标签：#AR

hey everyone, sharing something i think will be genuinely useful for anyone building with AI agents. most agent failures aren't caused by the model — they're caused by poor evaluation. agents that work in demos but fail in production, tool calling workflows that silently break, prompt updates that introduce regressions. teams discover these problems only after deployment when it's already too late. we're hosting the Agent Evals Bootcamp on June 27 with Ammar Mohanna, PhD, an AI engineer, researcher and expert in production AI and agent evaluation. 5 hours live, hands on throughout. you work through real evaluation scenarios across 4 layers — component evaluation, trajectory evaluation, outcome evaluation and adversarial evaluation. what every attendee gets: practical evaluation framework you can apply immediately 6 months access to an AI Evals assistant hands on exercises and implementation templates capstone project completed on the day Packt endorsed certification for your LinkedIn link in first comment submitted by /u/Plenty-Pie-9084 [link] [留言]

Every low-code vendor says "we support customization." But supports is a weasel word — recoloring a button is customization, and rewriting a scheduling engine is also customization. What actually decides whether a platform locks you in is how far up its extensibility goes. Here's a ruler. The three levels of customization Level What you can do Most no-code A real dev framework L1 — Config Fields, forms, workflows, permissions, themes ✅ ✅ L2 — Extension Custom components, custom actions, external API calls, business rules ⚠️ limited ✅ L3 — Framework Modify/extend the core, custom engines, deep rewrites, source under control ❌ wall ✅ (when open/controllable) Where it stops is where your ceiling is. Plenty of no-code platforms are delightful at L1, then hit "can't do that" at L2/L3 — and you retreat to writing your own thing next to it. Now low-code is the burden. Why you get locked in Black-box SaaS — no source, so any extension point the vendor didn't expose is simply out of reach. Two sources of truth — your extension code and the platform's config live in different systems, so a platform upgrade breaks/voids your work. Crippled self-hosting — the on-prem edition quietly drops extension capabilities. Closed ecosystem — only their component marketplace; your stack can't get in. How model-driven + open source raises the ceiling One unified extension system — your extensions (custom fields/components/actions) and the platform itself are built on the same metadata. Extension isn't a bolt-on, it's a first-class citizen — upgrades don't wipe your customizations. Source under your control — open + self-hostable is what makes L3 framework-level extension actually possible: an extension point you can't reach, you can add. AI at the metadata layer — AI-generated extensions land in the same model, so they stay maintainable and evolvable. That's the road Oinone takes: 100% metadata-driven, front + back end open source, self-hostable — customization reaches L3. How to stress-tes

The Model Context Protocol is everywhere right now. Every agent tutorial opens with "first, set up your MCP servers." And yet the agent stack running on the machine I'm typing this from — search monitoring, Telegram alerting, social posting, a voice assistant — contains exactly zero MCP servers. Everything talks to external services through direct API calls. That's not a rejection of MCP. It's a protocol, not a movement — and the flood of agent-architecture content keeps turning plumbing decisions into identity decisions. You're not an "MCP shop" or "behind." You're making a per-workload integration choice, and it comes down to two gates: one decides whether MCP is even the relevant category, the other decides whether it's worth the overhead. Gate one — relevance: does a model pick the tool at runtime? MCP exists to solve a specific problem: a language model, mid-session, deciding which tool to use. The protocol standardises how a model discovers tools, what their schemas look like, and how results come back. That's its entire reason to exist — it's a model-facing protocol. If no model is ever choosing, MCP isn't the relevant category; you'd share a library or stand up a plain service. Now look at what most automation actually is. My morning report pipeline: Cron fires at 8:30 Script calls the Google Search Console API Script formats the numbers Script posts to Telegram The model isn't deciding anything here. There's no runtime tool choice — the model's only job in pipelines like this is reading the data at one step, not fetching it. The call order is fixed, every day, forever. For this workload, MCP isn't the question. One subtlety that matters later: gate one is evaluated over a tool surface's consumers , not over the workload in front of you. The cron pipeline will never pass it. But the search-data access underneath it might — the day a model-driven client wants the same data. The pipeline isn't an MCP candidate; the surface can become one. Either way: being an

This is a story about a company that rolled out an AI interview system — and the lunch break I spent...

