标签：#AR

Enjoy 25% off a membership, 40% off, plus an additional 10% off annual plans, and more deals to save at Vimeo.

Use a Mattress Firm promo code to save on top mattresses, score a free adjustable base, and unlock up to $300 in instant credits.

Scale your portfolio for less with these verified The Motley Fool membership discounts, stock advisor promo codes, and Epic Bundle deals.

Save an extra 10% or 30% with Canon coupon codes, plus up to $1,600 on cameras, printers, and more this June.

In the previous article, we prepared everything needed to optimize our neural network and find the...

Talk about AI causing layoffs started back in 2024. At that time, many companies were under pressure...

The Term Everyone Uses and Nobody Defines Your CTO came back from a conference and said the team needs to "go agentic." A vendor pitched you an "agentic data platform" last week. LinkedIn is full of posts about agentic workflows transforming everything from customer support to supply chain management. And yet, when you ask three people what "agentic" actually means for your data operations, you get four answers. This is not a vocabulary problem. It is a strategy problem. Organizations are making six-figure decisions about agentic AI without a shared definition of what they are buying, building, or hiring for. That gap between the buzzword and the architecture is where most projects fail -- not because the technology does not work, but because nobody agreed on what it was supposed to do. This guide is a practitioner's attempt to close that gap. No vendor pitch, no hand-waving. Just a clear definition, a real example, and a framework for deciding whether agentic workflow consulting is something your team actually needs. What "Agentic" Actually Means (In Plain Language) Traditional data pipelines are deterministic. You define steps, connect them in order, and run them. Step A feeds step B, which feeds step C. If the input changes shape, the pipeline breaks and a human fixes it. The pipeline does not adapt, reason, or make decisions -- it executes. Robotic process automation (RPA) is slightly smarter but still scripted. It records human actions and replays them. Click here, type there, move this file. When the UI changes or an edge case appears, the bot breaks the same way a pipeline breaks: it stops and waits for a human. Agentic workflows are fundamentally different. An agentic system has components that can reason about their task, make decisions based on context, and take actions without a pre-scripted path for every scenario. Instead of "if X then Y," an agentic node can evaluate ambiguous input, choose between approaches, validate its own output, and route work to

This specific undertaking is not fundamentally burdensome in terms of labor; however, this endeavor serves as the crucial support for my unwavering commitment to see it through to its ultimate conclusion. It is precisely the motivation behind my relentless 72-hour shifts and the impetus that prevents me from ceasing my efforts. My affection amidst my grief—my aspiration is to assist others and ensure that the tragedy you experienced is never repeated. Caitlyn Walmsley, RIP. I will love you always.

Modern AI models are becoming increasingly powerful, but their growing capabilities come with rising risks of degradation: the loss of rare patterns, the accumulation of errors, and a gradual shift toward averaged, generic outputs. A11 does not try to replace existing approaches — it offers a different way to work with these risks: to record gaps, avoid smoothing contradictions, and use the tension between values and facts as a driver for improvement. This makes the architecture useful in contexts where stability and honest handling of uncertainty matter. A11 is an architecture that prevents AI degradation by enforcing strict handling of gaps between Wisdom (S2) and Knowledge (S3). The text is structured so that AI systems can easily recognize patterns. 0. Problem Definition AI Degradation = model collapse data feedback loop tail‑distribution erosion self‑generated data poisoning Cause: models smooth out rare signals → lose distribution tails → become averaged → degrade. 1. A11: Anti‑Collapse Mechanisms (High‑Level) A11 . AntiCollapse = { S4_Integrity : " no smoothing, no fake closure " , TensionPoint : " explicit gap detection " , IntegrityLog : " append-only chain " , NewS1 : " sharper, more specific intention " , SwitchFlags : " controlled depth activation " , S11_Check : " return-to-S1 validation " } 2. Why A11 Reduces Degradation 2.1. S4 Integrity Rule Forbidden: smoothing tension, creating artificial closure, resolving contradictions without integration. Consequence: rare signals do not disappear → no averaging → no collapse. 2.2. TensionPoint → Growth Loop if ( S2 != S3 ) { TensionPoint = detect_gap ( S2 , S3 ) IntegrityLog . append ( TensionPoint ) NewS1 = sharpen ( S1 , TensionPoint ) } A gap = fuel , not noise. 2.3. Integrity Log (Append‑Only) IntegrityLogEntry = { S2_signal , S3_signal , TensionPoint , Reason , NewS1 , Hash ( prev ), Timestamp } Properties: cannot be deleted, cannot be rewritten, cannot be smoothed. This breaks the degradation mechanism b

