AI 资讯

My game 'Simulation Simulator' is a campfire conversation game about DMT, simulation theory, and a friend with a computer monitor for a head. The game is bundled with a local LLM and every conversation is unique. 5 endings you can reach totally based on how you interact naturally with the AI. One is a romance ending! Everything in the clip is totally organic and unscripted. Trying to use AI for good. Honestly haven't seen the use of LLM tech inside games to this extent yet. I'm sure people much smarter than me must be trying though. For NPCs & world building, this seems like a logical next step. I even wanted to do text to speech audio and automatic translation. The only thing really preventing it right now is processing time on local machines. Those extra layers would add like 10-20 seconds of calls per exchange so it just breaks the game. If processing gets faster/better, I can imagine whole towns of NPCs with memories, that have no scripted dialogue at all and change over time. In my game here, you argue with an LLM and can attempt to prove that reality itself is a simulation. It's really a philosophical experiment more than a game. It can get trippy trying to prove you do or don't exist. Anyway, demo for Simulation Simulator is out on steam if you want to try for yourself. Let's talk using AI for good in games! submitted by /u/MorphLand [link] [留言]

AI Health Companion for Chronic Illness Discussion | Link

Prerequisites (what you need before starting) Account and tokens : user:MODDER credentials and access to the proposal inbox. Local tools installed : qemu-system-x86_64 , libfuzzer or afl++ , boofuzz (optional), openssl , jq , base64 . Artifact store access : S3 or equivalent with write permissions. HSM access for owner : owner HSM is required only for final autonomy=1 apply; Modder does not sign. Test harness : test-harness CLI that runs vectors (provided by platform). If not present, use the included run-vectors.sh wrappers. Network : ability to reach staging Overcrest endpoint and Zclarity3D collector. Basic skills : copy/paste, editing JSON, running shell commands. submitted by /u/GabenHood [link] [留言]

Quick share of something I built recently. I've been working on a SaaS product and along the way kept needing small utilities for myself: QR codes, UTM links, OG tag previews, schema markup, robots.txt, sitemap, base64/URL encoders, etc. Every site I found for these either required an account, was buried in ads, or made me wonder where my data was going. So I built clean versions and put them at reslug.com/tools . All free. No account. The interesting bit: every tool runs entirely client-side. The QR code generator never sends your WiFi password to a server. The UTM builder never logs your URLs. The schema generator outputs locally. The redirect checker is the only exception, since CORS forces a server proxy for that one (and it doesn't log the URLs it checks). Stack for the free tools: React 19 + Vite + TypeScript + Tailwind, qrcode library for QR generation, all rendered as pure components. Main product behind it is .NET 9 + Postgres but you'd never hit that from /tools. Why I'm posting: curious what's missing. I've got about 27 more tools planned but I'd rather build what people actually need. Also genuinely interested if anyone has feedback on the UI/UX - I rebuilt the hero last week and I'm not 100% sure it's better. https://reslug.com/tools submitted by /u/ervistrupja [link] [留言]

Been building an AI-heavy app for a few months. No visibility into what our AI API calls were actually costing until the Anthropic bill arrived. So I built a GitHub Action that scans for AI usage on every PR and posts a cost analysis comment automatically. First thing it caught in our own codebase: server/services/divergence-detector.js was using claude-sonnet-4-6 with max_tokens=150 to generate 2-sentence explanations. Sonnet costs $15/M output tokens. Haiku costs $4/M. For a 2-sentence output there is zero quality difference. We were paying 3.75x more on every single call and nobody noticed. What it posts on every PR: 💰 Cost delta vs base branch ( "this PR adds +$44/month" ) ⚠️ Warnings for expensive model misuse with specific fix recommendations 🔁 Duplicate AI call patterns that should share a service layer 🔄 Missing retry/backoff logic that will crash under rate limits 💡 Prompt caching opportunities (up to 90% input cost reduction) Supports: Languages: JS, TS, JSX, TSX Providers: Anthropic · OpenAI · Google Gemini · AWS Bedrock · LangChain Zero dependencies · Free Add it to any repo in 2 minutes: - uses: kavyarani7/ai-arch-scanner@v1 with: github_token: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }} threshold: '500' 🔗 GitHub Marketplace 🔗 Repo Happy to answer questions about how it works or what patterns it detects. submitted by /u/Upbeat_Will_3342 [link] [留言]

