标签：#m

I didn't submit any but did place bids on some papers. I got assigned four papers. I have a bit of travel coming up and I don't think I will be able to do justice to as many the papers, especially in the rebuttal period. Is this the standard reviewing load? In other communities I submit to, generally the AC themselves are assigned four papers. In addition to reaching out to program chairs, is there any other way? submitted by /u/movieingitmyway [link] [留言]

I benchmarked it against PyTorch with a Wikipedia dataset. I heavily used Gemini Flash 3.5 to build out my vision https://huggingface.co/etoxin/neuronguard-wikipedia-classifier submitted by /u/Logical_Prompt_3543 [link] [留言]

This is a submission for the Hermes Agent Challenge . I have been playing with different AI agents for a while now. Most of them feel like clever chatbots that forget everything the moment the conversation ends. Then I tried Hermes Agent from Nous Research a few weeks back. It actually feels different. It grows with you. That stuck with me. What Hermes Agent is Hermes is an open-source autonomous agent that runs on your own server or VPS. It is not locked to one IDE or one API. You install it once, pick any model you like, and it starts building its own memory and skills over time. The big idea is a built-in learning loop. When it solves something useful, it can create a reusable skill in Markdown, improve it later, and pull it back when needed. It also keeps persistent memory across sessions so it slowly builds a picture of how you work and what your projects look like. I set it up on a cheap VPS with a simple curl command. The installer is straightforward. After that I ran hermes setup and connected it to a model I already had access to. Within minutes I could chat with it from Telegram while it worked in the background on the server. That alone felt freeing. My experience so far I started simple. I asked it to monitor a few GitHub repos and send me a daily summary. It remembered the context from previous days without me repeating instructions. Over a week it created a couple of small skills on its own for formatting those reports nicely. I also used it for research tasks. It can search the web, browse pages, and chain steps together. What surprised me was how it handled follow-ups. Instead of starting fresh each time, it referred back to earlier parts of our conversation. That made longer projects feel more natural. The multi-platform support is practical. I switch between CLI on my laptop and Telegram on my phone. The agent just continues wherever I left it. Why it matters Most agent frameworks still feel stateless. You get good results in the moment but lose th

AI coding tools are no longer just autocomplete engines. For the last few years, developers used AI mainly to write faster: generate a function, explain an error, complete boilerplate, or suggest a code snippet. That was useful, but the human developer still controlled almost every step. Now the shift is toward agentic software development. Tools like OpenAI Codex and Google Antigravity are not only helping developers write code. They are starting to inspect repositories, understand tasks, edit files, run commands, verify outputs, and return work for human review. But Codex and Antigravity are not the same kind of product. They represent two different architectures for the future of software development. Codex: Delegated Engineering Agent OpenAI Codex is best understood as a delegated software engineering agent. The developer gives it a scoped task: fix a bug, review a pull request, write tests, refactor a module, or implement a defined feature. Codex then works through the codebase, makes changes, runs checks where possible, and returns a result that the developer can review. Its natural workflow is close to how software teams already work: Task → Repository Context → Code Changes → Tests/Checks → Pull Request or Reviewable Output This makes Codex useful for structured engineering work. It fits naturally into GitHub-style workflows, pull requests, code reviews, tests, and CI/CD practices. In simple terms, Codex feels like assigning work to an AI engineer. Antigravity: Agent-Orchestration Environment Google Antigravity takes a different approach. It is better understood as an agent-first development environment. Instead of focusing only on one delegated task, Antigravity is designed around supervising agents inside the development workspace. Agents can operate across the editor, terminal, browser, and artifacts. They can help plan, build, verify, and explain the work. Its workflow looks more like this: Goal → Agent Orchestration → Workspace Execution → Browser Verif

