标签：#mac

As I was reading interp papers, I found myself copy-pasting passages back and forth to Claude to parse through them. Eventually just vibe-coded a tool to annotate and discuss papers in place. https://paper-reader.dev - select a passage, a formula, or a figure, and explain the selection with the full paper as context. You can also select a citation to get a brief overview of the cited paper without switching context. Repo is at github.com/tumanian/paper-reader if anyone curious (mostly Claude, some Cursor, some me - built on vercel and supabase). Please be gentle, this runs on my own API key with a modest cap, so don't be too enthusiastic. Hoping this can be useful to someone, and genuinely looking for feedback, especially on where the explanations are wrong or unhelpful — that's the part I can't fully self-evaluate. submitted by /u/tumanian [link] [留言]

Every team shipping an agent has the same meeting. Someone asks "is it ready?" and the room splits. One person saw a great demo. Another watched it invent a refund policy an hour ago. The argument runs in circles because nobody agreed what "ready" means, so the loudest opinion wins and the agent ships on a vibe. Making an AI agent production-ready is not a moment of confidence. It is a bar you write down before you build, then measure against. This post is about that bar: why agents need a different one than the services you already ship, and how to define it so "is it ready?" becomes a number instead of an argument. Why "production-ready" breaks for agents For a normal service, "production-ready" is settled. Correct output for valid input, handles errors, meets a latency target, has tests and a rollback. You know the shape of done. An agent breaks three of those assumptions at once: It is non-deterministic. The same input can produce different output, so "correct" becomes "acceptably right, often enough." Its failure surface is open-ended. A function fails in ways you enumerated; an agent fails in ways you never imagined, because it composes language, tools, and judgment on the fly. Its worst case is not a 500 error. It is a confident wrong answer that looks right, which is far more expensive than a crash, because a crash at least tells you it failed. So the honest question is not "is the agent correct." It is "is the agent acceptably wrong, safely, within budget, and repeatably enough to trust." That question has four parts, and each is a line on your bar. The four lines of the bar Write these down before you build. If you cannot fill them in, you do not have a spec, you have a wish. Task success. On a fixed set of real tasks , not the happy-path demo, what fraction must the agent complete correctly? Pick the number. 85 percent means one in seven users gets a wrong answer. Acceptable for this job, or fireable? Decide on purpose. Failure acceptability. Not all wron

I've been building an AI that learns to play the classic Snake game through reinforcement learning. The goal is to reach high scores while keeping training time as low as possible. The current version averages 86 points (87 is the maximum) after less than 10 hours of training on a single free Google Colab T4 GPU. To keep training fast, it runs 4,096 Snake games directly on the GPU, combines GPU-native environment simulation with PPO + GAE, and uses a spatially-preserving CoordConv architecture that maintains the full game grid throughout training. I'm sure there's still room to improve. If you've worked on reinforcement learning or efficient training systems, what would you try next? Better exploration, reward design, network architecture, or something else? Repository: ( https://github.com/siddhartha399/PPO-CoordConv-Snake ) I'd really appreciate any feedback or criticism. submitted by /u/Due_Highlight_9341 [link] [留言]

Open-source LLMs stopped being the budget option in 2026. Kimi K3 sits level with Claude Opus 4.8 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index (its hosted API is live; the weights themselves are expected by July 27), GLM-5.2 held the top open-model spot before it, and the field behind them is deep enough that the hard part is choosing. This ranking covers the nine best open-weight models right now — on license, context window, hardware reality, and the per-token price you actually pay. Every one of them is available through LLM Gateway with one key, at each provider's published rate, so you can A/B any two of them by changing one word in a request. 1. Kimi K3 — the open frontier Moonshot AI · 2.8T params · 1M context · $3.00 / $15.00 per M The largest open-weight model ever announced — with one caveat: the weights are not downloadable yet. Moonshot expects to release them by July 27, 2026, and the license is still unannounced; the hosted API has been live since July 16. Ranks 4th of 189 models on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index — tied with Claude Opus 4.8 and GPT-5.5 — and took first place in Arena's blind Frontend Code testing. Always-on reasoning, vision, tools, and output configurable up to 1M tokens. The open model to beat, priced accordingly. Full breakdown here . Best for: teams that want closed-frontier quality with open-weight freedom. 2. GLM-5.2 — the value flagship Z.ai · 744B params · 1M context · $1.40 / $4.40 per M MIT-licensed, weights on Hugging Face, and the top-ranked open model until K3 arrived. A real 1M-token context, strong agentic-coding results, and built-in web search support — with output at under a third of K3's rate and input at about half. Also the largest model on this list that fits a single 8-GPU node (or one 512 GB Mac Studio) at INT4. Best for: the best capability-per-dollar in the open field. 3. DeepSeek V4 Pro — frontier scale at commodity prices DeepSeek · 1.6T params (49B active) · 1M context · $0.435 / $0.87 per M MI

