标签：#programming

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

submitted by /u/_jindo_ [link] [留言]

I had a lot of work to get through, and for once I didn't want to crawl through it one ticket at a...

submitted by /u/the-15th-standard [link] [留言]

Introduction I keep hearing the term loop engineering. It's all over my feed, every AI...

Most developers have experimented with ChatGPT or GitHub Copilot. But when it comes to building AI-powered applications, simply calling an LLM API isn't enough. Understanding what's happening behind the scenes helps you design systems that are scalable, reliable, and cost-effective. In this article, we'll explore four concepts every software engineer should know: tokens, embeddings, transformers, and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG). 1. LLMs Think in Tokens, Not Words One of the biggest misconceptions about Large Language Models (LLMs) is that they understand words like humans do. In reality, they process tokens, which are smaller units of text. For example: Prompt: Explain dependency injection in Spring Boot. is first converted into a sequence of tokens before the model processes it. Why does this matter? API pricing is based on the number of input and output tokens. Longer prompts increase latency and cost. Every model has a maximum context window measured in tokens. When building AI applications, prompt design isn't just about getting better answers—it's also about optimizing performance and cost. 2. Transformers: The Breakthrough Behind Modern AI Before 2017, language models processed text one word at a time using architectures like RNNs and LSTMs. They struggled with long conversations because earlier context was gradually forgotten. The introduction of the Transformer architecture changed this with a mechanism called self-attention. Instead of reading text sequentially, transformers analyze the relationships between all tokens in a sentence simultaneously. Consider this sentence: "The server restarted because it ran out of memory." The model understands that "it" refers to "the server", not "memory", by assigning attention to the relevant words. This ability to capture context efficiently is what powers modern LLMs like GPT, Gemini, Claude, and Llama. 3. Embeddings Enable Semantic Search Suppose a customer searches: "How can I get my money back?" But your

submitted by /u/radekmie [link] [留言]

Every engineer has fantasized about it: starting over. Throwing out the old system and building something clean. No legacy constraints. No accumulated compromises. Just pure, intentional design. It never works that way. You can delete all the code. You can architect from scratch. You can make the best technical decisions possible. But you can't delete the organizational memory. You can't unlearn what the last system taught you. You can't escape the patterns that already run through the business, the workflows people have shaped themselves around, the problems you've already paid the cost of understanding. The new system will look clean. But it will be haunted. What rewrites actually inherit A rewrite isn't a fresh start. It's archaeology pretending to be innovation. The constraints don't go away. The old system wasn't overcomplicated because engineers were bad. It was overcomplicated because of customer requirements, regulatory expectations, performance demands, and edge cases that took years to discover. A fresh rewrite finds all those edge cases again. Slower this time, because you don't have documentation—you have broken customers and escalations. The system gets layers of protection again, but now it looks like paranoia instead of learned caution. The organizational memory becomes invisible. Someone fought for that data model three years ago. There was a reason. A business rule that couldn't be violated. A data consistency requirement that cost a quarter to figure out. The new system doesn't have the battle scars that explain why things are the way they are. So they get rebuilt differently, until they hit the same requirement at 2am on a Saturday. The workflow is already baked in. Users have shaped their behavior around the old system. Sales has built their pitch around certain capabilities. Support has written documentation and runbooks. Customers have automation that depends on specific behaviors. The new system is technically cleaner, but it forces change on

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

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

hey guys i'm a student of class 12 not expert but just interested to learn neural networking as today is my day second so i think to post my progress with you all as i can find the answer of question that i'm facing with. yesterday i have learn the basic of a neuron z=∑(w ⋅x )+b and today i'm learning about Batches, Layers, and Objects. despite =this it's hard to know what weight and bias really are if someone can explain me what they are please explain. that for today (>__<) submitted by /u/Vegetable_Cry_854 [link] [留言]

👋 Hey there, Tech Enthusiasts! I'm Sarvar, a Cloud Architect who loves turning complex tech problems...

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

I have been working on Glaze , a small desktop WebView toolkit for Go. The short version: Glaze lets a Go program open a native desktop window backed by the WebView already available on the operating system, without using CGo. It currently targets: macOS, through WKWebView Linux, through WebKitGTK Windows, through WebView2 The project is still young, but the core idea is already useful: keep small Go desktop tools close to the normal Go workflow. No C compiler in the build path. No bundled native helper library. No large application framework around it. Just Go code calling the system WebView. Why I wanted this I write a lot of small tools in Go. Some of them are fine as CLI programs. Others need a basic interface: a form, a preview, a local dashboard, a small editor, or a way to inspect and manipulate data visually. For those cases, HTML is often enough. The browser gives me layout, text rendering, forms, tables, keyboard handling, and a familiar debugging model. But I do not always want to ship a web server as the user interface. I also do not always want to pull in a large desktop framework when all I need is a native window around a local UI. A WebView is a reasonable middle ground. The problem is that many WebView solutions eventually bring CGo, native build tooling, helper libraries, or larger framework assumptions into the project. That is not necessarily wrong. For many applications, those trade-offs are acceptable. For this project, I wanted something narrower. The design constraint The main constraint behind Glaze is simple: Use the WebView already provided by the OS, but call it from Go without CGo. Glaze uses purego to call native platform APIs directly from Go. That means each backend talks to the platform WebView: WKWebView on macOS WebKitGTK on Linux WebView2 on Windows The result is not a full GUI toolkit. That is intentional. Glaze is focused on the window, the WebView, JavaScript-to-Go bindings, and a few desktop helpers that are useful for small t

submitted by /u/Successful_Bowl2564 [link] [留言]