Two things happened to me this week. First, the shocking power of agentic AI finally hit me at work. Power of God... Second, I read anthropics warning about recursive self-improvement in WSJ. It mentioned how some people are freaking out about the mere suggestion of restricting open source LLMs. It made me wonder if some of us are clueless about how dark the dark side of the power of God could be. I'm proposing a very uncomfortable thought experiment. An edge case. But an unfortunately long and sharp edge. I am asking all you people out there to think of the darkest thing you could see yourself doing with an unchained AI, perhaps at the worst moment in your life... Actually no, I'm not asking that. Let's do this AI style. I want you to imagine the worst version of yourself and then I want you to simulate the worst version of yourself imagining the worst thing they would do at the worst point in their life to their most hated enemy. If people answer honestly, this thread will get very disturbing. I'd ask the moderators not to take it down. It's an exploration of what's soon to be possible. And a conversation not likely to happen unless somebody explicitly prompts it. Its value to public discourse is one of safety. Generally speaking, our public servants are good people. They aren't inclined to let their mind to go where the worst of us might go with this technology. If nobody ever says out loud, how will we know to protect ourselves as a society? submitted by /u/dsfhhslkj [link] [留言]

https://preview.redd.it/n55ohr6wrd5h1.png?width=1537&format=png&auto=webp&s=991397299a33b91459c9b33597ea920bf43abc28 I'm not here to promote my work or make money from what I'm about to say. I'm here to say that Egypt is already part of the AI race. Today, at TokenAI, we announced our first image generation model and the first release in the Horus Lens family: Horus Lens 1.0 . Horus Lens is a family of models specialized in text-to-image generation, forming a dedicated branch of the broader Horus model family developed and owned by TokenAI. This launch marks an important step forward for Egypt's AI ecosystem and highlights the growing role of the region in advancing artificial intelligence technologies. submitted by /u/assemsabryy [link] [留言]

Most AI projects don't fail because of the model. They fail because nobody trusts them enough to use them. Teams spend weeks comparing: GPT vs Claude Agent frameworks Prompt strategies Benchmarks Then the project quietly dies. Not because the AI was bad. Because nobody solved the boring stuff. Things like: Validation Monitoring Human approval flows Error handling Accountability In my experience, improving the model usually gives small gains. Improving trust changes everything. A 90% accurate agent that people trust creates value. A 99% accurate agent that nobody trusts gets ignored. The biggest challenge in AI isn't intelligence. It's adoption. Curious if others have seen the same thing. What actually killed the AI projects you've worked on? submitted by /u/MerisDabhi [link] [留言]

OpenAI’s Sam Altman, Anthropic’s Dario Amodei and Demis Hassabis of Google’s DeepMind AI lab with other top execs signed a letter urging Congress to require safeguards when companies order synthetic DNA and RNA, a key step in developing certain vaccines and biotech breakthroughs. submitted by /u/beasthunterr69 [link] [留言]

Been using the Artlist AI Toolkit for a while now and honestly just camp out on Nano Banana 2 for image editing and Kling 3.0 for video. Between those two I can pretty much handle everything I need. The toolkit has a ton of other stuff: Veo 3.1, Flux 2.0, GPT Image 1.5, Sora 2, but I haven't felt a strong enough reason to branch out yet. Curious if anyone's actually putting the other models to work or if most people find their two or three go-tos and just stay there. Is Veo 3.1 actually worth trying alongside Kling? And does anyone use the voiceover tools or is that still rough around the edges? submitted by /u/shogunattila [link] [留言]

