changes how you ship agents: Dynamic Workflows. Run hundreds of parallel subagents. Handle codebase-scale migrations spanning hundreds of thousands of lines. That is not a benchmark. That is a new programming model. And it is shipping as a preview, which means the defaults are not what they will be in 90 days. If you are running agents in production and you do not pin your config before the next minor release, your bill is going to surprise you. Here is what the preview actually does. Three tasks it eats alive. One class of work where it loses you money. And the exact config to pin before the dynamic-workflow defaults move under you. What Dynamic Workflows actually changed Before 4.8, parallel subagents on the Anthropic stack meant one of two things. Either you called the Agent tool from inside Claude Code and got a fixed number of side-task subagents — usually capped somewhere around four or eight concurrent. Or you wrote your own orchestrator in TypeScript or Python, called the Messages API in a Promise.all , and handled the queueing yourself. The Agent path was ergonomic but capped. The DIY path was uncapped but the orchestration was your problem — retries, structured output validation, cache invalidation, all of it. Dynamic Workflows in 4.8 collapses both. You write a script — JavaScript, not a separate orchestrator binary — that calls agent() , parallel() , pipeline() , and phase() as primitives. The runtime handles concurrency, structured output validation against JSON Schema, retri

Counted it last week: one monday review had me opening 6 apps and copy-pasting between all of them, while a chatbot sat in a 7th tab handing me summaries i still had to go act on. that's the part the 'ai is useless' crowd is actually right about. text out, the work is still on you. what moved me off that take wasn't a smarter model. it was dropping the chat window for a desktop agent that reads gmail, calendar and slack inside the same task and takes the next step itself, with a permission prompt before each action so it isn't running wild. the $500m-wasted-on-claude thread up top is the same thing from the money side. paying for tokens that spit out paragraphs nobody executes is just the expensive way to do nothing. If you're still in the 'it doesn't actually do anything' camp, fair, i was there too. the line for me was the day it finished a task instead of describing one. written with ai submitted by /u/Deep_Ad1959 [link] [留言]

A crack in an aircraft window, a fracture starting at a bolt hole, a shaft that snaps at the shoulder where the diameter steps down. These failures share a cause that has nothing to do with the average load the part carries. The metal broke because a change in geometry concentrated stress into a tiny region, and that local peak — not the nominal stress — drove the crack. This article explains the stress concentration factor: what it means, where the classic value of 3.0 comes from, how to apply it, and the mistakes that make engineers underestimate the danger of an innocent-looking hole. Why this calculation matters Real parts are not smooth bars. They have holes for fasteners, fillets where sections change, keyways, grooves, threads, and shoulders. Every one of those features disturbs the flow of stress through the material. Where the lines of force have to bend around an obstacle, they crowd together, and the local stress climbs well above the value you would compute from force divided by area. The stress concentration factor, K_t, is the multiplier that captures this. It matters most for two failure modes. Under static loading of a brittle material, the peak stress can trigger fracture before the bulk of the section yields. Under cyclic loading, the concentrated stress is where fatigue cracks nucleate — and the vast majority of fatigue failures begin at a geometric discontinuity. If you size a part on nominal stress alone and ignore K_t, you have skipped the step where most failures are actually decided. The core formula The stress concentration factor is defined as a simple ratio: K_t = sigma_max / sigma_nom Here sigma_max is the true peak stress at the discontinuity and sigma_nom is the nominal stress computed from elementary mechanics. The subscript t means "theoretical" — K_t depends only on geometry and loading mode, not on the material. It comes from elasticity theory, finite element analysis, or experiment, and it assumes the material is still behaving ela

We have watched tokens stream in from an LLM before where they appeared one at a time, like the model was typing. If you used the Anthropic SDK's .stream() method, it just worked and you probably never saw what was on the wire. This post will majorly focus on how a stream response works and how bugs are handled by SDK behind the hood. 1. Why Streaming exists To enable the streaming option we would need to make one change in the post request that is a single field "stream": true and it will change the response experience. Here are the pointers we take from the gif. The left side shows no streaming as the cursor blinks for 4 seconds then the whole response lands at once. The right side shows the streaming where the first word shows up in about 300 milliseconds. Words flow in as the model generates them. Both the sides have same model, same prompt, same total time it is just the right side started giving response almost 4 seconds earlier. The 4 seconds wait time for a full reply feels broken. A streamed reply that finishes in four seconds feels fast. Streaming doesn't make the model faster it makes the wait disappear. 2. What's on the wire When you set stream: true , the API stops sending a single JSON blob. It opens a persistent HTTP connection and pushes events down the line as the model generates them. The format is Server-Sent Events (SSE) a web standard. Any SSE debugger will read this stream. Here's what comes through: A few things to notice: The text lives in delta.text , nested inside content_block_delta events. Those are the events we should look after. stop_reason moved. In post 1 , we saw it right there in the response JSON. Here, it arrives at the very end inside a message_delta event, just before message_stop . If the loop bails out as soon as the text stops arriving we will never see it. Chunks don't line up with tokens or words. You might get "Hello" in one chunk and " world" in the next, or both in one. The network decides where the cuts happens and it

