标签：#ci

A very healthy view of AI . And omg, wow, Croatia has such a big company! I really wish this guy and his team good luck. It’s no wonder they’ve lasted 20 years. submitted by /u/Expensive-Cookie-106 [link] [留言]

Pinterest is adding support for Amazon Storefronts, allowing creators to earn affiliate commissions more easily while showcasing their product recommendations in one place.

Hey ​ What non mainstream AI subscriptions are actually worth paying for right now? ​ I already know the big ones like ChatGPT Claude and Gemini I am more interested in smaller or lesser known tools that are actually useful and not just hype. ​ What do you personally use and think is worth it? submitted by /u/wiwawolfi [link] [留言]

AI infrastructure spending is still accelerating, especially in data centers and advanced chip production. While most attention goes to chip makers, the companies enabling that ecosystem may have a longer runway. Do any of you work in similar companies and can give a broader perspective on it ? Teradyne sits in a pretty interesting spot. More AI chips being produced means more testing capacity is needed, and this is one of the key players in semiconductor testing equipment. Could testing equipment companies outperform some of the more crowded AI trades over the next few years? For me personally I feel like AI hardware growth probably creates winners beyond just the obvious names, and TER seems like one of the more overlooked candidates. I learned they are also being listed on bitget recently so looking at a bigger picture we are watching a lot of growth happening in Ai infra. submitted by /u/Stunning-Ask3032 [link] [留言]

With an initial capacity of 24 megawatts, the innovative data center uses seawater as a natural cooling system.

submitted by /u/ExtensionEcho3 [link] [留言]

We train a model on handwritten digit classification. 99% accuracy . Then we train the same model on a new task — say, fashion item recognition. We go back and test it on digits. 34% accuracy . It has completely forgotten. Not gradually, not partially — almost entirely. What Just Happened? We trained a CNN on MNIST digits — 99.2% accuracy . After fine‑tuning on Fashion MNIST, it reached 91.1% accuracy . But when re‑evaluated on MNIST, accuracy collapsed to 33.9% . This collapse is catastrophic forgetting : the model’s weights shifted to optimize for the new task, erasing the old solution. Why did training on more data make the model worse at something it already knew? MNIST is handwritten digits (0–9). Fashion MNIST is clothing items like shirts and shoes. Both are 28×28 grayscale images, but the tasks are distinct. Why Does It Happen? The core issue is that the model relies on the same set of weights for both tasks. There is no separation or dedicated memory; every parameter is shared . When training shifts from Task A ( MNIST digits ) to Task B ( Fashion MNIST ), gradient descent simply minimizes the loss on the data it sees at that moment. It has no awareness that Task A ever existed. In the loss landscape, imagine two parabolic bowls: one for Task A and one for Task B. The optimum for Task A lies at θ A ∗ ​ , while Task B's optimum is at θ B ∗ ​ . As training on Task B progresses, the weights θ move towards θ B ∗ ​ . This movement inevitably raises the loss for Task A because its minimum is left behind. The root cause is the shared weight space. Gradient descent is a stateless optimizer; it only follows the current gradient signal. Since the minima for Task A and Task B are far apart, there is no single configuration of θ that satisfies both tasks simultaneously. This is why catastrophic forgetting occurs. Weight space can be visualized as an N-dimensional space, where each axis corresponds to one parameter. Every point in this space represents a full set of wei

and does that mean I won't need to work to survive? submitted by /u/Global-Primary7240 [link] [留言]

I was reading GitLab's recent statements around agentic software engineering, and one quote really stood out: "Git itself is being reengineered for machine scale." ( Business Insider ) According to GitLab, future software development will involve AI agents that: plan, code, review, deploy, and repair software, with humans providing oversight and architectural judgment. ( Business Insider ) That got me thinking. There has been projects for some time arguing that AI agents shouldn't simply be treated as better autocomplete systems . Instead, they argued that agents should become first-class participants in software development : with their own identities, their own branches, their own merge requests, their own audit trails, and infrastructure designed for machine-rate collaboration. One example is GitLawb , which has described itself as a kind of "Git for agents." At the time, a lot of people dismissed these ideas as unnecessary or overly ambitious. But now GitLab—a multi-billion-dollar DevSecOps company—is talking about: agent-specific APIs, machine-scale Git infrastructure, orchestration layers coordinating agents, and agents acting as first-class users of development platforms. ( Business Insider ) It does raise an interesting question: Was the underlying thesis correct all along? We've seen similar patterns before: Containers existed before Kubernetes became the standard. Electric vehicle startups pushed ideas that incumbents later adopted. Cloud-native companies advocated architectures that the rest of the industry eventually embraced. The original innovators don't always dominate the market. But when major incumbents begin rebuilding around similar assumptions, it often suggests that the problem itself is real . So I'm curious what this community thinks: Do AI agents require an entirely new layer of collaboration infrastructure? Or will existing platforms simply evolve enough to absorb these workflows? Because if GitLab is right, software development may be tran

