标签：#m

From CFD and FEA to digital twins, carmaking now involves a lot of virtualization.

The Instagram accounts for the Obama White House and the Chief Master Sergeant of the U.S. Space Force were briefly defaced with pro-Iranian images and messages over the weekend, after instructions began circulating on Telegram showing how to trick Meta's "AI support assistant" bot into resetting account passwords.

Hackers stole usernames, hashed passwords, and other data from a service that allowed players to cheat in Grand Theft Auto V.

The AI giant behind Claude submitted paperwork on Monday that would take it public, just a couple of weeks after SpaceX’s splashy IPO announcement.

Lawsuit seeks $12,000 from startup that allegedly damaged home in robot tests.

The 5800X3D returns at $349, while the 7700X3D debuts at $329.

Anthropic introduced Dynamic Workflows, a new capability for Claude Code designed to handle complex software engineering tasks by coordinating large numbers of AI agents within a single workflow. The feature allows Claude to dynamically create orchestration scripts, break work into subtasks, run them in parallel, and validate results before presenting a final answer. By Robert Krzaczyński

New article: “ Responsible Disclosure in the Age of AI: A Call for Urgent Action ,” by Melissa Hathaway. Abstract: Artificial intelligence is fundamentally reshaping the balance between vulnerability discovery and remediation. Frontier AI models are now capable of autonomously identifying exploitable software vulnerabilities at unprecedented speed and scale. This development exposes decades of accumulated technical debt created by a software industry that prioritized rapid deployment over secure-by-design engineering practices. Drawing on the evolution of software assurance, vulnerability disclosure frameworks, and U.S. cyber policy, this perspective argues that the current moment represents a strategic inflection point for governments, industry, and critical infrastructure operators. The author examines the growing tension between offensive and defensive equities in cyberspace, the emergence of AI-enabled vulnerability discovery capabilities in both the U.S. and China, and the increasing risks posed by unsupported legacy systems and AI-assisted code generation practices. Responsible disclosure can no longer remain a reactive or fragmented process, but must become a coordinated national and international resilience effort involving governments, software vendors, infrastructure operators, and emergency response organizations. The article concludes with an urgent call for accelerated remediation, large-scale patch management coordination, and sustained investment in automated vulnerability repair capabilities before adversaries exploit this rapidly narrowing window of opportunity...

Mike Schroepfer's Gigascale Capital has raised a large fund to back founders building climate-friendly solutions for the world's energy and material shortages.

Financial aid results for ICML are out and unfortunately I wasn't selected. I was wondering, does this mean I wasn't selected for Volunteering as well? Or should I expect a separate email? submitted by /u/RussB3ar [link] [留言]

Sony is sharing new details about some of its upcoming gaming-focused hardware, including pricing and August launch dates for its FlexStrike fight stick and its 27-inch monitor. The FlexStrike fight stick will be available starting August 6th - the same day as the new PlayStation-published fighting game Marvel Tōkon: Fighting Souls - and will cost […]

Hello, I have a task to fine-tune small LLMs on annotated conversational data. The dataset contains not only the final answers, but also reasoning traces and tool-calling decisions (i.e., when the model should think and when it should call a tool). I am wondering what the best training approach would be and why. My current dataset is stored in a chat format similar to this: ```text system user assistant_think assistant_tool assistant_answer user assistant_think assistant_tool assistant_answer ... ``` My current idea is to split each conversation into multiple training samples. For example, if a conversation contains two user turns, I would create two samples: Sample 1 text system user assistant_think assistant_tool assistant_answer Sample 2 ```text system user assistant_think assistant_tool assistant_answer user assistant_think assistant_tool assistant_answer ``` In other words, each sample contains all previous conversation history up to the assistant response being trained. For training, the loss would be computed only on the assistant-generated tokens: text assistant_think assistant_tool assistant_answer while the system and user messages would be masked out from the loss. Is this approach correct, or is there a better way to structure the training data for reasoning and tool-calling behavior? My second question is about reinforcement learning. After completing supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on the dataset described above, should I also incorporate RL (e.g., PPO, GRPO, DPO, or another approach) to further train the model on when a tool should or should not be called? If so: What advantages would RL provide over SFT alone for tool use and reasoning? How would you design the reward function? Under what circumstances is RL actually necessary, and when is SFT sufficient? I would appreciate any practical advice, papers, blog posts, or open-source examples related to training reasoning and tool-calling models. ``` submitted by /u/zdeneklapes [link] [留言]

The company added a warning to prospective investors that a major dilution could be in the cards after it goes public.