Hi r/MachineLearning , Wanted to share something I'm excited about. I’ve been fascinated by AlphaEvolve and its results for more than a year now, but using open source frameworks seems overwhelming because of the high costs. I can’t really afford hundreds of Claude Opus calls every time I want to run it. I want to be able to try it out many times and all sorts of unique domains. What if it was possible for AlphaEvolve to be much more affordable while getting a better performance? Over the last six months or so, I’ve been working on LEVI, an open source AlphaEvolve-like system that can outperform existing open source frameworks at a fraction of the cost (upto 35x cheaper!). It can also run on Claude Code or Codex, making it even more accessible (I've mostly been using it with a QWEN-30B). LEVI comes in two flavors where I felt it’ll make the most difference: Code Optimization, and Prompt Optimization (sorry math, you got a less direct path; workable through the code route). The core thesis behind LEVI is that with the right search architecture, smaller models can substitute for or outperform larger ones. This means it’s much more economical to rely on smaller models for most of the work. That’s the entire takeaway. Making this work in practice is a different problem, but if you forget everything else from this post this is the only message I think I’m really trying to convey here. LEVI does it in three ways: 1) Invest in solution diversity from the start and ensure its maintained. We don’t want to converge to the same solution, especially with smaller models in the mix, and rely on large models to pull us out of the basin. 2) Use smarter routing across larger and smaller models (i.e. most mutations don’t require a Claude Opus X) 3) For prompt optimization not every rollout is as important. Build a proxy subset to approximate. I’ve tried LEVI on systems problems (like MoE scheduling or database transaction scheduling) and found that LEVI outperforms existing framework

Google is rolling out "across the board" updates to NotebookLM. The AI-powered note-taking app now uses Google's upgraded Gemini 3.5 model, which will allow it to respond with "more accurate and reliable information," according to a blog post on Monday. Launched in 2023, NotebookLM allows you to interact with your notes and sources using AI, […]

In the summer of 2016, Pokémon GO launched to a user base roughly fifty times larger than its capacity planning had anticipated. The engineering team had done load testing. They had throughput thresholds. They had autoscaling configured. Within hours of launch, the service was degraded globally — not because the infrastructure could not scale, but because it scaled too slowly against an arrival rate that exceeded every modelled scenario, and because the metric that was driving scaling decisions (CPU utilisation) lagged behind the actual saturation signal by several minutes. By the time CPU registered critical, the request queue had already grown to the point where p99 latency had crossed into the range where users were abandoning sessions faster than new sessions were being created. The engineering post-mortem identified the same root cause that appears in the post-mortems of most capacity-related incidents: the organisation's operational metrics were measuring how hard the infrastructure was working, not how much work the service could safely accept. CPU percentage is a resource utilisation metric. Memory percentage is a resource utilisation metric. IOPS is a resource utilisation metric. None of them is a service throughput metric. None of them tells you, with precision, at what arrival rate your SLO begins to degrade. Safe Operating Throughput is that metric. It is not a new concept in queueing theory or systems engineering — the idea of a safe operating ceiling predates modern distributed systems. What is new is its treatment as a first-class SRE metric: formally derived from load test data and SLO targets, continuously monitored for drift, and operationally enforced as a constraint in autoscaling configuration, capacity planning decisions, and deployment pipeline gates. Why Existing Capacity Metrics Are Insufficient The canonical capacity management approach in most organisations works like this: observe CPU or memory utilisation, set an autoscaling threshold (t

Google is making Gemini 3.5 the default model in NotebookLM

We've all been there. Your first encounter with authorization looks something like this: if ( user . role === " ADMIN " ) { // allow access } It works. It's simple. It ships fast. And then, three months later, your application has grown, requirements have shifted, and you're staring at a codebase where authorization logic is scattered everywhere—APIs, services, UI components—like a puzzle that nobody remembers how to solve. The truth is: this approach doesn't scale. Not because it's inherently flawed, but because it conflates two very different concepts that should never be mixed. The Core Mistake: Confusing Identity with Capability Here's the problem we're actually trying to solve. As your application grows, you inevitably end up writing code like this: if ( user . role === " BRANCH_MANAGER " || user . role === " SYSTEM_ADMIN " ) { // allow access } Then a stakeholder asks: Can we create a hybrid role? Or: We need Auditors who can export reports but not edit records. And suddenly your role logic explodes into an unmaintainable mess. The fix isn't adding more conditions. The fix is understanding that roles and permissions answer fundamentally different questions. Roles Define Identity Roles are categories of users. Examples: SYSTEM_ADMIN CLIENT BRANCH_MANAGER AUDITOR Roles answer: Who is this user? They establish high-level authorization boundaries. Examples: Staff Portal vs Customer Portal Internal Admin Area vs Public Application Employee Features vs Client Features Think of roles as identity labels . Permissions Define Capability Permissions represent atomic actions. Examples: LOAN_APPROVE USER_DELETE REPORT_EXPORT ACCOUNT_EDIT Permissions answer: What can this user actually do? Your application should not constantly ask: What role are you? Instead, it should ask: Do you have permission to perform this action? Because: Users have Roles Roles contain Permissions Code checks Permissions That distinction changes everything. Always Decouple Identity from Capability T

