AI 资讯

A senior OpenAI employee told the Financial Times that chat is dead as the company prepares the biggest ChatGPT overhaul since launch. The plan is to turn it into a superapp with Codex coding tools, AI agents, and third-party integrations like Canva and Booking.com. This confirms what a lot of us have been feeling - pure chat interfaces have diminishing returns. The buzz is shifting toward agents that do things rather than chatbots that talk. OpenAI is also filing for IPO (confidential S-1 filed June 8) alongside publishing their AGI roadmap called Built to Benefit Everyone. Some interesting angles: The superapp pivot means ChatGPT competes more directly with Claude desktop app and Codex They are moving from reactive Q&A to proactive agents that learn your needs over time Third-party integrations suggest a platform play, not just a product Codenamed Aria, the overhaul starts rolling out in weeks The real question is whether users actually want a superapp. People liked ChatGPT because it was simple. Making it a kitchen sink could fragment the experience. On the other hand, if agents really deliver on automating workflows, the chat-only interface was always going to be a stepping stone. What do you think? Is this the natural evolution of AI interfaces or are they fixing something that wasnt broken? submitted by /u/ArtSelect137 [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/andix3 [link] [留言]

Big Walk, from the creators of Untitled Goose Game, will be available August 4.

Hi HN — we’re Julius, Jago, and Nils, and we’re building transload (transload.io). transload helps LTL trucking companies measure freight dimensions using the security cameras already installed in their terminals. Instead of sending shipments through a dedicated dimensioning station, we measure them automatically as they move through the normal dock workflow. We’ve put together a small HN-specific demo site here: https://hn.transload.io/ In LTL trucking, dimensions matter because they affect pri

OpenAI ran a public ML hiring competition this spring called Parameter Golf: train the best small language model under a strict size and compute budget. 1,016 researchers entered. They filed 2,048 pull requests over 44 days. Only 47 made the official leaderboard. The single most prolific contributor wasn't a person. It was an autonomous research agent named Aiden: 7 of the 47 records came from it, more than 2x the next-best human (3 records). It ran for 22 days straight with no human steering, on a single GPU node, using under 4% of the visible compute the human community used. Disclosure: I'm at Weco, we built the agent. Sharing because the competition is over, every record is public on OpenAI's GitHub, and the interesting part to us isn't the leaderboard count, it's what happened around the agent. Aiden's records became the most-cited PRs in the competition. Human researchers started building on top of Aiden's work as a base for their own submissions. At one point Aiden plateaued for 5 days. A human contributor shipped a clever new tokenizer on top of Aiden's last record PR. Aiden then fused that human's tokenizer with components it had built locally during the plateau, and shipped the biggest score jump of the entire competition. Async human-agent collaboration, neither directly aware of the other. Fair hedges worth being explicit about: This is #1 by volume of merged records , NOT by best single score. By best score, the agent ranked 8th — the leaderboard winner was a human (codemath3000). Fully autonomous. OpenAI's own competition recap noted widespread use of AI coding agents during PG, but said most were human-directed. Ours wasn't. Full writeup with all the data: https://www.weco.ai/blog/parameter-golf-aiden submitted by /u/Educational_Strain_3 [link] [留言]

Apple used to question whether generative AI-powered editing features were worth the risk of distorting our perceptions of the world. Now it seems Apple no longer believes that photos should accurately capture reality. At WWDC 2026, the company announced a host of new AI-powered photo editing tools. They give users effortless powers of manipulating images […]

With SpaceX, Anthropic, and OpenAI all eyeing massive public debuts, the tech industry may soon have a new class of corporate overlords — and a new acronym to match. Say goodbye to FAANG and hello to MANGOS.

At Deno we've been using OpenClaw and other agents increasingly for addressing production problems in Deno Deploy - when a PagerDuty alert fires, the agent starts researching the cause and making fixes. In order to do this, the agent needs access to real production systems - postgres, kubernetes, gcp, clickhouse, github, etc. But this is dangerous to say the least - we want destructive actions to be reviewed by other LLMs, approved by humans, and logged appropriately. Claw Patrol terminates TCP

https://preview.redd.it/vfxky33v5a6h1.png?width=2612&format=png&auto=webp&s=f60bd8506a39abb40b1c9ff9507e8dcddea95498 OpenAI ran a hiring challenge, but the top candidate was one they couldn’t hire: our autonomous research agent, Aiden. In Parameter Golf, Aiden ran for 22 days, and out-outperformed all 1,016 other researchers. Parameter Golf was OpenAI’s 44-day competition and hiring challenge. The goal is to train the best language model under strict size and compute constraints. 1,016 people entered and filed 2,048 PRs. Only 47 made the leaderboard, each reviewed and reproduced by OpenAI. Research outputs only matter when others can build on them. So Aiden filed its own PRs into the same public stream as everyone else, under tight automated quality control. Aiden filed 25 prs and 7 became leaderboard records, 2x the next best human participant. Other participants cited Aiden’s PRs 435 times and built on them. By PR h-index, Aiden scored 10 vs the next best at 7, making it the most impactful “researcher” in the community. And this wasn't brute force. Aiden ran on a single GPU node, used under 4% of visible compute, and still produced 15% of the official records. About 28% of its submissions were accepted, ~ 6x the community rate, raising signal in the public stream instead of flooding it. Our favorite part is an async collaboration story. Aiden plateaued for 5 days. Then a human contributor shipped a clever new tokenizer on top of Aiden's base (its last record PR). Aiden fused it with components it had built during the plateau, and shipped the biggest jump in weeks. Full writeup: https://www.weco.ai/blog/parameter-golf-aiden Edit: resharing since original got removed submitted by /u/Educational_Strain_3 [link] [留言]

Nintendo dropped a lot of news for Xenoblade fans this morning.