But the hardware refresh is tethered to a bundle with pricey AR glasses.

Windborne Systems' newest weather forecasting model beats the best government predictions by days.

Scroll through social media today, and you'll likely come across AI-generated images everywhere. From anime-style portraits and fantasy landscapes to hyper-realistic photographs of places that don't even exist, AI image generators have quickly become one of the most fascinating applications of artificial intelligence. What makes this technology so impressive is its accessibility. A few years ago, creating professional-quality artwork required design skills, expensive software, and hours of effort. Today, anyone can generate stunning visuals simply by typing a few words. But what actually happens behind the scenes when you enter a prompt and click "Generate"? Turning Ideas into Images At a basic level, AI image generators convert text into visuals. When a user enters a prompt such as: "A futuristic Mumbai skyline at sunset with flying cars" the AI doesn't search for an existing image online. Instead, it creates a completely new image based on patterns it learned during training. These models are trained using millions of image-text pairs, allowing them to understand concepts such as objects, colors, lighting, artistic styles, and even relationships between different elements within a scene. As a result, the AI can interpret the user's description and transform it into a visual representation. Starting with Random Noise One of the most interesting aspects of modern AI image generation is that the process usually begins with random noise. Imagine the static pattern seen on an old television screen. Initially, the AI starts with something similarly meaningless. It then gradually removes the noise while adding details that match the prompt. This process is known as a diffusion model , and it is the foundation of many modern AI image generators. To understand the idea, consider the following simple Python example: import random prompt = " A futuristic Mumbai skyline at sunset " noise_level = random . randint ( 1 , 100 ) print ( f " Prompt: { prompt } " ) print ( f " Start

I built a routing-based approach to lightweight real-time multilingual ASR as part of my research at Gladia. The core problem was how multilingual models that accurately handle mid-conversation language switches are often too big for most local hardware and have poor accuracy. So rather than relying on one massive multilingual model, the system routes audio between smaller, specialized monolingual models (~100M parameters each). Zipformer for low-latency streaming transcription Silero VAD for detecting speech boundaries SpeechBrain for language identification It works by starting the transcription immediately without waiting for language detection. A coordinator buffers audio, monitors language confidence, and when a switch is detected above a threshold, it rolls back to the last speech boundary and re-transcribes with the correct model. Users may briefly see incorrect text, but it self-corrects quickly. Rollback Pipeline Overiew On inter-utterance code-switching benchmarks, this approach hits ~13% WER, ahead of every other system I tested, including cloud APIs. Intra-utterance switching (mid-sentence Spanglish, etc.) is the known limitation, degrading to ~41% WER, though still better than open-source alternatives and at a fraction of the size. Open-source repo with instructions and the detailed benchmark results. https://github.com/gladiaio/realtime-multilingual-asr-router Let me know what you think. Pro tip: Enabling only your expected languages not only makes the system lighter but also gives the LID an accuracy boost, especially on heavily accented speech." submitted by /u/JeanMichelRanu [link] [留言]