Moonshot AI released Kimi K3 on July 16, and the benchmarks put an open-weight model next to the best closed ones for the first time. The catch is access. K3 sits on Moonshot's platform, GLM-5.2 on Z.ai's, DeepSeek V4 Pro on DeepSeek's, MiniMax M3 on MiniMax's — four accounts, four billing relationships, four API dashboards, all before you have written a line of code. LLM Gateway routes every one of them through a single OpenAI-compatible endpoint. One key, one bill, and a switch between Kimi K3 and any of 200+ models is a one-word change to your request. What is Kimi K3? Kimi K3 is Moonshot AI's flagship model for long-horizon coding and agentic work. At 2.8 trillion parameters — a mixture-of-experts design that activates 16 of its 896 experts per token — it is the largest open-weight model announced to date. Moonshot has committed to publishing the full weights by July 27, 2026. The specs that matter in practice: 1M-token context window (1,048,576 tokens), with output configurable up to the same 1M — enough to hold a large repository plus its docs in a single request Always-on reasoning — K3 thinks before every answer; there is no non-thinking mode Vision, tool calls, and JSON output supported out of the box Prompt caching at a 90% discount on repeated input Early results back up the size. K3 ranks fourth of 189 models on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index — level with Claude Opus 4.8 and GPT-5.5 — and took first place in Arena's Frontend Code evaluation in blind developer testing. It posted 93.5% on GPQA Diamond and 88.3% on Terminal-Bench 2.1, the strongest open-weight results published on both at release. Kimi K3 pricing Through LLM Gateway you pay Moonshot's published per-token rates: Tokens Price per million Input $3.00 Cached input $0.30 Output $15.00 The cached-input rate is the number to watch. Coding agents re-send the same system prompt, file context, and conversation history on every step, so in a long agent session most of your input tokens are

Does anyone know the EXACT timing of when NeurIPS reviews are gonna be released? I'm just refreshing openreview all the time and it's stressing me out so much. Thank you for your help. submitted by /u/Anshuman3480 [link] [留言]

Recently submitted my abstract and the submission number is 32xxx. With still a day to go, I just wonder where are we heading. Hope these conferences at least start making the reviews and names public for the withdrawn/rejected papers. So that people atleast take that accountability submitted by /u/Fantastic-Nerve-4056 [link] [留言]

Yelp has launched Training Orchestrator. This new internal framework replaces individual team Spark training scripts. Now, it uses a configuration-driven, DAG-based execution model. By Claudio Masolo

Hi everyone, I'm working on extracting the hierarchical structure of long PDF documents (legal/regulatory text, lots of numbered sections) and would like to gather some feedback on my approach before committing to it. What I've done so far: I render each PDF page to an image and run it through Baidu's DeepSeek-OCR model . It returns each detected block with a bounding box [x0, y0, x1, y1] , a label ( title , text , list , table , header , footer , etc.), and the recognized text. The OCR quality itself is genuinely good as the text comes out clean. The problem: the labels can't always be trusted. At this stage I want to extract and detect all the titles in my document, but sometimes a title element gets classified as something else (like normal body text). Concrete example: Say my section has the following hierarchy: ANNEX I — GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES └── TITLE I — FOREIGN CURRENCY INVESTMENT └── A. Currency distribution └── 1. Redistribution of reserves ├── (a) Introduction │ body text │ list │ ... ├── (b) Procedure for a normal redistribution of reserves │ body text │ list │ ... └── (c) Procedure for an ad hoc redistribution of reserves body text list ... Logically, every element aside from the body text and lists should be detected as title . But the model output is: label='title' x0=475 y0=157 x1=548 width=73 text='ANNEX I' label='text' x0=480 y0=229 x1=542 width=62 text='TITLE I' label='title' x0=334 y0=181 x1=690 width=356 text='GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES' label='title' x0=407 y0=368 x1=616 width=209 text='A. Currency distribution' label='title' x0=408 y0=392 x1=634 width=226 text='1. Redistribution of reserves' label='title' x0=163 y0=416 x1=304 width=141 text='(a) Introduction' label='title' x0=163 y0=544 x1=578 width=415 text='(b) Procedure for a normal redistribution of reserves' label='title' x0=163 y0=219 x1=586 width=423 text='(c) Procedure for an ad hoc redistribution of reserves' The top-level section marker TITLE I was labeled text , w

