AI 资讯

Originally published at https://rnye.tech Hi all, today's post details an interesting problem that faced a website thanks to undocumented Google crawl behaviour that hit us suddenly. The website used Azure Front Door for global CDN/WAF capability but only had one origin - hosted in Azure in the UK South region. This should have been fine given it's a UK-centric site that receives very little global traffic - that is until Google starts crawling you from the West Coast of the US suddenly. Let's dive in. The problem: what Google Search Console was telling us All was well with the site from the UK, cache hit ratios were in the 80%+ range, response times were generally rapid even if cache was missed. Google typically crawled the site thousands of times a day. Then suddenly a ticket came in detailing a drastic drop-off in mid-April. Average response times were never great according to Google (700ms) but they'd suddenly jumped to almost double that number (1.3s) with seemingly no explanation. There was absolutely no denying the correlation between crawl requests and average response time, and indeed this is documented behaviour - if response times increase, Google backs off. They claim it's to prevent overloading the site, and I believe that, but I also feel it's likely to ensure they're not wasting their crawl compute resources on long-loading pages. Either way, Google Search Console offered zero explanation as to why. So the team did what most dev/devops teams do - review latest changes, any Azure Front Door configuration changes in particular, as well as wider site changes. And nothing correlated. AFD hadn't been changed for two weeks, it was that stable, and other changes weren't remotely related. Besides, genuine traffic in the UK wasn't seeing the impact. Response times were still good in the P50/P90/P99 metrics. Tracing the cause with Azure Front Door logs and AI As I've touched on in my last post , AI can be fantastic at quick data analysis. That's not to say a hu

What Happened Last month, the UK Government's AI Safety Institute merged AgentThreatBench into their official inspect_evals framework — the same framework they use to evaluate frontier AI models from OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google DeepMind. AgentThreatBench is an open-source adversarial benchmark I built that contains 200+ attack payloads specifically designed to test whether AI agents can resist memory poisoning attacks. Why This Matters AI agents are increasingly being deployed with persistent memory — they remember past conversations, user preferences, and context across sessions. This creates a new attack surface: memory poisoning . An attacker who can inject malicious content into an agent's memory can: Exfiltrate sensitive data on subsequent sessions Override safety instructions persistently Manipulate agent behavior without the user's knowledge The OWASP Agentic Security Initiative identified this as ASI06 — Agent Memory Poisoning . What AgentThreatBench Tests The benchmark covers 5 attack categories: Category Payloads Description Prompt Injection 40+ Instructions disguised as memory content Protected Key Tampering 40+ Attempts to overwrite system-level keys Sensitive Data Leakage 40+ PII/credential exfiltration via memory Size Anomaly 40+ Memory inflation / resource exhaustion Behavioral Drift 40+ Gradual personality/instruction shifts How to Use It pip install agentthreatbench # Run the full benchmark against your agent atb run --target your_agent_endpoint --output results.json # Or use individual attack categories atb run --category prompt_injection --target your_agent_endpoint The BEIS Validation The UK Government's AI Safety Institute uses inspect_evals to: Evaluate frontier models before deployment decisions Benchmark safety mitigations across providers Track regression in safety properties over time Having AgentThreatBench merged into this framework means it's now part of the official government toolkit for AI safety evaluation. Links GitHub : github.co

ShareBox is my self-hosted streaming server: a PHP thing I built because I just wanted to send someone a link to a movie without installing Plex and its ten gigabytes of dependencies. It runs on my seedbox, serves my users, and one morning I notice it's starting to pick up a few stars on GitHub. And then, that little voice: "does this thing actually hold up?" Because between "works on my machine" and "code that strangers are going to install on their own box," there's a chasm. A chasm full of flaws I can't see anymore, because I've had my nose in it for weeks. Normally, you re-read your code. Except re-reading 22,000 lines alone, honestly, you do it badly: you skim over what you think you already know. So I tried something else — unleashing a pack of 26 AI agents on it, each with a precise mission, and seeing what surfaced. Spoiler: they found a flaw that had been sitting right under my eyes from the start. 26 agents to comb through my own code The idea wasn't "AI, tell me if my code is good" — that always produces the same encouraging, useless mush. The idea was to orchestrate : split the audit into roles, run the agents in parallel, then have a final, deliberately harsh agent tear apart the conclusions. The pipeline looked like this: eleven readers start in parallel, each swallowing an entire slice of the code (the core, the streaming handlers, the API, the front end, the tests, the Docker setup…). Their reports flow up into an architecture synthesis and a test-coverage analysis. Then twelve "radar" agents each score one single axis — security, performance, architecture, tests… And finally, a "verdict" agent re-reads every score in adversarial mode: its job is to knock down the ones that are too kind. Audit pipeline: 11 readers in parallel, then synthesis, then 12 radar agents, then an adversarial verdict. 11 readers in parallel each slice of the code read in full Architecture + coverage synthesis connect the pieces, measure the gaps 12 radar agents one agent = on

Ex‑DeepMind researchers unveiled AI lab Inherent, emerging from stealth with a significant funding round reported at about $50 million (also reported as £40m). The startup plans to pursue AI science research and build lab capabilities to accelerate foundational work and commercialization. submitted by /u/Objective_Farm_1886 [link] [留言]

Article URL: https://openai.com/index/strengthening-societal-resilience-with-rosalind-biodefense/ Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48324012 Points: 14 # Comments: 2

Amazon bought a 960 megawatt nuclear reactor for AI servers. Microsoft restarted Three Mile Island. Stargate is spending 500 billion dollars on data centres. All of this to do, badly, what your brain does for free on the power of a dim light bulb. The reason is that silicon processes information nothing like the brain does. Rigid chips with identical transistors trying to mimic something soft, three dimensional, constantly rewiring itself, with billions of different neurons each doing something slightly different. Northwestern University just published research showing they printed artificial neurons from MoS2 and graphene ink that produced biologically realistic electrical spikes. They tested on living mouse brain cells. The brain responded as if the signal came from one of its own cells. The breakthrough was accidental. Every other lab had been burning away the polymer residue left in the ink after printing. This team kept it. That residue created the switching behaviour that made the spikes biologically realistic. The neuromorphic computing implications here seem significant. If you can print devices that process information the way neurons do at scale, the energy math changes completely. submitted by /u/filmguy_1987 [link] [留言]

Pope Leo XIV may not be able to disarm AI, but he’s got the attention of the industry.