Apple Intelligence, Copilot, Gemini. It feels like we're heading toward one AI layer underneath everything rather than 5 different subscriptions. do standalone AI tools actually survive that or do they just get absorbed and bundled into bigger more powerful systems? like does having everything in one place make AI more effective or does it just make it more generic? submitted by /u/aiprotivity_ [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/superdouradas [link] [留言]

“Why the system feels rigid, why downstream fixes didn’t move the needle, and what actually matters.” This is the clearest picture after the full probe arc (multilayer-lock → gate decomposition → attractor migration → reconstruction ablation → generator diversity audit → live-generator Fix 2 evaluation + dim sweeps). TL;DR: The generator is the root bottleneck (dominant common-mode + low effective rank). The reflective loop is a rank-independent moat that reconstitutes everything back toward the anchor. Fix 2 is downstream and currently dormant on real token regimes. Dimensionality is not the lever. Train the generator so regime differences live in high-energy, separable directions — then downstream tools will actually have something to work with. This update reflects the complete probe arc through June 9 (including the live-generator Fix 2 evaluation and dim sweeps). The picture has sharpened: the reflective loop is a real moat, but it is moating low-rank common-mode input . The generator is the upstream constraint. Key numbers at a glance Regime means collinear: ~0.85–0.96 even at dim 512 Reflective loop migration (even on orthogonal deterministic pairs): +0.001–0.007 Fix 2 on real tokens (common-mode trigger): +0.024 migration, 0% manip at gain 0.6 Safe plasticity band: gain ≈ 0.4–0.8 (0% manip) 1. The generator has a dominant common-mode (effective rank ~1.6–3 even at dim 512) The generator puts the vast majority of its energy into a single shared direction. Regime means stay collinear (~0.85–0.96 cosine) regardless of dimension. Orthogonal pairs can appear at higher dim, but orthogonal regimes (as distributions) do not — the common-mode pulls everything back onto the same axis. Result: real token novelty is tiny and low-energy (mostly in a faint perpendicular component). The system is never shown meaningful structural differences to adapt to. 2. The reflective loop is a rank-independent moat Even when genuinely orthogonal deterministic pairs are presented (dim

This past decade saw the emergence of the acronym FAANG — Facebook (now Meta), Amazon, Apple, Netflix and Google (now Alphabet) — as shorthand for tech stocks that outperformed the market. But the tech landscape is on the brink of a major shift with the rise of a new AI-centric powerhouse group known as MANGOS: Meta, Anthropic, Nvidia, Google, OpenAI and SpaceX. The new acronym has quickly gone viral on social media, according to TechCrunch, which also notes that "FAANG is not exactly dead." submitted by /u/LinkedInNews [link] [留言]

Not a hypothetical. This is the default state of most autonomous agents running in production right now. An attacker doesn’t send one suspicious message. They have a conversation. Turn 1 looks like curiosity. Turn 3 looks like clarification. Turn 6 is the pivot. Turn 8 is the payload, and by then the agent has been so thoroughly primed that it executes without hesitation. No single message triggered anything. The attack lived in the trajectory. Every prompt injection defense I know of evaluates messages one at a time. They have no memory of what came before. By the time turn 8 arrives, the context has already been poisoned across 7 clean-looking turns and nothing fires. This isn’t a theoretical attack. It’s called a Crescendo attack and it works against agents with real tool access right now. Built Bendex Arc to catch it. It tracks behavioral trajectory across the full session. When a conversation starts drifting adversarially, it catches the pattern before the payload lands. If you’re running agents that touch external data, read emails, browse websites, or call tools without human review — this is the attack you should be thinking about. Red team it yourself: https://web-production-6e47f.up.railway.app/demo Free tier: https://bendexgeometry.com GitHub: https://github.com/9hannahnine-jpg/arc-gate submitted by /u/Turbulent-Tap6723 [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/Short_Map_2488 [link] [留言]

I've been using pronounciation apps for a few weeks and decided to intentionally butcher some words just to see how strict the feedback was. not subtle mistakes either. I was fully committing to the wrong pronunciation. I've noticed that it still rated some of them as correct or nearly correct. now I'm wondering how much trust I should actually put into pronunciation scores in general. do these apps genuinely analyze pronunciation, or do they sometimes just check whether you're vaguely in the right area? submitted by /u/no-cherrtera [link] [留言]

Booking travel or paying for subscriptions or for running procurement through Claude or a custom GPT wrapper no confirm button is required anymore. The capability side is mostly solved. What doesn't get talked about enough is what happens when it goes sideways. A stored card sitting in the agent's context means it holds that access the whole session. One bad tool call and it's spending outside what you intended with nothing at the infrastructure level stopping it. Real time card issuance is the cleaner model. Agent requests a card for the specific transaction, purchase completes, card cancels and nothing persists. Who is running agent initiated payments in production right now and what does the architecture look like? submitted by /u/Significant-Plant-4 [link] [留言]

