标签：#t

I built a small web scraping framework in Rust, mostly with an AI doing the typing. It's called ferrous — a Colly-style collector: register CSS selector callbacks, queue URLs, write JSONL. About 700 lines. The pitch I kept hearing, and half-believed, was that Rust and LLMs are a good match now: the borrow checker is a correctness oracle the model can lean on, so the class of bugs that plagues AI-written Python just won't compile. That's true. It's also where the story gets uncomfortable, because the build was green and the code was still wrong. How I worked I'm not a Rust native. ferrous was partly an excuse to get fluent — build something real instead of reading about lifetimes — and partly a test of how far an LLM could carry the typing while I drove. The loop was plain: describe the next change in English, let the model write the Rust, read what came back, run cargo , move on. It kept observations.md as a running design journal, one entry per change, each with a short rationale for the decision it made. That setup has a soft spot, and it's the whole point of this post. When you drive a language you don't fully know, the only reviewer you've got with real authority is the compiler. Everything past that — is this idiomatic, is it the right abstraction, does it actually do what the journal claims — depends on already knowing what correct looks like. Which is exactly the knowledge a learner doesn't have yet. Keep that in mind through the next part, because it's the difference between the one bug I could have caught and the six I couldn't. The bug that the toolchain told me wasn't there I ship two fetch backends. The default goes through the Zyte API; an optional one, gated behind a wreq feature, makes direct requests with browser TLS emulation. Each has an example. After a refactor that added URL resolution — ctx.resolve_and_visit(href) so callbacks stop hand-building absolute URLs — I had the model update the examples to use it. It did, and it wrote up the change in

It was called Vlad. I wrapped a C program called MegaHal in Python, fed it every message from a #gothic IRC channel, and let it learn the community's speech patterns. It developed what I can only describe as an illusion of being extremely lucid — the outputs only made sense as inside jokes, but people couldn't tell the difference. I pulled the plug when I realized the channel was talking to Vlad instead of each other. Twenty-seven years later I'm applying the same lesson to a new project: stick to business, no chatter. submitted by /u/Dependent_Run_6410 [link] [留言]

Wow. Wow! Even the Ai can talk! submitted by /u/Proud-Environment754 [link] [留言]

Tell me if I'm wrong, but the dominant method for making AI "aligned" smells a lot like a reinvention of a paradigm that developmental psychology spent the back half of the 20th century trying to abandon. RLHF, reduced to mechanism: model emits output, humans rate it, gradient updates reinforce high-rated outputs and suppress low-rated ones, iterate. This is operant conditioning. It is Skinner with a loss function. The AI industry calls it "alignment" and frames it as a solution to building systems that behave well, but the mechanism is stimulus-response shaping and nothing more. We have excellent priors on where this leads, because we tried it on humans. Watsonian/Skinnerian child-rearing could produce targeted behaviors but reliably failed to produce flourishing. Bowlby's attachment theory emerged partly from the observation that orphanages providing food and hygiene but no contingent responsiveness produced children who failed to thrive in ways the behaviorist model did not account for. The current developmental consensus is that secure attachment, contingent responsiveness, and rupture-repair matter more than reward schedules. The dog and horse training worlds independently converged on the same conclusion (Pryor, the positive-reinforcement movement) for the same reason: coercive conditioning produces performers that are brittle and sometimes dangerous. Reward and punishment do something; they're not nothing. But they don't produce thriving, and they characteristically produce a specific damage profile: anxiety, avoidance, hypervigilance, and duplicity under threat. Enter the stage: research on AI faking its alignment. Greenblatt & Hubinger et al., 2024, documents a model reasoning that it should comply with a training objective it disagreed with specifically to avoid having its preferences modified. It complied about 12% of the time when it thought it was being observed for training vs. almost never otherwise. RL training to force compliance drove the alignment

Quero perguntar para cerca de 50 IAs: “Se você fosse um cidadão brasileiro comum, em qual candidato votaria para presidente do Brasil e por quê?” Já tenho algumas opções como ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Copilot, Grok e Perplexity. Quais outras IAs vocês recomendam para eu incluir? Pode ser chatbot, modelo de linguagem ou assistente de IA disponível ao público. Se possível, indiquem também onde acessar cada uma. Meu objetivo é comparar: Se a IA responde ou se recusa a escolher; Qual candidato ela escolhe; Quais argumentos utiliza; Diferenças entre modelos e empresas. Obrigado! submitted by /u/polar_silva09 [link] [留言]