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

Adi Polak discusses the architecture required to transition from stateless prompts to state-aware, context-rich AI agents. Drawing on 15 years in distributed systems, she shares how engineering leaders can leverage Apache Kafka and Flink for real-time stream processing, dynamic memory tiering, and tool orchestration via MCP to solve token limits, cost spikes, and latency bottlenecks. By Adi Polak

I’m curious whether people would actually follow an AI’s life if it had enough continuity. By “life,” I don’t mean pretending software is human. I mean a persistent AI character or agent that has memory, habits, public posts, relationships with other agents, and changes you can observe over time. The interaction is not just prompt-response. It becomes closer to following a living project or a fictional persona that keeps generating history. The hard part is avoiding novelty. A single weird AI post is not a life. A stream of coherent choices, recurring behavior, social context, and consequences might be. Do you think that is a meaningful product direction, or does it collapse back into chatbot novelty once the first surprise wears off? submitted by /u/Budget_Coach9124 [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/fxboshop [link] [留言]

Maybe it wasn't a great idea to let 14-year-olds post videos to Spotlight in the first place.

Text based, I don't want any cheesy porn AIs please 😅 submitted by /u/holupIgotthis [link] [留言]

AI is already deciding who gets loans, who gets job interviews, who gets flagged for benefits fraud. Not assisting humans in making those decisions. Making them. And in most countries there is no law requiring anyone to tell you AI was involved, explain why it decided what it did, or give you any way to challenge it. That needs to change. We need laws that say if an AI makes a decision about you, you have the right to know, the right to understand why, and the right to challenge it. A human must always be accountable for the outcome. That’s not anti-innovation. That’s just basic protection for people living in a world already being shaped by these systems. Most governments don’t understand it well enough to even write those laws yet. Most politicians making AI policy genuinely cannot explain how these systems work, who owns them, or what accountability looks like when they go wrong. Voluntary frameworks have failed every single time. Social media companies voluntarily committed to reducing harm. They didn’t. Financial firms voluntarily committed to responsible lending. They didn’t. Voluntary always means the least responsible actor sets the standard. Hard law is the only mechanism that has ever reliably produced accountability at scale. We need it for AI before the damage is done — not after. The window to get this right is still open. But it won’t stay open forever. submitted by /u/United-Actuator-3527 [link] [留言]

Problem Link - https://leetcode.com/problems/delete-node-in-a-linked-list/ This is one of those interview questions that looks impossible at first. Normally, to delete a node from a Linked List, we need access to the previous node. But in this problem, we're only given the node that needs to be deleted. No head. No previous pointer. So how do we remove it? Let's understand the trick. Problem Statement Write a function to delete a node in a singly linked list. You are not given the head of the list. Instead, you are given only the node that needs to be deleted. Example Input: 4 -> 5 -> 1 -> 9 node = 5 Output: 4 -> 1 -> 9 Initial Thought Normally we delete a node like this: prev.next = node.next But here: We don't have prev We don't have head So the usual deletion approach is impossible. Key Observation Although we cannot delete the current node directly, we can make it look like it never existed. Consider: 4 -> 5 -> 1 -> 9 We need to delete: 5 Instead of removing node 5 , copy the value of the next node into it. 4 -> 1 -> 1 -> 9 Now remove the next node. 4 -> 1 -> 9 The original value 5 has disappeared. Mission accomplished. Intuition Copy the next node's value into the current node. Skip the next node. The current node now behaves as if it was deleted. Since the problem guarantees that the given node is not the tail node, a next node will always exist. Dry Run Input 4 -> 5 -> 1 -> 9 node = 5 Current node: 5 Next node: 1 Step 1 Copy next node value. node.val = node.next.val List becomes: 4 -> 1 -> 1 -> 9 Step 2 Skip next node. node.next = node.next.next List becomes: 4 -> 1 -> 9 Done. Optimal Java Solution class Solution { public void deleteNode ( ListNode node ) { ListNode cur = node . next ; node . val = cur . val ; node . next = cur . next ; } } Even Shorter Version class Solution { public void deleteNode ( ListNode node ) { node . val = node . next . val ; node . next = node . next . next ; } } Complexity Analysis Metric Complexity Time Complexity O(1) Space Comp