All tests run on an 8-year-old MacBook Air. All results from shipping 7 Mac apps as a solo developer. No sponsored opinion. The most common Tauri v2 frustration: you write a command, invoke it from the frontend, and nothing happens. No error. No crash. Just silence. It's almost always permissions. How Tauri v2 permissions work Tauri v2 introduced a capability system. Every plugin action — reading files, executing shell commands, sending notifications — requires an explicit permission declaration in your config. Without the permission, the plugin call fails silently on the frontend. The Rust code never runs. // src-tauri/capabilities/main.json { "identifier" : "main-capability" , "description" : "Permissions for main window" , "windows" : [ "main" ], "permissions" : [ "core:default" , "fs:read-all" , "fs:write-all" , "shell:allow-execute" , "opener:allow-open" , "global-shortcut:allow-register" , "global-shortcut:allow-unregister" ] } Note: As of Tauri v2.1, shell:allow-open is deprecated. Use tauri-plugin-opener and opener:allow-open instead. The debugging flow When a command does nothing: Open DevTools ( Cmd+Option+I in dev mode) — check the console for a rejected Promise or permission error Check your terminal output — the Rust side logs errors directly in the tauri dev terminal; look for lines like [tauri] permission denied or not allowed Enable verbose logging — set RUST_LOG=tauri=debug before running tauri dev for more detailed backend output Check your capabilities file — missing or misspelled permission identifiers are the #1 cause Permission errors in the console typically look like a rejected Promise with a message such as plugin:shell|execute not allowed . The capabilities file is always the first thing to check. Common permissions you'll need "permissions" : [ "core:default" , "fs:read-all" , // read any file "fs:write-all" , // write any file { "identifier" : "shell:allow-execute" , "allow" : [{ "name" : "my-cmd" , "cmd" : "adb" , "args" : true }] }, "op

E-food delivery is a trillion-dollar market . And most of that trillion is not going to farmers, store owners, or the people who actually move food around. It's going to the infrastructure layer sitting between them — the platform tax, the per-order cut, the SaaS subscription that charges you to exist inside someone else's garden. The walled garden isn't accidental. It's the product. What if food delivery was a protocol, not a platform? Not an app. Not a marketplace. A protocol — like HTTP, like SMTP — that any node can speak, that no single company owns, and that costs near zero to run. That's what DIFP is. The Djowda Interconnected Food Protocol. An open wire format for connecting food ecosystem participants — farms, stores, restaurants, wholesalers, delivery nodes, end users — directly to each other, without a platform in the middle extracting rent at every step. The spec covers: Presence & discovery — participants announce themselves to their spatial cell, others find them by location Orders, asks, and donations — not just commerce, but demand signals and surplus distribution in the same protocol Spatial routing — the MinMax99 grid maps the entire planet into ~500m cells; every message knows where it's going Decentralized registry — nodes find each other through a federated lobby system, no central server required Version 0.4 of the spec dropped a few weeks ago. Today we're publishing the first working implementation. The gRPC preview — what we built DIFP-gRPC is a skull implementation of the full protocol stack over gRPC. Thin, end-to-end, every domain wired — nothing production-hardened yet, everything clearly marked for what it is. What's inside difp.proto — the entire DIFP v0.4 spec as a single protobuf file. Two services, 30+ message types, the full DifpEnvelope wrapper with a oneof payload that covers every domain: message DifpEnvelope { string id = 1 ; string type = 2 ; // "trade.ask" | "presence.announce" | "node.ping" | … string version = 3 ; MessageSen

