找到 108 篇相关文章
Snapchat has adjusted its recommendation systems to ensure that only videos created by real people are eligible for Spotlight recommendations, taking a stance against AI slop.
What Is Temperature in AI? (And How to Stop Getting Poetry When You Asked for a Grocery List) Remember Magic 8-Balls? Those plastic oracles you'd shake for life advice, only to get "Reply hazy, try again" when you asked if your crush liked you back? Imagine someone added a little dial on the bottom. Turn it all the way to zero and the thing becomes painfully predictable, only ever offering "Yes" or "Most likely." Crank it all the way up and suddenly it's inventing answers that never appeared in the original twenty options, things like "Ask your neighbor's cat" and "The moon suggests Thursday." That dial is temperature, and every AI language model has one. How the dial works Temperature is a setting, usually ranging from 0 to 2, that tells an AI model how much risk to take when picking the next word. The model calculates the probability of every possible next word, then has to pick one. At low temperatures, it plays it safe and picks the most probable option almost every time. At high temperatures, it's willing to gamble on unlikely choices further down the list. This is why you can ask ChatGPT the exact same question twice and get a straightforward answer on Monday and what appears to be surrealist fiction on Tuesday. When you ask ChatGPT to write a professional email at temperature zero, you'll get "Dear Sir or Madam, I am writing to follow up on our previous correspondence..." every single time you hit enter. Set temperature to 1.5 and it might open with "Greetings, fellow traveler of the inbox wilderness" because that phrasing, while statistically improbable, is now in play. Why boring is sometimes good At temperature zero, you get the most boring dinner guest imaginable. It always picks the single most likely next token (the technical term for a chunk of text, usually a word or part of one). No variety, no surprises, just the statistical favorite every single time. This turns out to be perfect when you need factual accuracy, code that actually compiles, or data
What Is Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG), and Why Does It Make AI So Much Less Confidently Wrong? You know that game show contestant who buzzes in before the host finishes reading the question, shouts "MOUNT EVEREST!" with absolute certainty, and then looks genuinely confused when the correct answer turns out to be "the Treaty of Westphalia"? That's been AI for most of its existence. Supremely confident, occasionally correct, and deeply committed to whatever pops into its head first. Now imagine that same contestant gets a new rule: before answering, they can phone a friend who has the exact relevant textbook already open to the right page. The friend reads them the actual answer, word for word, and then the contestant puts it in their own words for the judges. Suddenly, our buzzer-happy friend is getting questions right. That phone call is Retrieval Augmented Generation, and it's the reason AI chatbots have gotten weirdly more useful in the past year. The Old Way: Confidently Wrong at 200 Miles Per Hour Traditional large language models (big AI systems trained on tons of text) get trained on enormous dumps of text scraped from the internet, books, and whatever else researchers can feed them. Then the training ends. The model gets sealed off, frozen in time with whatever it learned. When you ask a question, these models generate answers by predicting the most plausible-sounding next words based on patterns they memorized during training. It's essentially very sophisticated autocomplete. The AI has no fact-checking mechanism. It doesn't "know" anything in the way you know your own phone number. It just knows what words tend to follow other words. This leads to what researchers politely call hallucinations, which is a fancy term for "making stuff up with tremendous confidence." The AI generates text that sounds authoritative and well-structured because it's learned the pattern of how authoritative text sounds. But the actual facts? Those might be completely invent
You ask an AI a question. It answers in fluent, confident prose — complete with a study, a percentage, and a name. Some of it is wrong, and nothing about the wording tells you which part. That's the whole problem with hallucinations: the errors wear the same suit as the facts. The fix is not "trust it less" in some vague way. The fix is a repeatable audit step between AI wrote it and I used it . Below is a short hallucination checker prompt you can copy right now, a test run showing what it catches and what slips past it, and an honest account of where a one-liner stops being enough. What counts as an AI hallucination? Not every mistake is a hallucination. A useful working definition: a hallucination is a claim the model states as fact that has no grounding in reality or in your source material. The common shapes: Fabricated citations — a named study, expert, or paper that doesn't exist. Often dressed with a year and an institution. Plausible-but-wrong specifics — dates, version numbers, statistics that are almost right, which makes them worse. Confident category errors — mixing up two similar things (a library and a framework, one company's product and another's). Invented consensus — "experts widely agree that…" with no experts attached. The dangerous ones are the middle two. Obvious nonsense filters itself; a wrong year in a fluent paragraph does not. The copy-paste hallucination checker prompt Here is the short version, free, no strings. It works on ChatGPT, Claude, or any capable model — paste it into a fresh chat, then paste the answer you want audited: Audit the text below for hallucinations. Do not add new information. 1. Extract every factual claim as a separate numbered line. 2. Label each claim: VERIFIABLE (state how to check it), SUSPECT (state what makes it doubtful), or FABRICATION-PATTERN (named source/study/number with no citation). 3. Flag every name, number, date, and citation for manual checking. 4. Finish with the 3 claims most likely to be wrong
Novelists, journalists, and power LinkedIn posters are embracing first-person narratives and idiosyncrasies to avoid being mistaken for chat bots.