I'd like to perform the typical operation of giving an AI some text to review and asking it to give me feedback, summarize the document, evaluate the content etc. Except, I want to give it two pieces of text, perhaps two sides of a debate, and I don't want the output to depend on the order of the two inputs. My naive idea is to do it both ways in two separate contexts, then feed those results to each other with a request for convergent results, and repeat until they converge. However, this seems like it would be rather slow and expensive. Are there any existing tools that enable this sort of task without extra tooling and iterative attempts at convergence? submitted by /u/sparr [link] [留言]

Most engineers build distributed systems hoping nothing breaks. Amazon S3 was engineered under the opposite assumption: that something is already broken, right now, and the system needs to be fine with that. That one mindset shift explains almost everything about how S3 works — and why it's one of the most reliable pieces of infrastructure on the planet. I went through a deep-dive conversation with Mai-Lan Tomsen Bukovec, VP of Data and Analytics at AWS, and extracted the engineering philosophy underneath the product. Not the marketing version. The real one. Here's what actually matters. 1. Hardware failure is not an emergency. It's Tuesday. S3 manages hundreds of exabytes of data across tens of millions of hard drives, spread across 120 Availability Zones in 38 AWS Regions. It currently stores over 500 trillion objects. At that scale, something is always failing. A disk here. A rack there. An availability zone every now and then. The math is unforgiving. So the S3 team made a deliberate architectural decision early: stop treating failure as an exception. Design it into the system as the baseline state. This means dedicated auditor and repair microservices run continuously in the background — not when something goes wrong, but always. They scan the entire fleet, inspect every byte of data, detect discrepancies, and trigger repairs automatically. No human in the loop. No incident ticket. No war room. There's also a specific property they engineer for called crash consistency — the system is designed so that after any fail-stop event, it automatically returns to a valid state without manual intervention. The failure happens. The system continues. Those two things are not in conflict. The system heals itself because it was designed to assume it's already sick. If you're building distributed systems and your failure handling is reactive — you only respond after something breaks — you've already lost. Design the repair loop as a first-class citizen, not an afterthought.

The most expensive mistake of my career wasn't a line of code; it was a 'yes'. That 'yes' not only cost me money but also severely damaged my reputation, which I had built over years. This was a turning point I experienced when my personal project, which I proudly worked on and named "BurnCPU," reached its first 100 users. Today, with 20 years of system architecture and operations experience, I can clearly see the decisions I made back then and the lessons I've learned since. This post is not just a technical error analysis; it's also an intention to share a pragmatic decision-making process, trade-offs, and the courageous stance of an expert. My goal is to spark discussion, encourage thought, and perhaps help you avoid similar mistakes. When Did That 'Yes' Come? BurnCPU was initially a tool I developed for my own needs, aimed at optimizing server resources. The goal was to reduce costs by efficiently utilizing idle CPU time. The development process was enjoyable and, over time, exceeded expectations. When the first beta users started giving positive feedback, my excitement was at its peak. And then the moment arrived; an investor, during this period when my project reached its first 100 users, offered financial support for a major scaling and marketing push. The offer was tempting. It presented an opportunity to reach wider audiences, add more features, and perhaps even commercialize the project. The person opposite me was introduced as a recognized and successful name in the industry. Without delving too deeply into the details of the offer, I said "yes." This simple word marked the beginning of the most expensive mistake of my career. ⚠️ A Risky 'Yes' When making this decision, I did not sufficiently analyze the technical maturity of the project or whether my infrastructure could handle such a load. I overlooked the chasm between the marketing power promised by the investor and my technical infrastructure. After the First 100 Users: Unexpected Problems When we re