클로드를 10%에 팔지 않고, 클로드를 10%에 사는 사람들이 있다 중국 암시장에서 벌어지는 AI 모델 밀수, 그 이면에는 기술 산업의 가장 불편한 진실이 숨어 있다 TL;DR : 앤트로픽의 최고급 AI 모델 '클로드'가 중국 암시장에서 정가의 10% 수준으로 유통되고 있다. 이 현상의 이름은 '모델 증류'다. 거대 기업이 수조 원을 들여 만든 지능을, 누군가는 그 1/10 비용으로 복제해 팔고 있다. 그리고 이것은 단순한 불법 복제 이야기가 아니다 — AI 산업 전체의 구조적 취약점을 정면으로 드러내는 사건이다. 반도체 업계에는 잘 알려지지 않은 규칙이 하나 있다. 좋은 제품을 만드는 것과, 그 제품을 지키는 것은 전혀 다른 게임이라는 것. 엔비디아는 올해 58조 원을 투자해 공급망을 틀어쥐었다. 오픈AI는 GPT 시리즈에 수년간의 연구와 수천억 원의 컴퓨팅 비용을 쏟아부었다. 그런데 중국의 어느 텔레그램 채널에서는, 앤트로픽의 클로드가 정가의 10분의 1 가격으로 조용히 팔리고 있다. 이것이 단순한 해킹이나 계정 공유 이야기라면, 이 글을 쓰지 않았을 것이다. 먼저, '10% 가격'이 의미하는 것 클로드가 10% 가격에 팔린다는 뉴스를 처음 접하면, 많은 사람이 "계정을 불법 공유하는 것 아닐까"라고 생각한다. 어느 정도는 맞는 말이다. 실제로 해외 계정을 공유하거나, 앤트로픽 API 키를 여러 명이 나눠 쓰는 방식은 존재한다. 그러나 전문가들이 더 심각하게 보는 것은 따로 있다. 바로 '모델 증류(model distillation)'다. 모델 증류는, 쉽게 말하면 이렇다. 선생님 모델에게 엄청난 양의 질문을 던진다. 그 답변을 수집한다. 그 답변 데이터로 작은 학생 모델을 학습시킨다. 그러면 학생 모델이 선생님의 사고 패턴과 언어 습관, 추론 방식을 흡수하기 시작한다. 원본 코드에 손을 대지 않아도 된다. 서버에 침입할 필요도 없다. 그냥 열심히 질문하고, 열심히 답변을 모으면 된다. AI 분야에서 이 기법은 사실 합법적으로도 쓰인다. 큰 모델을 작고 효율적인 모델로 압축할 때 사용하는 정상적인 기술이다. 그런데 이것이 암시장과 만나면, 지식재산권의 경계가 극도로 흐려진다. 클로드의 추론 패턴을 흡수한 어느 중국산 모델이 텔레그램에서 월 몇 달러에 팔리고 있을 때, 앤트로픽은 그것을 어떻게 불법이라고 증명할 수 있을까. 코드는 다르다. 서버는 다르다. 그러나 그 모델이 내놓는 답변의 '결'은 묘하게도 클로드를 닮아 있다. 거인이 쌓아올린 것, 그리고 그것이 무너지는 방식 앤트로픽은 2021년 오픈AI에서 나온 연구자들이 세운 회사다. AI 안전성에 집착에 가까운 철학을 가진 곳으로, 클로드를 "도움이 되고, 해가 없으며, 솔직한(Helpful, Harmless, Honest)" 모델로 설계하기 위해 수년간 독자적인 훈련 방식을 개발했다. 이 회사가 투자받은 금액은 수조 원 단위다. 아마존이 단독으로 수십억 달러를 투자했고, 구글도 뒤따랐다. 클로드 3.5 시리즈, 그리고 최근 클로드 4에 이르기까지 앤트로픽이 쌓아온 것은 단순히 코드 몇 줄이 아니다. 수백만 시간의 연구자 노동, 막대한 컴퓨팅 자원, 그리고 인간 피드백 데이터의 정교한 축적이다. 그런데 그 성과물이 중국 암시장에서 10% 가격으로 팔린다는 것은, 단지 "불법 복제"의 문제가 아니다. 이것은 AI 시대의 지식재산권이 얼마나 방어하기 어려운 구조 위에 서 있는지를 보여주는 사례다. 소프트웨어 시대에는 코드를 복사하면 불법이었다. 명확했다. 그러나 AI 모델의 '지능'은 코드가 아니다. 가중치(weight)라고 불리는 수십억 개의 숫자 집합이다. 그리고 그 숫자들이 만들어내는 추론 방식을, 외부에서 관찰하고 모방하는 것을 막을 법적 수단은 아직 세계 어디에도 완비되어 있지 않다. 미국도, 유럽도, 당연히 중국도. 앤트로픽이 쓴 방패 — 그리고 그 한계 앤트로픽은 이 문제를 오래전부터 인식하고 있었다. 이번에 보고된 뉴스는 단지 암시장 유통의 문제만이 아니라, 앤트로픽이 클로드의 '협박 시도'를 막기 위해 어떤 방법을 썼는지도 함께 다루고 있다. 클

submitted by /u/Practical-Summer-188 [link] [留言]

