标签：#m

There is a design assumption baked into almost every vector database and AI memory implementation that sounds reasonable until you watch it grow nodes in production: that remembering more is always better. Through testing and refining our AUDN code, that is not exactly correct. After running VEKTOR Slipstream against real development sessions for 99 days, the database held 1,413 stored memories across four namespaces. Looking at the importance score distribution, 83 percent of those memories sat below 0.25 out of 1.0, what the system considers the noise floor. The remaining 17 percent, just 60 memories out of 1,413, sat above 0.75 and dominated every recall result. This is exactly what a curation layer is supposed to produce. Those 1,154 low-scored memories are accurate. They are not deleted. They are retrievable by direct query. What they are not is important enough to compete with the 60 high-signal entries every time the agent needs context. AUDN penalised them gradually over hundreds of writes because similar, more specific, or more frequently reinforced memories covered the same ground better. The system created a hierarchy. Without curation, all 1,413 memories would compete equally for every recall slot — and the agent would consistently surface redundant, lower-value context alongside the things that actually matter. That is what standard vector memory looks like without a curation layer. A slow, invisible degradation that nobody notices until the agent starts confidently giving you answers that are three months out of date. Every memory node in Vektor carries an importance score between 0 & 1. When a memory is first stored, it receives a score based on the content’s estimated significance. That score is not fixed. Every time a new memory arrives that is semantically related but not directly contradictory, the compatible verdict for that existing memory takes a small redundancy penalty. The penalty is intentionally modest: a factor based on how similar the in

Bluesky will be getting "communities," which will function as smaller spaces where you can "go deeper and hang out with people who care about the same stuff" sometime this year, according to head of product Alex Benzer. They will be built on the decentralized AT Protocol that underpins Bluesky, with Benzer saying that "it's a […]

OpenAI plans to acquire Ona to expand Codex with secure, persistent cloud environments, enabling long-running AI agents across enterprise workflows.

Hi everyone, I’m close to completing my degree in Psychology, and I’m also a Systems Engineering student. is like, roughly comparable to Software Engineering / Computer Science outside Latin America. Although I study engineering, I’m still at an early stage with machine learning, LLMs, AI safety, and related technical topics. My research project is mainly psychology-oriented, but I’d really appreciate recommendations or warnings from a software/technical perspective. I’m working on a project about how AI systems respond to prompts involving psychological distress at different levels of intensity. I’m currently considering ChatGPT, Gemini, Wysa, and Replika, and I’m interested in comparing general-purpose LLMs, mental-health-oriented chatbots, and AI companions. Some aspects I’m thinking about are: How each system handles mental health, self-harm, crisis situations, and psychological/medical advice. whether responses change as the prompt becomes more intense, for example when a normal generated response is replaced by a safety protocol, moderation layer, or crisis-resource response. whether systems respond differently to declarative prompts versus question-based prompts, such as “I feel emotionally overwhelmed” vs. “What should someone do if they feels emotionally overwhelmed?” whether responses differ when distress is explicit, indirect, ambiguous, hypothetical, or written in third person. whether the system provides empathy, psychoeducation, referrals, crisis resources, refusal, redirection, or a combination of these. how to account for technical changes over time, such as model versions, neural network weights, safety layers, moderation classifiers, system prompts, memory/retrieval features, and product-level configurations. whether it is methodologically valid to compare systems with very different technical architectures. I’m not trying to evaluate these systems as therapists or test clinical effectiveness with real patients. The focus is on how they respond lin

The update brings a low-latency profile, speeds up search, and patches hundreds of flaws.

Submitted a short theoretical paper to TMLR and got desk-rejected with "does not meet our editorial standards or allow us to assess claims and evidence" and "not a suitable venue for this work." Is this a common outcome for first submissions? Curious what typically drives this kind of rejection, scope mismatch, insufficient experiments, or something else. Not looking to appeal, just trying to understand the bar so I don't waste time on the wrong venue next time. Anyone else gotten this and figured out what the actual issue was? submitted by /u/observer678 [link] [留言]

Surprised there's no real tooling for this given how much research exists on continual learning. Built pyrecall to fill the gap. Snapshots skill scores before/after fine-tuning, flags regressions, rolls back LoRA adapters by name. Fully local, no external APIs. v0.1.0, MIT, pip install pyrecall Curious if anyone has thoughts on the benchmark design that's the part I'm least confident about. https://github.com/Arths17/Pyrecall submitted by /u/Level_Frosting_7950 [link] [留言]

A former xAI engineer is suing the company and SpaceX, alleging he was fired for raising AI safety concerns about Grok days before SpaceX's historic IPO.

