今日精选
HOT最新资讯
共 42181 篇Its take a special type of brain to be this insainly closed minded. "AI is chatbots, champ. That's all they are."
submitted by /u/the_nin_collector [link] [留言]
I built a chess coach that explains moves like a grandmaster instead of showing engine lines — powered by LLM
The problem I wanted to solve: Stockfish tells you what the best move is, but never why . Players under 1800 don't lose because they can't read centipawns — they lose because they don't understand plans, structures, key squares. What the tool does: Imports your games from Chess.com or Lichess Stockfish 17.1 WASM runs in your browser (fully local, nothing uploaded) A pattern detector finds 18 types of recurring mistakes across all your games (missed forks, exposed king, bad bishop, neglected development...) An LLM generates coaching narratives in the style of a 2700+ coach Instead of: -89 cp · Best: Nc3 Nf6 Be3 The AI coach says: "Bd3 is premature — the bishop attacks nothing and blocks d3 where the queen may want to go. Nc3 was the right move: it defends d4, prevents Black's ...e5 counterplay, and leaves the bishop free to settle on Be3 or Be2 depending on Black's plan." You can also chat with the coach — it knows your full game history, opening stats, specific weaknesses. Ask "why do I keep losing with Black in the French?" and it answers with data from YOUR games. Other features: spaced repetition (SM-2) on your own blunders, puzzle rush with real mistakes, 6-month progress tracking. Free tier: unlimited Stockfish. Pro ($14.99/mo, 15-day free trial): LLM coach + chat. https://chessmentorai.com Happy to discuss the prompting approach — getting the LLM to explain chess like a coach (not an engine) was the hardest part. submitted by /u/sepiropht [link] [留言]
MiniMax dropped a new attention architecture. [N]
It contains something interesting about context windows. They’re natively scaling to 1M tokens with MiniMax Sparse Attention (MSA) , bypassing standard quadratic complexity by completely restructuring the memory access patterns at the operator level. Instead of relying on typical sparse approximations that degrade recall, MSA utilizes a clean " KV outer gather Q " approach. By treating KV blocks as the outer loop to aggregate hit queries, hardware memory reads remain strictly contiguous, and each block is fetched exactly once. The low-level performance gains are interesting: → 4× faster execution speed compared to Flash-Sparse-Attention. → Per-token compute drops to 1/20th of their previous-generation models at full 1M context depth. → 9× speedup in prefilling and a 15× speedup in decoding phases. Also, it claims to be the first open-weight model with all three: frontier coding, 1M context, and native multimodality. Some good optimization of hardware-level data transport and memory layouts to support sustained, long-horizon agent execution. Thoughts? submitted by /u/superintelligence03 [link] [留言]
Storing user accounts in Supabase?
Is it safe? I know nothing.. help me submitted by /u/Free-Ant-463 [link] [留言]
Why AI Agents Fail at Real Browser Automation (and How BrowserAct Fixes It)
A few months ago, I built an AI agent to automate one of the most repetitive parts of my workflow:...
