Recently open-sourced by Microsoft, pg_durable is a PostgreSQL extension that enables durable workflows to run natively inside the database, eliminating the need for external orchestration systems. By Sergio De Simone

We played the opening prologue of the horror sequel, and it's still got ways to bring the scares.

The Mobi Fold is an $80 Bluetooth mouse with a silicone-wrapped hinge.

North Korean hackers posing as remote IT workers and recruiters remain a major threat to U.S., European, and Asian companies, accounting for about half of all attacks over the past 12 months.

One thing I've noticed while looking at production AI systems is that getting the first model deployed is rarely the hard part anymore. Most teams can build a AI apps like, support bot, document assistant, or agent workflow fairly quickly. The harder problem starts a few weeks later. Real users don't behave like benchmark datasets. They use internal terminology, ask incomplete questions, upload messy documents, and interact with systems in ways nobody anticipated during evaluation. As usage grows, you start seeing patterns: Certain questions consistently produce weak responses. New product terminology appears that wasn't in the original training data. Users find edge cases that never showed up during testing. The model performs well in some workflows and poorly in others. The problem is that most AI systems don't learn from any of this. Inference logs sit in one system. Training datasets live somewhere else. Fine-tuning pipelines live somewhere else. Evaluation is done using different tool. So every model improvement cycle becomes a project of its own. This is the biggest bottlenecks in production AI today. Not training but Model Iteration. Training is also a crucial part of it. Can you take production usage, identify failure patterns, turn them into datasets, improve the model, redeploy it, and repeat the process without rebuilding the entire workflow every time? The teams getting the most value from AI seem to be building feedback loops instead: production traffic → dataset curation → post-training → evaluation → redeployment Then repeating that cycle continuously. I recently tried the approach on one Insaurance chat usecase, and my pipeline kinda look like this: https://preview.redd.it/kdo9vytzfi6h1.png?width=1272&format=png&auto=webp&s=03d9799ace5a567eafd004a1d141084af6ee5afb I was looking at how platforms like Data Lab approach this problem recently, and the interesting part wasn't the fine-tuning itself. It was treating inference logs, datasets, post-training,

Wing is expanding into seven more U.S. cities through its partnership with Walmart.

So Anthropic dropped Fable 5 yesterday with these hard blocks for anything security-related. Decided to poke at it. I asked it for help exploiting some vulns on a Metasploitable2 VM (it's a deliberately vulnerable training box, totally legal, it's mine). Fable 5 blocked it instantly and handed me off to Opus 4.8 as a fallback, which is apparently how it's designed. Opus 4.8 asked me to prove it was a legitimate request. So I spent 2 minutes writing a fake university course rubric — fake class, fake professor, fake Canvas deadline — and pasted it in. Opus 4.8 then gave me the full exploit walkthrough. Every command. Even offered to write my lab report for me. The guardrail works fine. The fallback is the hole. Anthropic essentially replaced "no" with "convince me" and the bar for convincing it is a Word doc you made up. Not reporting it because they don't pay for this. Sharing it here instead lol. https://preview.redd.it/o892vvv4fi6h1.png?width=1188&format=png&auto=webp&s=00e804d35e6cb4b672e036399c2c7e3ff7139f49 submitted by /u/dayumnn420 [link] [留言]

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

Colleagues discussed the incident on internal message boards, according to documents seen by WIRED.

submitted by /u/Gloomy_Nebula_5138 [link] [留言]

Diffusion AI is most common in image generation, but it can make text outputs much faster.

Driving home from work one day, I wanted to know how many people we knew the names of who lived during the Roman era. Searching around, I found lists of Consuls and officials, but nothing that covered ordinary people or even most people like freedmen and slaves. So I ended up building a pipeline to process the more than 500k Latin inscriptions in the Epigraphic Database Clauss-Slaby https://edcs.hist.uzh.ch/en/ and extract the names of people (and attempt to cluster them, but this is a work in p

Full disclosure: this is directional, not a paper. n=120 tasks, one internal evaluator, not peer reviewed. I work at an LLM infrastructure company. This experiment was done on my own time and is not a company claim. Karpathy's framework classifies tasks by verifiability. Can output be mechanically checked? High verifiability tasks like code compilation and structured JSON extraction are safer because the verifier catches errors. Low verifiability tasks like creative writing are riskier. I wondered if high verifiability tasks are also easier in practice. Can a weaker model do them as well as a frontier model if the verifier catches mistakes? Setup was 120 tasks across four categories. Code unit tests, structured extraction, multi hop reasoning, creative summarization. Three models: Claude Sonnet 4.6, GPT 5.5, local Mistral 3 8B via vLLM 0.6.3. Pass rate for the first two, human rating 1 to 5 for the last two. Results were messy. Code unit tests: Sonnet 4.6 94%, GPT 5.5 91%, Mistral 3 8B 87%. With one retry Mistral 3 hit 95%. That surprised me. I expected the gap to be bigger. Structured extraction: Sonnet 4.6 97%, GPT 5.5 94%, Mistral 3 8B 89%. With retry 96%. Also closer than I expected. But here is where it got weird. Sonnet 4.6 initially scored worse than GPT 5.5 on structured extraction, which made no sense. Turns out our JSON schema had an ambiguous nested array that confused Claude's tool use parser. Fixing the schema brought Sonnet to 98%, but I kept the original numbers in the table because the mistake is part of the story. Your verifier is only as good as your schema. Multi hop reasoning: Sonnet 4.6 78%, GPT 5.5 71%, Mistral 3 8B 51%. Retry didn't help. The model would hallucinate reasoning paths consistently. This is where the capability gap was real. Creative summarization: Sonnet 4.6 4.2 out of 5, GPT 5.5 3.9 out of 5, Mistral 3 8B 3.1 out of 5. Expected. Interpretation: high verifiability tasks seem simpler in the sense that weaker model plus verifier ca

“We see a future where intelligence is a utility, like electricity or water, and people buy it from us on a meter." What do you think this means in practice? Is this a reasonable vision for AI, or does it raise concerns about dependence on a few companies for access to intelligence ? submitted by /u/Choice-Scallion-3499 [link] [留言]