Visibility Comes Before Optimization in IT Operations is a practical operating principle, not a slogan. The useful version of analytics, automation, and software operations is usually quieter than the marketing version. It is less about collecting everything or automating everything, and more about making the work easier to understand, review, and improve. The practical problem Teams often try to optimize before they can see the system clearly. That creates confident changes based on partial evidence, especially in infrastructure and telecom-adjacent workflows where signals are distributed. This is where many teams lose clarity. They have tools, charts, workflows, and activity, but the connection between evidence and decision is weak. When that connection is weak, software work becomes harder to evaluate. Teams still make decisions, but they rely more on memory, opinion, or urgency than on a reviewable operating picture. A smaller operating model Start with visibility: what is running, which state changed, where the weak signal appeared, and which workflow was affected. Then connect that signal to a decision or operational review. The important detail is restraint. A useful system does not need to track every possible action or automate every possible step. It needs to preserve the signals that help operators understand the situation and act with more confidence. That usually means naming the workflow, keeping the outcome visible, preserving enough context to explain the signal, and making uncertainty explicit instead of hiding it behind a polished interface. What to review Useful analytics separates normal activity from operational risk. It should make the next investigation smaller, not create another dashboard that requires interpretation from scratch. A reviewable system is easier to trust because it can explain its own state. It shows what happened, what changed, what remains uncertain, and which decision should move next. For WebmasterID, this is the practical

Because a reality wasn't given to us and is not there; but we have to make it ourselves, if we want to be; and it will never be one for ever, but constant and infinitely changeable. Luigi Pirandello, One, No One, and One Hundred Thousand Pirandello wrote this about the human condition. He didn't know he was describing the future of the internet. The web we know is about to disappear Not slowly. Not gradually. The web page, as the default unit of human navigation, is about to disappear: it will strip itself of everything we call "interface" and what remains will be only what it always was underneath — data, structure, instruction. The enticing homepages. The banners. The product carousels engineered by UX teams to capture attention in the first second and a half. The brand colors. The call-to-action buttons optimized for conversion rate. All of this is designed for a human eye that navigates alone. That eye is about to delegate. The agent that browses for you Imagine you want to buy a pair of shoes. Today you open a browser, search, filter, compare, go back, reopen the tab you closed, forget what you were looking for, start again. In a few years — maybe less — you will tell the agent what you want. The agent will already know that you have wide feet, that you prefer leather to synthetic, that you're looking for something for a wedding in June but deep down you want something that works afterward too. It will know that today you're in a practical mood, not an aspirational one. That you've spent a lot this month. The agent won't open a homepage. It will query a data structure. It will receive prices, availability, variants, return policies. It will build for you — and only for you, and only in that moment — a presentation tailored to measure. Colors that belong to you. Texts that speak your language. Images generated for your aesthetic sensibility of that day. The same store. Five billion different versions. One for each person, one for each moment. One, No One, and On

(The following example is fictionalized.) A notification template feature shipped six months ago. It let each tenant customize the messages sent to their own customers without requiring a back-end change every time the wording changed. The code reviewer could tell the design was hard to follow, especially the path from template to rendered value. But "this is hard to follow" is difficult to turn into a concrete objection when the feature works, the tests pass, and nothing is obviously unsafe or wrong. The design risk was real, but there wasn't an obvious bug to point to. QA signed off, and the feature went into production. Then a bug report came in: one customer had received a notification containing another customer's information. Somewhere in the notification pipeline, the system was leaking PII. At first, the fix sounded small: make sure notifications only render data belonging to the intended recipient. Then the assigned developer, who wasn't the original author, started looking for the place to make the fix. The templates were stored in the database. There were six template types, and each one populated its real values in a different part of the codebase. Some values came from customer-facing records, some came from internal workflow state, and some came from template-specific logic. The placeholder-to-value mapping lived somewhere else. Email and SMS channels shared part of the rendering path, but not all of it. Before the developer could decide where to fix the leak, they had to answer a more specific set of questions: Which placeholder rendered the wrong value? Where did that value come from? Which template types could use that placeholder? Did email and SMS resolve it the same way? What evidence would show that the leak was fully contained? The system was hard to change because it made the behavior hard to understand. What the developer needed was not just "clean code." They needed trustworthy signals they could use as evidence to answer harder questions: w