Log #1: Building the Base Control Model
Note: This post is a raw development log storing the exact prompts and responses used with the local LLM (IBM Granite-3.2-8B) to build the autonomous racing agent. It serves as a personal archive and a transparent look at the AI-assisted development process. Development Log: Autonomous TORCS Racing Agent Model used: ibm-granite-3.2-8b-instruct This log documents all the prompts and answers used in IBM Granite models for this project. 1. Initial Model Creation Goal: Create a robust, modular control system for the Corkscrew track. Prompt @snakeoil3_jm2.py @torcs_jm_par.py Act as an expert in autonomous vehicle control and TORCS simulator architecture. I am developing a high-performance agent for the Corkscrew track. Analyze the provided snakeoil3_jm2.py (for sensor/action interface) and torcs_jm_par.py (current control logic). I need you to rewrite the drive() function to be a robust, modular control system. Please provide: 1. Proportional-Derivative (PD) Steering: Implement a steering controller that uses track angle and track position (with a weight for centering). 2. Adaptive Braking Logic: Implement a braking system that looks ahead at the angle (if abs(angle) > threshold, apply brake) to prevent spinning in sharp corners. 3. Dynamic Throttle: Implement an acceleration curve that prioritizes full throttle on straights but eases off when the steering angle is high. 4. Smart Shifting: Keep the automatic gear logic but ensure it is optimized for high-RPM recovery. Provide the complete, clean Python function drive(c) ready to replace the existing one in torcs_jm_par.py. Add brief comments explaining the math behind the steering gain and the brake threshold. Response Here's a revised drive() function for torcs_jm_par.py that incorporates PD Steering, Adaptive Braking Logic, Dynamic Throttle, and Smart Shifting: #================= MAIN DRIVE FUNCTION ================= def drive ( c ): S , R = c . S . d , c . R . d # PD STEERING CONTROL steer_kp = 30 # Proportional Gain
I made a free, open-source JIRA Planning Poker App
It's free and open source with markdown files on how to setup it for your team and host it yourself. No more paying for votes or not being able to have sessions persist longer than a few days. Enjoy and please don't eat me alive! This is my first public repo (that is actually substantial) I've put out in the world haha. JIRA Planning Poker Website submitted by /u/brut3F0rc3 [link] [留言]
Grok vs Gemini: A Developer's Honest Comparison for Real-World Use Cases
The Model Comparison Problem Most AI model comparisons are useless for developers making real decisions. They benchmark on academic datasets that don't reflect production workloads. They test frontier capabilities that matter for 5% of use cases. They ignore latency, cost, rate limits, and API reliability — which are the things that actually determine whether a model works in your application. This comparison is different. It's focused on what matters when you're building something: how Grok and Gemini perform on the types of tasks developers actually encounter, what each model's API experience is like, and where the genuine tradeoffs lie. I'm deliberately not including benchmark scores. If you want MMLU numbers, there are plenty of leaderboards for that. This is about production utility. What Each Model Actually Is Grok (xAI) Grok is xAI's model family. The current production models are Grok-3 and Grok-3 Mini, with Grok-3 being the flagship. Grok has a large context window (128K tokens standard, with extended context available), real-time access to X (Twitter) data as a differentiating feature, and strong performance on reasoning-heavy tasks. The xAI API follows a familiar REST pattern and is broadly compatible with OpenAI SDK conventions, which makes migration straightforward. Grok's notable characteristics: Strong at structured reasoning and multi-step problem decomposition Real-time web access via the API (useful for tasks needing current information) Relatively generous rate limits compared to some competitors Less restrictive on certain content categories than some other models Gemini (Google DeepMind) Gemini is Google's model family, currently anchored by Gemini 1.5 Pro and Gemini 2.0 Flash. The defining feature of Gemini is its context window — Gemini 1.5 Pro supports up to 1 million tokens in production, which is genuinely useful for certain document-heavy use cases. Gemini also has the tightest integration with Google's ecosystem (Workspace, Cloud, Search)
Building an Autonomous Racing Agent in TORCS
Building a Racing AI from Scratch A while ago I received an email from my university inviting us to join the ibm global ai racing competition. Now that I'm finished with my exams I am going to give it a try. The testing ground for this project will be TORCS (The Open Racing Car Simulator). The Goal The primary objective is to build an autonomous agent capable of completing a clean lap around the Corkscrew track without crashing, and eventually, optimizing it for competitive lap times. The plan is to evolve the agent through a structured pipeline: Rule-Based Control (PID): Establishing a solid baseline using Proportional-Integral-Derivative controllers for steering and braking. Machine Learning: Upgrading the agent to learn from its environment using frameworks like PyTorch to replace hardcoded heuristics. Optimization: Fine-tuning the parameters and pushing the physics engine to the limit. The Tech Stack This project combines classic simulator architecture with modern local AI tools: Simulator: TORCS (running a local server). Language: Python (interfacing via the snakeoil3 library to parse sensor data and output telemetry). Local AI Assistant: ibm-granite-3.2-8b-instruct . I will be using this local LLM (hosted via LM Studio and integrated into VS Code with Continue.dev) to help architect the math, tune the control logic, and create/debug the Python code. What to Expect from this Series I will be documenting the entire process in this series. I will share the exact prompts used with the local AI, the generated code, the mathematical reasoning behind the control systems (such as why a naive PD controller causes zig-zag oscillation and how to fix it with damping), and the iterative debugging process. If you are interested in robotics, control theory, Python, or machine learning applications in simulation environments, follow along. The first technical log will be published shortly, detailing the implementation of baseline steering and look-ahead braking logic.
