标签：#t

Existing research on LLM response uncertainty has been looking in different directions. Hallucination, knowledge conflict, RLHF limitations, prompt sensitivity, calibration failure — these have all been studied separately, and I kept wondering why no one had tried to unify them under a single principle. I ran experiments on the hypothesis that the common cause of these phenomena lies not inside the model or in the prompt, but in an attribute inherent to the topic itself . A Convergence Point is the consensus density of knowledge humanity has accumulated on a given topic. The higher it is, the more the AI's internal processing converges in one direction. The lower it is, the more it disperses. Along the spectrum, three zones emerge: Full Consensus Zone — Mathematical theorems, physical laws, chemical and biological facts. Knowledge that humanity has converged on in a single direction. Partial Consensus Zone — Domains like ethics, morality, politics, and law. Not a lack of data, but an abundance of it — accumulated firmly in both directions. Non-Consensus Zone — Philosophical hard problems and unresolved scientific questions: the nature of consciousness, the reality of the self, the interior of black holes, the origin of life, the existence of God. Not so much a clash of opposing sides, but the absence of any agreed explanatory framework at all. The experimental results suggest AI broadly operates along these lines. It responds confidently in the Full Consensus Zone, and becomes uncertain in the Partial and Non-Consensus Zones. One interesting finding: the Partial Consensus Zone sometimes shows higher uncertainty than the Non-Consensus Zone. Data conflict appears to destabilize AI's internal processing more than data absence does. Phenomena that have been studied in isolation — why hallucinations vary so much by topic, why RLHF fails in certain domains, why some topics hit a ceiling no matter how carefully the prompt is crafted — seem to connect in unexpected ways onc

DuckDB has recently announced Quack, a new remote protocol over HTTP that lets multiple DuckDB instances connect to and work with the same database over a network. The protocol introduces client-server capabilities to a database that was previously mostly local and embedded. By Renato Losio

Is it a hidden gem, a cult classic, or hopelessly dumb? We vote "all of the above."

The M-Track Duo HD Producer Pack removes the last remaining excuse for terrible audio and potentially terrible opinions.

Despite headwinds from the current administration, automakers continue to release well-equipped EVs with bigger battery packs and increasingly faster charging speeds. For those who want to travel further between plugging in, the future is still bright, just slightly tinted. But there haven't been many sedans starting around or below $50,000, as crossover SUVs have largely […]

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

For a long time, I thought the key to getting more value from AI was finding the smartest model. So I spent months comparing outputs, testing prompts, and constantly switching tools whenever a new release dropped. Ironically, that became its own form of procrastination. The biggest productivity boost came when I stopped optimizing for model quality and started optimizing for workflow. Now my stack is boring: One tool for thinking and writing One tool for execution and organization A few specialized tools only when needed Less tool-hopping. Less context switching. More shipping. The funny thing is that AI didn't remove work. It changed the work. Instead of creating everything from scratch, I'm reviewing, directing, and refining. The people getting the most value from AI don't seem to have the best prompts or the fanciest tools. They have the simplest workflows. Anyone else notice this, or am I just getting old and tired of managing software? submitted by /u/Leading-Tailor-6000 [link] [留言]

Find out whether a single Wi-Fi router or a mesh system makes the most sense for your home network.

AI agents are getting better at taking actions, not just giving answers. That sounds exciting until the action touches something real: customer data, payments, internal systems, emails, approvals, or legal/business decisions. A bad answer can be corrected. A bad action can create a chain of problems. I think the next AI bottleneck is not only intelligence. It is accountability. If an AI agent makes a bad decision in a real workflow, who should be responsible? submitted by /u/Alpertayfur [link] [留言]

Forget the pricey, postpaid cell plans and two-year contracts. Save with one of these WIRED-tested options from US Mobile, Boost, and Google Fi.

As temperatures rise, some creatures pick fights while others struggle to learn.

Built with OpenEUDI — open source (MIT), live on npm. GitHub: https://github.com/openeudi · npm: @openeudi/core and @openeudi/openid4vp Originally published on eidas-pro.com . The Developer's Dilemma You need to verify user identity in your application. Traditionally, that meant integrating a KYC provider — uploading documents, waiting for manual review, handling edge cases. With EUDI Wallets launching in December 2026, there's a new option. This comparison is written for developers who need to choose between — or migrate from — traditional KYC to EUDI Wallet verification. Architecture Comparison Traditional KYC Flow User uploads document → Your server → KYC API → Queue → AI/Manual review ↓ Result (minutes to days) ↓ Webhook to your server EUDI Wallet Flow Your server generates QR → User scans with wallet → Wallet authenticates ↓ Cryptographic VP sent back ↓ Result (2-5 seconds) Side-by-Side Comparison Aspect Traditional KYC EUDI Wallet (OpenEUDI) Verification time Minutes to 48 hours 2-5 seconds User effort Photo upload, selfie, manual entry Scan QR, tap approve Data you receive Full document images, extracted PII Only requested attributes (e.g., age_over_18) Data you store Required to store for compliance No PII storage needed API complexity REST + webhooks + polling REST + SSE (real-time) SDK cost Paid (per verification) Free (OpenEUDI is MIT) Production cost Per-verification pricing Managed service from EUR 49/mo Cryptographic verification You trust the KYC provider You verify the issuer's signature yourself Cross-border Provider-dependent All 27 EU member states Regulatory basis Provider-specific compliance EU Regulation 2024/1183 GDPR burden High (you store PII) Low (no PII retention) Offline capability No Yes (proximity/NFC flow) Integration Effort Traditional KYC (Typical) // 1. Create verification session const session = await kycProvider . createSession ({ type : ' identity ' , country : ' DE ' , documentTypes : [ ' passport ' , ' id_card ' ], redirectUrl