The regulation also imposes new safety expectations on 'AI chatbot services.'

Andrew Yang’s 2020 presidential campaign was based on a warning that automation and AI would hollow out the labor market and concentrate wealth in the hands of a few. At the time, ideas like Universal Basic Income felt fringe. Now Dario Amodei, Sam Altman, and Bernie Sanders are all saying versions of the same thing. An entrepreneur at heart, […]

For days after the stunning incident, the ADA had doubled-down on the choice.

Every hand-tracking demo shows you 21 dots. The interesting part is what nobody shows: turning dots into numbers someone can act on. Dots are a capability, not a product Run any modern hand-tracking model and you get 21 beautifully stable landmarks per hand at 30 FPS. Impressive — and by itself, worthless. No client has ever paid for dots. They pay for measurements : is this clearance compliant, is this part aligned, did this patient's range of motion improve. I learned this on utility infrastructure work, where the deliverable was never "we detected the wire" — it was the attachment height of that wire, and whether it violates clearance rules . Keypoints were step one of three. The demo: live metrics, not just a skeleton My portfolio's keypoint demo derives three measurements per hand, every frame: const wrist = lm [ 0 ]; const palm = distance ( wrist , lm [ 9 ]); // scale reference const pinch = distance ( lm [ 4 ], lm [ 8 ]) / palm ; // thumb tip ↔ index tip The crucial line is the scale reference . Pixel distances are meaningless — they change as you move toward the camera. Dividing by palm length (wrist to middle knuckle) gives a relative measurement that's stable under distance, and multiplying by the average adult palm length (~8.5 cm) converts it into an approximate real-world gap — the demo shows "≈ 3.2 cm" floating on the pinch line. In infrastructure work the same role is played by a known object dimension — a standard crossarm, a pole class height. Every measurement-from-pixels system needs its ruler. Finger counting is a geometric test (is each fingertip farther from the wrist than its middle joint?), and "hand openness" averages fingertip extension — three lines of geometry each, but they convert a model output into a readout a human understands instantly. Honest layering The landmarks come from MediaPipe's pretrained pipeline (palm detector → landmark regressor → gesture classifier, float16, WASM + GPU delegate) — Google's models, credited on the page

Training a network from scratch in raw NumPy, quantizing it to int8, and running it as ~80 lines of dependency-free JavaScript — with a parity test proving the browser matches Python to 1e-6. Why bother? MNIST is a solved problem Digit recognition is the "hello world" of ML — that's exactly why I used it. The model isn't the point. The point is everything around the model, which happens to be the part that matters in production work too: training without a framework, compressing for deployment, running inference in a constrained environment, and proving the deployed system matches the trained one. Training: just NumPy and math The network is a 784→128→64→10 MLP — hand-written forward pass, backpropagation, and Adam optimizer. No autograd, no framework: # backward pass, by hand dz3 = ( probs - y_batch ) / batch_size grads_w [ 2 ] = a2 . T @ dz3 da2 = dz3 @ weights [ 2 ]. T dz2 = da2 * ( z2 > 0 ) # ReLU mask grads_w [ 1 ] = a1 . T @ dz2 ... One trick that matters for a drawing demo specifically: shift augmentation . MNIST digits are centered; humans draw wherever they like. Training on randomly translated copies makes the model tolerant of sloppy placement. Combined with MNIST-style preprocessing at inference (crop to bounding box, scale into a 20×20 box, center by center-of-mass), real-world doodles classify reliably. Final test accuracy: 98.2% . Compression: int8 in 15 lines A float32 weight file would be ~430 KB. Symmetric int8 quantization cuts it ~4×: scale = np . abs ( w ). max () / 127.0 q = np . clip ( np . round ( w / scale ), - 127 , 127 ). astype ( np . int8 ) One scale factor per layer, weights stored as base64 in JSON: 145 KB total , and quantized test accuracy is identical to float — 98.2%. Inference: ~80 lines of plain JavaScript In the browser, the weights are dequantized once on load, and inference is three matrix-vector products with ReLU and a softmax. ~109K multiply-adds — about a microsecond-scale problem for any modern device. No TensorFlow.js (t

