今日已更新 76 条资讯 | 累计 21295 条内容
关于我们

标签：#us

找到 1061 篇相关文章

AI 资讯

The loop I didn't notice closing

The loop I didn't notice closing Seven weeks ago I started using AI for work. Two weeks after that, I published an article. Seven weeks after that — today — the article is one of sixteen, and they are all in a memory file that the AI reads at the start of every new conversation. I didn't notice the loop until I named it. This is a note about that loop, what it is, what it isn't, and why I keep publishing even though the loop doesn't strictly need me to. The shape It runs like this: I decide what to do. I work it out with the AI — usually in dialogue, sometimes by pasting raw code or data. The dialogue becomes a record. Sometimes a memory entry. Sometimes a published article. The record becomes context for the next conversation, which informs the next decision. It didn't look this clean while it was happening. The numbering is hindsight. From inside, the steps overlap. The first step is the one I keep. Direction is mine: what to build, what to write, what to negotiate. The history that shapes those decisions — twenty-four years of solo work, my company, my family, my health — is also mine. The AI is not setting direction. The second step is where most of the leverage is. I describe what I want to do as completely as I can, sometimes by handing over source code. Then I ask: does this look right? Is there a path I'm missing? Where would this break? I'm opening drawers — possibilities I half-saw in my own head — and checking which ones open cleanly. When one opens cleanly, that is the GO signal. Not "will this succeed" but "this is doable, so do it." The third step happens almost without effort. The conversation already exists as text. Some of it becomes a memory entry I add deliberately. Some of it becomes raw material for an article. The article writes itself partly because I have already explained the thing to the AI. The fourth step is the one that took longest to arrive — and the one I want to be most careful about describing. Three phases, not one The loop didn't

2026-06-01 原文 →
AI 资讯

These are the first Nvidia RTX Spark laptops

Nvidia has officially entered the world of consumer laptop chips with the RTX Spark, and several device makers already have hardware lined up for it. Microsoft, Asus, HP, MSI, Lenovo, and Dell are expected to launch RTX Spark laptops sometime this fall, and some of those partner companies have shared details about what we can […]

2026-06-01 原文 →
AI 资讯

My Company Bought a $660K AI Platform. I Was Replaced. On Friday at 2:58 AM, It Fixed Everything. Then It Rolled Back the Wrong Patch.

Based on real system architecture decisions. About a $660K AI platform, three AI agents that kept the dashboard green, and a P0 incident that cost $3.15M over one weekend. Act 1 · The All-Hands Meeting Wang Lei, VP of Product, stood in front of the big screen, a smile on his face. Behind him, a dashboard rolled data from the "Axon AI Client Engineering Platform — Q1 Performance Report." Numbers cascaded across the wall: Metric Axon Platform Human Team (Last Q1) Improvement Avg daily tickets processed 847 312 +171% Avg first response time 12s 4h 17m ↓ 99.92% Customer satisfaction 4.8/5 4.1/5 +17% Monthly operating cost $52K $133K −61% Twelve department heads sat in the room. Dead silence. Wang Lei planted both hands on the table and scanned the room. His eyes landed on me. "Alex. Your team processed 312 tickets last Q1. Axon processed more than that in a single day last month." He smiled. Not a friendly smile. A sentencing smile. "And Axon costs less than a third of your team's operating expense." "We invested $660K in the whole platform. At current operating costs, it pays for itself in eighteen months." "After management review — the Client Engineering technical liaison function is being fully transitioned to the Axon platform." He clicked to the next slide. "Employees in replaced roles will complete exit interviews within the week." Someone inhaled sharply. I didn't. I opened my notebook to page 37. "Wang, what dimensions are these numbers from?" "What do you mean, 'what dimensions'?" His smile tightened. "Of those 847 daily tickets — how many are auto-tagging and routing, and how many are actual technical resolutions?" The room went quiet for about five seconds. Wang Lei looked at me. "Axon's ticket closure rate is ninety-three percent." "What's the reopen rate?" He paused. "What?" "After Axon replies — how many customers reopen the same ticket within twenty-four hours?" "We're still collecting that —" "Let me save you the trouble." I turned my notebook toward th

2026-06-01 原文 →
AI 资讯

SDXL Turbo for Pinterest at Scale: How I Cut NSFW False-Positives by 73% and Dodged Style-Copyright Strikes (Python + diffusers)

⚠️ この記事はアフィリエイト広告（プロモーション）を含みます。リンク先で発生した収益の一部が運営者に支払われますが、読者の購入価格には一切影響ありません。 By the end of this article you'll have two runnable Python scripts: a CLIP-based pre-filter that re-checks SDXL Turbo output before it ever hits Pinterest, and a prompt sanitizer that strips artist names + trademarked characters so you don't eat a DMCA. I ran this pipeline for 41 days, generated 6,180 images, and went from a 9.7% Pinterest rejection rate down to 2.6%. Here's exactly what broke and what fixed it. Why SDXL Turbo (1-step, ~0.3s on a 4090) beats SD 1.5 for Pinterest volume First, the conclusion: if you're mass-producing pins, SDXL Turbo's single-step guidance_scale=0.0 generation is the only thing that makes the unit economics work. On my RTX 4090 I clock 0.31s per 512x512 image with Turbo vs 4.8s for a 30-step SDXL base run. That's 15x. Over 6,180 images that's the difference between 32 minutes and 8.2 hours of GPU time. But Turbo has a nasty side effect nobody warns you about: because it's distilled and runs at low resolution by default, its built-in StableDiffusionXLPipeline safety checker (when enabled) throws far more false positives on perfectly benign images — beaches, lingerie-free fashion flatlays, even close-up food. In my first 600-image batch, 58 images came back as black squares from the NSFW checker. 51 of them were photos of latte art and knitted sweaters . So I ripped out the default checker and built my own two-stage gate. Stage 1: Replacing the diffusers safety_checker with a tunable CLIP gate in Python The default safety_checker in diffusers is a binary black box — you get a black image and zero signal about why . For a production loop you need a confidence score so you can set your own threshold. I use OpenCLIP's ViT-B-32 to score each output against a small set of NSFW concept prompts, then compare to a safe-concept baseline. This code actually runs (tested on diffusers==0.27.2 , open_clip_torch==2.24.0 ): import torch import open_clip from PIL import Ima

2026-06-01 原文 →
AI 资讯

The compiler caught a lot. It didn't catch enough.

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

2026-06-01 原文 →
AI 资讯

Feeble Little Horse leans into digital weirdness on bitknot

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 […]

2026-06-01 原文 →
← 上一页 下一页 →