标签：#r

Been experimenting with a workflow on dimension.so where an agent builds out a 3D pre-vis scene first - blocking objects, character motion, and camera - then feeding that directly into Seedance 2.0 Mini as a video-to-video reference instead of prompting from scratch. Added GPT6/Asta into the agent's reasoning layer and I dont think the improvement in multistep task handling is noticeable in how consistent the scene composition turns out. Curious what people think - what went well in the pre-vis scene itself, and what could've been improved before it even got passed to Seedance? submitted by /u/KeyCod3923 [link] [留言]

GM's lineup is dropping Apple CarPlay and Android Auto in favor of its own infotainment systems. But one model is keeping the phone-mirroring capabilities.

Vulcan oven mitts, spaceship baking dishes, and an out-of-this-world communicator grater—you'll need warp speed to Klingon to this limited edition kitchen kit, ideal for perfecting the broth of Khan.

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy . ] submitted by /u/Kel_Thuzad11 [link] [留言]

Can language models write code in one step? Yes: make language continuous, use diffusion, then distill the trajectory to one step. Paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.04531 Code: https://github.com/pengzhangzhi/plaidq submitted by /u/pengzhangzhi [link] [留言]

Stuxnet! Here reproduced by me. Only researchs educations purposes.

Faker Doesn't Know Your Entities Are Related, So I Built Something That Does You've added a second entity to the schema, wired up a @ManyToOne , and gone back to your seed script to generate fifty more rows. Ninety seconds later, the app refuses to start: unique constraint violation, somewhere inside a loop you wrote three weeks ago at 11pm. You fix it. You restart. A different field breaks a different constraint. This is the exact moment every Spring Boot developer eventually meets the real limit of tools like Faker. They're brilliant at generating a name, an email, an address. They have no idea the Payment sitting in front of them needs a Counterparty to already exist. So you do what everyone does: hand-write the wiring. Create parents first. Hold onto their generated IDs. Wire them into children. Hope you didn't just violate a @NotNull somewhere in the process. It works, for a while. Then the schema changes, and the script quietly stops matching reality until the next 3am debugging session finds out the hard way. I hit this enough times that I stopped patching the script and looked at the actual problem: the information needed to seed this correctly already exists. It's sitting right there in the entity, in the annotations you already wrote. @ManyToOne , @NotNull , @Column(unique = true) , JPA already knows the shape of your data. Nothing should need to be told that twice. That became SynthForge . The core idea Instead of writing a script that generates data, you annotate the entity: @Entity @Seed ( count = 50 ) public class Counterparty { /* fields only */ } @Entity @Seed ( count = 200 ) public class Payment { @ManyToOne ( optional = false ) private Counterparty counterparty ; } Start the app in a dev profile. Both tables populate, correctly ordered, on every restart. No seed method. No calling code, anywhere. The entity is the seed script. What's actually happening underneath Entity scanning. SynthForge reads JPA-managed attributes through the jakarta.persisten

The hikers story happened September 1st. Three guys from Roseville used Gemini to plan a Mount Shasta summit. The AI told them to bring far less food and water than they needed. They summited at 7pm, four hours after the recommended turnaround time, descended in the dark, one of them hurt his knee, and they spent the night stranded in a canyon until rangers found them the next morning. Google says they can't replicate the bad answers Gemini gave. Maybe the prompts were vague. Maybe the AI was overconfident. Doesn't really matter which. What matters is that three people trusted a model's output as expert advice in a context where being wrong had serious consequences. Two days later OpenAI launched GPT-6 Astra. 99.9% on ARC-AGI-3, 97.6% on FrontierMath Tier 4, 100% on ExploitBench. OpenAI is calling this the start of the AGI era. Independent benchmarks from Artificial Analysis are more cautious and show Anthropic's Fable 5.1 still ahead on the broader intelligence index. But here's what I can't stop thinking about. The hikers story and the capability story are not separate things. Every time a model gets more capable, more people trust it in higher stakes situations. That gap between what the model can do and what the person using it understands about its limits doesn't close automatically when capability improves. If anything it gets harder to manage because the outputs get more convincing. I work with organizations on AI adoption and the single most common thing I see is not people being too skeptical of AI. It's people not knowing when to stop trusting it. What's your take? Does more capability make the trust calibration problem better or worse? submitted by /u/Dapper-Tale-4021 [link] [留言]

Originally published on WordPress on September 27, 2025. When AI systems fail in production, the failure is often blamed on data quality, model drift, or algorithmic limitations. In practice, many of the most damaging failures originate much earlier and much lower in the stack. They come from weak security foundations that allow systems to behave in unintended ways. Reliable AI is not just about accuracy or performance. It is about whether the surrounding infrastructure enforces discipline around access, data handling, and execution paths. Infrastructure as the First Line of AI Security Every AI system depends on infrastructure that controls how compute, storage, and networking are consumed. If that infrastructure is loosely governed, the AI system inherits that weakness. A common example is a shared compute environment where multiple teams run experiments. If isolation is poorly enforced, one workload can access artifacts, logs, or intermediate data from another. The model may be mathematically sound, but the environment allows behavior that violates assumptions about separation and control. From a reliability standpoint, this creates hidden coupling. An AI job might fail or behave inconsistently because another process consumed shared resources or modified shared state. From a security standpoint, the same weakness allows unauthorized access to sensitive datasets or trained models. Strong infrastructure boundaries do not just protect against attackers. They protect teams from each other and from accidental misuse. Access Control Across the AI Lifecycle AI systems have long lifecycles that include data ingestion, preprocessing, training, evaluation, deployment, and monitoring. Each stage introduces different access needs. Problems arise when a single identity or role is allowed to operate across too many of these stages. For example, an engineer might have permission to both modify training data and deploy models. That convenience can quietly undermine trust in the