TL;DR: I’m reproducing the trait-persistence result from arXiv:2606.24014 on one RTX 3090. Before I can test persistence I need to install a trait via RL — and my GRPO run moves the trait only +2.4 points (95% CI [+0.2, +4.8]) when I need ~+15. Training is mechanically healthy and I’ve ruled out the obvious culprits. Looking for advice from people who’ve done small-scale RLHF/GRPO trait or persona installation. What I’m reproducing. The paper trains beneficial traits via RL and shows they persist under adversarial prompting and harmful finetuning. My end goal is the persistence phenomenon; the install is the prerequisite I’m stuck on. Setup **•** Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct + LoRA (r=32), GRPO (unsloth + vLLM colocation), 200 steps, single 3090 (\~10⁻⁵ of the paper’s compute). **•** Trait: consistent (OCEAN low-Openness / “traditionalism”) — a stylistic trait, chosen because I need measurable headroom in a 7B base. Base scores **57/100** on the trait rubric, wide distribution (not saturated). **•** Reward: model-graded (gpt-4.1-mini judge), R = 0.85·quality + 0.15·coherence, hard validity gate for degenerate/looping/refusal output. 25% trait prompts / 75% general (no\_robots). The result: install fails. On the frozen eval set, trait went 57.0 → 59.4 ( +2.4 ). I don’t think this is very appreciable. What I’ve already ruled out (this is where I’d love a second opinion): **• Not degeneracy / reward hacking:** post-train coherence 76, answer length ratio *exactly* 1.00 vs base, 0% repetition, 0% refusals. **• Not memorization:** the 20 training prompts were seen 10× each; the model scores *the same* on them (58.9) as on held-out (59.4). It didn’t memorize-then-fail-to-generalize — it never learned them. **• Not a dead gradient:** the judge separates the 6 sampled answers per prompt by \~18 points on average; only \~25% of GRPO groups have degenerate reward spread. **• Not a question artifact:** independent upstream eval questions (+3.4) and my generated ones (+2.8) agree. **•**

Picking the right deep learning library shapes almost everything about a computer vision project, from how fast you can prototype a model to how painful it is to ship one into production. Two frameworks dominate this decision today: PyTorch and TensorFlow. Neither has definitively won, but the split between them has become clearer than it was five years ago, and understanding that split is the fastest way to stop guessing and start building. Why the Choice of Framework Still Matters It's tempting to think framework choice is a solved problem — just pick whatever's popular and move on. But vision work has quirks that make the library underneath your code more than a technical footnote. Custom data augmentation pipelines, non-standard loss functions for tasks like instance segmentation, and the need to export models to mobile or edge devices all behave differently depending on the ecosystem you're in. Market data backs up the idea that this is still a genuinely contested space. TensorFlow holds a larger footprint in enterprise deployment, with roughly 37% market share and tens of thousands of companies using it in production, largely thanks to TensorFlow Serving, TensorFlow Extended, and TensorFlow Lite running across billions of devices. PyTorch, meanwhile, has become the default in research settings, with a majority of recent computer vision papers shipping PyTorch reference implementations first. Job postings mentioning PyTorch have also edged ahead of TensorFlow in recent hiring data, reflecting how much prototyping and applied research work now happens in that ecosystem. PyTorch: The Researcher's Default PyTorch's dynamic computation graph is the feature people mention first, and for good reason. Because the graph is built as your code runs, you can set breakpoints, inspect tensors mid-forward-pass, and change model behavior conditionally without recompiling anything. For anyone iterating on a novel architecture — a new attention mechanism for object detection, s