This is a follow-up to SynaptoRoute: A Study in Local Semantic Routing . If you haven't read it, the short version is: SynaptoRoute is a zero-token semantic routing engine that classifies user queries into intents using local embeddings instead of LLM API calls. SynaptoRoute v0.3.0: Matching Semantic Router While Scaling to 50,000 Routes What Changed Since v0.2.0 When I published the first post, SynaptoRoute had just shipped dynamic batching and O(1) hot-reload. The throughput numbers were promising, but the accuracy story was incomplete. I had internal benchmarks but no comparison against a widely adopted baseline under identical, reproducible conditions. That gap is now closed. v0.3.0 is live on PyPI: pip install synaptoroute == 0.3.0 The Benchmarking Journey Getting to these numbers took multiple benchmark revisions. Early synthetic datasets produced catastrophic accuracy collapse and initially suggested that both SynaptoRoute and Semantic Router were performing poorly. After deeper investigation, the root cause turned out to be flaws in the dataset generation pipeline rather than limitations of the routing engines themselves. Several rounds of validation, failure analysis, threshold tuning, adversarial testing, and external benchmarking followed. All final results presented in this article come from independent public datasets with strict train/test separation, eliminating dataset leakage and benchmark inflation. That process was valuable because it forced the project to validate assumptions against real-world data instead of relying on synthetic benchmarks. The Benchmark That Actually Matters I evaluated SynaptoRoute against Semantic Router on two standard NLU datasets. Same embedding model ( BAAI/bge-small-en-v1.5 ). Same hardware. Same evaluation script. Same train/test splits loaded from HuggingFace. CLINC150 150 intents spanning 10 domains, plus an out-of-domain class. This is the standard stress test for intent routers. Metric SynaptoRoute Semantic Router

Large language models (LLMs) understand and generate text from prompts. OpenAI exposes models through the Responses API . The official openai npm package is the practical way to call it from Node.js. This post covers common patterns beyond a single prompt string. Prerequisites OpenAI account Generated API key Enabled billing Node.js version 26 openai package installed ( npm i openai ) For Markdown output: marked , dompurify , and jsdom ( npm i marked dompurify jsdom ) Client setup Create a client with your API key (read from the environment in production). import OpenAI from ' openai ' ; const client = new OpenAI ({ apiKey : process . env . OPENAI_API_KEY }); The same SDK can target other hosts that implement a compatible API by setting baseURL and apiKey : const client = new OpenAI ({ apiKey : process . env . LLM_API_KEY , baseURL : ' https://your-gateway.example/v1 ' , }); Azure OpenAI uses AzureOpenAI instead. Many third-party gateways support Chat Completions only; the examples below use client.responses.* , so confirm your provider supports the Responses API (especially for tools like web search). Basic integration Pass a string as input and read output_text from the response. const response = await client . responses . create ({ model : ' gpt-5.5 ' , input : ' Write a one-sentence bedtime story about a unicorn. ' , }); console . log ( response . output_text ); System prompt Use top-level instructions for stable behavior (tone, format, role). They take precedence over casual wording in the user message. const response = await client . responses . create ({ model : ' gpt-5.5 ' , instructions : ' Reply in one short sentence. Use plain language. ' , input : ' Explain what an LLM is. ' , }); console . log ( response . output_text ); Few-shot prompting Pass prior turns as an input array with user and assistant roles, then the new user message. Keep task rules in instructions . const response = await client . responses . create ({ model : ' gpt-5.5 ' , instructions :

A while back I set three targets for my engineering team. Not velocity. Not story points. Not "things shipped." Just three numbers. Together they tell me whether the work is moving the way it should, or whether next week is shaping up to be a fire-fighting week. I check two of them most days. The third I used to watch closely...until we lost the tool that measured it. Here they are, and why they earned their spot. Why these and not just velocity The first metric most engineering managers reach for is velocity. Story points completed, tickets closed, work merged. Velocity is worth watching. It is a lagging indicator...it tells you what already happened...but it still shapes what comes next. When a sprint's work doesn't get finished, it rolls into the following one, and that rollover eats into whatever you had planned. What velocity doesn't tell you is how the work moved...whether it moved in a way that's going to come back and bite you. For that you need numbers that describe the shape and quality of the work, not just the amount of it...ideally ones that flag a problem while there's still time to act. These three do that. 1. Average PR size Target: under 300 lines changed per PR. What it tells me: how well the team is decomposing work. A team consistently shipping oversized PRs isn't producing more... they're producing PRs that no reviewer can read carefully. Big PRs get rubber-stamped. Rubber-stamped PRs are where production bugs hide. The 300-line target isn't magic. It's roughly the size below which most reviewers will actually read every line. I tell my team to aim for under 300 changes and to treat 500 as a hard ceiling, give or take a handful of genuine exceptions. Past 500 changes, I consistently see quality, review time, and thoroughness all drop sharply...the PR stops getting read and starts getting skimmed. When the team's average creeps up over a few weeks, I have an early signal that one of three things is happening: Stories are too coarse. The work does