今日已更新 315 条资讯 | 累计 28627 条内容
关于我们

标签:#AI

找到 5084 篇相关文章

AI 资讯

You're Not Paying for Code Generation. You're Paying for Context

The hidden cost of AI isn't generating code. It's understanding your codebase. For a long time, I assumed AI coding tools became expensive because they generated a lot of code. These tools can produce components, tests, SQL queries, documentation, and sometimes entire features on demand. If costs were climbing, the output volume must be the reason. The more I used these tools, the more I realized I was measuring the wrong thing. The expensive part isn't writing code. The expensive part is understanding what code should be written — and that work is mostly invisible. That realization changed how I think about AI-assisted development entirely. Two Prompts, Two Very Different Problems Consider these two requests: "Create a utility function that formats dates" and "Review this feature and suggest improvements." At first glance, both look ordinary. Both might even produce short answers. But they require completely different levels of understanding. The first is narrow and well-defined. The AI needs very little information before it can produce a useful answer. The second is open-ended. Before suggesting a single improvement, the AI may need to read multiple files, understand dependencies, follow existing patterns, compare implementations, and build a mental model of why the feature exists at all. The output might still be small. The work required to reach it is not. Why Agent Workflows Feel Different From Autocomplete This became much clearer when I started using AI agents. Traditional autocomplete is predictive — you type, the AI guesses what comes next. It's fast, cheap, and deliberately context-light. Agents behave differently. When you ask one to improve a feature or review a workflow, it doesn't immediately start generating code. It starts reading. It follows imports, finds related files, and tries to understand the system before touching it. That is exactly what makes agent workflows feel slower and more resource-intensive than autocomplete: they are spending effor

2026-06-03 原文 →
开发者

PlayStation is getting back to what it’s good at

PlayStation used its most recent State of Play showcase to make it clear where its focus is. After a series of costly live-service stumbles, it's getting back to focusing on premium, narrative-driven, single-player games. That statement was made clear with how it started and ended the hourlong show. The showcase began with an extended look […]

2026-06-03 原文 →
AI 资讯

Microsoft and OpenAI broke up — now they’re ready to fight

At Microsoft's annual Build conference on Tuesday, the company announced a slew of new or expanded AI initiatives, including a super app, in-house reasoning models, a cybersecurity tool, and OpenClaw-esque AI agents. All this news added up to a clear message: Microsoft is positioned to be one of the biggest players in AI, and it's […]

2026-06-03 原文 →
AI 资讯

Hello dev — I ship AI voice + web chat on PHP sites (elionmusic.com)

Hi — I'm E Lion (Eric), Hawaii-based builder at Coral Crown Solutions . I ship production code on my own domains—not tutorials: elionmusic.com — 400+ promo pages, vinyl-style player UX, Vapi phone agent + OpenAI "Shine" chat (one knowledge base, unified CSV log, webhook follow-up emails) prayerauthority.com — faith-tech at scale; WebM flying angels , SOAP journal, oracle tools Digital Zion — Three.js metaverse + native 3D desk fork + localhost bridge APIs Stack: PHP 8, vanilla JS, webhooks, JSON-LD / Search Console, ElevenLabs, Playwright, Electron (Shine assistant), Cursor pair-programming. Looking for: peers who respect hard integration work (SMTP, CORS, cPanel, webhook auth) and clients who need a real AI front desk or artist/ministry platform. Live demos: coralcrownsolutions.com · elionmusic.com Happy to give honest feedback on your builds—drop a link.

2026-06-03 原文 →
AI 资讯

What is an LLM evaluation harness? A deep dive into lm-eval-harness

What is an LLM evaluation harness? A deep dive into lm-eval-harness You fine-tuned a 7B model. It aced your smoke tests, your colleague ran a few prompts and shrugged approvingly, and the README is now full of cherry-picked outputs that look great in a screenshot. Then someone asks: how good is it, really? — and you realize you have no number to point at. No MMLU score. No HellaSwag. Nothing reproducible, nothing you can defend in a PR review, nothing you can compare to last week's checkpoint. That's the gap an evaluation harness fills. It turns "vibes-based evaluation" into something with a score, a stderr, and a config file you can re-run next Tuesday. Why evaluate LLMs at all? Two reasons that actually matter: Comparability. If you can't put a number on a model, you can't compare it to anything else — not the previous checkpoint, not the open-source baseline, not the commercial API you're trying to replace. Leaderboards are noisy and gaming-prone, but a local leaderboard with the tasks you care about is one of the most useful artifacts a team can build. Regression detection. Most model regressions are silent. A 0.3-point drop on MMLU won't show up in a chat session, but it will show up in CI. People who ship models for a living treat evals the way backend engineers treat unit tests: mandatory, run on every PR, and blocking on regressions. You don't need a hundred benchmarks. You need the three to five tasks that map to your actual use case , plus one or two general capability anchors (MMLU, HellaSwag) so you can sanity-check that you didn't accidentally destroy basic reasoning while you were tuning for your domain. What is an "evaluation harness"? An evaluation harness is the software that sits between a model and a benchmark. It handles the boring-but-critical parts: loading the model weights, tokenizing prompts in the way the benchmark expects, running inference, extracting the answer from a longer generation, scoring it against a ground-truth key, aggregating

2026-06-03 原文 →
AI 资讯

Comment your stack — I will tell you what I would check first on a webhook bug

Swap debugging war stories\n\nI have been living in webhook + PHP + email land (Vapi, OpenAI, PHPMailer, CSV logs).\n\nDrop your stack in a comment (even one line). I will reply with the first three places I would look for a silent production failure.\n\nNo sales pitch — trying to meet dev friends who ship unglamorous integration work.\n\nMy builds: elionmusic.com · prayerauthority.com

2026-06-03 原文 →
AI 资讯

Presentation: Choosing Your AI Copilot: Maximizing Developer Productivity

Sepehr Khosravi discusses the evolution of developer productivity tools. Evaluating the strengths of tools like Cursor and Claude Code, he explains actionable techniques for senior engineers - including context engineering, custom rules, and Model Context Protocol (MCP) integrations. He shares real-world benchmarks and strategic frameworks for balancing AI adoption with clean code quality. By Sepehr Khosravi

2026-06-03 原文 →