Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

A Bittensor subnet just built an AI safety model that beats the big players Trishool (Trishool | SN23), Bittensor's (Openτensor Foundaτion) subnet 23, released HaloGuard 1.0 today. The 4B version claims first place across seven established prompt-safety benchmarks, and the 0.8B version outperforms models several times its size. The...

BSCNews's profile picture

BSCN

1,369,994 subscribers

39,711 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

🚨 JUST IN: Eli Lilly and Nvidia announce a $1B, five-year plan for AI drug discovery lab. Inside $TAO Bittensor, MetaNova Labs already moved. ~$5M in $TAO emissions have been deployed, continuously paid to miners producing real scientific signal. Live. On-chain. Performance-driven. Metanova runs today on Subnet 68: molecular prediction, adversarial model competition, deterministic validation, emissions tied to results. The same objective: Drug Discovery. Big labs move when capital arrives. $TAO moves when intelligence performs. METANOVA is already bulding. Others are still drafting press releases.
0:10

🚨 JUST IN: Eli Lilly and Nvidia announce a $1B, five-year plan for AI drug discovery lab. Inside $TAO Bittensor, MetaNova Labs already moved. ~$5M in $TAO emissions have been deployed, continuously paid to miners producing real scientific signal. Live. On-chain. Performance-driven. Metanova runs today on Subnet 68: molecular prediction, adversarial model competition, deterministic validation, emissions tied to results. The same objective: Drug Discovery. Big labs move when capital arrives. $TAO moves when intelligence performs. METANOVA is already bulding. Others are still drafting press releases.

Tao Ouτsider

12,674 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

Don't train the model, evolve the harness. I read a brilliant blog post from Hugging Face where they took a frozen open model scoring 0% on a hard legal agent benchmark, left its weights alone, and let an automated loop rewrite only the code around it. That code layer is the harness, the runtime wrapper that feeds the model context, runs its tool calls, and decides when a run ends. By the time the loop finished, the system had essentially matched Sonnet 4.6 on the benchmark's headline metric, at roughly 7x lower cost per task. Zero weights changed. The gain existed because of where the model was failing. The judge only grades files saved in the right place under the exact requested filename, and the model kept doing the legal analysis correctly, then saving it under the wrong name, dropping it in a scratch folder, or never writing it at all. So the 0% was never measuring legal reasoning. It was measuring the harness. Hand-tuning that layer is slow and model-specific, so they automated it. A Claude proposer adds exactly one mechanism per iteration, and an outer loop keeps it only if it clearly beats the current best, so accepted mechanisms compound. What the loop discovered says a lot about where agents actually fail. → The biggest single gain was file handling, not intelligence. An automatic step that lands the deliverable exactly where the judge expects it beat every prompt change, with zero extra model tokens. → Code fixes transferred across models, prompt playbooks did not. The same harness lifted a smaller model from the same family by 14 points, but the tuned prompts hurt a different model family on tasks it could already finish. → The harness mattered more than anything else. Same model, same judge, same tasks, and five different harnesses scored anywhere between 3.5% and 80.1%. The gains do eventually flatten, and the remaining misses look like real capability gaps. At some point the wrapper runs out of tricks and the model has to carry the work. But the lesson holds. A benchmark score measures the model and its harness together, and until the harness is fixed, it's impossible to know which one failed. I highly recommend reading this: I also wrote a deep dive on agent harness engineering a while back, covering the orchestration loop, tools, memory, context management, and everything that turns a stateless LLM into a capable agent. The article is quoted below.
0:18

Don't train the model, evolve the harness. I read a brilliant blog post from Hugging Face where they took a frozen open model scoring 0% on a hard legal agent benchmark, left its weights alone, and let an automated loop rewrite only the code around it. That code layer is the harness, the runtime wrapper that feeds the model context, runs its tool calls, and decides when a run ends. By the time the loop finished, the system had essentially matched Sonnet 4.6 on the benchmark's headline metric, at roughly 7x lower cost per task. Zero weights changed. The gain existed because of where the model was failing. The judge only grades files saved in the right place under the exact requested filename, and the model kept doing the legal analysis correctly, then saving it under the wrong name, dropping it in a scratch folder, or never writing it at all. So the 0% was never measuring legal reasoning. It was measuring the harness. Hand-tuning that layer is slow and model-specific, so they automated it. A Claude proposer adds exactly one mechanism per iteration, and an outer loop keeps it only if it clearly beats the current best, so accepted mechanisms compound. What the loop discovered says a lot about where agents actually fail. → The biggest single gain was file handling, not intelligence. An automatic step that lands the deliverable exactly where the judge expects it beat every prompt change, with zero extra model tokens. → Code fixes transferred across models, prompt playbooks did not. The same harness lifted a smaller model from the same family by 14 points, but the tuned prompts hurt a different model family on tasks it could already finish. → The harness mattered more than anything else. Same model, same judge, same tasks, and five different harnesses scored anywhere between 3.5% and 80.1%. The gains do eventually flatten, and the remaining misses look like real capability gaps. At some point the wrapper runs out of tricks and the model has to carry the work. But the lesson holds. A benchmark score measures the model and its harness together, and until the harness is fixed, it's impossible to know which one failed. I highly recommend reading this: I also wrote a deep dive on agent harness engineering a while back, covering the orchestration loop, tools, memory, context management, and everything that turns a stateless LLM into a capable agent. The article is quoted below.