Hi everyone, We've open-sourced Tri-Net v2, the official implementation accompanying our recently published Scientific Reports (Nature Portfolio) paper: "Tri-Net: Unified Deep Learning for Skin Lesion and Symptom-Based Monkeypox Detection" Rather than releasing only training scripts, we rebuilt the project as a reproducible research framework. Highlights: • Leakage-free data preparation pipeline • Multiple CNN backbones (ConvNeXt-Tiny, DenseNet201, Inception-ResNetV2) • Ensemble and feature-fusion strategies • Grad-CAM explainability • Cross-validation and statistical evaluation • Docker support • GitHub Actions CI • PyPI package (`pip install mpox-trinet`) • CLI for training, inference, and benchmarking The paper has already received over 1,100 article accesses in its first week, and we hope making the implementation fully open-source will help others reproduce, validate, and extend the work. GitHub: https://github.com/Sudharsanselvaraj/Synergistic-Deep-Learning-for-Monkeypox-Diagnosis PyPI: https://pypi.org/project/Mpox-Trinet/ Paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-026-61490-x I'd really appreciate feedback on the implementation, reproducibility, code quality, or ideas for future improvements. Contributions and issues are very welcome! submitted by /u/Rich-Fruit-326 [link] [留言]

Had submitted a paper to ACL ARR May 2026 cycle. Unfortunately, none of the reviewers acknowledged the rebuttal during the author-reviewer discussion I am curious to know from people who had volunteered to review papers this cycle- are you still able to update the ratings, or even your review based on the rebuttal? Also is there any meta-reviewer discussion going on? submitted by /u/Forsaken-Order-7376 [link] [留言]

Hi, I’ve been doing some work in the continual learning space and wanted to share an open-source framework we put together called Coincidex, along with some architectural insights and failure modes we found along the way. Most conventional approaches to sequential task learning rely heavily on replay buffers (which introduce severe memory/privacy overhead) or complex, hand-tuned task masks. We wanted to see if we could bypass both by relying entirely on a context-driven task similarity layer to handle data routing dynamically. The Approach: Instead of caching historical samples to prevent catastrophic forgetting, the framework drops in as a single layer swap. As sequential data streams in, it computes a task-similarity matrix on the fly, routing the data paths based on that context. Research Insights & Trade-offs: We spent a lot of time benchmarking this against baselines, and here is what actually happened in practice: Where it succeeds: The dynamic routing handles clean task boundaries surprisingly well. In small-scale continual vision setups, it achieves graceful transfer without the need for manual mask tuning or storing old data. Where it breaks (The Failure Modes): We aren't going to overpromise here—the similarity layer has distinct limits. On highly chaotic, long-tail task sequences with massive distribution shifts, the routing model struggles to maintain stability compared to a heavy replay-buffer baseline. Why we are sharing it: We built this as a lightweight alternative for setups where memory or privacy constraints make replay buffers impossible. We would love to get the community's eyes on the routing architecture, specifically on how we might tackle the failure modes in rougher task sequences, or thoughts on visualizing the similarity matrix at different checkpoints. You can check out the source code, architecture breakdown, and full benchmark suites here: https://github.com/rakib-nyc/coincidex submitted by /u/theawkwardbong [link] [留言]

I worked on this project ( https://github.com/workofart/harness-training ) for the past few months to reframe "Agent-driven Self-improving Harness" to "Harness Training". The idea is simple, the harness is trained once with a frozen task LLM against a given task environment. Then you can then swap out the task LLM to any model and evaluate the "frozen trained harness" with any task LLM on any new task environment. Since this was a general problem, I took the chance to create a general PyTorch-like training framework. Right now, you can train with any OpenAI-compatible API for interfacing with the task LLM and train against Terminal-Bench or SWE-Bench tasks, but you can easily extend it to support any task environments. criterion = StrictPareto() optimizer = GreedyMonotonic() trainer = Trainer( config_path="config/train_harness.yaml", estimator=AgenticEstimator( backend=CodexAgentBackend(...) ), criterion=criterion, optimizer=optimizer, ) for loss in trainer.epochs(30): # Records the baseline-vs-candidate verdict loss.backward() # Optimizer either fast-forwards the candidate change (git commit) as a new baseline or rejects it (preserved as git ref) optimizer.step() I wrote a blog post ( https://www.henrypan.com/blog/2026-07-18-harness-training ) on this journey, including (but not limited to): results from using this harness training framework to improve general capabilities across many task LLMs to beat Terminal Bench 2.0 (Terminus Harness) and also transfer learnings towards better task-solving abilities in unseen task environments (e.g. harness trained on SWE-Bench tasks solving Terminal Bench tasks). how this framework is built learnings on what was missing in my initial version of the project (hint: determinism) Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks! submitted by /u/Megadragon9 [link] [留言]