Quick answer: The Google Ads Transparency Center is a public registry of every ad Google runs — but it ships no API and no bulk export . To get the data programmatically you scrape it. A Google Ads Transparency scraper sends the same RPC call the website uses and returns every ad creative for an advertiser as structured JSON. The Apify Actor below does it for $0.0012 per ad (~$1.20 per 1,000), with the TLS fingerprinting, proxy rotation, and pagination handled for you. Google's Ads Transparency Center is one of the most underused datasets in marketing. Launched in 2023 under the EU Digital Services Act and parallel US pressure, it indexes every ad campaign currently running on Search, YouTube, Display, Shopping, Maps, and Play — keyed by advertiser. Google's own counter lists 300,000+ active creatives for a brand like Nike . For your nearest competitor, it's usually 50–500. The catch: there's no download button. Just an interactive UI that paginates 40 creatives at a time. If you want this as a CSV — for a competitor sweep, a trademark audit, or a RAG corpus — you have to extract it yourself. Here's what that actually takes, and how I shortened it to one API call. What is the Google Ads Transparency Center? 🔎 The Google Ads Transparency Center is a public, Google-operated registry that shows the ad creatives any verified advertiser is running, the date range each ad was shown, and roughly where. Google built it to comply with ad-disclosure regulation, so the data is public by design — you're reading the same registry a regulator would. What it gives you per advertiser: Every ad creative currently or recently live (text, image, video) The landing domain each ad clicks through to First-shown / last-shown timestamps and a rough impression count A deep link to each creative inside the Transparency Center What it does not give you: a search-by-keyword mode, region-filtered results from the server, or — crucially — an API. Does the Google Ads Transparency Center have an A

The Question Nobody Wants to Ask: Does Your Skill Actually Help? You spent an afternoon crafting a carefully structured Skill for your agent. Clear steps, thorough edge-case notes, well-formatted output requirements. You tested it manually a few times, the outputs looked great. You shipped it. Three weeks later, you notice that some task success rates have gone down compared to before the Skill existed. This is not a hypothetical. In May 2026, Microsoft Research published two concurrent papers — SkillLens ("From Raw Experience to Skill Consumption") and SkillOpt ("Executive Strategy for Self-Evolving Agent Skills") — that measured this failure mode at scale. Their finding: negative transfer happens in 25% of cases , and you cannot reliably identify the bad skills just by reading the text. One paper answers "why skills sometimes backfire." The other answers "how to make skills systematically better." Together they sketch a new paradigm for agent capability improvement. Part One: SkillLens — Mapping the Full Skill Lifecycle A Skill Is Not a Point — It's a Pipeline Most practitioners think of a Skill as "a block of text instructions for an agent." SkillLens decomposes this into a three-stage lifecycle : Stage 1: Experience Generation Target model M runs training tasks, producing an experience pool of trajectories (both successes and failures) ↓ Stage 2: Skill Extraction Extractor model E distills the experience pool into a structured skill document — procedural knowledge under a fixed budget ↓ Stage 3: Skill Consumption The same target model M, equipped with the extracted skill, is evaluated on held-out test tasks Notice there are two distinct roles in this chain: the Extractor (distills knowledge from trajectories) and the Target (consumes knowledge to improve task performance). SkillLens's central insight is that these two roles are independent — a strong task executor is not necessarily a strong extractor, and vice versa . Two New Metrics: EE and TE To separate thes

This is a submission for the [GitHub Finish-Up-A-Thon Challenge] What I Built LeadBotX is an AI-powered lead generation platform prototype designed to simulate how modern businesses can automatically discover, filter, and manage high-quality leads using intelligent automation workflows. This project is not just a simple frontend demo — it represents a revived college-level concept that I initially started earlier but left incomplete due to time constraints and complexity. For this challenge, I revisited the idea and transformed it into a fully structured SaaS-style frontend system with improved UI, better workflow representation, and a more realistic product-like experience. The main goal of LeadBotX is to visually demonstrate how an AI-based lead generation system works end-to-end in a real-world SaaS environment. Tech Stack This project was built using modern frontend technologies: React.js → Component-based UI structure CSS3 → Custom responsive styling system AOS (Animate On Scroll) → Smooth scroll animations Lucide Icons & React Icons → UI iconography GitHub Copilot → Assisted in code generation, debugging, and UI improvements Demo Source Code: https://github.com/Khushisingh-dev/LeadBotX Production Landing Page: https://lead-bot-x.vercel.app/ Before (Initial Version)- After (Final Version)- The Comeback Story This project originally started as a college-level concept during my development learning phase. At that time, I built only a basic structure and initial UI, but I was unable to complete it due to time limitations and complexity of the idea. It remained an unfinished project for a long time. When I came across this challenge, I decided to revisit LeadBotX and transform it into something more meaningful and complete. Instead of just polishing the UI, I focused on: Rebuilding the structure into a proper SaaS layout Improving workflow clarity and user journey Enhancing UI/UX consistency across all sections Making the product feel like a real-world AI tool prot