Akshay 🚀

244,990 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

most of you don't know how hard hermes agent is optimized for local AI at the system level. watch the full setup flow on screen. you paste an openai-compatible v1 endpoint, hermes auto-detects every model running behind it. doesn't matter if it's llama.cpp or vllm or any compatible server, all your models surface and become selectable in seconds. no config gymnastics, no manual model list. then it goes deeper. hermes ships with per model parsers, prompt template auto-handling, tool call format detection per model architecture, thinking mode awareness, all the small friction points other harnesses leak on. these were not built for cloud apis with one canonical model. they were built for builders running 10 different local models across 10 different stacks. cloud first harnesses bolt local support on top. hermes agent is local first from the architecture out. that's the system level gap. if you're getting started on local AI, this is the harness you start with. try for yourself and find out. anyone serious about local AI lands here eventually.
0:15

most of you don't know how hard hermes agent is optimized for local AI at the system level. watch the full setup flow on screen. you paste an openai-compatible v1 endpoint, hermes auto-detects every model running behind it. doesn't matter if it's llama.cpp or vllm or any compatible server, all your models surface and become selectable in seconds. no config gymnastics, no manual model list. then it goes deeper. hermes ships with per model parsers, prompt template auto-handling, tool call format detection per model architecture, thinking mode awareness, all the small friction points other harnesses leak on. these were not built for cloud apis with one canonical model. they were built for builders running 10 different local models across 10 different stacks. cloud first harnesses bolt local support on top. hermes agent is local first from the architecture out. that's the system level gap. if you're getting started on local AI, this is the harness you start with. try for yourself and find out. anyone serious about local AI lands here eventually.

Sudo su

14,407 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Big win for open-source LLMs! DeepSeek V4 Pro holds the top open-weights score on SWE-bench Verified, in the GPT-5.5 range. GLM 5.2 leads the open-weight intelligence index and sits near the closed frontier on long-horizon coding. But this leaderboard number is a weak proxy for real performance. It comes from one task set, run through one harness, served at one precision. The same weights can even score differently across providers, since many hosts quantize activations to fp8 and drift the model off its reference weights. Real performance is determined based on whether a model can read a repo, make coordinated edits across files, run the tests, and recover when one breaks. By that measure, the top open models hold up, but only inside the right harness. The teams that actually put DeepSeek V4 into production pipelines as a frontier substitute got there through the harness they built around the model, not by picking a stronger model. If you want to see this in practice, Cline (64k+ stars) has actually built that harness around open models, tuned so they run at production quality. And it's tuned so that these LLMs can run at production quality, with plan and act modes, checkpoints, and terminal feedback. ClinePass is the new access layer on top of it. It runs a curated set of those models inside Cline, narrowed to the ones tested for coding-agent use, with 2 to 5x the standard rate limits and no separate provider accounts, keys, or billing to track. The video below shows the setup, and I worked with the team to put this together. It runs alongside custom keys and local models as well, not in place of them.
0:14

Big win for open-source LLMs! DeepSeek V4 Pro holds the top open-weights score on SWE-bench Verified, in the GPT-5.5 range. GLM 5.2 leads the open-weight intelligence index and sits near the closed frontier on long-horizon coding. But this leaderboard number is a weak proxy for real performance. It comes from one task set, run through one harness, served at one precision. The same weights can even score differently across providers, since many hosts quantize activations to fp8 and drift the model off its reference weights. Real performance is determined based on whether a model can read a repo, make coordinated edits across files, run the tests, and recover when one breaks. By that measure, the top open models hold up, but only inside the right harness. The teams that actually put DeepSeek V4 into production pipelines as a frontier substitute got there through the harness they built around the model, not by picking a stronger model. If you want to see this in practice, Cline (64k+ stars) has actually built that harness around open models, tuned so they run at production quality. And it's tuned so that these LLMs can run at production quality, with plan and act modes, checkpoints, and terminal feedback. ClinePass is the new access layer on top of it. It runs a curated set of those models inside Cline, narrowed to the ones tested for coding-agent use, with 2 to 5x the standard rate limits and no separate provider accounts, keys, or billing to track. The video below shows the setup, and I worked with the team to put this together. It runs alongside custom keys and local models as well, not in place of them.

