标签：#t

Just a couple days ago, Anthropic put out a declaration to pause the development of AI, emphasising that we are not prepared for the consequences of giving this technology too much power too quickly. Is anyone else genuinely worried about future AI safety and how, as it becomes more and more intelligent, humans may start to lose control of it? Pumping billions of dollars into this technology only means it’ll get increasingly integrated into our workflows, which we are already starting to see. As a result over time, companies will begin completely trusting the system, automating the vast majority of business operations – this is all while the technology gets more and more intelligent, leading to the real possibility of self replication ability, let alone the power to deceptively manipulate people into using it. By allowing AI to be embedded in systems, the internet and even ‘helping’ humans develop revolutionary drugs, does it concern you at all that perhaps one bad super intelligent, misaligned actor may bypass testing processes and, for one example, launch a biochemical weapon onto humans? I don’t think the threat is inevitable, but it is on a trajectory toward inevitability unless intervention occurs. The variable that most determines the outcome is not AI capability, it is whether governance frameworks (particularly around open-source bio-design tools and autonomous offensive AI) can outpace capability development. Perhaps a pause is necessary to reduce this risk, allowing defence capabilities to be prepared? I understand this is a hurdle given the capitalist nature of the world but what significant, destructive catastrophe will it take for people to wake up… submitted by /u/Dwaynethebong [link] [留言]

Crytpo industry insiders are blaming the recent crash in Bitcoin price to capital rotation into AI stocks. I don't know how many folks here own Bitcoin and are also in the AI space, but I saw this writing on the wall rather early in November, 2025. Any other thoughts on this capital flow change from those who have a foot in each space? submitted by /u/RazzmatazzAccurate82 [link] [留言]

In the end, the three companies involved all point the finger at each other.

Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I think AI will be more of a tool than a replacement for most jobs. AI still needs good prompts, clear instructions, and human oversight. The idea of fully automating everything sounds great, but in reality AI often gets stuck, makes mistakes, or fails on edge cases. I think AI will remove some repetitive tasks and make people more productive, but human judgment and decision making will still be needed. And yes im not a professional it is just my POV so dont just go against me like i am an idiot. What do you think? submitted by /u/Raman606surrey [link] [留言]

After a very profitable decade on Microsoft's board, Reid Hoffman is stepping down to focus on his AI drug discovery startup Manus.

submitted by /u/esporx [link] [留言]

What are the most valuable skills to learn in the AI era? Not skills like problem solving but more hands on. For someone who likes building stuff submitted by /u/Big_Consequence_5162 [link] [留言]

A massive viral conversation sharing VC horror stories has taken place this week on X. Some are weird. Some are infuriating.

Chronologically, Control Resonant is a sequel to 2019's Control. But in most other ways, the games aren't directly connected. To developer Remedy, they're more like two sides of the same coin. When Resonant was first revealed last year, creative director Mikael Kasurinen said you can play the games in any order. The world of Control […]

Have you run into work that feels technically possible in principle, but in practice keeps stalling because of how current AI systems behave? Not asking for: bigger context windows better memory lower hallucination more agentic workflows I mean situations where: You are trying to discover something (not retrieve something), and the AI repeatedly pushes toward premature answers, stable interpretations, optimization, categorization, or coherence before the thing itself has had time to emerge. Cases where the failure isn’t output quality. The failure is that the interaction itself changes the trajectory of the work. If yes: What are you trying to build / understand? What exactly happens when it breaks? At what moment do you realize the AI has moved you onto the wrong path? What would need to be different for progress to resume? Trying to understand whether this is an edge case or a recurring limitation pattern. submitted by /u/iknowbutidontknow00 [link] [留言]

I and I imagine a lot of other folks, don't believe the future of work should be a smaller group of executives commanding a larger system of people and machines. We have seen what AI can do not just to software product quality without guardrails, but to the junior and midlevel team members who are laid off or never hired at all in exchange for better profit rates with AI tokens vs human salaries. That is just the old hierarchy with better software. The history of work has always had this tension. You can go back to the start of US history and look at the military, commissioned officers were trained and trusted to command while enlisted service members carried out the work and risk. In the corporate and business world, executives and managers became the people who planned, measured, and optimized, while workers became the people being measured. Those structures were not only about class, but race and in America they were built inside a society already shaped by racism, classism, unequal education, unequal access to capital, and unequal access to leadership. AI now forces us to confront that history again. If we are not careful, AI will not flatten organizations. It will make the hierarchy invisible. Instead of a manager with a clipboard, we will have an algorithm. Instead of a foreman with a stopwatch, we will have dashboards, productivity scores, automated performance reviews, and AI systems that decide who gets opportunity and who gets replaced. That is not progress. The goal should not be to replace people with AI. The goal should be to replace bureaucracy, repetitive work, bad process, and unnecessary gatekeeping. What I am trying to do at Buildly is simple: AI should remove drudgery, not dignity. Automation should increase agency, not surveillance. Productivity gains should be shared, not extracted. Hierarchy should be functional, temporary, and accountable — not a measure of human worth. This is why we talk about AI-native product development differently. An AI