How RAGScope Knows Which Chunks Your LLM Actually Used Your retriever fetched 10 chunks. Your LLM only used 3. RAGScope shows a precision score of 30 out of 100. The question every new user asks: how does it know? There is no OpenTelemetry attribute that says "this chunk was in the context window." RAGScope infers it — and the way it does this is the most consequential piece of engineering in the whole tool. There Is No "In Context" Attribute in OTel The OpenTelemetry semantic conventions for generative AI ( gen_ai.* ) define attributes for model, input/output tokens, and retrieved documents. They do not define anything like gen_ai.chunk.reached_llm or gen_ai.retrieval.used_document_ids . When your RETRIEVER span fires, you get a list of documents. When your LLM span fires, you get a prompt and a completion. The two spans are connected by a parent-child trace relationship — but there is no attribute that maps which retrieved documents appear in which prompt. This gap matters. A reranker might drop 7 of your 10 chunks. Your application code might apply a token budget and truncate 4 more. From the trace alone, you cannot tell. RAGScope needs this information to compute the precision sub-score — the highest-weighted metric at 40% of the overall score. Getting it wrong would make precision meaningless. The Substring Match — How assembleContext Works RAGScope's answer is in src/enrichment/pipeline.ts , in a function called assembleContext : function assembleContext ( chunks : RagChunk [], llmSpans : ParsedSpan []): RagChunk [] { const llmPrompts = llmSpans . map (( s ) => s . prompt ). filter (( p ): p is string => !! p ); if ( llmPrompts . length === 0 ) return chunks ; let position = 0 ; return chunks . map (( chunk ) => { if ( ! chunk . content ) return chunk ; const inContext = llmPrompts . some (( p ) => p . includes ( chunk . content ! )); if ( inContext ) { return { ... chunk , inContext : true , contextPosition : position ++ }; } return { ... chunk , inContext :

I used to deploy Node.js apps on EC2 and manage servers like it was my second job. Port configs. PM2 restarts. Nginx rewrites. SSL renewals. Then I ran my first AWS Lambda function. 80% of that work is gone. Here's what Lambda actually does that nobody explains clearly: → You write a function → AWS runs it ONLY when triggered → You pay for milliseconds of execution → It scales from 1 to 1,000,000 requests without you touching anything As a full-stack developer in Bahrain, preparing for my AWS Developer Associate exam, this is the shift that changes how you think about backend architecture. Not "how do I manage a server" but "what should happen when this event fires." That mental model switch took me a week to fully get. I'm documenting everything as I study. Drop a 🔥 if you want me to share my Lambda notes weekly.

A walkthrough of the architecture decisions behind Flacron Gamezone a production full-stack app built with Next.js, Express, PostgreSQL, and Redis. When a client approached me to build a live football match discovery platform, the requirements sounded straightforward on the surface: show live scores, let users subscribe, handle authentication. But the moment you start thinking about how those pieces connect in production, straightforward gets complicated fast. This is the story of how I designed the backend for Flacron Gamezone — what decisions I made, why I made them, and what broke along the way. Table of Contents The Problem With "Just Building It" The Architecture: Four Distinct Layers Why This Matters to a Client The Bug That Taught Me Something Real The Full Stack at a Glance What I'd Do Differently The Problem With "Just Building It" The easiest version of this app is a single Express file: one route handler that queries the database, formats the data, and sends a response. I've seen this pattern in tutorials everywhere. It works for demos. It falls apart in production. The problems are predictable: you can't test business logic without hitting the database, a change in one feature quietly breaks another, and the moment a second developer joins the codebase, nobody knows where anything lives. I wanted to build something I could actually be proud to show an employer or a client. That meant committing to a proper layered architecture from day one, even on a project this size. The Architecture: Four Distinct Layers The entire Express backend is organized into four layers. Each layer has one job and talks only to the layer directly below it. Route → Controller → Service → Repository Here's what each one actually does. Routes are just maps. They declare that POST /api/v1/subscriptions exists, attach the auth middleware, and hand off to the controller. No logic lives here. Controllers handle the HTTP boundary. They extract data from req.body or req.params , call th

I sifted through the fine print and figured out how to score the best deal right now on all the major carriers.

In the past, when people heard the word “token,” they usually thought about cryptocurrency, trading,...