AI 资讯

Are you worried your AI chatbot is trying to build a bomb or leak personal information about you? There’s a website for that.

Cloudflare is giving AI companies until September 15 to separate web crawlers used for search from those used for AI training and agents, or risk being blocked by default on many publisher sites.

After a lengthy legal dispute, Krafton has settled with its subsidiary Unknown Worlds Entertainment, which is developing Subnautica 2, and will pay bonuses to the studio's staff, Bloomberg reports. The dispute began last year after Krafton pushed out Unknown Worlds' cofounders, Charlie Cleveland and Max McGuire, and its CEO, Ted Gill, ahead of a potential […]

Is PlayStation about to make the same mistake Microsoft made with Xbox One?

I’ve been experimenting with local AI setups for a while, and honestly, most guides online are either too complicated or miss key steps. I recently set up Open WebUI with Docker and Ollama , and once it clicked, it actually felt pretty straightforward. Here’s a simple breakdown of what worked for me: Used Docker to avoid dependency issues (this saved a lot of time) Connected Open WebUI to Ollama local models Accessed everything through browser (ChatGPT-like interface) Tested basic prompts + API flow Played around with pipelines for structured outputs The biggest confusion I had was around connection between Open WebUI and Ollama, but once the API endpoint was correct, everything just worked. I also documented the full step-by-step setup, errors I faced (like 500 errors), and fixes here if anyone’s interested: 👉 Build your own ChatGPT locally in minutes If anyone else has tried similar local LLM setups, curious what stack you’re using or if there’s a better workflow. submitted by /u/thecoode [link] [留言]

"You gods don't speak in ways we understand."

I’m building an experimental HTML-to-PDF engine in Rust and would like technical feedback from people who understand browser engines, PDF generation, rendering, or high-volume document systems. The goal is to build a very low-RAM, highly parallel HTML-to-PDF engine for server workloads. Think invoices, reports, tables, receipts, business templates, generated dashboards, and API-based PDF rendering. The motivation is that Chromium/Puppeteer is very compatible, but expensive for high-volume PDF generation because each render can involve a heavy browser process/runtime. I want to explore whether a dedicated engine can cover common server-side HTML-to-PDF use cases with much lower memory and better multi-core scaling. Current architecture: HTML -> html5ever parser -> compact arena DOM -> cssparser stylesheet parsing -> cascade + computed styles -> box tree -> layout / pagination -> display list -> compressed PDF writer Some current design choices: Rust implementation no Chromium or browser subprocess compact arena-based DOM instead of pointer-heavy node graph independent render jobs so many PDFs can render in parallel across worker threads display-list boundary so layout is separate from PDF writing optional bounded pre-layout JavaScript stage behind a trait PDF backend supports compressed streams, selectable text, embedded fonts, Unicode/ToUnicode, and font subsetting work The long-term ambition is “lean and fast HTML-to-PDF with broad CSS and controlled JS support,” but I’m trying to be realistic. I know “full CSS/JS” is basically browser-engine territory, so I’m thinking the practical first target should be server-generated documents rather than arbitrary websites. Questions for the community: Is this technically realistic if the scope starts with business/document HTML rather than full browser compatibility? What are the hardest parts I’m likely underestimating? Which CSS/layout features are absolutely necessary for real-world adoption? Is pre-layout deterministic J

US lifts curbs on Anthropic’s advanced Fable and Mythos models.

Kobo recently raised the price of its Libra Colour e-reader to $259.99, but today’s deal effectively erases that hike. The company, Best Buy, and Target, are all selling it for its old $229.99 price as part of broader sales, making now one of the best times to grab my favorite alternative to Amazon’s Kindle. If […]

Debug AI agents by replaying and forking runs Discussion | Link

Thus ends the messy saga of Subnautica 2.

The government has removed restrictions on Anthropic’s Fable 5 and Mythos 5 AI models—but there were strings attached.

These six free settings will not make your project unhackable. Nothing will. What they will do is close the easy doors. Turn these on, and your project will be meaningfully harder to attack than it was before. The post 6 security settings every GitHub maintainer should enable this week appeared first on The GitHub Blog .

Key Takeaways You can't unit-test a coach agent the way you test a pure function — the output is non-deterministic and "good" is a judgment call, not an assertion. An LLM-as-judge harness lets you grade a whole test set automatically against a rubric, which is the only way solo-scale eval stays sustainable. But the judge is itself a fallible model. If you don't design around its known biases — position, verbosity, self-preference, and quiet drift when the judge model updates — you build a green dashboard that means nothing. The mitigations that actually work are mechanical, not prompt-magic: shuffle order on every pairwise call, pin the judge version, keep a small human-labelled anchor set, and re-check the judge against it. The problem I actually had FamNest's coach agent generates responses to parents — check-ins, encouragement, the occasional gentle redirect. I have a growing pile of these interactions, and every time I change a prompt, swap a model, or adjust the pipeline, I need to know one thing: did I just make it better or worse? For normal code, that's what tests are for. I change something, the suite runs, red or green, done. But there's no assertEqual for "was this an empathetic, useful response to a tired parent." The output changes every run even at temperature zero-ish, and the quality bar is a human judgment, not a fixed string. Two responses can be worded completely differently and both be good. One can match my "expected output" word for word and still be worse than a version that didn't. So the honest options were: read every response by hand every time I change something (does not scale past about week two), or build a harness where a model grades the outputs against a rubric. I built the harness. Then I spent an uncomfortable amount of time learning all the ways a harness like that can lie to you. What the harness actually is At its simplest, it's a loop: def evaluate ( test_cases , coach_agent , judge ): results = [] for case in test_cases : res

A ChatGPT subscription starts at $20 a month and is one of the cheapest ways to run inference. OpenAI has also been fairly relaxed lately about third-party agents using them , which makes the deal even better for a lot of us. But a subscription can't be used as freely as pay-per-token access , and the providers police the difference. Anthropic recently narrowed its subscriptions to first-party apps; OpenAI has its own limits. Here's what will get you banned from an OpenAI subscription. Sharing your subscription A ChatGPT subscription is strictly personal. One subscription, one user. Sharing yours breaks OpenAI's terms of service. That also covers account pooling and account rotation, where several people share the same credentials to dodge rate limits. Running it in automation Automation (CI, runners, schedulers) should run on per-token pricing, not a subscription . Once a system calls the OpenAI API with your token while you're not in the loop, the usage stops being personal. No unattended production system should run on a ChatGPT subscription. Serving other users For now, you can point an autonomous agent like OpenClaw or Hermes at your ChatGPT subscription, as long as it only talks to you. The moment that agent starts chatting with other people, or serving them in any way, it turns into a team use case , and that inference should be paid per usage. Putting it in a commercial product Same logic here. Making an LLM call authenticated with an individual ChatGPT subscription inside a product you ship breaks OpenAI's terms. That access is subsidized, and reselling it in any form isn't what it's meant for. If you've built something just for yourself and you're the only user, you're probably fine. The bottom line A ChatGPT subscription is personal . Anything that stretches past personal use can get you restricted or banned. If you're not sure your usage counts, move it to pay-as-you-go. If you want to keep the subscription for your own work and fall back to per-token pr