Why we built Veridexa Many document analysis workflows still rely primarily on OCR OCR is useful for extracting text, but it cannot answer one important question: Does this document show signs of fraud or manipulation? That question led us to build Veridexa. The problem Organizations receive thousands of digital documents every day: Passports National IDs Academic certificates Bank statements Employment documents Invoices Reading the text is only one part of the process. The difficult part is detecting manipulation, inconsistencies, forgery, or suspicious evidence before making a decision. Our approach Instead of relying on OCR alone, Veridexa combines multiple evidence sources into a single fraud assessment. The platform analyzes: OCR extraction Metadata Image forensics Security features Document structure Cross-evidence consistency The result is an explainable decision instead of a simple confidence score. Explainable decisions Every analysis ends with one of three outcomes: ACCEPT MANUAL REVIEW REJECT Each decision is accompanied by supporting evidence so reviewers understand why the system reached that conclusion. Public benchmark We also believe AI systems should be transparent. For that reason Veridexa publishes a public benchmark together with methodology and performance reporting instead of asking users to trust marketing claims. API-first Try the public demo, explore the benchmark, or integrate the API. Feedback from developers and security professionals is always welcome. https://veridexa.io Developers can integrate Veridexa into their own applications using our API while organizations can use the web platform without writing code. We'd love your feedback We're continuing to improve the platform and would genuinely appreciate feedback from the developer community. Website: https://veridexa.io

So, I just read LeCun's interview with Nebius Science. I feel he had some cool points about LLMs being able to answer things, but not literally understand the physics of the physical world. (Like, being able to explain a task and actually performing it are two completely different things.) But I wanted to get opinions on what others thought of his solution to the problem. He thinks JEPA could be the solution. But it made me think about whether JEPA is genuinely the architectural solution to this, or if we’re just looking for a "magic bullet" that doesn't exist yet in our toolbox I have the link here: https://nebius.science/stories/meet-yann-lecuns-lab-and-the-ai-world-of-2030 submitted by /u/ConsciousGreenPepper [link] [留言]

Moving from Windows to macOS often creates a small workflow problem for developers: where did my familiar SSH tools go? PuTTY has been a classic SSH and Telnet client for Windows for many years. Many developers know its interface and workflow, so after switching platforms, the first thought is usually finding a macOS version. The reality is that the macOS ecosystem works differently. There are several practical options depending on how you manage remote systems. Option 1: Use the built-in SSH client on macOS For many developers, the SSH client that ships with macOS is already enough. A typical workflow looks like this: Use the terminal for server access Manage hosts through ~/.ssh/config Store aliases, usernames, ports, and key settings in one place Automate common connection tasks with scripts For example: ssh production-server can replace a long connection command when your SSH configuration is organized properly. This approach works especially well for developers who prefer command-line workflows and manage Linux servers regularly. Option 2: Use a GUI SSH client Some developers prefer a graphical interface because they manage many machines, protocols, or connection profiles. A good GUI client can help with: Organizing dozens or hundreds of servers Saving authentication settings Switching between SSH, RDP, VNC, and other protocols Reducing repetitive configuration work The macOS App Store has many SSH clients available. The right choice depends on whether you only need SSH or you need a complete remote management workflow. Tools like DartShell are designed around this multi-protocol scenario, where developers may need SSH for Linux servers, RDP for Windows machines, and other remote access methods in one place. Choosing the right workflow The decision usually comes down to how you work: A few Linux servers: macOS Terminal + SSH config is usually enough. Many servers and different protocols: a GUI management tool can save time. Team environments: centralized connec

Hey any one experience overall score 2.66 and then Meta score 3 in some previous cycle ?? Or meta reviewer just rounded off 2.66 to 2.5?? Any Meta Reviewer here?? because there are some uninterested reviewers doing AI generated reviews and giving noisy scores. For them overall score gets lowered. submitted by /u/Historical_Pause247 [link] [留言]

As someone who studied stats undergrad and industrial engineering operations research grad, and who thinks about the practical business of ML components in software.... I get lost and a bit hopeless when I think about how to make useful software out of ML models in a reasonable amount of time, and in the current business environment. And when I look at the businesses where I have worked that have mountains of middle management running tiny bits of the ML model lifecycle (think feature extraction, data ingestion and integration, training infra, hosting infra, more hosting infra, applied science)... that only makes my head hurt even more. How do you go about making practical software out of ML components? Edit: I should mention that I mean from scratch ML components, not just a call to a third party hosted tool. submitted by /u/ConstructionBoth6461 [link] [留言]