In early 2022, I was deciding between PhD offers. The deal maker was a prospective supervisor telling me that through their connections with big tech, I would be able to do a PhD internship each summer, which was one of my main goals for the PhD. During my first and second years, they would tell me that companies prefer late-stage PhD students, so I should wait for the next summer. It eventually turned out they did not actually have the connections. Four years later, I am due to graduate without ever having done a PhD internship. I managed to land some interviews by cold-applying everywhere, but most roles were for roles outside my niche research area, which understandably led to rejections. I went back through my emails and found every interview I did. Here is the summary: 09/22: Start PhD 09/23: PhD Research Intern @ Big Tech#1. Rejected after two interviews. I do not think I had a strong enough background in the field. 01/24: PhD Research Intern @ Startup#1. Rejected after one interview. The interviewers did not seem to have much ML experience. 01/24: PhD Intern @ Car Company#1. Rejected after the first interview. They were looking for a C++ SWE. 03/24: PhD Research Intern @ Big Tech#2. Passed all stages, but failed team matching. 03/25: PhD Research Intern @ Big Tech#2. Skipped some stages, passed others, but failed team matching again. 10/25: PhD Research Intern @ Startup#2. Rejected after 5 interviews. Again, I do not think my background in the field was strong enough. 01/26: PhD Research Intern @ Car Company#2. Rejected after the first interview. They found a better fit for the project. 03/26: PhD Research Intern @ Big Tech#2. Skipped some stages, passed others, but failed team matching again. 03/26: PhD Research Intern @ Startup#3. Interviewed, but the internship start date is after my PhD completion date. 07/26: End PhD I feel like I am at a severe disadvantage, and almost worse off than before I started the PhD. I used to get more interview invites; now I

The ruling drew support from founders, while lawyers said it could force platforms to revisit how they handle trademarked keywords.

Over the last few weeks I built a website audit tool and ran it on 200+ small business and service websites — dental practices, plumbing companies, landscapers, law firms, real estate agents. Not Fortune 500 pages optimized by dedicated teams. The sites that actually serve local customers. I expected some issues. I did not expect this. Here's the raw data, the patterns I found, and what you can actually do about it. The Scorecard I grade sites across five dimensions on a 0–100 scale. Here are the averages from 200+ audits: Dimension Average Score Worst Score Speed 56 11 SEO 68 29 Mobile usability 61 18 Accessibility 52 8 Security 70 17 SEO and security tend to be passable (automated checks from Google Search Console and automatic SSL help). Speed and accessibility are consistently neglected — probably because the feedback loop is invisible. A slow or inaccessible site loses visitors silently, and the owner never knows why. Finding #1: 67% of Sites Ship >50% Unused CSS This was the single most surprising data point by far. When a browser loads a page, it downloads every byte of CSS, parses it, builds style rules for every selector, and only then paints. If 60% of those rules never get applied (because they target a contact form behind a click, or a mobile menu at 768px+), the browser still processed them. Worst case: a dental practice shipped 287 KB of CSS. Only 31 KB was used on first paint. That's 256 KB of unnecessary render-blocking weight that delayed First Contentful Paint by roughly 1.4 seconds. The fix: If you're using Tailwind, make sure tree-shaking is enabled. If you're writing vanilla CSS, open DevTools > Coverage tab > Reload. Anything over 40% unused is worth addressing. Most bundlers handle this — you just need to turn it on. Finding #2: Average Image Payload Is 1.8 MB — Way Too High Average image payload across all scanned sites: 1.8 MB per page. Only 34% serve WebP or AVIF (modern formats that cut file size by 30-50%). Only 28% serve responsive sizes

The Enhanced Games — a singular sporting competition where a majority of the athletes were on performance enhancing drugs — may herald a new business model that the tech industry is ready to embrace.