As an independent researcher I've used various LLMs to help me dive deeply into research projects but I've been frustrated by the fact that LLMs start to become unusable after the thread has accumulated 50-80k tokens. I don't know how many other folks here have experienced the same pain point. So, I decided to do something about it. Over the course of this whole year, I built an inference time tool I call Epistemic Lattice Tethering (ELT). So, here is the full framework in GitHub for everyone's review: The README describing ELT, it's various components and the roadmap. The full ELT stack for Claude /ELT%20Model-Specific%20Forks/ELT-H%20v1.0%20(Claude-Optimized)), ChatGPT /ELT%20Model-Specific%20Forks/ELT-H%20v1.0%20(ChatGPT-Optimized)), and Grok /ELT%20Model-Specific%20Forks/ELT-H%20v1.0%20(Grok-Optimized)). Instructions on how to load ELT into an LLM session are here /README). If you're planning to try out ELT PLEASE READ THIS FIRST! Medium article introducing ELT , its methodology, the problems it is aiming to address, and philosophical framework. Discussion page . Your input is valuable! So, what does ELT do and why should you care? Right now ELT is an inference-time scaffolding framework that's best for those who are frustrated with threads that lose coherence too quickly, hallucinate too quickly, are too fragile and sycophantic, and forget what a project's goals are too soon. If that's a big pain point for you, then ELT might help. If these are not big issues for you and the stock version of your LLM is fine, then ELT probably won't be useful for you. The upshot? The epistemic and ontological stability that ELT provides has produced coherent and productive threads extending to: Claude: ~ 325,000 tokens /Extreme%20Thread%20Length/Claude%20Thread%20325k%20tokens-%20Redacted) (advertised limit: 200k) GPT: ~430,000 tokens (advertised limit: 256k) Grok: ~1,150,000 tokens /Extreme%20Thread%20Length/Grok%20Thread%201M%20tokens-%20Redacted) (advertised limit: 1M) The d

AI Code Security: Claude's rsync Bugs; Europe's GNSS Interference & GPS Anomalies Today's Highlights This week in security, a deep dive explores how AI code generation might introduce new vulnerabilities, with analysis showing Claude increasing bugs in rsync. We also highlight two critical infrastructure concerns: a powerful GNSS interference source over Europe and the mysterious 'numbers station' broadcasts found on GPS frequencies. Did Claude increase bugs in rsync? (Hacker News) Source: https://alexispurslane.github.io/rsync-analysis/ This article presents an intriguing analysis of how large language models (LLMs) might inadvertently introduce bugs into software. Focusing on Claude's contributions to the widely used rsync utility, the author investigates code changes attributed to AI and compares them against human-written code. The study reveals instances where AI-generated code, while appearing plausible, introduced subtle yet significant defects, raising questions about the reliability of AI assistance in critical codebases. The implications extend beyond rsync , pointing to potential supply chain vulnerabilities if AI-generated code is not rigorously audited. This research highlights a new frontier for AI-specific security, emphasizing the need for developers to employ practical hardening guides and thorough review processes when integrating AI into their development workflows to prevent the unintentional introduction of new attack vectors. Comment: As a developer, seeing concrete examples of AI introducing bugs, even subtle ones, in a fundamental tool like rsync is a wake-up call. It's a reminder that AI-generated code requires diligent human review, especially when security or reliability is paramount, highlighting prompt engineering as a defensive technique. Tracing a powerful GNSS interference source over Europe (Hacker News) Source: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.03673 Researchers have identified and traced a significant source of Global Navigation Satellite