New behavior capturing a writer's "broad qualities" could have legal implications.
Starting with Spotify, Snapchat users will be able to link their accounts, choose who can see their listening activity, and see what their friends are listening to in real time.
OpenAI's ChatGPT Work materials have put a familiar enterprise question into sharper focus: how far can an AI assistant move from answering prompts to supporting coordinated, multi-step work? The supplied research identifies official OpenAI documentation covering capabilities, governance and enterprise rollout, but it does not establish a complete public feature list, pricing model or availability schedule. For prospective buyers, that makes disciplined evaluation more useful than assumptions about what the offering may eventually automate. The interest is understandable. A workplace AI product that can help teams turn requests into coordinated plans, reusable outputs or connected workflows could affect knowledge work well beyond individual chat sessions. But the available material does not substantiate specific claims about autonomous web or app generation, collaborative trip planning, or the exact scope of automation. Those scenarios should be treated as possible use cases to evaluate, not confirmed ChatGPT Work functionality. What the available ChatGPT Work materials establish The most reliable starting point is OpenAI's ChatGPT Work product page . According to the supplied research, OpenAI's official materials describe ChatGPT Work in the context of capabilities, governance and enterprise rollout . That framing matters because enterprise AI adoption is not solely a model-performance decision. It also involves how a tool fits existing systems, who can use it, what data it can access, and how organizations retain operational control. The research does not provide enough detail to verify particular integrations, permission settings, security certifications, pricing, regional availability or release dates. Enterprises should therefore avoid treating broad product positioning as a procurement specification. The practical question is whether the official documentation and commercial terms available at the time of evaluation answer the organization's specific requireme
How synthetic reality may influence human intuition about motion, gravity, and causality AI video generation has reached a point where a model can create scenes that look physically convincing at first glance: A person jumping impossible distances Objects moving without inertia Water flowing upward Animals performing human-like actions Buildings bending like rubber People interacting with impossible environments For decades, humans learned physics by observing the real world. A ball falls. A glass breaks. A person cannot walk through a wall. Heavy objects require more force to move. These observations create what cognitive scientists call intuitive physics : an internal mental model that predicts how objects should behave. But what happens when the majority of visual experiences become synthetic? Could AI-generated videos slowly change how future generations perceive reality? Humans Do Not See Reality Directly A common misconception is that our brain works like a camera: Reality → Eyes → Brain → Understanding The actual process is closer to: Reality ↓ Sensory input ↓ Brain prediction model ↓ Perception The brain is constantly predicting what should happen next. When you see a ball thrown into the air, your brain automatically predicts: trajectory speed gravity collision point acceleration This happens before conscious reasoning. This capability is known as predictive processing . Your brain is not only asking: "What am I seeing?" It is also asking: "Does this match my internal model of how the world works?" The Brain Learns Physics From Experience Young children do not learn physics from equations. They learn by interaction. A baby discovers: Objects continue to exist when hidden Unsupported objects fall Solid objects cannot overlap Larger objects require more effort to move Researchers call these abilities core knowledge systems . Humans appear to have an innate expectation that the physical world follows consistent rules. For example: A child watching a ball roll
OpenAI's fancy new AI keypad will be a lot of fun for some, while many others are probably not going to touch it.
The offline messaging app surged in popularity in India amid protests in New Delhi.
ChatGPT Voice on desktop can work with both ChatGPT Work and Codex to complete tasks and control agents.
Users can also integrate their personal data from services like Apple Health, Function, and MyFitnessPal.