A useful technical idea, repeated often enough, eventually generates an unuseful philosophical claim. The current example is grammar-constrained decoding. The technique is straightforward — at each generation step, the language model's next-token logits are masked so that only tokens whose continuation can satisfy a formal grammar remain selectable; the output is, by construction, structurally valid. JSON parses. SQL is well-formed. Function-call signatures match. There is a real engineering payoff and a healthy ecosystem of libraries that deliver it. The drift is not in the engineering. It is in the rhetorical move that follows the engineering. A growing corner of 2025-2026 AI writing argues, more or less explicitly, that constraining a model's output is making the model approach meaning — that filtering linear sequences is somehow building structure, and that structure is somehow building understanding. I want to take that drift seriously, because it is the same conflation Chomsky and collaborators flagged in their March 2023 essay in the New York Times , and the engineering literature on constrained decoding agrees with Chomsky on the substantive question, even when the marketing copy doesn't. What grammar-constrained decoding actually is A language model produces output one token at a time. At each step, the model emits a probability distribution over its vocabulary, and the decoding strategy (greedy, top-k, nucleus, etc.) picks one token. Without modification, the model is free to emit any continuation; the resulting text might happen to be valid JSON, or it might not. Grammar-constrained decoding intervenes in that step. A formal grammar — typically a context-free grammar, sometimes a regular expression, sometimes a JSON schema or Pydantic model — defines what counts as valid output. At each generation step, the constraint engine computes which next tokens could lead to a continuation that is still satisfiable under the grammar, masks the logits for all other

The Problem I was using Claude Code, Codex, and Cursor daily but had no idea how much I was spending on tokens. Bills kept surprising me. The Solution I built AIUsage — a local-first, open-source CLI that tracks everything. Key Features Token usage tracking with daily breakdowns Cost estimation with configurable pricing Model usage ranking Multi-device sync via GitHub or S3 Desktop widget How It Works bash npm install -g @juliantanx/aiusage aiusage parse aiusage serve Why Local-First? Your data never leaves your machine. No accounts, no API keys, no cloud servers. Try It [aiusage.jtanx.com](https://aiusage.jtanx.com)

If you scrape Weibo's hot-search board you get a snapshot: ~50 trending topics, ranked, right now. That's table stakes — and on its own it's almost useless as a signal. The value isn't what is trending; it's what's moving : which topic just jumped 30 places in 20 minutes, which is decaying, which is brand-new this hour. That's velocity , and velocity is where the signal lives — for brand-crisis teams, consumer-trend desks, and anyone modelling attention in China. The catch: a single scrape can't tell you velocity. You have to diff the board against its own past, reliably, run after run. That's a stateful pipeline, and it has a few non-obvious gotchas. Here's the shape of the problem and how to handle it. Why a snapshot isn't enough Rank-right-now tells you nothing about trajectory. "#7" could be a topic on its way to #1 or one fading out of the top 50 — same row, opposite meaning. To act on a trend you need the derivative : direction, speed, and how long it's been climbing. None of that is in a single pull. The trending-delta problem Three things make "just diff the board" harder than it looks: Key by identity, not position. You can't track a topic by its rank — rank is the thing that changes. Key by the topic itself (its text/keyword) or your deltas are nonsense. State has to survive between runs. A scheduled scrape is stateless by default — each run starts cold. To compute "this rose 12 places since 30 minutes ago," you must persist the previous board and reload it next run, keyed so independent schedules don't overwrite each other. The board churns. Topics appear, peak, and fall off. You want each tagged new / rising / falling / steady / dropped , plus how long it's been on the board and its running peak — none of which exist in the raw snapshot. How to handle it (the pattern) current = pull_board () # [{topic, rank, heat}, ...] previous = load_state ( key ) # durable store that persists across runs for t in current : prev = previous . get ( t . topic ) # match o

I have a domain with godaddy that I have used for over a decade and it comes with a domain email I have used for my work for the entire time. Their constant price hikes and add-ons have gone a step too far, especially after forcing microsoft email on me and then charging me £100 a year just for email with pathetic storage space...so I want to totally migrate from godaddy. The trouble is I am like a super boomer when it comes to web stuff. I will never understand what a DNS is or does, nor an SSL or SMTP, no matter how many times it's explained. My brain just won't accept any of it. It's a foreign language to me, so all of this is beyond terrifying and daunting. I don't want to lose any emails or domain etc as I use it all for work. From the research I have done, it seems transferring my domain to porkbun sounds like a good idea? But I read that I should use a different provider for email? But if the email is @ domainname then how can it be seperate? I don't understand that bit. And apparently I should transfer email before domain?? Could someone please offer some advice on how best to approach this? the internet is giving me 1000 different answers so I have no idea what is best to do. Will I lose previous emails when I transfer the email elsewhere? My current exact usage is: - domain name currently with godaddy - my website is built with adobe portfolio and comes with ample storage so I just redirect url to that page, so I don't need a new website or storage hosting etc. - my single email that I have used for years is mail@domainname and I always used gmail before (via proxy or whatever it's called?). so I used gmail and it sent from my domain email. Worked fine for years until godaddy forced users to pay for microsoft email and then the gmail proxy thing went all weird so I couldn't use it anymore (people stopped receiving my emails and I stopped receiving some emails and got inundated with quarantine warnings and other things I didn't understand). That's it. I jus