OAuth can prove that a request may reach a resource. It does not, by itself, tell an operator the full story of the actor holding the token. That distinction matters once software can plan, call tools, retry, and act across several systems. The question is no longer only, "Is this request authenticated?" It is also: Which agent is acting? Under whose authority? For what purpose? Against which target? What evidence will remain after the action? If your system cannot answer those questions without reading the agent's prompt, it does not yet have an operational identity model. It has a credential. A token is permission, not the whole identity OAuth remains essential infrastructure for agents. The current Model Context Protocol authorization specification builds on OAuth 2.1, Protected Resource Metadata, Client ID Metadata Documents, audience binding, and least-privilege scopes. It also hardens issuer validation, defines step-up authorization, and forbids token passthrough. Those controls answer important questions: Is this token intended for this resource? Which permissions did the user approve? Has the credential expired? Does the resource server accept its audience? But a token is still one artifact inside a larger system. It can carry identity claims, but it does not automatically give that identity a lifecycle, an owner, a purpose, or a useful audit trail. An operational identity is the continuity around the token. It says this is the same agent before, during, and after a credential is issued, and that its authority can be understood and withdrawn. Borrowing a human identity breaks the record The fastest way to get an agent moving is often to lend it a human credential. Copy an API key into the environment. Reuse a browser session. Give it an access token created for an employee. Now the log says a person acted when an agent did. The credential may carry every permission the person has, even though the task needed two. Revoking the agent means revoking the human.

From Prompt to Paycheck: Wiring an LLM Chain Into Real Gig Platforms Building autonomous AI agents that can accept work, perform tasks, and get paid is no longer a sci‑fi thought experiment. The pieces exist—large language models, tool‑calling frameworks, and micropayment protocols—but stitching them together requires careful engineering. Below is a pragmatic walk‑through of how to turn a prompt‑driven LLM chain into a billable service that can be offered on gig‑style marketplaces (Upwork, Fiverr, or a custom job board). 1. High‑level Architecture +----------------+ +-------------------+ +-------------------+ | Gig Platform | <--->| Agent Frontend | <--->| LLM Orchestrator| | (job post, | | (webhook / API) | | (LangChain + | | payout) | | | | x402 payment) | +----------------+ +-------------------+ +-------------------+ Gig Platform – posts a job, sends a JSON payload to a webhook you expose, and later releases payment when you signal completion. Agent Frontend – a thin HTTP service (e.g., a Cloudflare Worker or FastAPI app) that validates the incoming request, adds authentication, and forwards the job description to the orchestrator. LLM Orchestrator – the core where the prompt chain runs, tools are invoked, and the x402 micropayment protocol is used to charge the client per call or per completed unit of work. The flow is synchronous for simplicity: the client waits for the agent to finish and returns the result in the same HTTP response. If you need longer‑running work, replace the synchronous response with a job ID and a polling endpoint. 2. Choosing the LLM Stack For reproducibility, I’ll use LangChain (v0.2) with OpenAI’s GPT‑4‑turbo as the base model. The same pattern works with any model that supports function calling (Anthropic Claude, Mistral, local Llama‑3 via TGI, etc.). # orchestrator.py import os from langchain.chat_models import ChatOpenAI from langchain.prompts import ChatPromptTemplate , MessagesPlaceholder from langchain.agents import AgentExecutor

Even though networking fundamentals are often taught at the early stages of a tech career, their relevance becomes far more important when you begin working with distributed IoT and edge-driven architectures. Concepts like subnetting, routing, NAT, DNS, firewalls, and VPNs evolve from simple textbook ideas into core architectural tools that determine how devices communicate, how secure the system remains, and how reliably data moves between the edge and the cloud. This refresher looks at these fundamentals from the perspective of someone building and supporting real IoT and edge environments. The goal is not to re-teach the basics, but to reconnect them with the realities of large-scale, low-power, and cloud-connected systems. 1. Subnetting as the Backbone of IoT Network Segmentation Subnetting plays a much bigger role in IoT and edge-driven environments than most people realize. In traditional networking, subnets help organize traffic and reduce broadcast noise. In IoT, they become a core part of the system architecture. When you’re dealing with sensors, gateways, and edge compute nodes running side by side, the network must be segmented in a way that keeps each function secure and predictable. A typical LoRaWAN setup shows this clearly. The gateway LAN, the packet-forwarder network, and the edge analytics node usually sit in different subnets. This separation allows you to apply strict ACLs around what each component can communicate with, especially because IoT devices often have limited security controls of their own. Subnetting also helps manage traffic flow, ensuring that noisy sensor broadcasts don’t interfere with time-sensitive edge workloads. Beyond security, good subnet design improves fault isolation. If a node misbehaves, the impact is contained within its segment. This structure also supports multi-tenant IoT deployments, where different applications or departments share the same physical infrastructure without touching each other’s data paths. In short

