标签：#m

I created an AI boxing match to test the decision speed, adaptability and strategy. I fed the LLMs with data about the current match and if they have vision, they will get even more data. The match has street rules, anything goes and an AI is not defeated until the ref counts to 10 or they do 50% of their HP in damage after being knocked out. I wanted to create a fun benchmark that isn't just boring problems to be solved. Now I test them while stimulating getting punched in the face. I've been testing with gemini-flash-live models because of the speed and vision support it offers. With these models, they can actually dodge punches and counter punches. Local models on my own hardware (5060ti 8gb) take a while to inference so I'm not sure if I should introduce time scaling to compensate otherwise I want to use this to benchmark models so I'm curious on what kind of stats would be useful? Here is what I'm tracking have so far: Speed and Latency Metrics In a real-time fight, a model's speed directly correlates to its "physical" speed. Fast models should attack faster so larger models aren't necessarily going to hit harder. Tokens per Second (TPS) / Throughput: This will help you balance local models against cloud APIs. A model might have a fast TTFT but a slow TPS, meaning its actual action execution takes too long. End-to-End Latency: The total time from when the model receives the snapshot (the prompt) to when the action is executed in the game. This accounts for tool-calling delays. Reaction Latency: Measure the specific delay between an opponent's telegraph (e.g., a heavy punch winding up) and the model's defensive output (e.g., a dodge or block). Action Quality and "Tool" Correctness the model's actions (punching, guarding, taunting) act as tool calls. You need to track how well they use these tools under pressure. Sometimes the model's may not really guard/block so they are typically the ones that find themselves KOd. Tool Correctness / Validity: How often does th

submitted by /u/Ok_Stomach6651 [link] [留言]

The day your first cohort completes a course is the day certificates stop being a design job and become an engineering problem. One certificate is a Canva export. Ten thousand is a rendering pipeline with a database table, a queue and a verification page. This post walks through the three ways teams actually build that pipeline, with working Python for each, then covers the two parts most certificate tutorials skip: batching at volume and verification. It is a condensed version of our full guide, How to generate signed digital certificates at scale , which also covers storage, retention and revocation. One scope note up front. Most platform certificates do not need cryptographic signing in the PKI sense. The trust model that 95% of platforms ship is simpler: a unique ID printed on the certificate resolves to a verification page on the issuer's domain. An employer types the ID, the page confirms it. That is the model this post builds. If you need true PKI signing for regulated credentials, the stack is different (Adobe Sign, DocuSign, in-house HSM workflows) and this post is not it. What every certificate needs Whichever approach you pick, the output is the same: Component Detail Layout Landscape A4, 2480x1754 at 200 DPI for print Personal Recipient name with full Unicode support Course Course title and completion date Issuer Issuer name plus a signature image ID Unique certificate ID (UUID or short slug) Verify A URL under the ID pointing to your /verify route The signature image communicates authority but provides zero tamper resistance. The certificate ID plus the verification page is the practical trust layer. Keep both in mind as you read the code. The three approaches at a glance Approach Setup Render time Maintenance PDF library (ReportLab, PDFKit) 1 day 200 to 400 ms Fonts, layout drift, library updates HTML plus headless Chrome 2 hours 1 to 3 sec Chromium, memory, queue workers Template API 5 minutes 1 to 2 sec None Approach 1: a PDF library Python with Repo