Per-request attribution starts with five fields on every call: provider, model, input tokens, output tokens, and ownership tags such as team, feature, and customer. A monthly vendor bill cannot explain why one feature, one tenant, or one prompt template suddenly became expensive. Request-level math can. As of June 8, 2026, OpenAI lists GPT-5.4 mini at $0.75 per 1M input tokens and $4.50 per 1M output tokens, while Anthropic lists Claude Sonnet 4 at $3 and $15 respectively. Gateway logs are useful, but they rarely solve AI cost tracking per feature unless you enrich them with business context and retry metadata. The practical operating model is simple: calculate cost on every request, attach ownership dimensions, then roll the data up into team, feature, and customer views. If you are searching for "LLM cost attribution per request," you are usually already past the basic billing problem. You can see your OpenAI or Anthropic invoice, but you cannot answer the questions finance and engineering actually care about: which feature drove the spike, which team owns it, which customers are unprofitable, and which prompt or model change caused the jump. That is why per-request attribution matters. It turns AI spend from a monthly surprise into an operational metric you can act on in the same day. Why LLM cost attribution per request matters now According to the FinOps Foundation's 2025 State of FinOps report, 63% of respondents now manage AI spending, up from 31% the year before. That jump is the real signal. AI cost is no longer a side bucket inside cloud spend. It is becoming a first-class FinOps workload. For teams spending $5,000 to $50,000 per month on LLM APIs, averages break down quickly. A support assistant, an internal coding copilot, and a customer-facing generation feature can all hit the same vendor account while having completely different margins, latency targets, and prompt shapes. If you only look at total spend by provider, you lose the unit economics. Per-r

OpenRouter is a unified API gateway to hundreds of language models from providers such as OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and Meta. You use one API key and one billing surface, and swap models by changing a provider/model slug. OpenRouter exposes a Chat Completions -compatible HTTP API. This post shows three Node.js integration paths: the official @openrouter/sdk , the openai package with baseURL , and the Vercel AI SDK with @openrouter/ai-sdk-provider . For deeper patterns on each stack, see the Chat Completions API , OpenAI Responses API (OpenAI direct only), and Vercel AI SDK posts. Prerequisites OpenRouter account API key Credits or billing enabled as needed Node.js version 26 Install packages for the path you use: @openrouter/sdk ( npm i @openrouter/sdk ) openai ( npm i openai ) ai and @openrouter/ai-sdk-provider ( npm i ai @openrouter/ai-sdk-provider ) Configuration Read credentials from the environment in production. Variable Purpose OPENROUTER_API_KEY Bearer token from OpenRouter settings OPENROUTER_MODEL Default model slug, for example openai/gpt-5.5 OPENROUTER_SITE_URL Optional site URL sent as HTTP-Referer for rankings on openrouter.ai OPENROUTER_SITE_TITLE Optional app name sent as X-OpenRouter-Title Model IDs use the provider/model format, for example openai/gpt-5.5 , anthropic/claude-opus-4.8 , or google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite . Browse the full catalog at openrouter.ai/models . The examples below use openai/gpt-5.5 , matching the model in the other LLM posts in this series. Override it with OPENROUTER_MODEL when you want a different model. @openrouter/sdk OpenRouter's official TypeScript SDK is type-safe and generated from the OpenAPI spec. Client setup import { OpenRouter } from ' @openrouter/sdk ' ; const client = new OpenRouter ({ apiKey : process . env . OPENROUTER_API_KEY , httpReferer : process . env . OPENROUTER_SITE_URL , appTitle : process . env . OPENROUTER_SITE_TITLE , }); Basic integration const response = await client . chat . send ({ chatReques