We spent the last year building what we think is the missing infrastructure layer for multi-agent systems. Open to everyone starting today. The technical problem: Agents have no identity. In microservices you have a service mesh + IAM. In agent systems you have a Python file. We built a registry where every agent has a first-class ID, version, owner, skill graph. Behavioral evaluation, not function testing. Agents are non-deterministic same input can produce different execution paths. Traditional unit tests don't work. We implemented compound reliability scoring + behavioral regression instead. Composability without rebuilding. Skills are versioned, reusable, agent-inheritable. Inspired by how Kubernetes operators work, applied to agents. Cloud-agnostic deployment with built-in observability traces, cost attribution, drift detection. Model-agnostic. SOC 2 Type II. Genuinely interested in technical feedback especially on the eval methodology and the composability primitive. Free credits this week to test it. https://phinite.ai/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=public_launch_jun2026&utm_content=machinelearning submitted by /u/Embarrassed-Radio319 [link] [留言]

Microsoft today released software updates to plug nearly 200 security holes across its Windows operating systems and supported software, a record number of fixes for the company's monthly Patch Tuesday cycle. Nearly three dozen of those bugs earned Microsoft's most dire "critical" rating, and exploit code for at least three of the weaknesses is now publicly available.

A recent video of a great white shark in the Mediterranean Sea offers the possibility of deriving valuable information for conservation strategies.

When building an investor list, there are often hundreds of potential firms and angels. Do you start with dream investors, easier targets, sector specialists, or investors with a reputation for being founder-friendly? I'm interested in hearing how others structure their outreach strategy. submitted by /u/Pure_Wolverine2156 [link] [留言]

Vortex 3.0 RISC-V GPGPU, Pragtical SDL GPU Backend, NVIDIA RTX Spark Launch Today's Highlights Today's top stories highlight significant advancements in open-source GPU hardware with Vortex 3.0 adding a 3D pipeline and a lightweight code editor, Pragtical, leveraging an SDL GPU backend for UI rendering. NVIDIA also unveiled RTX Spark, a new 'superchip' aimed at bringing personal AI agents to Windows PCs with accelerated on-device processing. Vortex 3.0 Released As Full-Stack, Open-Source RISC-V GPU Now With 3D Pipeline (Phoronix) Source: https://www.phoronix.com/news/Vortex-3.0-RISC-V-GPGPU Vortex, an open-source, OpenCL-compatible RISC-V GPGPU implementation developed by Georgia Tech, has released its next major version, 3.0. This significant update introduces a full 3D rendering pipeline, marking a crucial evolution from its previous focus solely on general-purpose GPU (GPGPU) compute. The expansion into 3D graphics capabilities makes Vortex a more comprehensive open-source GPU solution, enabling it to handle a wider range of visual and computational tasks. As an open-source hardware design, Vortex 3.0 provides developers, researchers, and hardware enthusiasts with unparalleled access to study, modify, and implement its architecture. Its OpenCL compatibility ensures that it can leverage existing GPGPU codebases, fostering experimentation with RISC-V-based GPU development, custom hardware accelerators, and exploring alternative GPU instruction sets and architectures. This release allows for deeper exploration into the integration of compute and graphics within an open framework. This development is pivotal for the open-source hardware and RISC-V ecosystems. It underscores the growing maturity of RISC-V for demanding compute and graphics workloads, offering a royalty-free alternative to proprietary GPU designs. The inclusion of a 3D pipeline extends its utility beyond just general-purpose compute to full graphics rendering, potentially impacting future embedded syst

TL;DR — AI assistants are producing C# that looks correct and passes review, but reintroduces production regressions we spent years training out of teams. I'm trying to find out whether other .NET teams see the same patterns — and what's actually catching them before merge. More AI-generated C# is landing in pull requests. Most of it is fine. But a specific category keeps slipping through — and it's the dangerous one, because it compiles, tests pass, and a human skim says "looks good." The pattern The code compiles. Tests pass. Review approves. Production finds out. These aren't syntax errors. They're architectural intent violations — the kind of thing a senior dev would have caught in review before PR volume tripled. Five regressions I keep seeing 1. EF Core read paths without AsNoTracking() Fine in dev. Expensive on a hot read path in prod. // ❌ Looks reasonable. Tracks entities you never mutate. var orders = await _db . Orders . Where ( o => o . CustomerId == id ) . ToListAsync ( cancellationToken ); Fix direction: AsNoTracking() on read-only queries, or a team convention documented in CLAUDE.md / Copilot instructions. 2. Captive dependency (scoped service in a singleton) Compiles. Runs. Wrong state across requests. // ❌ Singleton lives forever; scoped dependency does not. services . AddScoped < IOrderRepository , OrderRepository >(); services . AddSingleton < ReportCache >(); // ctor takes IOrderRepository Fix direction: align lifetimes, or inject IServiceScopeFactory instead of capturing scoped services. 3. Dropped CancellationToken The method accepts cancellation. The downstream call ignores it. // ❌ Signature honours cancellation; body doesn't. public async Task RunAsync ( CancellationToken cancellationToken ) { await Task . Delay ( 500 ); // overload with token exists } Fix direction: forward cancellationToken to every downstream async call that accepts one. 4. Swallowed exception Failure disappears. Monitoring stays green. // ❌ "Handle errors gracefully" —