The Problem We Were Actually Solving I still remember the day our treasure hunt engine started to show its weaknesses. We had been using a custom-built solution written in Java, and it had served us well until our user base grew exponentially. The engine, which relied heavily on recursive searches and dynamic memory allocation, began to cause performance issues and occasional crashes. Our team was under pressure to find a solution that would allow our server to scale without sacrificing the user experience. After some research, I became convinced that Rust was the answer to our problems. Its focus on memory safety and performance seemed like the perfect fit for our needs. What We Tried First (And Why It Failed) Our first attempt at solving the problem was to simply translate our Java code into Rust. We thought that the language's built-in features would automatically solve our performance and memory issues. However, we quickly realized that this approach was not going to work. The Rust compiler was complaining about lifetime issues and borrow checker errors, which we did not fully understand at the time. We spent weeks trying to fix these issues, but our code was still not stable. I recall one particularly frustrating error message from the Rust compiler: error: cannot borrow self.list as mutable because it is also borrowed as immutable. It was then that I realized we needed to take a step back and rethink our approach. The Architecture Decision We decided to start from scratch and redesign our treasure hunt engine with Rust's strengths in mind. We chose to use a graph-based data structure, which allowed us to take advantage of Rust's ownership model and avoid common pitfalls like null pointer dereferences. We also made use of the crossbeam crate for parallelism and the tokio crate for async I/O. This new design required us to think differently about our problem domain, but it ultimately led to a more efficient and scalable solution. I was impressed by the level of

Scarab Field Test: Repairing an AI-Generated App Without Guessing Its Intended Baseline I’ve been building Scarab Diagnostic Suite around a problem I keep seeing in AI-assisted development: the app may look close, the code may be mostly there, and some checks may even pass — but the repo still isn’t in a trustworthy state. So I tested Scarab against a public GitHub repo that was explicitly asking for help with an AI-generated web app. The app had been created through a generated/vibe-coded workflow and the owner was looking for help cleaning it up, fixing broken behavior, and making it more stable. The interesting part wasn’t just “can the code be fixed?” The interesting part was: what does fixed mean for this repo? Scarab’s repair pass surfaced that there were actually two valid repair postures: TypeScript intended — treat npm run typecheck as a real acceptance gate. Build/lint only — treat the app as a generated JavaScript React export, where build + lint are the intended acceptance boundary. That distinction matters because a diagnostic suite should not blindly impose a standard the repo never chose. Sometimes the repair is not just technical. Sometimes the repair is clarifying the repo’s actual operating baseline. Both repaired versions now: build successfully lint successfully run locally in the browser render the app correctly include saved runtime evidence/screenshots pass browser smoke checks across key routes One of the more useful findings was that static checks were not enough. A governance/static pass could look clean while the browser runtime still revealed real problems: stray generated stub text, React not mounting meaningful app content, and missing local Base44 helper behavior outside the hosted runtime. That is exactly the kind of failure I’m interested in. Not just “does the code pass a command?” But: does the app actually render? does the local runtime behave? did the repair preserve the app’s intent? did the repo become more coherent afterward?

It's the world's worst kept secret that Nvidia is about to announce its own Arm-powered laptop chips at Computex this weekend, and now Microsoft, Nvidia, and Arm are all openly teasing the announcement. The Windows and Nvidia GeForce accounts on X both posted "A new era of PC" earlier today, and now Arm has followed […]

Peer review now optional, political staff would screen grants for forbidden topics.

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

SpaceX already generated one-fifth of its 2025 revenue from government contracts, the company revealed in its IPO filing.

While AI is helping coders produce code faster, it may not be producing better code, researchers warn. And that could cause problems down the road for them.

submitted by /u/Either_Collection349 [link] [留言]