Implement Encryption By Using AWS Services | 🏗️ Create A KMS Customer Managed Key
Exam Guide: Developer - Associate 🏗️ Domain 2: Security 📘 Task 2: Implement Encryption By Using AWS Services. Encryption shows up everywhere, especially on this exam. S3, DynamoDB, SQS, Lambda environment variables, RDS, and more. You need to know the difference between client-side and server-side encryption, how KMS works, and when to use each approach. 📘Concepts Encryption at Rest vs Encryption In Transit Encryption At Rest Data stored on disk: S3 Objects, DynamoDB tables, EBS volumes, RDS databases. Encryption In Transit Data moving between services or between client and server: HTTPS, TLS, VPN. Where At Rest In Transit S3 SSE-S3, SSE-KMS, SSE-C HTTPS (enforced via bucket policy) DynamoDB Encrypted by default (AWS owned or KMS) HTTPS (always) RDS KMS encryption SSL/TLS connections SQS SSE-KMS HTTPS Lambda env vars KMS (default + optional CMK) HTTPS KMS Key Types Type Managed By Cost Use Case AWS owned keys AWS Free Default encryption (DynamoDB, S3 SSE-S3 ) AWS managed keys AWS (in your account) Free (per-use charges) aws/s3 , aws/dynamodb (you can't manage them) Customer managed keys (CMK) You Monthly + per-use Full control: rotation, policies, cross-account Envelope Encryption KMS can only directly encrypt up to 4 KB . For larger data, it uses envelope encryption: 1. KMS generates a data key (plaintext + encrypted copy) 2. You encrypt your data with the plaintext data key 3. You store the encrypted data key alongside the encrypted data 4. You discard the plaintext data key from memory 5. To decrypt: KMS decrypts the data key → you decrypt the data The AWS Encryption SDK handles this automatically. Server-Side Encryption Options for S3 Option Key Management Use Case SSE-S3 AWS manages everything Simplest, no KMS costs SSE-KMS You control the KMS key Audit trail via CloudTrail, key policies SSE-C You provide the key with every request Full key control, AWS doesn't store the key Client-Side vs Server-Side Encryption Aspect Server-Side Client-Side Who encrypts AWS (
The terminal in Cloudpen works differently to most cloud IDEs — here's why
If you've used other browser-based code editors, you've probably noticed that the terminal feels off. You can run a script. You can print to stdout. But the moment you try to install a package and then actually use it in the next command, something breaks. The environment doesn't carry over. It feels like every command starts from scratch in a vacuum. That was the problem I wanted to solve when building the terminal for Cloudpen. Not just a place to run isolated snippets, but a proper environment where you can install dependencies, run build tools, and have everything you did in one command still be there for the next one. What most cloud terminals get wrong The core issue is that running code in the browser is hard to do without cheating somewhere. A lot of tools use sandboxed environments that look like a terminal but don't behave like one. They're good enough for demos. They fall apart in real work. The thing developers actually need is simple: if I install something, it should be there when I run the next command. That's it. That's the whole requirement. Surprisingly few cloud tools actually deliver it. How Cloudpen handles it Without going into the full technical detail, the short version is this: every command runs in a completely isolated environment, but all commands within your session share the same filesystem. So when you run npm install, those files are written somewhere. When you run your next command, that somewhere is exactly where it looks. Package installs work. Build tools work. Multi-step workflows work. And because each command runs in a clean, isolated environment, there's no bleed between users or sessions. The current terminal is optimized for commands that run to completion, while live application previews are handled through Cloudpen's deployment system. On the free plan, you can run any file in your project and see the output directly in the terminal. The live coding environment where you type commands yourself is on the Pro plan. Both use