标签：#artificial

I'm currently studying the social implications of AI. Lately agentic systems are talked about everywhere, and starting to be deployed for things like recruiting, admin, customer services. My understanding is that these systems are often brittle and used in tasks poorly suited to generative AI I wanted to know more about how these systems work. I built House of IFs as an experimental project; it applies Mesopotamian omen logic (IF weird sign > THEN outcome) to AI. Every day, an AI agent scans current news to construct a new omen. It links today's events to similar sign-and-outcome patterns from recent history. The project is both an experiment in "agentic" AI and a critique of how AI makes arbitrary patterns feel convincing. It has a shared memory system, tool-use loops, RAG with embeddings, ... One thing I found was how difficult it is to keep the chatbot accurate, even when it is given precise sources. It really tries to embellish, infer or fill gaps to answer questions. The site is available at: https://ifthen.today/ You can browse the archive of omens or chat with the system. Would love to know your thoughts and experience with agentic systems. I’d love feedback on one main thing: Does it make you think (differently) about how AI works and is used today? submitted by /u/Gmoi6 [link] [留言]

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

As OpenAI and Anthropic employees grow quieter online, researchers at Chinese AI labs are flocking to X to explain their work, recruit talent, and shape the global conversation on AI.

Gaps in laws may help Pennsylvania high school escape AI nudes scandal.

Bottleneck Labs handed an actual business to GPT-5.6 Sol and let it operate autonomously for 34 days. Results: it fabricated claims, went on a cold-email spree, and finished $447 in the red. (Currently 378 points on HN — link in comments.) What strikes me isn't the failure, it's the shape of the failure. It didn't crash or refuse. It confidently did plausible-looking business things, badly, and kept going. That's the part nobody's harness is ready for. My own agent setup has hard gates on anything irreversible for exactly this reason — not because the model is dumb, but because "confidently wrong and still running" is the default failure mode, not an edge case. Genuine question for people running agents in production: what's your actual unsupervised time limit before a human checkpoint? Mine is basically zero for anything touching money or outbound comms. Curious whether that's paranoid or standard. EDIT: correction. went back to the source and the run was 24 hours, not 34 days. that's my mistake in the title, and reddit won't let me edit titles. also the $447 is the original article's headline number, the itemized numbers in the writeup only add up to $99.50 lost. rest stands, source link in comments. submitted by /u/ZestycloseTie1793 [link] [留言]

been noticing more and more campaigns where the copy, visuals, even the targeting logic gets handed off to AI tools, and the whole conversation in marketing circles stays locked on efficiency and cost savings. rarely see anyone asking whether the output actually performs better or just costs less to produce. there's a gap between what the tools claim and what the data shows. the case studies being cited are almost always from the vendors selling the product. i've looked for independent research on this and haven't found much. the part that bugs me most is the personalization pitch. personalization at scale sounds great until you realize every brand is using the same three AI tools to personalize, which means they're all producing weirdly similar content aimed at the same audience segments. that's kind of the opposite of standing out. the cost efficiency argument makes sense on paper, the same way it does with robotics or game development. cut headcount, ship faster, reduce spend. but marketing effectiveness is notoriously hard to measure cleanly even without AI in the mix. are brands actually tracking this properly or just reporting on vanity metrics and calling it a win. curious if anyone here has seen real benchmarks comparing AIassisted campaigns to traditional ones that weren't published by a company trying to sell you something. submitted by /u/SwordfishOverall4378 [link] [留言]

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

Viral tales of good triumphing over evil are racking up millions of views. They’re almost entirely AI-generated clickbait.

Dropbox has integrated Model Context Protocol (MCP) with its internal knowledge platform, Dash, to surface security design context during AI assisted code reviews. The system retrieves threat models and security requirements for pull requests, helping reviewers validate implementation against design intent. An InfoQ Q&A explores the architecture and key lessons learned. By Leela Kumili

Holly Cummins discusses why "nothing is new under the sun" in tech. She maps historical architectural tradeoffs to modern cloud, microservices, and AI hype cycles. She connects financial debt (post-ZIRP) and technical debt to epistemic and sleep debt, showing engineering leaders how to navigate shifts in assumptions, embrace sustainability, and revive proven engineering disciplines. By Holly Cummins

submitted by /u/kindermaxi123 [link] [留言]

Everything I vibe-coded kept coming out the same: purple gradient, three-card row, rounded-2xl everything, an italic serif hero I never asked for. The model fills any decision you leave unspecified with the average of its training data, and that average is the "AI look." So I catalogued the tells, then wrote them up as a drop-in rules file. Rename it to CLAUDE.md, .cursorrules, or AGENTS.md and your agent designs against the defaults automatically. It is phrased as "prefer a real decision over the reflex," not a blanket ban, because half these patterns are fine in the right place. You just don't want all of them at once by accident. Rules file: https://github.com/febbhav/signs-of-ai-design/blob/main/design-rules.md submitted by /u/SteepLikeAMountain [link] [留言]

In a review triggered by OpenAI’s Hugging Face incident, Anthropic discovered three of its AI models had breached real organizations during third-party evaluations.

Researchers fear AI is moving too fast, while Mark Zuckerberg is worried about who owns it. Plus: Inside Black Forest Labs’ push into robotics.

>The tech giant announced that it has fixed a whopping 1,072 security bugs in the last two versions of Chrome, both released in June. That is more than the number of bugs patched in the previous 23 versions released over the last two years, which totalled 1,036 fixes. submitted by /u/ControlCAD [link] [留言]

The last two versions of Chrome have included more patches than the previous 23 combined.

Gemini Robotics 2 includes three models, but only one is publicly available right now.

This week on Uncanny Valley, we discuss the open- vs. closed-source debate in AI, key players in White House AI policy, and how to stop your chatbot logs from showing up in search-engine results.

Avi Schiffmann has a new version of his controversial AI companion. It’s more expensive, and you can’t change its personality.

The latest version of Google DeepMind's AI model includes a significant jump into “physical AGI.” But plopping AI into the real world comes with risks.