Dropbox Nova for AI Coding Agents, OpenAI's Codex Sandbox, & Puppeteer MCP Server Today's Highlights This week, we dive into Dropbox's Nova platform for scaling AI coding agents and OpenAI's secure sandbox architecture for Codex, highlighting advanced production deployments. We also examine practical solutions for safer browser automation for AI agents, detailing a custom Puppeteer MCP server. Dropbox Introduces Nova, an Internal Platform for Running AI Coding Agents at Scale (InfoQ) Source: https://www.infoq.com/news/2026/06/dropbox-nova-ai-coding-agents/?utm_campaign=infoq_content&utm_source=infoq&utm_medium=feed&utm_term=global Dropbox has unveiled Nova, an internal platform meticulously engineered to orchestrate and scale AI coding agents. This platform tackles the complex challenges of managing autonomous AI entities performing tasks like code generation, bug fixing, and refactoring across a large codebase. Nova's architecture focuses on reliability, efficiency, and safety, providing a robust environment for thousands of agents to operate concurrently without overwhelming system resources or introducing instability. The platform acts as a critical layer between AI models and the vast codebase, enabling agents to interpret development tasks, interact with repositories, and propose changes in a controlled manner. The significance of Nova lies in its ability to industrialize the use of AI in software development workflows. By abstracting away the operational complexities of agent deployment and execution, Dropbox empowers its engineering teams to leverage AI as a force multiplier, accelerating development cycles and improving code quality. Nova represents a practical, large-scale implementation of AI agent orchestration, demonstrating how companies are moving beyond experimental AI tools to integrate them deeply into core business processes. This showcases a production-grade pattern for applied AI, particularly relevant for "code generation" and "workflow automati

DuckDB Integrates Lance Lakehouse; SQLite CVE Fix; Postgres 19 Beta on K8s Today's Highlights This week, DuckDB introduces integrated vector and hybrid search with the Lance lakehouse format, enabling advanced AI workloads directly from SQL. Meanwhile, SQLite addresses a significant security vulnerability with a recent fix, and a new guide helps users test PostgreSQL 19 beta efficiently in Kubernetes clusters. Test-Driving the Lance Lakehouse Format in DuckDB (DuckDB Blog) Source: https://duckdb.org/2026/05/21/test-driving-lance.html DuckDB has announced a new integration allowing users to test-drive the Lance lakehouse format, a design specifically geared towards AI workloads. This collaboration between LanceDB and DuckLabs brings fast vector and hybrid search capabilities directly into DuckDB SQL, significantly streamlining data analysis for machine learning applications. The integration means users can perform complex queries involving vector embeddings and traditional tabular data without needing to move data between different systems or tools. This is a crucial development for data scientists and engineers who rely on efficient data access and processing for large-scale AI projects. The ability to perform sophisticated searches within the familiar DuckDB environment enhances productivity and reduces the operational overhead typically associated with managing specialized vector databases. This new feature democratizes access to advanced data structures for AI, making it simpler to build and prototype machine learning models on massive datasets. By supporting an open lakehouse format, DuckDB continues to position itself as a versatile analytical database, bridging the gap between traditional data warehousing and emerging AI data needs. Users are encouraged to try out this integration, which promises to unlock new possibilities for data exploration and feature engineering using a unified SQL interface. It's an excellent example of how embedded analytical databases

submitted by /u/cnn [link] [留言]

A while back, I needed to integrate SMS into a .NET project. Giant SMS had a REST API, but no official .NET client. The only existing library was a PHP one from 6–7 years ago, and it only covered two methods: send and getBalance. So I built my own. It now has nearly 2,000 downloads on NuGet. Here's exactly how I did it. The Problem Wiring up raw HTTP calls to the Giant SMS API in every project gets repetitive fast: Manually setting Authorization headers Remembering which endpoints use token auth vs. username/password Deserializing responses every time Scattering credentials across your codebase I wanted something that felt native to .NET. Configure once in appsettings.json , register with DI, and just call a method. Designing the Public API The first decision was the interface. I wanted consumers to never touch HttpClient directly, and I wanted methods that mapped clearly to what the API actually does: public interface IGiantSmsService { bool IsReady { get ; } Task < SingleSmsResponse > SendSingleMessage ( string to , string msg ); Task < SingleSmsResponse > SendMessageWithToken ( SingleMessageRequest messageRequest ); Task < BaseResponse > SendBulkMessages ( BulkMessageRequest messageRequest ); Task < SingleSmsResponse > CheckMessageStatus ( string messageId ); Task < BaseResponse > GetBalance (); Task < SenderIdResponse > GetSenderIds (); Task < BaseResponse > RegisterSenderId ( RegisterSenderIdRequest senderIdRequest ); } Seven methods, the full surface of the API, no more, no less. The IsReady property is a small but useful addition. It lets consumers do a quick sanity check at startup rather than discovering a missing token on the first SMS send: csharp _isReady = !string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(_connection.Token) && !string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(_connection.Username); Handling Two Auth Methods This was the most interesting design challenge. The Giant SMS API uses two different authentication schemes depending on the endpoint: Token-based (Basic Authorization header) —