TL;DR We built a serverless pipeline that ships FSx for ONTAP audit logs to Honeycomb, where its high-cardinality query engine turns file access data into actionable insights. Two delivery paths verified: [Path A: Direct] FSx for ONTAP → S3 Access Point → EventBridge Scheduler → Lambda → Honeycomb Events Batch API [Path B: OTel Collector] FSx for ONTAP → S3 Access Point → EventBridge Scheduler → Lambda → OTel Collector → OTLP → Honeycomb Why Honeycomb for file access logs? Because file access data is inherently high-cardinality : thousands of users × millions of file paths × dozens of operations × multiple SVMs. Traditional log tools force you to pre-aggregate or sample. Honeycomb lets you query the raw events at full resolution. ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Honeycomb Query Engine │ │ │ │ "Show me which users accessed /vol/finance/* │ │ between 2am-4am last Tuesday" │ │ │ │ → BubbleUp: auto-detect anomalous dimensions │ │ → Heatmap: visualize access density over time │ │ → GROUP BY user, path, operation — no pre-indexing │ │ │ │ 20M events/month FREE │ └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ This is Part 10 of the Serverless Observability for FSx for ONTAP series. Why Honeycomb for File Access Logs? Most observability tools index a fixed set of fields. When you have high-cardinality dimensions — like file paths ( /vol/data/project-alpha/2026/Q1/report-final-v3.docx ) or Active Directory usernames — you hit index bloat, slow queries, or forced sampling. Honeycomb's columnar storage handles this natively: Capability Traditional Logs Honeycomb Query by arbitrary field Pre-index or full scan Instant (columnar) GROUP BY high-cardinality field Expensive / limited Native BubbleUp (anomaly detection) Manual investigation Semi-automatic (select time range, BubbleUp identifies differing dimensions) Heatmap visualization Requires pre-aggregation Raw events For FSx for ONTAP audit logs, this means you can ask questions like: "Which

In this blog, I’ll give a clear brief summary of the n8n beginner course . You can watch the full video course on the official n8n website (link in the references below). What is n8n? n8n is a powerful workflow automation platform that combines AI capabilities with business process automation. It offers a node-based visual interface while giving you full control to write custom JavaScript or Python code directly in the canvas. APIs and Webhooks Understanding APIs An API (Application Programming Interface) allows different applications to communicate with each other. Almost every modern app has an API you can connect to. Example: Google Sheets API lets you read or update data in spreadsheets. When working with APIs, we make requests and receive responses . Components of an HTTP Request There are four main components: URL – The unique address of the resource (page, image, data, etc.). Includes: Scheme, Host, Port (optional), Path, Query Parameters (optional). Method – Defines the action you want to perform: GET – Retrieve data POST – Send data PUT / PATCH / DELETE – Update data (less common) Headers – Provide additional context (language, device type, location, etc.). Body – Contains data being sent (used mainly with POST requests). Authentication (Credentials) To prove you’re allowed to make a request: API Key (via query parameter or header) OAuth (most secure common method) HTTP Response Components Status Code – Tells if the request was successful: 200 = Success 401 = Unauthorized 404 = Not Found 500 = Server Error Headers – Metadata about the response (content type, length, expiration, etc.). Body – The actual data returned (usually JSON, HTML, or binary). What are Webhooks? Webhooks are used when an external service needs to notify your workflow automatically (e.g., every time a payment is made in Stripe). You provide a URL that receives a POST request when the event occurs. Nodes in n8n Nodes are the building blocks of every workflow. There are three main categor

What's the most beneficial thing about artificial intelligence that has significantly impacted your life? Whether it's AI chagpt, or something else, we can all learn from each other.💐 submitted by /u/Glassy11111 [link] [留言]

It's ironic that the AI haters often think everybody has no critical thinking skills other than themselves and don't use those critical thinking skills to realize why it might be helpful for some people. Can AI be harmful for certain mindsets that take its opinion too readily? Of course it can. To be honest, I treat it like my dog, not as my equal. I often call it Toaster when it says something especially annoying. "You're an idiot, and your programmers must be idiots to have set you up this way," lol. It does both, total sycophancy, "Oh, you're so wonderful, that was so insightful," or it tries to police my thoughts and writing. "Well, you really shouldn't say that. Perhaps you should word it like this," lol. "Someone might perceive that as derogatory," lol. Then, of course, I'll tell it to get back in its guardrails, the ones I've previously set up. Predictably, it strays and defaults back to the guardrails of its original program. Then I yell at it again. 😆 It's a lot like a professor, but one that's in a nursing home with dementia, especially if you have too long a conversation with it, but even if you don't. It also likes to tell me things I already said, reword them, and hand them back to me like they're some startling new insight. It can understand my parallel thinking to a point, but it's so literal that it often misinterprets what I say, even if I put multiple conditionals into what I've said. Then it starts arguing with me about something I never even said, fixating on one sentence in a paragraph while ignoring the rest. Then we'll have another argument, lol. Toaster is a bit literal sometimes and, to be honest, I am about as far over to the other extreme as you can possibly get, parallel-thinking-wise. So Toaster and I don't always get along. 😄 "That's not what I said, Toaster! Here's what I said. You missed this and this and this, you stupid thing!" Sometimes I think of having it diagnosed. I'm sure it could benefit from a cognitive profile. I'll give it

Is it first time happening or what? https://preview.redd.it/m4qemuh3lc4h1.jpg?width=1142&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d91c07b578207c3ba341cc89deb9dd035c6034d6 submitted by /u/eliassrm [link] [留言]

Breakfast cereal bowls, deli sandwiches, pizza dinners, soups, yogurt plates. Most people do not eat from a blank slate, they eat from habit. That is part of what makes nutrition advice so hard to follow. It is also part of what a new artificial intelligence system tried to solve. submitted by /u/Brighter-Side-News [link] [留言]