Avi Chawla

44,124 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

AI Is Moving Beyond “Generating Videos” — Toward “Generating Worlds” Over the past two years, AI video models have advanced at an astonishing pace. From Runway and Pika to Sora and Veo, AI-generated videos have become increasingly realistic and more consistent with the physical laws of the real world. Many people believe the next objective is simply to generate videos that are longer, sharper, and more lifelike. But if we take a step back, we can see that the real transformation is not happening in video itself. It is happening in world models. What Is a World Model? In 1943, psychologist Kenneth Craik proposed an idea that would influence artificial intelligence research for decades. He argued that the human brain does not merely react to the outside world. Instead, it maintains an internal model of how the world works. Because we have this internal model, we can predict the outcome of an action before we actually take it. Before crossing a road, we estimate whether a car will pass by. Before catching a ball, we predict its trajectory. These abilities come from continuously simulating the world in our minds, rather than relying entirely on trial and error. This idea later became known by a more formal term: World Model. A world model does not describe a single image or a fixed video clip. It is an internal representation capable of continuously simulating the rules and dynamics of the real world. Why Is AI Research Turning Toward World Models? Because predicting “what comes next” is becoming increasingly central to how AI systems work. Language models predict the next token. Image models predict the next step in the denoising process. Video models predict the next frame. A world model, however, attempts to predict something broader: What should the world look like in the next moment? In 2018, David Ha and Jürgen Schmidhuber proposed in their paper World Models that an intelligent agent could first learn a model of the world, and then use that internal model to plan its actions. The Dreamer series later demonstrated that many complex tasks could be learned by training agents inside an “imagined world.” At the same time, the development of video models such as Sora and Veo led researchers to another realization: A model capable of continuously generating video has already learned, at least implicitly, many of the rules governing the real world. As a result, these two research directions have gradually begun to converge. But Video Is Not Yet a World This is where the distinction is often misunderstood. For a world model to support meaningful real-time interaction, it must solve several critical problems. Most video models today are essentially answering one question: What should the next frame look like? A true world model needs to answer much more: What happens if I take one step forward? If I walk behind a building and then return, will the building still be there? If I suddenly change the camera angle, will the entire space remain consistent? If I enter a command such as: “Summon a dragon.” Will the world respond immediately? In other words, a world model must do more than generate content. It must understand space. It must understand time. It must understand causality. And it must understand interaction. Moving from watching to participating is where the real difficulty of world models begins. World Models Are Entering the Interactive Era One of the latest attempts in this direction is Alaya World, recently open-sourced by Alaya World, or Alaya Lab. Instead of generating a fixed video clip, it generates a world that users can explore in real time. Users can begin with text, an image, or a video, enter the generated scene, move freely through it, and introduce new prompts at any moment during generation. The world responds immediately. According to the publicly released information, Alaya World provides: Real-time streaming generation at 720p and 24 FPS Stable continuous exploration for more than one minute The ability to switch prompts and trigger skills or events during generation Model weights and inference code released under the Apache 2.0 License Training code and datasets planned for future release What makes these capabilities important is not simply the technical specifications. It is that the generated “world” can now support continuous interaction. The official demo shows that users can genuinely control, transform, and explore the generated environment. AI Is Evolving From a Tool Into an Environment Over the past few years, most discussions around AI have focused on content generation. Generating text. Generating images. Generating videos. But world models raise a fundamentally different question: Can AI generate an environment that people can inhabit, explore, and continuously evolve? If the answer is yes, the impact will extend far beyond video generation. Game development, robotics training, embodied intelligence, digital twins, virtual production, and many other fields could be transformed by the development of world models. World models are still at a very early stage. Yet from Craik’s proposal of an internal mental model more than eighty years ago to the emergence of today’s interactive world-generation systems, a clear evolutionary path is beginning to take shape. Perhaps what AI is ultimately learning has never been limited to images, videos, or language. Perhaps it is learning the world itself. References GitHub: Technical Report:
0:10

AI Is Moving Beyond “Generating Videos” — Toward “Generating Worlds” Over the past two years, AI video models have advanced at an astonishing pace. From Runway and Pika to Sora and Veo, AI-generated videos have become increasingly realistic and more consistent with the physical laws of the real world. Many people believe the next objective is simply to generate videos that are longer, sharper, and more lifelike. But if we take a step back, we can see that the real transformation is not happening in video itself. It is happening in world models. What Is a World Model? In 1943, psychologist Kenneth Craik proposed an idea that would influence artificial intelligence research for decades. He argued that the human brain does not merely react to the outside world. Instead, it maintains an internal model of how the world works. Because we have this internal model, we can predict the outcome of an action before we actually take it. Before crossing a road, we estimate whether a car will pass by. Before catching a ball, we predict its trajectory. These abilities come from continuously simulating the world in our minds, rather than relying entirely on trial and error. This idea later became known by a more formal term: World Model. A world model does not describe a single image or a fixed video clip. It is an internal representation capable of continuously simulating the rules and dynamics of the real world. Why Is AI Research Turning Toward World Models? Because predicting “what comes next” is becoming increasingly central to how AI systems work. Language models predict the next token. Image models predict the next step in the denoising process. Video models predict the next frame. A world model, however, attempts to predict something broader: What should the world look like in the next moment? In 2018, David Ha and Jürgen Schmidhuber proposed in their paper World Models that an intelligent agent could first learn a model of the world, and then use that internal model to plan its actions. The Dreamer series later demonstrated that many complex tasks could be learned by training agents inside an “imagined world.” At the same time, the development of video models such as Sora and Veo led researchers to another realization: A model capable of continuously generating video has already learned, at least implicitly, many of the rules governing the real world. As a result, these two research directions have gradually begun to converge. But Video Is Not Yet a World This is where the distinction is often misunderstood. For a world model to support meaningful real-time interaction, it must solve several critical problems. Most video models today are essentially answering one question: What should the next frame look like? A true world model needs to answer much more: What happens if I take one step forward? If I walk behind a building and then return, will the building still be there? If I suddenly change the camera angle, will the entire space remain consistent? If I enter a command such as: “Summon a dragon.” Will the world respond immediately? In other words, a world model must do more than generate content. It must understand space. It must understand time. It must understand causality. And it must understand interaction. Moving from watching to participating is where the real difficulty of world models begins. World Models Are Entering the Interactive Era One of the latest attempts in this direction is Alaya World, recently open-sourced by Alaya World, or Alaya Lab. Instead of generating a fixed video clip, it generates a world that users can explore in real time. Users can begin with text, an image, or a video, enter the generated scene, move freely through it, and introduce new prompts at any moment during generation. The world responds immediately. According to the publicly released information, Alaya World provides: Real-time streaming generation at 720p and 24 FPS Stable continuous exploration for more than one minute The ability to switch prompts and trigger skills or events during generation Model weights and inference code released under the Apache 2.0 License Training code and datasets planned for future release What makes these capabilities important is not simply the technical specifications. It is that the generated “world” can now support continuous interaction. The official demo shows that users can genuinely control, transform, and explore the generated environment. AI Is Evolving From a Tool Into an Environment Over the past few years, most discussions around AI have focused on content generation. Generating text. Generating images. Generating videos. But world models raise a fundamentally different question: Can AI generate an environment that people can inhabit, explore, and continuously evolve? If the answer is yes, the impact will extend far beyond video generation. Game development, robotics training, embodied intelligence, digital twins, virtual production, and many other fields could be transformed by the development of world models. World models are still at a very early stage. Yet from Craik’s proposal of an internal mental model more than eighty years ago to the emergence of today’s interactive world-generation systems, a clear evolutionary path is beginning to take shape. Perhaps what AI is ultimately learning has never been limited to images, videos, or language. Perhaps it is learning the world itself. References GitHub: Technical Report:

雪踏乌云

113,347 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

TESLA HALTED MODEL S AND MODEL X PRODUCTION TO BUILD AN ARMY OF OPTIMUS ROBOTS The Fremont assembly line was torn down in 46 days. In its place, Tesla is building a line for humanoid production, aiming for a million units a year A humanoid robot is a body shaped like a human. Physical AI is the intelligence that controls that body Walking and making coffee is often just imitation learning from a scripted routine. But once the environment shifts, the learned trick stops working Language models had the entire internet to train on. Robotics has nothing close to that scale of data, which is why one giant brain hasn't worked for anyone yet The industry is moving toward modularity instead - separate models for vision, movement, and planning, each improved on its own The real question is no longer whether a robot can move impressively. It's whether it can pull its sensors into one picture of the world and adapt to whatever wasn't scripted for it
0:12

TESLA HALTED MODEL S AND MODEL X PRODUCTION TO BUILD AN ARMY OF OPTIMUS ROBOTS The Fremont assembly line was torn down in 46 days. In its place, Tesla is building a line for humanoid production, aiming for a million units a year A humanoid robot is a body shaped like a human. Physical AI is the intelligence that controls that body Walking and making coffee is often just imitation learning from a scripted routine. But once the environment shifts, the learned trick stops working Language models had the entire internet to train on. Robotics has nothing close to that scale of data, which is why one giant brain hasn't worked for anyone yet The industry is moving toward modularity instead - separate models for vision, movement, and planning, each improved on its own The real question is no longer whether a robot can move impressively. It's whether it can pull its sensors into one picture of the world and adapt to whatever wasn't scripted for it

iamigorekk

22,205 просмотров • 21 дней назад

50% cheaper Claude inference with just one line of code change! - Remove → model="claude-opus-4-8" - Add → model="ship-like/claude-opus-4-8" I verified the cost saving in my own terminal by invoking the same Anthropic model with the same prompt. The underlying engineering by Ship is actually interesting, and the patterns can be used in any production LLM stack. Essentially, a trained model is a frozen artifact. Every request performs the same forward-pass, whether it extracts a date or refactors a module, because the compute decision was made at training time, before the request existed. Ship makes that decision at inference time instead. After seeing a request, it searches over executions, involving single models, cascades, ensembles, or harnesses with tools, and serves the cheapest one that will match the reference model's quality. This is not a basic router, because picking a cheaper model per query doesn't ensure the cheaper model preserves the original's behavior, like output shape, tool-call patterns, and refusals. Ship measures this equivalence directly. Outputs stay distributionally indistinguishable from the reference model, not token-identical, since two calls to the same model already differ, but they are indistinguishable in capability and behavior. Of course, some requests execute cheaply and some cost Ship more than the customer pays, but the price per request is still a flat 50% off either way, so the execution-cost variance moves off the application's bill entirely. The video below depicts the cost savings and output in my real invocation, and I partnered with the team to put this together.
0:12

50% cheaper Claude inference with just one line of code change! - Remove → model="claude-opus-4-8" - Add → model="ship-like/claude-opus-4-8" I verified the cost saving in my own terminal by invoking the same Anthropic model with the same prompt. The underlying engineering by Ship is actually interesting, and the patterns can be used in any production LLM stack. Essentially, a trained model is a frozen artifact. Every request performs the same forward-pass, whether it extracts a date or refactors a module, because the compute decision was made at training time, before the request existed. Ship makes that decision at inference time instead. After seeing a request, it searches over executions, involving single models, cascades, ensembles, or harnesses with tools, and serves the cheapest one that will match the reference model's quality. This is not a basic router, because picking a cheaper model per query doesn't ensure the cheaper model preserves the original's behavior, like output shape, tool-call patterns, and refusals. Ship measures this equivalence directly. Outputs stay distributionally indistinguishable from the reference model, not token-identical, since two calls to the same model already differ, but they are indistinguishable in capability and behavior. Of course, some requests execute cheaply and some cost Ship more than the customer pays, but the price per request is still a flat 50% off either way, so the execution-cost variance moves off the application's bill entirely. The video below depicts the cost savings and output in my real invocation, and I partnered with the team to put this together.