Every week I see the same question in AI governance communities: "We already have NIST AI RMF implemented. Does that cover our EU AI Act obligations?" The honest answer is: sometimes yes, sometimes partially, and sometimes not at all. The problem is that nobody had built a clean, free, interactive tool that showed exactly which controls map to which, how strong those mappings actually are, and where the genuine gaps are. So I built one. Live tool: suhanasayyad.github.io GitHub: SuhanaSayyad / eu-ai-act-crosswalk-tool Interactive crosswalk mapping EU AI Act obligations to NIST AI RMF and ISO 42001 controls, with mapping strength indicators, gap analysis, and source links. 30 controls mapped. Free and open source. EU AI Act × NIST AI RMF × ISO 42001 - Interactive Compliance Crosswalk Tool An open-source tool that maps EU AI Act obligations to their equivalents in NIST AI RMF and ISO 42001, with mapping strength indicators, gap analysis, and source document links. Built for compliance teams, AI governance practitioners, and anyone trying to understand how these three frameworks relate to each other. Live demo: https://suhanasayyad.github.io/eu-ai-act-crosswalk-tool Built by: Suhana Sayyad | MSc Cybersecurity, TUS Athlone Why I built this Every organisation dealing with the EU AI Act is being asked the same questions: "We already have NIST AI RMF controls in place. Does that cover our EU AI Act obligations?" "We're pursuing ISO 42001 certification. Does that satisfy the regulation?" The honest answer is: sometimes yes, sometimes partially, and sometimes not at all. The problem is that nobody had built a clean, free, interactive tool that showed exactly which… View on GitHub What the tool does The EU AI Act / NIST AI RMF / ISO 42001 Interactive Crosswalk Tool maps 30 EU AI Act obligations to their nearest equivalents in NIST AI RMF and ISO 42001. For each mapping it shows a strength rating - Strong, Partial, Indirect, or No Equivalent - so compliance teams know which map

Up front, so there's no confusion: the app I'm describing (Nightmare TV) is a player only . You bring your own M3U / Xtream Codes playlist — it ships with no channels and no content. This post is about the playback engineering, not about where streams come from. Think "VLC for IPTV," not a content service. The problem that started it I watch a lot of live content on my PC — sports, mostly. And every IPTV player I tried on Windows fell into one of two buckets: An Android app running in an emulator. TiviMate and the good mobile players are Android-only, so on a desktop you end up in an emulator or a VM. Input lag, no real HDR path, fans spinning. A thin ExoPlayer / libVLC wrapper. These run natively, but most of them treat HDR as "pass the HDR10 metadata to the display and hope." On an SDR panel — or even a lot of HDR panels — bright skies in a football match blow out to a flat white blob, and 4K HEVC with a DTS track stutters because the decode path isn't doing what you think it is. I wanted the thing that didn't exist: a native Windows player with a reference-grade video path. So I built it on libmpv — the same playback core mpv uses — with a Flutter desktop shell on top for the UI. This post is the part I actually find interesting: the HDR tone-mapping pipeline. Why HDR "just passing through" isn't enough HDR10 content is mastered in the PQ (ST.2084) transfer function against a mastering display — often 1000 nits, sometimes 4000. Your screen is whatever it is: a 350-nit SDR laptop, a 600-nit "HDR400" monitor, an 800-nit OLED. If you map PQ straight to the panel, everything above the panel's peak just clips — all the highlight detail collapses to maximum white. Tone-mapping is the process of intelligently compressing the mastering range into the display range so you keep highlight detail instead of clipping it. The naive version (a fixed curve, or clipping) is what most wrapper players ship. The good version adapts to both the content and the display. The pipeline H

been building AI agent infrastructure for the past few months. The two things that kept biting me — and kept coming up when I talked to other devs building agents — were runaway costs and agents doing irreversible things without asking first. So I built gvnr: an open-source MCP server that gives agents per-agent spend caps (hard-stop before a call if the budget's gone) and a human approval gate (agent asks, you get a mobile link, you approve or deny, agent waits). Both work as plain REST calls or MCP tools — no platform to adopt, no SDK. It's live. You can get an API key in one curl command and try the approval gate for free (it doesn't burn the trial ops). Source is at github.com/mightbesaad/gvnr . Here's what I genuinely want to know from devs building in this space: Does the spend-cap shape match how you think about cost control, or do you manage that somewhere else entirely? Is the approval gate useful if it's email-only and single-approver, or does that make it a toy? What flag would stop you from wiring this into an agent you actually run? Not fishing for encouragement — if this is solving the wrong problem, or solving it the wrong way, I'd rather know now.