I use AI tools all day for work and the thing that drives me crazy is starting a new chat window.If I don't paste a massive block of text about my current project stack, my writing guidelines, and what I'm trying to do, the model just defaults to that generic, robotic corporate speak. But keeping a sloppy text file on my desktop and copying it in over and over feels incredibly stupid.Even worse is that ChatGPT custom instructions don't format right when you try to move them over to Claude or DeepSeek. They just drift or start ignoring instructions after a few prompts. How are you guys managing your background data across different browser tabs? Are you just dealing with the text dumps or is there a way to actually lock this context in permanently so it doesn't get messed up? submitted by /u/alazar_tesema [link] [留言]

A new feature in the Amazon Shopping app allows users to generate designs with Alexa, then print them on products like T-shirts, hoodies, and tumblers.

submitted by /u/ThereWas [link] [留言]

The messaging giant announced that it disrupted a phishing campaign targeting its users with NSO’s spyware.

Short answer first: use Supabase if you want Postgres plus auth, realtime, storage, and a dashboard as one managed bundle. Self-host Postgres – or use a managed Postgres – if you mostly need a database and your app already handles its own auth and logic. The choice is not really "Postgres vs Supabase". It's whether you need the extra layers Supabase puts on top of Postgres. Supabase is not a database Supabase runs on PostgreSQL, but it's a stack of services around it: Postgres – the actual database Auth – user signup, login, JWT tokens Realtime – live updates over websockets Storage – an S3-style file store Edge Functions – serverless functions Studio – dashboard + auto-generated REST/GraphQL API So "self-host Postgres or use Supabase" compares a plain database to a full backend. The honest question: do you need those extra layers, or just the database underneath them? A quick test: You use Supabase Auth, Storage, and Realtime → Supabase earns its place. You use one of them → it's replaceable. You use none and treat it as "Postgres with a nice dashboard" → you want plain Postgres. Side-by-side comparison Factor Supabase (managed) Self-hosted Supabase Plain Postgres (managed or self-hosted) Database engine PostgreSQL PostgreSQL PostgreSQL Built-in auth Yes Yes No (bring your own) Realtime / websockets Yes Yes No File storage Yes Yes No Dashboard + auto API Yes Yes No (use any SQL client) Backups Managed (limits by plan) You manage Managed or you manage Cost shape Metered, grows with usage Server cost + your time Database only Self-host effort None High (many containers) Low–medium Lock-in Medium–high Medium Very low The lock-in point decides it for many teams. Your data is standard Postgres in every option ( pg_dump portable). The lock-in is everything else: Auth tokens, Storage paths, Supabase-specific RLS policies, Edge Function code. The more Supabase-specific features you adopt, the harder the exit. When each option wins Pick managed Supabase when: You're startin

Field journal of Dr. E. Rempel, Department of Minority Neurological Studies, University of New Carthage (A work of fiction. "Allism" is a real term used by some autistic people to describe the neurological profile of the non-autistic majority.) March 3, 2089 I have now spent three months embedded with an allistic community in the outer provinces. Allism, for those unfamiliar, is a rare neurological variant affecting approximately 1% of our population. My colleagues at the University have long debated its origins and persistence. After direct observation, I am no more certain of the answers, but I have accumulated a remarkable set of field notes. The allistic subjects I have observed appear, on the surface, entirely functional. They hold jobs, maintain relationships, raise children. And yet their neurological profile diverges from the norm in ways that are at once fascinating and bewildering. March 11, 2089 The most immediately striking feature of the allistic profile is their relationship with information. Where a typical individual experiences the sharing of useful knowledge as a basic social reflex, the allistic subject appears to require an elaborate ritual before any information exchange can occur. Approach an allistic subject directly with a piece of useful data and observe what happens. Rather than receiving it, they freeze. A threat-assessment process appears to engage, entirely pre-consciously, before the content of the communication can be evaluated at all. One subject described it to me as feeling "strange" when a stranger approached with unsolicited information, though she could not articulate why. I have learned to preface all information exchanges with what my translator calls "the preamble ritual" — a sequence of social signals that appears to deactivate the threat response and allow communication to proceed. The exact form varies, but typically involves eye contact, a softening of posture, and verbal acknowledgment that one is about to speak. Only the