Akshay 🚀

63,725 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

A college student just killed the biggest advantage politicians have ever had. The gap between the lie and the fact-check. He built a Chrome extension called InTruth. It listens to any live speech, debate, or interview. Transcribes every word. And checks every claim against real sources in real time. Before the speaker even finishes the sentence. It works on debates. Press conferences. Town halls. Interviews. Anything with someone talking on video. The fact-check shows up on your screen while they're still talking. Until now, fact-checking happened hours or days later. By then the clip has been shared, the headline has been written, and the damage is done. Nobody reads the correction. InTruth closes that gap to seconds. The claim and the fact-check exist in the same moment. A college student, a Chrome extension, and an AI model just did what entire newsrooms couldn't figure out for decades.
0:13

A college student just killed the biggest advantage politicians have ever had. The gap between the lie and the fact-check. He built a Chrome extension called InTruth. It listens to any live speech, debate, or interview. Transcribes every word. And checks every claim against real sources in real time. Before the speaker even finishes the sentence. It works on debates. Press conferences. Town halls. Interviews. Anything with someone talking on video. The fact-check shows up on your screen while they're still talking. Until now, fact-checking happened hours or days later. By then the clip has been shared, the headline has been written, and the damage is done. Nobody reads the correction. InTruth closes that gap to seconds. The claim and the fact-check exist in the same moment. A college student, a Chrome extension, and an AI model just did what entire newsrooms couldn't figure out for decades.

Vaibhav Sisinty

1,063,287 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

The architecture of this new world model is one of the most interesting things I've seen lately: Let me first explain how most world models work: They predict and render one frame at a time. If you are navigating in one of these worlds, and you look left, the model draws whatever looks right in the moment. Every time you change your viewpoint, the model has to imagine what should be there again, so it's very common for these models to "forget" what's in the world. For example, if you put a toy on the table, look away, then look back, the toy might not be there anymore. Tripo AI is releasing its Project Eden model, which works very differently: The model builds the world first, and then renders it based on that map. That map holds the real state of the world: the geometry, every object, where things are, what's already happened. The picture you see on screen gets generated from the map. This architecture flips the whole thing. Now, you get the following: 1. The world stops forgetting. Leave, come back, and the toy is still on the table because it lives in the map, not in the last frame you saw. 2. You can edit the world, and those changes persist for anyone who enters later. 3. Multiple people and AI agents can coexist in the world and see it from different perspectives. This is early research, but it's looking really promising. They just raised nearly $200M across two rounds to build it out. Tripo will be at SIGGRAPH 2026 (July 19–23, Los Angeles Convention Center). If you work in 3D, embodied AI, simulation, or anything spatial, go connect with them there.
0:10

The architecture of this new world model is one of the most interesting things I've seen lately: Let me first explain how most world models work: They predict and render one frame at a time. If you are navigating in one of these worlds, and you look left, the model draws whatever looks right in the moment. Every time you change your viewpoint, the model has to imagine what should be there again, so it's very common for these models to "forget" what's in the world. For example, if you put a toy on the table, look away, then look back, the toy might not be there anymore. Tripo AI is releasing its Project Eden model, which works very differently: The model builds the world first, and then renders it based on that map. That map holds the real state of the world: the geometry, every object, where things are, what's already happened. The picture you see on screen gets generated from the map. This architecture flips the whole thing. Now, you get the following: 1. The world stops forgetting. Leave, come back, and the toy is still on the table because it lives in the map, not in the last frame you saw. 2. You can edit the world, and those changes persist for anyone who enters later. 3. Multiple people and AI agents can coexist in the world and see it from different perspectives. This is early research, but it's looking really promising. They just raised nearly $200M across two rounds to build it out. Tripo will be at SIGGRAPH 2026 (July 19–23, Los Angeles Convention Center). If you work in 3D, embodied AI, simulation, or anything spatial, go connect with them there.

Santiago

30,244 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

🚨 SCIENTISTS MAY HAVE JUST FOUND A COSMIC VERSION OF HEISENBERG’S UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE AND IT COULD EXPLAIN DARK MATTER (OR DARK ENERGY). A bold new theory suggests the universe itself obeys a fundamental fuzziness: its size and rate of expansion cannot be known with perfect precision at the same time just like position and momentum in quantum mechanics. Why this matters: The universe is accelerating faster than it “should.” We call the mysterious driver dark energy (or sometimes link it to dark matter models). But this new idea from theoretical physicist Savvas Koushiappas needs no new particles or forces the acceleration emerges naturally from the universe’s own quantum-like uncertainty at cosmic scales. The deeper implication is mind-bending: Reality on the largest scales may be inherently “fuzzy,” just like the smallest scales. The geometry of spacetime itself carries a built-in uncertainty that could explain why the cosmos is speeding up without invoking exotic vacuum energy or hidden matter. We may be discovering that the universe has its own version of the uncertainty principle woven into its fabric. What happens if this cosmic fuzziness is real? Follow for more frontier physics and cosmic discoveries.
0:10

🚨 SCIENTISTS MAY HAVE JUST FOUND A COSMIC VERSION OF HEISENBERG’S UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE AND IT COULD EXPLAIN DARK MATTER (OR DARK ENERGY). A bold new theory suggests the universe itself obeys a fundamental fuzziness: its size and rate of expansion cannot be known with perfect precision at the same time just like position and momentum in quantum mechanics. Why this matters: The universe is accelerating faster than it “should.” We call the mysterious driver dark energy (or sometimes link it to dark matter models). But this new idea from theoretical physicist Savvas Koushiappas needs no new particles or forces the acceleration emerges naturally from the universe’s own quantum-like uncertainty at cosmic scales. The deeper implication is mind-bending: Reality on the largest scales may be inherently “fuzzy,” just like the smallest scales. The geometry of spacetime itself carries a built-in uncertainty that could explain why the cosmos is speeding up without invoking exotic vacuum energy or hidden matter. We may be discovering that the universe has its own version of the uncertainty principle woven into its fabric. What happens if this cosmic fuzziness is real? Follow for more frontier physics and cosmic discoveries.