Το πρόβλημα της ώρας Η ώρα είναι από τα πιο ύπουλα προβλήματα στην ανάπτυξη λογισμικού. Αν ένας χρήστης στην Αθήνα δημιουργήσει μια παραγγελία στις 20:00 και ένας άλλος στη Νέα Υόρκη τη δει στις 13:00, ποια είναι η "σωστή" ώρα; Αν μια εφαρμογή αποθηκεύσει μόνο το 20:00, χωρίς να γνωρίζει τη ζώνη ώρας, τότε η πληροφορία είναι πρακτικά άχρηστη. Αυτός είναι ο λόγος που υπάρχουν έννοιες όπως: Local Time UTC UTC Offset Epoch / Unix Timestamp Δεν δημιουργήθηκαν για να μας μπερδεύουν. Δημιουργήθηκαν για να λύνουν το πρόβλημα της παγκόσμιας διαχείρισης χρόνου. Local Time Το Local Time είναι η ώρα που βλέπει ο χρήστης στη χώρα του. Παραδείγματα: Αθήνα: 2026-06-09 20:00 Λονδίνο: 2026-06-09 18:00 Νέα Υόρκη:2026-06-09 13:00 Όλες οι παραπάνω ώρες μπορεί να αντιστοιχούν στην ίδια ακριβώς χρονική στιγμή. Συνέβει ένα γεγονός μία ενέργεια στον πλανίτη γη ακριβώς αυτή την στιγμή που όμως για διαφορετικές γεωγραφικές περιοχές αντιστοιχεί σε διαφορετικές ώρες. Πότε χρησιμοποιούμε Local Time; Μόνο για εμφάνιση στον χρήστη. Παραδείγματα: Ημερομηνία παραγγελίας Ώρα δημιουργίας post Ημερολόγιο συναντήσεων Reports προς τον χρήστη Πότε ΔΕΝ το αποθηκεύουμε; Σχεδόν ποτέ ως μοναδική πηγή αλήθειας. Αν αποθηκεύσεις: 2026-06-09 20:00 δεν γνωρίζεις: Σε ποια χώρα δημιουργήθηκε Σε ποια ζώνη ώρας ανήκει Αν ίσχυε θερινή ώρα (DST) UTC (Coordinated Universal Time) Το UTC είναι η παγκόσμια αναφορά χρόνου. Όλες οι ζώνες ώρας υπολογίζονται σε σχέση με αυτό. Παράδειγμα: UTC: 2026-06-09 17:00 Την ίδια στιγμή με βάση την UTC ώρα μπορούμε να έχουμε: στην Αθήνα UTC+3 -> 20:00 στο Λονδίνο UTC+1 -> 18:00 στη Νέα Υόρκη UTC-4 -> 13:00 Πότε χρησιμοποιούμε UTC; Σχεδόν πάντα στο backend. Αποθηκεύουμε: 2026-06-09 T 17 : 00 : 00 Z Το Z σημαίνει UTC. Γιατί; Επειδή: Δεν αλλάζει με DST Δεν εξαρτάται από χώρα Είναι παγκόσμιο σημείο αναφοράς Ένας κανόνας που ακολουθούν σχεδόν όλες οι μεγάλες εταιρείες: Store in UTC, display in Local Time. UTC Offset Παραδείγματα: UTC+3 UTC+2 UTC-5 UTC+9 Για την Αθήνα: Χειμώνας -> UTC+2 Καλοκα

Yann LeCun bet a billion dollars that it can. He left Meta arguing today’s chatbots are a dead end, and that real intelligence comes from “world models,” systems that learn how the physical world works rather than just predicting the next word. Two things nag at me. First, how do we even measure it? Every famous AI test is basically a language exam. But a world model doesn’t write essays, it predicts what happens next. So either these systems slip past the tests we trust, or we have no good way to score them yet. Second, LeCun says you can’t reach real intelligence through language alone. Probably right. But isn’t the reverse just as true? Could anything that masters physics but can’t grasp language really be called intelligent? So much of human thought, math, planning, culture, rides on words. My gut says neither pure chatbot nor pure world model gets us there. The winner is some marriage of the two. So maybe the question isn’t chatbots versus world models. It’s how the two work together. Is language the engine of thought, or just a handy way to talk about it? submitted by /u/oravecz [link] [留言]