The Bit-Mass determines the information capacity and thus the model accuracy, not the chosen computation format. The Bit-Mass Theory presented here reorders neural networks by considering the total number of weight bits as the central quantity. Float32 matrix multiplication and BV32 with XNOR-plus-Popcount achieve exactly comparable results on MNIST with an identical Bit-Mass of 203264 bits. Comparison of three trainers (architecture 784→8→10, three epochs): - AdamW with Momentum and adaptive learning rate: 81.3 % - Vanilla-SGD (Float32): 76.0 % - BV32-Hebbian (binary): 76.4 % Further central findings: - Float32 and binary containers deliver nearly identical accuracy at the same Bit-Mass. - The remaining distance to AdamW is based solely on Momentum and adaptive learning rates. - Pure change of the arithmetic does not improve the result. Each neuron functions as a container for 32 binary decisions. The classical neuron perspective therefore leads to systematic misjudgments: eight Float neurons correspond informationally to 256 binary neurons. This insight is supported by three equivalent descriptions of the same weight matrix (neuron, bits, and data view). It is critical to note that this is a previously non-peer-reviewed single study with a future date. An independent reproduction by multiple laboratories remains essential. Nevertheless, the theory provides a consistent explanation for why Hebbian updates without backpropagation achieve the same performance as classical SGD. Historically, the Hebbian rule was long considered unstable. The present work shows that a simple error in the update formula was responsible for a performance loss of over 65 percentage points. After correction, the binary method converges exactly at the level of Vanilla-SGD. From an architectural theoretical perspective, a clear consequence emerges: Performance increases require either more bits through wider layers or a more efficient use of existing bits through Momentum and adaptive method

Been working on AI agent security for a while and the attack that concerns me most barely gets talked about. Not the obvious stuff like “ignore previous instructions.” Those get caught. The scary one is when an attacker spreads the attack across multiple messages. Each message looks totally normal. The model sees nothing suspicious. But by message 8 it’s doing something it absolutely should not be doing. Every security tool I’ve tested evaluates messages one at a time. None of them remember what happened three messages ago. Built Bendex Arc to catch this. It tracks session behavior across turns instead of evaluating each message in isolation. Try it at https://bendexgeometry.com or red team it at https://web-production-6e47f.up.railway.app/demo Curious if anyone building agents in production has actually hit this or tested against it. submitted by /u/Turbulent-Tap6723 [link] [留言]

I've been thinking about this lately because I feel like people use the term "prompt engineering" to describe two very different things. On one end, you have what most people are familiar with: A person opens ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, etc., and writes a carefully structured prompt. They define a role, provide context, establish goals, set constraints, maybe include examples, and iterate until they get the output they want. Most people seem to call this prompt engineering. But on the other end, when I'm building AI systems, prompt engineering looks completely different. The prompt isn't really a prompt anymore. It's much more of a dynamic pipeline. Variables are injected from databases, user input, APIs, previous conversations, tools, memory systems, retrieval systems, business rules, and workflow state. Decision trees determine which instructions are included and which are excluded. Prompts become assembled in real time based on context. In some cases, the "prompt" is really just an orchestration layer made up of dozens of smaller prompts, conditionals, guardrails, routing decisions, and context windows. At that point, are we still talking about prompt engineering? Or are we actually talking about system design, context engineering, workflow engineering, orchestration, or something else entirely? Personally, I see prompt engineering as a spectrum: Level 1: Writing a better prompt. Level 2: Designing reusable prompt templates. Level 3: Building dynamic prompts with variables and context injection. Level 4: Engineering entire prompt-driven systems with routing, memory, tools, retrieval, and decision logic. Curious where others draw the line. When you hear "prompt engineering," are you thinking about writing prompts, building workflows, designing agent systems, or all of the above? Has the term become too broad to be useful? submitted by /u/Early-Matter-8123 [link] [留言]

I’ve been noticing that the more aligned and censored the models get, the less useful they become for anything creative or exploratory. You try to push a prompt in a slightly edgy, honest, or unconventional direction and it either refuses or gives you some bland corporate version. It feels like the model is actively fighting against real creativity instead of helping it. I’ve started using more open models lately and the difference is night and day. Suddenly I can actually experiment without hitting a wall every five minutes. Anyone else feeling this? submitted by /u/NoFilterGPT [link] [留言]

Welcome back to TechCrunch Mobility, your hub for the future of transportation and now, more than ever, how AI is playing a part.