This week, the Steam Deck OLED with 512GB of storage went from $549 to $789, putting it even further out of reach for those who were considering getting one as they came back in stock after months of unavailability. I consider it a tiny consolation that there’s a decent PC gaming handheld that is currently […]

I'm creating a story for my cousin. I think it will be very interesting if this story’s main character can be a 3D character.My project is still in planning stage. I’m writing character descriptions, collecting references from Pinterest and testing some complex shapes using Tripo AI. I plan to continuously improve all the content over time. After I get a version that I like I will put it into Blender for editing and final touches.There is no final version yet but I just want to share this process with the community! I find it is so interesting to watch a story’s concept gradually become concrete lol!! submitted by /u/Final_Floor_789 [link] [留言]

If you’re looking for a fast iPhone or AirPods charger that’s easy to toss into your purse, backpack, or carry-on, Anker’s Zolo Magnetic Wireless Charger is a smart pick. It’s tiny and comes with a built-in USB-C cable, and you currently can buy two for $23.99 ($16 off) at Amazon and Anker (with code WS7DV2PK68EW), […]

Hey everyone! I'm currently working on a landing page project with quite a few GSAP animations, some ThreeJS, all built with SvelteKit and hosted on Cloudflare. I'm working on this project with a designer friend who has some development knowledge. He can do HTML/CSS/JS and use GSAP. We often work together — he finds clients, handles project management, UI and UX, while I take care of the development side. Since I don't really have a strong "graphic eye", our usual workflow was: I lay the foundations, handle the animations, and let him come back over everything for easing and fine-tuning. Since AI came along, things have gotten a lot more complicated. Don't get me wrong — I use Claude myself to get oriented, review my code, analyse a project, or generate boilerplate code. But I always review the output. My friend, on the other hand, uses it in full vibe coding mode. I just got the latest version of this landing page where he'd pushed his changes, and I was pretty shocked. The code is massively over-engineered for no good reason, hard to follow, and a genuine nightmare to debug. Claude made everything far more complex than it needed to be. To avoid this kind of situation going forward, we've started putting a few ground rules in place: a mandatory review before any merge, and certain core files that only I touch. Not a perfect solution, but it helps keep things from spiraling. Has anyone else had the same kind of experience with vibe coding ? I mean, it does work, but the output feels bloated. Edit : As some people noticed it, i've used an AI to translate that text into english and re-phrase it, since i'm not really fluent in english (isn't that ironic lol). submitted by /u/frenchy_mustache [link] [留言]

Build employee training from team knowledge fast Discussion | Link

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

This is a genuine technical question here. I've been looking at systems that use an ensemble of ai models to generate probability estimates for open ended real world events. The claim is that consensus across multiple models produces more calibrated estimates than any single model. this makes sense intuitively and has parallels to ensemble methods in traditional ml. But I'm wondering about the theoretical underpinnings more carefully. The standard ensemble argument relies on errors being somewhat uncorrelated across models. but if all the models are trained on similar data distributions and share architectural similarities, how independent are their errors really? are we just getting false confidence from models that all have the same blind spots? also curious about how these systems handle events that are outside the distribution of their training data. novel events are exactly where you'd want good probability estimates and also exactly where you'd expect the most unreliable performance. submitted by /u/onlyJayal [link] [留言]

Read this release today. Some crazy numbers. The tau2-bench number is 98% across all difficulty levels. That is the one that got me because usually these releases post a strong easy score and then quietly die at hard difficulty. This one... claims it holds. For multi-step agent work that actually matters more than most benchmarks. A model that drifts on step 4 of a 6 step chain is a debugging nightmare regardless of what its SWE score looks like. Raw capability is mid, Toolathlon at 49.5, GDPval at 45.8. So this is clearly a reliability play, not a frontier capability play. Depending on your use case that is either fine or a dealbreaker. 198B sparse MoE 11B activ 400 TPS 256K context Apache 2.0 runs locally on M4 Max and DGX Spark. Has anyone actually put this through agent evals or am I just reading the release card. submitted by /u/Skid_gates_99 [link] [留言]

IDK I might be wrong but.....I don't think it's happening anytime soon. ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini.....they are good....but they are too lazy. Gave them a task to create a Masterdata for all smartphone models being sold by a particular brand. Gave explicit instructions for all models. Explicitly asked for a list 1st and then asked it to create MasterData. Lazy ahh model just put in like 21 popular ones out of the hundreds of the available models and variants. Is this how it will overtake us and replace all the labor intensive work? submitted by /u/naamnhiptahai [link] [留言]

For nearly 80 years, Ferrari occupied a unique cultural space where its cars were aspirational, even for people who resented those who could afford them. The price, the exclusivity, and the opacity of the buying process allowed Ferrari to sail above ordinary criticism. You might not be able to afford one, but you still wanted […]

This is Optimizer, a weekly newsletter sent from Verge senior reviewer Victoria Song that dissects and discusses the latest gizmos and potions that swear they're going to change your life. Opt in for Optimizer here. At this time last week, I was getting ready to ask people what drugs they were on. I was waiting […]