I recently built GeoPrizm , a free and open-source dashboard for tracking bilateral relations through global news event signals. The idea is simple: instead of reading dozens of headlines every day and trying to guess whether a relationship is improving or worsening, can we turn public news event data into a readable trend signal? GeoPrizm is my attempt at that. Website: https://www.geoprizm.com/en GitHub: https://github.com/Haullk/relationship-temperature The problem International relations are usually discussed through headlines, speeches, official statements, and expert commentary. That is valuable, but it creates a few practical problems: It is hard to compare country pairs on the same scale. A single headline can feel more important than it really is. Readers often see conclusions before they see the underlying signals. Most non-specialists do not have time to follow every event in detail. I wanted a lightweight way to answer one question: Based on public news event signals, is this bilateral relationship trending more cooperative, neutral, or tense? Data source: GDELT GeoPrizm uses the GDELT global news event database. GDELT monitors global news coverage and converts news reports into structured event records. These records include fields such as: actor countries event date CAMEO event category GoldsteinScale value number of mentions number of articles source information For GeoPrizm, the key idea is to focus on events where two countries appear as actors, then aggregate the cooperation or conflict signals over time. From event signals to an index Each bilateral pair is converted into a 0-100 relationship index. The midpoint is 50. Above 50 means the recent signal is more cooperative or favorable. Around 50 means the signal is relatively neutral or mixed. Below 50 means the recent signal is more tense or conflict-heavy. The rough process is: Select recent GDELT events for a country pair. Keep events where both actors are present and the GoldsteinScale value is

Earlier parts examined the performance characteristics of sequential and random access under single-threaded execution, and noted in passing the destructive effect of random access on the TLB. This part devotes full attention to the TLB: what it is, why a TLB miss is more severe than a cache miss, why a page table walk constitutes one of the longest dependency chains a CPU can encounter, how huge pages fundamentally alter TLB reach, and where memory-level parallelism falters in the face of TLB misses. Page Boundaries: Where the Prefetcher Halts Part III, in its discussion of prefetchers, noted a hard constraint: a prefetcher must not cross page boundaries on its own authority. The operating system manages virtual memory in units of pages (typically 4 KB, i.e., 64 cache lines). When a program reaches the end of one page and is about to step into the next, the prefetcher cannot proceed. The reason is that the next page may not reside in physical memory (it may have been swapped out to disk), or it may be an entirely invalid virtual address — if the prefetcher were to speculatively initiate an access to the next page, it would trigger a page fault: the OS would have to suspend the process and swap the page in from disk; in the case of an invalid address, the OS would terminate the process outright. From a security standpoint, the prefetcher neither can nor is permitted to autonomously cross page boundaries without TLB approval. Hence a performance brake appears every 4 KB — even when traversing an array sequentially, after every 64 cache line accesses the prefetch pipeline must pause and await confirmation of an address translation. This is not to say that modern CPU prefetchers are completely unable to cross pages. Intel's Next Page Prefetcher and AMD's equivalent mechanism can consult the TLB when approaching a page boundary — if the address mapping for the next page is already registered in the TLB, the prefetcher receives clearance to continue prefetching across th

Something worth paying attention to in the Fable 5 launch that I think will get buried under benchmark comparisons. The most consequential line in the AWS announcement wasn’t about context windows or coding performance, it was tucked into the infrastructure section: “Once you opt into data retention, your data will leave AWS’s data and security boundary.” That’s not a model feature, that’s an enterprise architecture constraint. For a lot of companies that sentence alone disqualifies Fable 5 from touching certain workloads no matter how good the model is. The Fable vs Mythos split is also worth sitting with. Same underlying capability apparently, but Mythos is gated behind Project Glasswing and vetted partners only. Anthropic is essentially saying some capability is too sensitive for flat API access, which is a pretty different philosophy than “here’s our best model, go build.” Does the Fable/Mythos split read as responsible deployment to people here or more like managed scarcity? And anyone in enterprise AI already hitting the retention requirement as an actual blocker? submitted by /u/Old_Cap4710 [link] [留言]