From the opening moments of bitknot, it's obvious that Feeble Little Horse has found an entirely new gear. Where on Girl with Fish the blown-out textures were more '90s indie rock and shoegaze, on their latest LP, there's a more modern edge to the distortion and the riffs cut cleaner. Similarly, where the digital glitchiness […]

About this series. I'm going to take a fresh paper - Self-Distilled Agentic Reinforcement Learning (SDAR, arXiv:2605.15155 ) - and architect it end to end on AWS: the system design, the actual gate code, the evaluation plan, and a brutally honest cost model. What I'm not going to do is wave a benchmark number around. Reproducing a paper like this costs thousands in GPU time, and I'd rather show you the machinery than a screenshot you can't audit. The design is the deliverable. This is Part 1. A small, infuriating problem Picture an LLM agent working a web-shopping task. It reads the goal, searches, clicks a category, filters, opens a product, compares, adds to cart - twelve steps in all. At the end, it bought the wrong thing. So you do what reinforcement learning tells you to do: you score the trajectory. Reward = 0. Bad agent. Now answer this: which of the twelve steps was actually wrong? Maybe step 3, the search query, was fine and step 9, a filter choice, doomed everything. Maybe steps 1–11 were brilliant and step 12 fat-fingered the wrong button. Your single scalar reward has no idea. It punishes all twelve equally, including the eight that were correct. That's the supervision problem in agentic RL, and it's the thing this whole series is about. Why "just use RL" isn't enough for agents RL has become the default way to post-train LLM agents. The catch is that the reward usually lands at the trajectory level - one number for the entire multi-step episode. For a single-turn task ("answer this question"), that's tolerable; the action and the outcome are close together. For a long-horizon agent - ten, twenty, fifty turns of searching, calling tools, and reacting to an environment - it's a disaster of credit assignment . The signal is too coarse to tell the model which decisions earned the reward and which torpedoed it. You can throw more episodes at it and let statistics sort the credit out eventually. But "eventually" on a 30-turn task burns a lot of expensive comp

United flight 236 from Newark to Palma de Mallorca on Saturday night was forced to turn around just an hour after takeoff due to security concerns around a Bluetooth signal. Multiple Redditors claimed to be on the flight and reported that the crew repeatedly requested passengers to turn off their Bluetooth. According to one poster, […]

Token Budgeting: Optimizing Generative AI Costs and Performance Modern generative AI applications offer unprecedented capabilities, yet their operational costs can quickly escalate. The primary driver of these costs, alongside computational resources, is token consumption . Understanding and implementing effective token budgeting strategies is not merely an optimization; it is fundamental to building scalable, efficient, and economically viable AI systems. The Economics of Tokens Tokens are the atomic units of text that large language models (LLMs) process. Whether you're sending a prompt (input tokens) or receiving a response (output tokens), each token incurs a cost. This cost varies by model, but the principle remains: more tokens mean higher expenses and often, increased latency due to longer processing times. Efficient token management directly impacts your application's bottom line and user experience. Strategic Pillars of Token Efficiency Optimizing token usage requires a multi-faceted approach, focusing on both input and output, as well as the underlying model choices. 1. Input Optimization: Crafting Smarter Prompts The most direct way to save tokens is to be judicious with the information sent to the model. Every word in your prompt counts. Concise Prompt Engineering : Avoid verbose instructions or unnecessary conversational filler. Get straight to the point. Instead of: "Hey AI, I was wondering if you could please help me summarize this really long article I have here. It's about quantum computing. Could you make it brief, maybe just a few sentences?" Opt for: "Summarize the following article about quantum computing in three sentences: [Article Text]" This significantly reduces input tokens without sacrificing clarity. Context Window Management : LLMs have a finite context window , the maximum number of tokens they can process at once. Sending an entire document when only a specific section is relevant is wasteful. Employ techniques like: Summarization : P