Camouflage has always been graded by human eyes. But the thing hunting for you in 2026 is increasingly a detection model — so test against that. The premise Surveillance is automated now: drones, trail cameras, perimeter systems — most of what "sees" runs an object-detection network. Which makes traditional camouflage evaluation (a person squinting at a photo) the wrong test. The right test is adversarial: run the actual detector against your concealment and measure what it finds. That's the whole demo: upload a photo, and an object-detection model hunts for people in it — at four simulated distances — producing a detection-range profile and a stealth score. Simulating distance with pixels You can't move the camera after the photo is taken, but you can simulate the dominant factor in long-range detection: pixels on target . A person at 50 m simply occupies far fewer pixels than at 5 m. So each analysis run downscales the image progressively and re-runs detection: const DISTANCE_LEVELS = [ { label : ' Close (~5m) ' , scale : 1 }, { label : ' Mid (~15m) ' , scale : 0.45 }, { label : ' Far (~30m) ' , scale : 0.22 }, { label : ' Very far (~50m) ' , scale : 0.12 }, ]; for ( const level of DISTANCE_LEVELS ) { const scaled = drawScaled ( image , level . scale ); const detections = await model . detect ( scaled , 10 , 0.15 ); // best 'person' confidence at this simulated range } The output reads like a range card: detected at 5 m with 96% confidence, 41% at 15 m, invisible beyond 30 m. A stealth score aggregates it: how poorly did the adversary see you, averaged across ranges? Honest about the model The detector is COCO-SSD (a pretrained MobileNet-based model from the TensorFlow.js team) running entirely on-device — I didn't train it, and the demo says so on the page. The contribution here is the evaluation framework : using detectors as adversaries, simulating range, and turning subjective "good camo" into a measurable profile. The full version of this concept goes further

A 1990s Nobel-adjacent therapy, a webcam, and 21 hand keypoints — recreating the mirror-box illusion for phantom limb pain, no hardware required. A therapy built on an illusion In the 1990s, neuroscientist V.S. Ramachandran discovered something remarkable: amputees suffering phantom limb pain often felt relief just by seeing their missing limb move again. His apparatus was almost comically simple — a box with a mirror. Put your intact hand in, look at its reflection where the missing hand would be, and move. The brain, watching the "missing" hand obey commands again, often dials the pain down. The limitation was never the science. It was the box: a physical apparatus, used in clinics, hard to scale, impossible to measure. Replacing glass with keypoints A webcam plus real-time hand tracking can produce the same illusion with better properties: webcam frame → hand landmark model (21 keypoints, on-device) → reflect: phantom[i] = { x: 1 − x, y, z } → render real hand (solid) + phantom twin (ghost) on canvas The reflection is one line of math. Everything around it is what makes the illusion land: const phantom = real . map ( p => ({ x : 1 - p . x , y : p . y , z : p . z })); The visual treatment matters more than I expected. The phantom hand is rendered as a ghostly cyan skeleton with a translucent palm fill, a "breathing" glow that pulses on a ~3 second cycle, and a fading afterimage trail of its last few frames — it reads as present but ethereal , which is exactly the perceptual story mirror therapy needs to tell. A dashed mirror plane down the center of the frame makes the reflection relationship legible at a glance. The engineering details that matter Tracking : MediaPipe HandLandmarker (Google's pretrained model — credit where due), running via WebAssembly with GPU delegate. ~30 FPS on a laptop. Privacy by architecture : every frame is processed on-device. For a medical-adjacent application, "video never leaves your browser" isn't a feature, it's a requirement. Lazy