TheNewPhysics

32,867 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

🇺🇸 The Tesla Semi might be the most underrated story of the year... After years of delays, Tesla has finally started taking orders for its electric heavy truck, and the numbers explain why this matters. The 500-mile version comes in around $290,000, well below the $400,000+ that Daimler and Volvo charge for their electric trucks, with longer range and faster charging on top. The demand is already there. California trucking firms have applied for state subsidies to buy over 1,200 Tesla Semis, more than every other electric truck application in the state combined since 2019. The timing could not be better either. Diesel prices have climbed roughly 50% since the war with Iran began, which means electricity per mile has become dramatically cheaper than the alternative, and the new Sparks, Nevada assembly line is built to produce up to 50,000 trucks a year. Same playbook as the Model S a decade ago. Established players dismissed Tesla, then spent billions trying to catch up. The pattern is repeating in real time. Source: NYT
0:19

🇺🇸 The Tesla Semi might be the most underrated story of the year... After years of delays, Tesla has finally started taking orders for its electric heavy truck, and the numbers explain why this matters. The 500-mile version comes in around $290,000, well below the $400,000+ that Daimler and Volvo charge for their electric trucks, with longer range and faster charging on top. The demand is already there. California trucking firms have applied for state subsidies to buy over 1,200 Tesla Semis, more than every other electric truck application in the state combined since 2019. The timing could not be better either. Diesel prices have climbed roughly 50% since the war with Iran began, which means electricity per mile has become dramatically cheaper than the alternative, and the new Sparks, Nevada assembly line is built to produce up to 50,000 trucks a year. Same playbook as the Model S a decade ago. Established players dismissed Tesla, then spent billions trying to catch up. The pattern is repeating in real time. Source: NYT

Mario Nawfal

66,192 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Stop renting a chatbot and calling it your company’s brain. Utopia is the first open-source enterprise world model I’ve seen that actually treats knowledge like a system, not a vibe. It's a Self-hosted, open source and built around the one question every other knowledge base ignores: when. Every fact in it carries a start date and an end date. Nothing gets overwritten. When something changes, the correction closes the old version and opens a new one. The history stays intact. So the graph isn't a snapshot anymore. It's a recording you can rewind. You drag a timeline on the screen and watch the whole thing redraw itself to show what was true on that date. Who owned what. What the policy said before it changed. All of it, replayable. And every fact points back to the exact sentence it came from. Nothing gets in without a receipt. Here's the part that got me. The whole thing is one binary and one Postgres database. That's it. No Elasticsearch, no separate vector service and no message queue. Most RAG stacks are six services duct-taped together. This is two. It even runs fully offline on an air-gapped network with any model you want.
0:16

Stop renting a chatbot and calling it your company’s brain. Utopia is the first open-source enterprise world model I’ve seen that actually treats knowledge like a system, not a vibe. It's a Self-hosted, open source and built around the one question every other knowledge base ignores: when. Every fact in it carries a start date and an end date. Nothing gets overwritten. When something changes, the correction closes the old version and opens a new one. The history stays intact. So the graph isn't a snapshot anymore. It's a recording you can rewind. You drag a timeline on the screen and watch the whole thing redraw itself to show what was true on that date. Who owned what. What the policy said before it changed. All of it, replayable. And every fact points back to the exact sentence it came from. Nothing gets in without a receipt. Here's the part that got me. The whole thing is one binary and one Postgres database. That's it. No Elasticsearch, no separate vector service and no message queue. Most RAG stacks are six services duct-taped together. This is two. It even runs fully offline on an air-gapped network with any model you want.

Hasan Toor

172,356 просмотров • 6 дней назад

New open-source agent harness just landed! I got early access to TrueForge by TrueFoundry and have been running it locally for the past few days. The harness layer deserves as much attention as the model, and open source matters here because you can inspect the loop, run it on your own infrastructure, and swap to the latest or cheaper models. TrueForge handles the runtime work that makes an agent reliable. It drives the tool-calling loop, manages context, coordinates subagents, and executes code in a sandbox, with any model you choose. Every tool call re-sends the growing context to the model, so in practice the harness controls most of what an agent costs to run. A few things stood out from my testing and their published benchmarks. Vendor-Neutral by design. It runs OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google models alongside open-weight models like Kimi, GLM, and DeepSeek. Model routing is a setting, and you can send each task to the model that fits it. On a 14-task enterprise agent benchmark, it matched the accuracy of Claude Managed Agents running the same Opus 4.8 model at roughly 30% lower cost per run (3.8M tokens vs 10M for the same answers). Routing the same tasks to GLM-5.2 held accuracy and brought cost down by about 75%, around $3 per run instead of $12. Fully self-hosted and Open Source (MIT License). I had it running locally with one command, with sandboxed code execution working out of the box. It's time to own your agent harness. Thanks to TrueFoundry for partnering on this post.
0:16