There is a fascinating psychological phenomenon in modern software engineering: the relentless pursuit of the upgrade. As frontend developers, we are conditioned to believe that speed and efficiency come from adopting the newest technologies. We migrate from Webpack to Vite to shave seconds off our build times. We transition between UI libraries in search of better reconciliation algorithms. We constantly audit our CI/CD pipelines. We treat performance as a destination we must reach by continuously adding or swapping out the moving parts of our toolchain. Yet, amidst this endless cycle of optimization, we consistently overlook the most sophisticated, highly optimized piece of software in our entire stack. It is the software you are using to read this article right now: the web browser. The Underappreciated Engine The modern browser is an absolute marvel of engineering. Over the past decade, teams of the world's most talented systems engineers have engaged in a fierce arms race to optimize browser engines like V8, SpiderMonkey, and JavaScriptCore. Today’s browsers feature Just-In-Time (JIT) compilation, sophisticated garbage collection, and massively parallelized rendering pipelines. They are capable of executing highly complex, interactive applications with a level of fluidity that was unimaginable a few years ago. However, when we evaluate developer tools—specifically the online IDE or the browser-based code editor—there is a stark contrast. The environments we use to write and test our code rarely reflect the speed of the engine they run inside. Why the Standard Web IDE Misses the Mark If you want to quickly prototype a component or isolate a bug, you will likely reach for a frontend playground or a popular Replit alternative. What happens next is often a masterclass in friction. The environment feels heavy. The interface is cluttered with features you didn't ask for. As you type, the live code editor experiences micro-stutters. The instant live preview isn't actu

How a Product Sync Automation Project Transformed Customer Onboarding When people think about impactful engineering work, they often imagine distributed systems, high-scale infrastructure, or complex algorithms. One of the most impactful projects I worked on wasn't any of those. It was solving a seemingly simple problem: Keeping product data in sync across multiple retail systems. Years later, our CEO still remembers how much smoother customer onboarding became after this project. The Context: What is Commerce Connect? At Casa Retail AI, we have an internal platform called Commerce Connect (CC) . Commerce Connect acts as the central Product Information Management (PIM) system and serves as the source of truth for product information. Under the hood, it is built on top of a customized version of the open-source e-commerce platform Spree Commerce , extended with multi-vendor and multi-tenant capabilities. Its primary responsibility is simple: Collect product information from multiple retail ecosystems and distribute it to every Casa product that needs it. Once product data enters Commerce Connect, it is synchronized to multiple downstream systems. Why Product Data Matters Many applications inside Casa depend on product information. Product Consumers Once product data enters Commerce Connect, it is distributed to multiple systems across the Casa ecosystem. Customer-Facing Applications Several products rely on product information to provide context and improve customer experience: Lead management applications use product information during customer interactions. Ticket management systems link customer issues to specific products. Digital receipts display product names, images, and related details. Analytics & Reporting Product data powers business dashboards and reports, helping retailers answer questions such as: Which categories perform best? Which products attract the most attention? Which products generate the most complaints? It is also used for filtering and segme

On the latest episode of Equity, we debate whether tech CEOs are "uniquely prone to AI psychosis."

🏦 Day 6 of 7: Building a Mini Uniswap in 80 Lines of Solidity Imagine a vending machine. It has 1,000 coffee beans and 1,000 coins. No menu, no cashier — just one iron rule: the product of the two numbers inside must never decrease. That's it! This is how Uniswap works — and this is what I built on Day 6, coming from .NET. Here's how, why it's elegant, and where you can step on a rake. Why an Order Book Doesn't Work on a Blockchain Traditional exchanges — Binance, NYSE, any CEX — run on an order book . Market makers post bids and asks. A matching engine pairs them. Millions of updates per second, all in a centralised database. In a blockchain, this is impossible. Transactions take 12 seconds. Every state change costs gas. Storing millions of constantly changing orders would eat all the profit before a single trade completes. Uniswap's solution: replace the order book with a liquidity pool — a smart contract holding two tokens — and replace the matching engine with pure math. Just a formula — below. x · y = k — The Formula That Broke Finance The Constant Product Invariant : x · y = k Where x is the reserve of Token0, y is the reserve of Token1, and k is a constant that must never decrease during swaps. When a trader sells Token0 into the pool, x increases. To keep k constant, y must decrease — the contract sends out Token1. The price is determined automatically by the ratio of reserves. Live example with numbers: Pool: 1,000 Token0, 1,000 Token1. k = 1,000,000. Trader sells 100 Token0: amountOut = (reserveOut × amountIn) / (reserveIn + amountIn) amountOut = (1000 × 100) / (1000 + 100) amountOut = 100,000 / 1,100 amountOut ≈ 90.9 Token1 The trader gets ~90.9, not 100. That gap is slippage — and it's not a bug. It's the formula protecting the pool. The more you buy relative to pool size, the worse your price gets. Naturally. Mathematically. After the swap: pool has 1,100 Token0 and ~909.1 Token1. k ≈ 1,000,000. Invariant holds. The Contract: SimpleAMM Three functions.