XML Tagging in Prompts: The Secret to Getting Better Output from Claude and GPT A simple structuring trick that turns messy, unpredictable LLM outputs into clean, reliable ones. If you've spent any time writing prompts for Claude, GPT, or any other large language model, you've probably hit this wall: your prompt works fine for a simple ask, but the moment you pack in multiple instructions — some context, a few examples, formatting rules, and the actual task — the model starts mixing things up. It answers the wrong part of the question. It ignores your formatting instructions. It treats your example output as part of the actual task. The fix is almost embarrassingly simple: wrap your prompt sections in XML tags. Why XML Tags Work So Well LLMs are trained on enormous amounts of code, documentation, and markup. XML (and HTML) syntax is deeply embedded in that training data, which means models are very good at recognizing where one tagged section ends and another begins. Unlike plain paragraphs — where the boundary between "here's my context" and "here's my instruction" is fuzzy — a tag creates an unambiguous boundary. Anthropic actually recommends this explicitly for Claude: wrapping distinct parts of a prompt (instructions, context, examples, output format) in tags like <instructions> , <context> , <example> , and <output_format> measurably improves consistency, especially in longer or more complex prompts. Think of it like the difference between handing someone a wall of text versus handing them a form with labeled fields. Both contain the same information, but one is far easier to parse correctly — for a human, and for a model. A Before-and-After Example Without tags: Summarize the article below in 3 bullet points. Keep it under 50 words. Use a neutral tone. Here's an example of the style I want: "- Company X raised $10M in Series A funding." Now here's the article: [long article text] The model has to guess where the instructions end and the article begins — and wi

I’ve been building AI apps with coding agents for a while. Lately, I’ve been experimenting with evals too. The app in this example mostly worked. That was the problem. The bug I built a small support-triage app for a fictional shipment-tracking company. A customer sends a support ticket, and the app decides what it is about, how urgent it is, and whether a human needs to respond. A real outage should be escalated. But this ticket was different: “URGENT need key rotation now” The customer was asking how to rotate their own API key before a security review. The app classified it as a security incident and escalated it to a human. That was wrong. The policy said normal key rotation was a self-service how-to request. Nothing crashed. The app returned valid JSON. The fields all contained allowed values. The behavior was still wrong. Why clicking around wasn’t enough I could test a few tickets manually and convince myself the app worked. But after changing the prompt, what would I actually know? Would the outage case still escalate? Would normal how-to questions stay in the normal queue? Would another API-key question behave differently? I didn’t want to change the prompt and simply hope for the best. I wanted a set of cases I could run again. Adding DeepEval with Cursor I installed the DeepEval agent skill: npx skills add confident-ai/deepeval --skill "deepeval" Then I asked Cursor to add evals to the app: This app sometimes treats normal support questions like emergencies and sends them to a human. Add DeepEval so I can test this using the tickets and policy already in the repo. I am new to evals, so use the simplest setup DeepEval already provides, explain what you create, and ask me anything you need. Run the app as it is first and show me what fails. Do not fix it yet. Cursor already had the app, tickets, and policy, so it went straight to creating the baseline. Goldens are the checklist The first useful artifact was a JSON dataset. Each golden contained: the custome

A few days ago, I wrote "Understanding Over Origin" and it got alot of engagement and I'm really...

Also: Cyborg diving suits for cockroaches, why sleepy sperm whales blow bubbles, Betelgeuse's companion star.

A project can depend on an API, frontend, workers, Docker, databases, tunnels, webhooks, and browser extensions. Remembering which terminal runs each process works—until it doesn’t, and it works even less reliably for coding agents. I built dev-runtime to make that runtime explicit. Simple config files define each session’s working directory, shell command, log file, expected ports, and health endpoints. It runs arbitrary commands inside managed tmux sessions, avoids starting duplicates, and provides shared start , status , doctor , attach , and stop commands. Because the commands live in project config, it is not tied to Node, Python, Docker, or any particular stack. The result is one machine-readable answer to: “What should be running, and is it actually healthy?” Article: https://motia.github.io/blog/using-dev-runtime-to-debug-local-services/ Repository: https://github.com/motia/agent-skills-dev/tree/main/skills/dev-runtime submitted by /u/mutasaki09 [link] [留言]

The risk of more debris hitting the moon is on the rise as the space race heats up.

The project started in 2016 as a Medium publication and GitBook but later moved to https://github.com/learning-rust/learning-rust.github.io I was updating section by section from time to time. No lies! keeping a Rust tutorial up to date is very tough. Plus, you end up repeating what you already know. It is even tougher, when you have to write code in another language for work. https://learning-rust.github.io updated with lot of rewrites and new themes & widgets like tabs for grouped code samples. submitted by /u/dumindunuwan [link] [留言]

OpenAI’s first-ever influencer brand trip is sparking online backlash as tensions over the use of AI continue.