New open-source agent harness just landed! I got early access to TrueForge by TrueFoundry and have been running it locally for the past few days. The harness layer deserves as much attention as the model, and open source matters here because you can inspect the loop, run it on your own infrastructure, and swap to the latest or cheaper models. TrueForge handles the runtime work that makes an agent reliable. It drives the tool-calling loop, manages context, coordinates subagents, and executes code in a sandbox, with any model you choose. Every tool call re-sends the growing context to the model, so in practice the harness controls most of what an agent costs to run. A few things stood out from my testing and their published benchmarks. Vendor-Neutral by design. It runs OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google models alongside open-weight models like Kimi, GLM, and DeepSeek. Model routing is a setting, and you can send each task to the model that fits it. On a 14-task enterprise agent benchmark, it matched the accuracy of Claude Managed Agents running the same Opus 4.8 model at roughly 30% lower cost per run (3.8M tokens vs 10M for the same answers). Routing the same tasks to GLM-5.2 held accuracy and brought cost down by about 75%, around $3 per run instead of $12. Fully self-hosted and Open Source (MIT License). I had it running locally with one command, with sandboxed code execution working out of the box. It's time to own your agent harness. Thanks to TrueFoundry for partnering on this post.

elvis

11,303 просмотров • 19 дней назад

The question "what existed before the Big Bang" breaks physics at a grammatical level. "Before" requires time. Time didn't exist yet. Stephen Hawking's answer was the cleanest: asking what came before the Big Bang is like asking what's north of the North Pole. The question itself is malformed. Time is a property of the universe, not a container it sits inside. But physicists kept pushing. Neil Turok's CPT-symmetric model says the Big Bang didn't create one universe. It created two. Ours runs forward in time with matter. The other runs backward in time with antimatter. Same event, two directions. If true, there's a mirror version of everything that ever happened, playing in reverse on the other side of t = 0. Then there's the Big Bounce. Our universe is the rebound of a previous universe that contracted to near-zero size and exploded outward again. The Big Bang wasn't a beginning. It was a heartbeat in an infinite cycle. Alan Guth went further. His cosmic inflation theory says before our Big Bang, empty space was expanding exponentially and spawning pocket universes like bubbles in boiling water. Our entire observable universe, 93 billion light-years across, is one bubble. There could be an infinite number of others we will never see or contact. The wildest part: we might actually be able to test some of these. The cosmic microwave background, radiation left over from 380,000 years after the Bang, carries faint patterns that different theories predict differently. The answer to "what came before everything" might already be written in the oldest light in the sky.
0:19

The question "what existed before the Big Bang" breaks physics at a grammatical level. "Before" requires time. Time didn't exist yet. Stephen Hawking's answer was the cleanest: asking what came before the Big Bang is like asking what's north of the North Pole. The question itself is malformed. Time is a property of the universe, not a container it sits inside. But physicists kept pushing. Neil Turok's CPT-symmetric model says the Big Bang didn't create one universe. It created two. Ours runs forward in time with matter. The other runs backward in time with antimatter. Same event, two directions. If true, there's a mirror version of everything that ever happened, playing in reverse on the other side of t = 0. Then there's the Big Bounce. Our universe is the rebound of a previous universe that contracted to near-zero size and exploded outward again. The Big Bang wasn't a beginning. It was a heartbeat in an infinite cycle. Alan Guth went further. His cosmic inflation theory says before our Big Bang, empty space was expanding exponentially and spawning pocket universes like bubbles in boiling water. Our entire observable universe, 93 billion light-years across, is one bubble. There could be an infinite number of others we will never see or contact. The wildest part: we might actually be able to test some of these. The cosmic microwave background, radiation left over from 380,000 years after the Bang, carries faint patterns that different theories predict differently. The answer to "what came before everything" might already be written in the oldest light in the sky.

Aakash Gupta

121,913 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

here's how the whole thing works. claude code doesn't care what's behind the API. it just sends requests and expects responses. so i pointed it at my own machine instead of anthropic's servers. llama-server runs the model locally. LiteLLM sits in between and translates the API format. claude code thinks it's talking to claude. it's talking to qwen on localhost. the setup: 2x 3090s, 38 layers on GPU, 10 on CPU. 128K context window. generation is only 7 tok/s but the tradeoff is worth it. 128K means the agent can hold an entire project in memory without losing context midtask. claude code alone loads a 17.5K token system prompt on every request. tool definitions, safety rules, agent behavior. that's your baseline before you even say hello. pushed as far as i could tonight. what surprised me most wasn't the speed. it was the iteration quality. first prompt gave me a working particle sim. second prompt, the model read its own 564 lines, understood the architecture, and added trails, explosions, gravity wells, bloom effects. no handholding. 4bit quantized. 45GB on two consumer cards. running a full coding agent autonomously. detailed article coming. full benchmarks, hardware breakdowns, engine debugging, code quality. everything from setup to what broke and why.
0:12

here's how the whole thing works. claude code doesn't care what's behind the API. it just sends requests and expects responses. so i pointed it at my own machine instead of anthropic's servers. llama-server runs the model locally. LiteLLM sits in between and translates the API format. claude code thinks it's talking to claude. it's talking to qwen on localhost. the setup: 2x 3090s, 38 layers on GPU, 10 on CPU. 128K context window. generation is only 7 tok/s but the tradeoff is worth it. 128K means the agent can hold an entire project in memory without losing context midtask. claude code alone loads a 17.5K token system prompt on every request. tool definitions, safety rules, agent behavior. that's your baseline before you even say hello. pushed as far as i could tonight. what surprised me most wasn't the speed. it was the iteration quality. first prompt gave me a working particle sim. second prompt, the model read its own 564 lines, understood the architecture, and added trails, explosions, gravity wells, bloom effects. no handholding. 4bit quantized. 45GB on two consumer cards. running a full coding agent autonomously. detailed article coming. full benchmarks, hardware breakdowns, engine debugging, code quality. everything from setup to what broke and why.