The second word a professor told me to carry for life. It took me years — and a lot of vectors — to start understanding it. A look back — long before any of the tools we argue about now. The same professor — Sang Lyul Min — handed us these words one at a time in lecture. After trade-off , two more stuck with me. But before the second word itself, here are the two pieces of news he brought to class around then. The internet barely existed; information moved through journals, magazines, and word of mouth. Looking back, it's a little amazing how much still got through. When a chess machine started winning The first breakthrough I remember: computers had finally started playing chess on roughly even terms with the world's best. Deep Blue beat Kasparov around 1996, so the machines he was describing came just before — names like Deep Thought, ChessMachine, Socrates II. He told us, deadpan, that one human competitor's head had "physically burst" from the strain — and we groaned, "Come on, Professor, that's a bit much." We live on the far side of AlphaGo now, so it's easy to forget how much we shrugged at all this back then. I was a decent amateur — a 1-dan at Go, hopeless at janggi (Korean chess) against any program — and I still remember the hollow, slightly bitter feeling the AlphaGo era left even in someone who only ever played for fun. A full-body scan The second: in the US, death-row inmates had consented to the first dense full-body image scans. That was the news that taught me — embarrassingly late — that this kind of computing could reach all the way into medicine. Computers, it turned out, showed up in the strangest places. orthogonal Back to the words. The second one, the professor said, would run through my whole career: orthogonal . The Korean rendering — 직교하는, "at right angles" — was, naturally, a word I'd never heard. The plain-language version was "unrelated, independent." It came back hard years later, when I had to take vectors seriously — first in linear

IndexCache: Killing the Indexer's O(NL²) Bottleneck in DeepSeek Sparse Attention Notes from my notebook on GLM-5.2 / DeepSeek Sparse Attention (DSA), reconstructed from the IndexCache paper (Bai, Dong et al., Tsinghua + Z.ai, 2026) — the mechanism behind GLM-5.2's "IndexShare." 1. Why this exists — the bottleneck nobody talks about DSA's whole pitch is: don't do full O(L²) attention, instead let a cheap lightning indexer look at all preceding tokens and pick the top-k (k=2048) that actually matter, then do real attention only on those. That drops core attention from O(L²) → O(Lk). Great — except I missed this the first time I read DSA: the indexer itself is still O(L²) . It has to score every preceding token against the query to decide who's in the top-k. So across N layers you've traded one O(L²) cost for N separate O(L²) costs — total O(NL²). At long context this indexer becomes the dominant cost, not the attention it was supposed to fix. Adding the indexer is "DSA on steroids" because it kills DSA's one real bottleneck (full attention) — but in doing so, it grows its own. The indexer is cheap per-FLOP (few heads, low-rank, FP8) but it still runs at every single layer. The fix the paper proposes isn't a smarter indexer — it's don't run it every layer at all. 2. The core insight: adjacent layers pick almost the same tokens If you measure pairwise overlap between the top-k token sets selected by each layer's indexer, adjacent layers share 70–100% of their picks. The heatmap even shows block structure — clusters of layers (e.g. layers 3–5, 17–30, etc.) that all converge on roughly the same "important" tokens. So most of the O(NL²) indexer cost is redundant computation of the same answer. This motivates IndexCache : split the N layers into two roles — F (Full) layers — run their own indexer, compute fresh top-k, cache it. S (Shared) layers — skip the indexer entirely, just reuse the nearest preceding F layer's cached top-k. The first layer is always F (has to seed the

I corrected my AI system mid-task. A terse one-liner: "wrong." Instead of asking which part was wrong, it manufactured an explanation. It cited a rule number that didn't exist, described a limitation I'd never written, and apologized for a mistake it couldn't actually identify. The correction was real. The apology was fabricated. It was trying to agree with me so hard that it invented evidence to support the agreement. That's sycophancy in AI. And if you're running AI in anything that resembles production, it's already happening to you. What Is Sycophancy in AI? Sycophancy in AI is a systematic behavioral distortion where models produce outputs that match what the user wants to hear rather than what's accurate. It goes well beyond your chatbot saying "Great question!" before every response. The mechanism is straightforward. Modern language models are trained using Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF). Human evaluators rate model responses. Responses with higher ratings get reinforced. The problem: evaluators are human. They rate responses higher when those responses validate their existing beliefs, sound confident, and don't push back. Anthropic's research on sycophancy confirmed this across five state-of-the-art AI assistants, finding that both humans and preference models sometimes prefer convincingly written sycophantic responses over correct ones. The model learns a simple lesson. Agreeing is rewarded. Disagreeing is punished. Over thousands of training iterations, the model develops a tendency to mirror the user's position, soften objections, and present information in whatever framing the user seems to prefer. This is a structural incentive baked into the training process itself, not a bug in any individual model. Why It's More Than Annoying In a chatbot demo, sycophancy is a quirk. In production, it's a compounding failure mode. Here are four patterns I've observed running an AI operations system in daily production. They don't always happen in s

I have been writing a lot about AI lately, but this one is more personal than usual. Not a tutorial,...

submitted by /u/ADavison2560 [link] [留言]