In a recent Azure Architecture blog article, Azure lead engineer Kishorekumar Pattabiraman outlines practical criteria for choosing between skills, sub-agents, and other approaches when building AI systems, emphasizing reusability, simplicity, and long-term maintainability. By Sergio De Simone

This story originally appeared in The Algorithm, our weekly newsletter on AI. To get stories like this in your inbox first, sign up here. Humanoid robots usually elicit more cringe than awe: They stumble, kick children, and despite advances are still worse at using their hands than my toddler. It’s a nascent industry, and such robots…

Una discusión sobre un archivo digital casi nunca se pierde por lo que el archivo dice. Se pierde una pregunta antes: ¿Cómo sabemos que ese es el archivo que usted recibió, y no el que editó anoche? Si la respuesta es "confíe en mí", ya perdiste. Y da igual cuánta razón tengas en el fondo. Este problema no es exclusivo de un juzgado. Lo tiene el auditor que recibe un volcado de logs, el equipo que documenta un incidente, quien conserva la copia de un contrato firmado por correo. En todos los casos hace falta lo mismo: poder demostrar que un conjunto de bytes no cambió desde un momento determinado, y que lo demuestre alguien que no seas tú . Para eso escribí Tunjo : una herramienta en Rust que recorre un material en solo lectura, calcula su huella y firma un acta verificable por cualquiera. Por qué un árbol y no un hash Lo obvio sería concatenar todo y sacar un SHA-256. Funciona, y es inútil en la práctica. Cuando alguien discute un archivo —un correo concreto entre cuatro mil— con un hash único solo puedes ofrecer dos cosas: o entregas el conjunto completo para que se recalcule, o pides que te crean. La primera opción expone material que no tiene por qué exponerse; la segunda no es una prueba. Un árbol de Merkle resuelve exactamente eso. Cada archivo es una hoja, cada par de nodos se combina hacia arriba y queda una raíz. Para demostrar que una hoja pertenece a esa raíz basta con exhibir esa hoja y el camino de hashes hasta arriba: unos pocos kilobytes. El resto del conjunto no se toca. Dos detalles del árbol que no son opcionales: // Separación de dominio: una hoja nunca puede hacerse pasar por nodo interno. h . update ([ 0x00 ]); // hoja h . update ([ 0x01 ]); // nodo interno // Y la raíz ata el número de hojas. h . update ([ 0x02 ]); h . update ( n . to_be_bytes ()); Sin lo primero, un hash de hoja podría presentarse como si fuera un nodo del árbol. Sin lo segundo aparece la ambigüedad clásica de los árboles con número impar de hojas: dos conjuntos distintos pued

Before you go spend money on new headphones, try these adjustments. You can probably improve the sound on the ones you have.

Industrializing the disassembly of an undocumented processor from a raw binary is a complex task that can be broken down into four key steps: Verify that the binary does not belong to a known processor. Verify that the binary is not obfuscated, compressed, or encrypted code for a known processor. Build an undocumented processor generator. Create the analysis pipeline and custom disassembler generation process. For the first phase of this project, the goal is to build dedicated, lightweight disassemblers—since, for bare-metal binaries, tools like Ghidra require manual processor target selection before analysis can begin. 1. Why Build a Custom Disassembler? To determine whether a binary was compiled for a specific architecture, the strategy consists of disassembling the binary (both statically and dynamically) against candidate instruction sets until: One or more bytes fail to match any valid instruction for that architecture, allowing us to rule it out. The disassembly succeeds completely. (Note: a successful disassembly does not guarantee that the binary was originally intended for that CPU; control flow validity must also be verified). Static disassembly is the first line of defense. However, if it fails due to obfuscation, compression, or encryption, we must escalate to dynamic execution and analysis. Only after systematically eliminating all known architectures can we confidently conclude that we are dealing with a custom or undocumented processor . 2. How to Build Your Custom Disassembler Before deploying heavy machinery for undocumented processors, the logical first step was to check against known architectures. Approach 1: Ghidra and SLAgh Ghidra relies on the SLAgh specification language and maintains an extensive library of processor definitions. The original plan was to leverage its API to extract a normalized opcode mapping table. However, after several attempts, Ghidra proved unsuitable for this specific pipeline for two reasons: Operand Type Loss: Detail