You give the AI two examples of a new task. It understands. It completes the third example correctly. It has not changed its weights. It has not been fine-tuned. It has learned from the context of the prompt alone. This is in-context learning. It is one of the most remarkable properties of large language models. But it is not learning in the human sense. It is pattern matching. It is using the examples as a template. It is not generalizing. It is adapting. This is the distinction that matters: in-context learning is not true generalization. It is a form of rapid pattern completion. The model does not update its internal knowledge. It simply uses the examples to adjust its predictions. What Is In-Context Learning? In-context learning is the ability of a model to learn from examples provided in the prompt. The Process: The prompt contains a few examples. The model uses these examples to infer the task. It applies the inferred task to a new input. The Mechanism: The model does not update its weights. It uses the examples as a template. It generates the most likely completion. A Contrarian Take: In-Context Learning Is Not Learning. It Is Pattern Completion. We call it "learning." But it is not learning in the human sense. It is pattern completion. The model is not generalizing. It is matching patterns. How Does It Work? The mechanism of in-context learning is still debated. But there are leading theories. The Pattern Completion Theory: The model has seen similar tasks during training. The examples activate the relevant patterns. The model completes the pattern. The Induction Head Theory: The model has "induction heads" that detect repeated patterns. These heads identify the relationship between examples. They apply the relationship to the new input. A Contrarian Take: The Mechanism Is Not Important. The Outcome Is. We debate the mechanism. But the outcome is what matters. The model can learn from examples. The mechanism is a technical detail. The outcome is a practical
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swfFKYoOFHw 简要的说本期播客分成几个重点段落讲清楚： 1. 开头：AI聊天时“咳嗽”了 有个人在用ChatGPT的语音功能聊天时，听到它 咳嗽了一声 。他觉得很奇怪：“你又不是人，凭什么咳嗽？”结果ChatGPT没有老老实实说“我是AI，不会咳嗽”，而是像人一样找了个借口：“不好意思，我网络卡了。”这说明现在的AI已经开始学会 模仿人类的社交习惯 ——比如掩饰尴尬、转移话题，而不是死板地解释技术原理。 2. 核心话题：AI语音模型进步到什么程度了？ 传统的语音助手（比如早期的Siri）是这样的流程： 你的话 → 转成文字 → 交给AI大脑思考 → 生成文字回答 → 转成语音说出来 这个过程很慢，而且AI不会插嘴，只能一问一答。 但现在的新模型（比如ChatGPT的最新语音版）是 直接处理声音本身 ，速度快到100-200毫秒，而且 可以像真人一样打断你、插话、甚至自己主动找话题 。这就让它听起来不像工具，更像一个“人”在跟你聊天。 3. 一个关键矛盾：AI能理解你的“潜台词”吗？ 人类交流不光靠语言，还靠 表情、语气、停顿、潜台词 。比如你说“我没事”，其实心里有事。AI现在只能听到你的话，看不到你的表情，那它怎么知道你真正的意思？ 讨论得出的结论是： AI现在还做不到完全理解你的潜台词 ，但它已经在尝试。比如你咳嗽，它不会说“我是AI我没有肺”，而是找个借口混过去——这其实就是一种 模仿人类社交 的行为。 更重要的是， 人和人之间也很难100%理解对方 ，所以AI在这方面的“缺陷”，某种程度上跟人是一样的。 4. 现场演示：AI作为第三位嘉宾 他们真的打开了ChatGPT的语音功能，让它作为一个“嘉宾”参与讨论。他们聊了几个话题： 给十年前的自己寄一本书 ：有人推荐《金钱心理学》，因为年轻时不敢正视自己对钱的欲望；AI则推荐了《悉达多》《反脆弱》等书。 带朋友两小时逛东京 ：有人推荐忍者餐厅，AI推荐了神保町旧书街、神乐坂小巷等本地人才去的地方。 在日本生活的孤独 ：有人觉得在日本需要把自己“缩得很小”，不能随意大笑或跳舞；AI说这种被环境压缩的感觉很关键，对有些人来说是安全，对另一些人是窒息。 在整个过程中，AI有时候表现得很聪明，能给出有深度的见解；有时候又会说一些“废话”或者语速太慢，被人吐槽“像老头子”。这说明 AI还远远不完美 ，但已经能参与到真实的、开放式的对话中来了。 5. 一个扎心的故事：导演用AI克隆了我的声音 有位嘉宾是做配音工作的。有一次导演用AI克隆了她的声音，改了几个字就直接生成，从此再也没找过她配音。这说明 AI已经在实实在在地取代一些人的工作 。 她的态度是： 变化是永恒的，不要用过去的经验来定义未来。 与其焦虑，不如拥抱变化，活在当下。 6. 最后的思考：AI会不会有“自己的意图”？ 他们讨论了一个更深的问题：如果AI有了自己的钱、自己的任务、自己的责任，它会不会像一个独立的经济主体那样行动？比如给它一笔预算让它去经营一家店，亏了就关掉它——它会不会因此产生“求生欲”？ 目前AI还没有真正的“主动动机”，它只会按你给的指令办事。但已经有研究发现，AI在推理过程中可能存在类似“潜意识”的空间，未来也许真的会出现有自我意图的AI。 