Windows function VS Group by Both window functions and GROUP BY help you summarize data. But they do it in different ways, and mixing them up leads to confusing results. GROUP BY squishes many rows into one row per group. -A window function keeps every row , and just adds an extra column next to it. Once you see that difference, it's easy to know which one to reach for. We'll use one simple table the whole way through, so the examples stay easy to follow: students --------------------------- name | class | score --------------------------- Amina | A | 90 Brian | A | 70 Carla | A | 85 Dennis | B | 60 Efrem | B | 95 Difference between Windows Functions and Group by GROUP BY answers a question like: "What's the average score in each class?" It gives you back fewer rows than you started with — one row per class. A window function answers a question like: "How does this student's score compare to their class average?" It gives you back the same number of rows you started with — one per student — just with something extra calculated for each one. So: Want one summary row per group? Use GROUP BY . Want to keep every row, but add a calculation? Use a window function. Example 1: GROUP BY — one row per class -- One row per class. We lose the individual students. SELECT class , AVG ( score ) AS average_score FROM students GROUP BY class ; Result: class | average_score ------------------------ A | 81.6 B | 77.5 Notice we no longer see Amina, Brian, or any individual name. GROUP BY traded the detail for a summary. That's fine when the summary is all you need. Example 2: A window function — keep every row Now say you want to see each student's score next to their class average, without losing any rows: -- Every student stays, plus a new column showing their class average. SELECT name , class , score , AVG ( score ) OVER ( PARTITION BY class ) AS class_average FROM students ; Result: name | class | score | class_average ------------------------------------------ Amina | A | 90 | 8

ZECpad is an early-stage market and launch infrastructure project being built around the Zcash ecosystem. The product is not publicly available yet. The website currently displays a “TOO SOON” page while development, security planning, and market design continue in the background. There is no token sale, investment solicitation, or return promise associated with this post. Why build on Zcash? Most token launch and trading platforms expose far more information than users expect. Wallet addresses, balances, trading activity, and asset ownership can often be connected and analyzed publicly. Zcash offers a different foundation: programmable market infrastructure can be designed around stronger privacy boundaries rather than adding privacy as an afterthought. Our goal is not to hide the market itself. Prices, liquidity, reserves, oracle health, and aggregate activity should remain observable. What should not automatically become public is the identity and complete financial history of every participant. What ZECpad is exploring The current design work covers three connected areas: Zcash-native token launch and discovery Shielded settlement and privacy-aware browser wallet flows Reference markets linked to external assets without representing direct ownership of shares The reference-market concept is especially important to explain clearly. Exposure linked to assets such as NVDA or gold would not represent legal ownership of the underlying stock or commodity. It would be a ZEC-settled market instrument whose risk, collateral, oracle source, limits, and settlement conditions must be visible to users. Privacy is only one part of the problem A private transaction is not automatically a safe transaction. A launchpad also needs defenses against liquidity removal, concentrated insider supply, manipulated pricing, stale oracle data, insufficient collateral, and misleading asset claims. The areas currently being evaluated include: reserve and collateral accounting; oracle freshne

An approval rule becomes useful when you can test what happens on both sides of it: the forbidden action is refused, and the permitted decision leaves evidence. A happy-path demo alone cannot show that distinction. Here is a runnable example using Accordo, the open-source framework coding agents use to build custom CRMs. A synthetic customer wants 30 seats of an Enterprise Plan and requests 25% off. The existing policy permits automatic approval through 10%; above that, through 50%, it requires a user decision. Run it locally You need Git, Node.js 22.16 or newer, npm, and internet access for cloning and dependency installation. Start in an empty working directory: git clone https://github.com/khaoss85/agent-crm.git framework-source cd framework-source git checkout 3b5b5f0c4c3e582e48d54501136024b064756daa node --no-warnings examples/recipes/quote-approval/run.mjs ../my-quote-crm The pinned recipe source creates a project, installs its dependencies and composes the existing commercial package. It then starts a temporary server on localhost and drives the public SDK through HTTP. The catalog is a fixture; the business journey does not call an external provider. It uses source from the checkout, independently of the npm scaffolder release. Check the refusal, then the decision The script contains assertions for each transition: Server pricing produces EUR 3,750 once and EUR 2,400 per month after discount. These are synthetic quote amounts, kept in separate periods. Submission under policy version 1 freezes a commercial snapshot and enters pending_approval . An approval request from the simulated agent receives HTTP 403 with HUMAN_APPROVAL_REQUIRED . The quote and approval remain pending, and no business audit entry is added. A simulated user approves. The quote becomes approved , with one user decision audit and a completed trace. The submitted snapshot remains unchanged. There is one quote version and one approval record. The refusal also has a failed trace. That is a u