Originally published on tamiz.pro . The current generation of AI coding assistants operates on a fundamental paradox: they are trained on the entirety of public code, yet they struggle to understand the specific codebase they are embedded in. For years, the industry has relied on prompt guessing —feeding the LLM a ragged collection of nearby code lines, hoping the semantic context is implicit. This approach is brittle. It fails when symbols are imported, when types are inferred, or when the logic spans multiple files.\n\nThe solution isn't a bigger model; it's a better protocol. The Language Server Protocol (LSP) is the missing link between static analysis and generative AI. By integrating LSP into AI agents, we move from probabilistic guessing to deterministic understanding. This article explores why LSP is critical for reliable coding agents, how to architect an LSP-augmented agent, and the technical pitfalls of this integration.\n\n## The Semantic Gap: Why Prompts Aren't Enough\n\nTo understand why LSP is necessary, we must first diagnose the failure modes of prompt-only AI coding agents. An LLM is a probabilistic next-token predictor. It does not "know" your code; it has seen patterns similar to your code in its training data. When you ask an AI agent to \"refactor this function,\" it relies on the context window to provide relevant information.\n\n### The Context Window Bottleneck\n\nThe primary limitation is the context window. Even with 128k tokens, you cannot fit an entire modern codebase. Agents must select a subset of files to include. Without explicit semantic queries, this selection is often heuristic-based (e.g., \"include the last 50 lines\") or simple semantic similarity (vector search). Both approaches miss critical structural relationships.\n\nConsider this example:\n\n python\n# file: user_service.py\nclass UserService:\n def get_user(self, user_id: int):\n # ... logic ...\n return db.query(User).filter(id=user_id)\n\n# file: controllers.py\ndef ha

You can tell when an LLM wrote an email. The "I hope this email finds you well" opener, the three polite paragraphs answering a one-line question. I wanted a reply-drafting agent that didn't do that, and "don't sound like an AI" turned out to be hard to put in a prompt. Banning a few phrases is easy. The rest is judgment, and a single prompt that holds across a friendly dinner invite and a recruiter cold-email took more iterations than I'd guessed. This is not only an email problem. Some platforms down-rank content that reads as AI-generated, so teams publishing at scale have a real stake in prose that clears a detector, even when a human wrote it. The workflow here applies to any of that. So I stopped hand-tuning and let LaunchDarkly agent optimization search for the prompt. You give it a judge that scores "better," and it generates prompt variations and keeps the ones that beat the bar. For the reasoning behind the feature, read the agent optimization announcement . This tutorial is the how. If you don't have an account yet, sign up for LaunchDarkly to follow along. Two pieces do the work here. Claude ( claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 ) runs both roles: it drafts the replies, and it writes each new candidate prompt when the loop asks for one. Scoring comes from GPTZero, which isn't a language model at all but a closed AI detector. I wired it in inverted, so the score is the probability a reply reads as AI and the optimizer drives it down. I went with a detector instead of an LLM-as-a-judge for a reason: grading one model's prose by asking another model whether it sounds human is exactly the call language models are unreliable at, and a tool trained for that one question gives a number you can defend. A run is cheap. Each iteration costs around $0.002 and a few seconds, so a full run lands near a penny or two, and the loop tries variations I'd never sit down and type by hand. This tutorial runs from a saved config You bootstrap the agent, the judge, and the optimization,

submitted by /u/onatm [link] [留言]

This modern-day Game Boy Advance SP remake starts at $65, but Anbernic is offering early bird pricing.