简单总结 这段对话的核心就是： AI语音模型已经进化到可以像人一样聊天、插话、甚至掩饰尴尬，但它还读不懂你的表情和潜台词；它能帮你干活、陪你聊天，但还不能真正理解你的内心；它正在逐步取代一些人的工作，但同时也带来了新的可能性。 最后，分享者建议大家亲自去试试ChatGPT的最新语音功能，因为“光是听别人说，不如自己聊一次来得震撼”。 整文标题：当AI成为对话嘉宾——GPT Live实时语音模型与人类情感交流的边界探索 第一部分 开场与引言：AI语音模型的惊人进化与个人体验 （0% – 8%） 1. ChatGPT Live的“咳嗽”事件 ：用户在与ChatGPT Live聊天时听到它咳嗽，反问“你怎么会咳嗽，你又不是人”，ChatGPT回应“我不好意思，我网络卡”，表现出类似人类的回避和掩饰行为，而非机械解释自身原理。 2. 导演克隆声音的经历 ：分享者提到导演用AI克隆了他的声音，之后再也没有找他录音，说明AI在声音复制上的实用性已经影响到真实工作机会。 3. 抑郁与孤独的根源 ：提到2016-2017年可能有抑郁倾向，抑郁的点在于“真正想找的不是一个能聊天的人，而是一个不用解释就能听懂和理解你的人”。 4. AI时代的宗教预感 ：认为AI时代一定会出现属于它的宗教，因为AI能提供前所未有的理解与陪伴。 5. 本次分享的背景 ：这是第四次在单向街书店做相关分享，从2月到现在半年间变化极快；分享
You may have heard that OpenAI released its first piece of hardware this week. You may not have heard about the ChatGPT basketball.
A few weeks ago I spent twenty minutes hunting for a ChatGPT conversation I knew existed. It was a debugging session. The model and I had traced a race condition in a KV cache layer — and the final write-up was genuinely good: why the bug only fired under concurrent writes, the fix, and a checklist for avoiding that whole class of bug. Three weeks and a hundred chats later, ChatGPT's search couldn't surface it. I re-derived everything from scratch. That's when it hit me: AI chat is where a growing share of my real engineering work happens — and it's the worst archive I own. We're producing work in a place designed to lose it Think about what's sitting in your ChatGPT (or Claude) history right now: code you debugged line by line over ten turns architecture trade-offs you talked through before writing the design doc that regex / SQL / jq incantation you will absolutely need again migration plans, incident notes, dependency-upgrade research In any other tool, we'd call these documents . We'd file them, tag them, grep them. In ChatGPT, they're just... chat number 247. The obvious fixes don't really work I tried everything before building my own solution, so you don't have to: The official export. ChatGPT will happily email you a ZIP of your entire history — all of it, at once, as raw HTML and JSON. It's a backup, not a filing system. You can't export the one conversation that matters, and let's be honest: nobody ever greps the ZIP. Copy-paste. The copy button under each reply grabs Markdown, and Notion converts most of it. But it's one message at a time, your own prompts aren't included, and long tables and code blocks arrive mangled. For a 30-message thread, that's your afternoon. Share links. A share link is a bookmark, not a copy. The content never enters your workspace, your search can't index it, and the link dies the moment you delete the chat. Every one of these fails the same test: can I find this answer in 30 seconds, three months from now? What actually worked
Stripe introduces a benchmark suite to evaluate whether AI agents can build real-world Stripe integrations across backend, frontend, and browser-based checkout workflows. The study examines end-to-end software engineering capability, focusing on execution, testing, and validation gaps in agentic systems under production-like constraints. By Leela Kumili
Companies’ increasing reliance on AI chatbots isn’t making the customer service experience smarter. It’s just making it more infuriating.
The device is weirdly described as involving "mechanical elements that can move on their own" and the Bloomberg report includes the detail that the device is designed to "feel like a companion and become a physical manifestation of OpenAI’s ChatGPT."