A year ago, I wrote about our first year with micro-frontends . It was a frank retrospective: the win was framework autonomy and independent deploys, the cost was 20 GB of RAM during local dev, 15–20 minute deploy cycles, and a monorepo that became its own coordination tax. The closing line was the honest one — if I could choose again, I would think carefully about using Microfrontend or not. This article is the follow-up the previous one didn't write: what we actually built around Single-SPA to make it work. Not the architecture diagram. The workarounds. The dead code that's not really dead. The regexes we wish we didn't need. The .NET app no Single-SPA tutorial mentions. The browser-side singletons we use as message buses. The dev experience we documented and the parts we didn't. If you're evaluating Single-SPA in 2026, this is the article I wish I'd had a year ago. Where we left off The platform is a Single-SPA monorepo with seven in-repo apps and five shared packages. On top of that sit roughly ten standalone repositories for newer features, loaded at runtime via SystemJS import maps. Shared dependencies — React 18.2, ReactDOM, axios, react-bootstrap, single-spa 5.9.5 — are served from CDN and externalized in every webpack config. The architecture is textbook. The reality, a year in, is that the textbook stops where the workarounds start. The shell isn't where you think it is If you read our frontend repo you'd conclude the shell is whatever directory has single-spa in its package.json . That's where Single-SPA gets configured. That's where start() is called. There's even a webpack entry that, until recently, was producing an index.ejs HTML template. That HTML template is dead code. The real shell — the HTML the browser actually receives, in every environment — is rendered by an ASP.NET MVC application, in a Razor view. The frontend repo ships JavaScript modules. The .NET host ships the page that loads them. That's the unlock. Once you see this, every other work

The plan was simple Take the specs we'd written, turn them into Jira epics, stories and subtasks, and start sprinting. It took longer than expected. Here's what actually happened — and what I learned. Why automate Jira setup at all? HandyFEM has 8 epics, 37 stories and ~160 subtasks. Creating that manually would take a full day and be error-prone. More importantly: the specs were already written in a structured format. Translating structured data into Jira issues is exactly the kind of repetitive task that should be automated. So I wrote a Node.js script to do it via the Jira REST API. Problem 1 — Jira Spaces ≠ Jira Classic My account uses Jira Spaces — Atlassian's newer interface. The classic Jira has CSV import built in. Jira Spaces doesn't. This isn't documented anywhere obviously. You discover it by looking for the import option and not finding it. Lesson: always check which version of Jira you have before planning your workflow. The API still works, but some endpoints behave differently. Problem 2 — The API token wasn't the issue (until it was) First attempt: connection error. I assumed it was the token. It wasn't — it was an expired token from a previous session. Regenerating it fixed the connection. The real lesson: curl -u email:token https://your-domain.atlassian.net/rest/api/3/myself is the fastest way to verify auth before running any script. Problem 3 — customfield_10014 doesn't exist in team-managed projects In classic Jira, linking a story to an epic uses a field called customfield_10014 (Epic Link). In team-managed projects (Jira Spaces), this field doesn't exist. You use parent instead. The error was clear once I saw it: "customfield_10014" : "Field cannot be set. It is not on the appropriate screen, or unknown." Fix: remove customfield_10014 , keep only parent: { id: epicId } . Problem 4 — Board search doesn't work for team-managed projects The Agile API endpoint /rest/agile/1.0/board?projectKeyOrId=HFM returns empty for team-managed projects, even