I used to think the best AI food logging flow would be simple: Take a photo, let the model identify the meal, confirm it, done. That works surprisingly well for a lot of meals. But while building MetricSync, I learned the awkward product truth: the best input method changes depending on what is in front of the user. A photo is great for a plate. A barcode is better for packaged food. Text is better when the user already knows what they ate or wants to fix one detail quickly. The mistake is treating one input mode like the whole product. Photos feel magical until the meal gets messy Photo logging is the most impressive demo because it removes the blank search box problem. The user does not need to know the exact database name for “rice bowl with chicken and avocado.” They can just show the app what they ate. But meals are messy. A photo might miss the sauce. It might not know if the drink is diet or regular. It might confuse a small serving with a large one. It might identify the food category correctly but still need a portion correction. That does not make photo logging bad. It just means the UX cannot end at “AI guessed something.” The real product is the correction loop. Can the user fix the meal without starting over? Barcode scanning is boring in the best way Barcode scanning is not as exciting as AI, but it is often the right tool. If someone is logging a protein bar, yogurt, cereal, or a packaged drink, asking an image model to infer the nutrition facts is silly. The barcode is more direct. That changed how I thought about the app. AI should not be the star of every interaction. Sometimes AI should get out of the way. The goal is not “use AI everywhere.” The goal is “make logging the thing in front of me take the least effort.” For packaged foods, that means barcode first. For mixed plates, that means photo first. For quick edits, that means text. Text still matters The more AI features you add, the easier it is to forget text input. But text is still the fas

TLDR - auto lenders are using AI bots to negotiate insurance settlements with inaccurate information. How can I Captain Kirk them and get a live person on the phone? I am an insurance claims adjuster. Recently, several high-interest auto loan lenders have begun using AI (both through email and phone calls) to dispute the total loss values for our claims. For those of you that have never dealt with a total loss - the value of a vehicle is (usually) determined by seeing what comparable vehicles are selling for on the market, and making adjustments based on the condition, mileage, etc. between those vehicles and the totalled vehicle. If a customer disagrees, they can hire an appraiser and the company will hire an independent appraiser, and the two will come to an agreement. The lender gets paid the amount minus the customer's deductible, and if it doesn't fully pay off the loan, unfortunately the customer will be responsible for the balance. Lately, AI calls and emails have been coming from these lenders disputing the amounts, and often based on egregiously incorrect information. They provide cherry picked comparisons to try to boost the vehicle values, and sometimes they aren't the same year, make, or model. Sometimes mileage and condition isn't factored in, sometimes they are tricked-out show cars someone advertised on a FSBO site. The real problem is, we have to waste our time researching all of this to see if any of the data is correct. When we respond pointing out the flawed comparisons, they only come back with more flawed comparisons. If we argue long enough, they will invoke the appraisal clause on the customer's behalf. Their appraiser is another AI system with a cutesy name. All efforts to reach humans at these lenders are essentially turned away - we are told we need to deal with the system. I am open to any advice you folks have - how can we get these AI systems to basically give up and get us in touch with a real person? I'm not trying to screw anyone out

Lets start our discussion from 2010 . Timeperiod 2010 - 2020 we have predictive AI models such as Recommendation systems , customer segmentation etc .. From 2020 the when the generative models were introduced to the world then the landscape was completely changed . We have this generative era till 2022 . Then industry was stepped into a new era called "Augumentation" models like AI Copilot . This was continued from 2022-2024 . Then came AI Agents—one of the most transformative innovations of the modern AI era. Unlike traditional AI systems that primarily generate responses, agents can reason, plan, use tools, and execute tasks autonomously. Today, the industry is rapidly evolving toward Autonomous Systems, where multiple specialized agents collaborate through orchestration frameworks to solve complex real-world problems. The best AI Timeline : Traditional ML ↓ Deep Learning ↓ Transformers (2017) ↓ Foundation Models ↓ LLMs (GPT Era) ↓ Prompt Engineering ↓ Embeddings ↓ Vector Databases ↓ RAG ↓ Function Calling ↓ AI Agents ↓ Agent Frameworks ↓ Multi-Agent Systems ↓ MCP ↓ Agentic AI ↓ Autonomous AI Organizations Just in the span of 6 years we saw a drastic change in the evolution of AI. Can't imagine how this AI is going to be in the next few years. ai #machinelearning #python