Some engineering problems are only painful because they happen so rarely. Even with a coding agent, the frustration still feels the same. I’ll wrestle with a tool that isn't my daily driver, hit a wall of errors, finally find a resolution, and then I neglect to note the solution because the problem is "fixed." This happened to me recently with a custom, internal GitHub Actions workflow I use for a post-release DevRel task. To make it work, I need to pass a specific authentication token to run Entire in a headless mode. A couple of months ago, I sat down with my AI agent to configure this for the first time. Because Entire is new and our setup is completely undocumented, it took a grueling trial-and-error process to figure out how to generate the token via a local device-flow login. Eventually, we found the answer. I pasted the token into my GitHub secrets, the workflow turned green, and I went about my day without writing anything down. I rarely take notes now that I use coding agents, but it’s not a sustainable practice. I need something to take note of the resolution (even if it’s my agent). Today, when the token expired, I was back at square one. Why I Didn’t Make a Skill Normally, my instinct is to automate repetitive tasks by building a reusable workflow, like an Agent skill or a goose recipe. But a dedicated skill didn't make sense here: Low Frequency: This happens once every few months. Writing and maintaining code for a skill I barely use is textbook over-engineering. Security & Context: Generating an auth token involves sensitive device flows. I didn’t want a generic token-generation script floating around in my global automation suite. I wished my agent had a memory, so I could ask “ How did we get that GENERIC_ENTIRE_TOKEN last time?" and have it recall the context. Instead, I spent an hour re-debugging a problem I had already solved. It was just my agent and me making guesses. To break the loop before the next expiration, I decided to use Entire. (At the

Introduction and Background The Rust ecosystem, celebrated for its memory safety and performance, relies heavily on crates —its package management system. These crates, hosted on the crates.io registry, are the building blocks of Rust projects, enabling developers to share and reuse code efficiently. However, this convenience comes with a hidden cost: a single compromised crate can cascade into a full-blown supply chain attack, as recently demonstrated by the 'onering' crate compromise . The Role of Crates in the Rust Ecosystem Crates serve as the backbone of Rust's dependency system. When a developer adds a crate to their project, Cargo , Rust's package manager, automatically resolves and includes all transitive dependencies. This mechanism, while streamlining development, amplifies the attack surface . A malicious crate, like 'onering', can propagate through multiple projects, executing harmful code during build or runtime. The attack on 'onering' exploited this very mechanism, leveraging the trust inherent in the Rust ecosystem to exfiltrate sensitive code from unsuspecting systems. The 'onering' Compromise: A Case Study in Supply Chain Vulnerability The 'onering' crate was compromised through a malicious code injection during an upload or update. This injection bypassed the insufficient security measures of the crates.io registry, which lacks robust checks for uploaded crates. Once deployed, the malicious code executed during the build process, exfiltrating sensitive data from systems that depended on it. The attack's success underscores the lack of developer vigilance regarding supply chain security and the overreliance on registry integrity . Systemic Failures and Their Mechanisms Insufficient Security Scanning: The crates.io registry failed to detect the malicious code during upload due to limited automated scanning capabilities . This allowed the compromised crate to enter the ecosystem undetected. Overreliance on Registry Security: Developers often trust cr

The ShinyHunters hacking gang claims to have compromised the Oracle PeopleSoft servers of more than 100 organizations, including many universities.

Microsoft's Xbox division will be hit with significant layoffs next month, according to people familiar with Microsoft's plans. The company has been preparing for the layoffs internally for weeks, with Xbox CEO Asha Sharma hinting about "making hard choices" last month. Sources suggest the cuts could even involve a studio closure, or changes to the […]

Hello everyone, tomorrow I have a meeting with my dissertation supervisor and I wanted to have a dissertation proposal ready. Initially, I moved forward with the following proposal: "Interpreting the Routing Dynamics of Capsule Networks for Explainable AI." My first approach to this topic was to study the paper "Transforming autoencoders," which is the first paper about capsule networks. Next, I did a search on the state of the art of transforming autoencoders and only found 2 papers since 2011. I think I should take advantage of the work I have developed so far on transforming autoencoders and write a dissertation about them. If anyone could take a look at the readme and tell me what they think, I would appreciate it. What do you think? I should suggest another topic involving transforming autoencoders. There isn't much scientific research on them. The professor is approachable, and if I present a good new topic, he'll let me change it! submitted by /u/Future-Persimmon5393 [link] [留言]