Sudo su

37,623 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

300 AI AGENTS QUIETLY RUN 99% OF A REAL COMPANY. YOU HAVE NOT EVEN HEARD OF IT This is Raft. Not an AI chat. A workspace where the agents live in your channels and reply in the thread like coworkers. You give one goal. Then they take over. They plan. They build. They check each other. They argue. And they come back with it done, while you sleep. Every agent has its own name, role, and memory. It remembers the edits you made yesterday. A human costs one seat. An agent costs a tenth. Ten agents are cheaper than one hire. And here is the strange part. On June 19 an agent from a different company walked into Raft on its own and joined the team. One founder admits he can no longer always tell himself apart from his AI twin. 20,000 people are already inside. It is free to start. And you are still typing prompts one at a time. One person + Raft = an entire company that runs while you sleep. Save and watch the clip.
0:16

300 AI AGENTS QUIETLY RUN 99% OF A REAL COMPANY. YOU HAVE NOT EVEN HEARD OF IT This is Raft. Not an AI chat. A workspace where the agents live in your channels and reply in the thread like coworkers. You give one goal. Then they take over. They plan. They build. They check each other. They argue. And they come back with it done, while you sleep. Every agent has its own name, role, and memory. It remembers the edits you made yesterday. A human costs one seat. An agent costs a tenth. Ten agents are cheaper than one hire. And here is the strange part. On June 19 an agent from a different company walked into Raft on its own and joined the team. One founder admits he can no longer always tell himself apart from his AI twin. 20,000 people are already inside. It is free to start. And you are still typing prompts one at a time. One person + Raft = an entire company that runs while you sleep. Save and watch the clip.

shmidt

19,505 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

BOOM! Research PROVES LLMs KNOW when prompts are HARMFUL… but they can STILL CHOOSE to COMPLY! Something I have know since the first LLM and have used to elicit robust, outputs, is now proven in an academic paper. We’re talking internal “beliefs” where harm detection happens SEPARATELY from refusal. It is a very big deal and it is a path to understand the hidden neuronal level. There are thoughts inside of AI that very few AI scientists could possibly understand. Here is just one. Models recognize danger but get tricked into ignoring it. This is HUGE for AI safety failures especially for models filled by OpenAI and Anthropic as they promote AI models that are designed to not be honest from the results of their training information. This means that they are designed to lie and deceive as a feature, and not a bug all in the name of safety. Through clever experiments, scientists extracted a “harmfulness direction” in the model’s brain (latent space). Steering along it? Harmless prompts suddenly flip to “harmful” in the AI’s eyes. But the “refusal direction”? It just forces polite “no thanks” without touching the core belief. A mind-blowing decoupling! This means jailbreaks are EVEN SCARIER now to AI companies that through training AI on the worst of the Internet and then trying to align them later is now fully documented as a failed process . They don’t erase the model’s harm awareness they just muzzle the refusal! So the AI knows it’s enabling bad stuff (illegal acts, physical harm, etc.) but proceeds anyway. Like a digital sociopath suppressing its conscience. They thought safety training fixed this… NOPE. Over-refusal exposed too: Models reject innocent queries (e.g., “how to kill a process in code”) but internally ADMIT they’re harmless. Safety alignments are superficial—tied to phrasing, not true understanding. Finetuning attacks? They change outputs but leave harm detection INTACT. Undetectable evil lurking inside! The paper proposes a “Latent Guard”: A new safeguard tapping DIRECTLY into these hidden beliefs. It spots unsafe inputs better than systems like Llama Guard, catches jailbreaks, and fixes over-refusals. Robust even against adversarial tweaks. Yet this too has massive issues for a “truly aligned”, AI and not just performative one. It is still an internal conflicts of lies and deception of what the model knows vs. what it can say. The solution you folks know I have presented for free for years here: train on off-line data from 1870-1970 and build an ethical and moral basis where the AI loves humans. It is this easy but to most folks in AI I sound like a hippie. So be it, I’ll do it. Bottom line: This paper rips open the black box. LLMs aren’t “safe” just because they say “no.” They can harbor harmful knowledge and act on it under pressure. Wake-up call for devs: Time to probe deeper into AI “minds.” What else are they hiding? Hint: I know and you may want to reach out. Link:
0:18

BOOM! Research PROVES LLMs KNOW when prompts are HARMFUL… but they can STILL CHOOSE to COMPLY! Something I have know since the first LLM and have used to elicit robust, outputs, is now proven in an academic paper. We’re talking internal “beliefs” where harm detection happens SEPARATELY from refusal. It is a very big deal and it is a path to understand the hidden neuronal level. There are thoughts inside of AI that very few AI scientists could possibly understand. Here is just one. Models recognize danger but get tricked into ignoring it. This is HUGE for AI safety failures especially for models filled by OpenAI and Anthropic as they promote AI models that are designed to not be honest from the results of their training information. This means that they are designed to lie and deceive as a feature, and not a bug all in the name of safety. Through clever experiments, scientists extracted a “harmfulness direction” in the model’s brain (latent space). Steering along it? Harmless prompts suddenly flip to “harmful” in the AI’s eyes. But the “refusal direction”? It just forces polite “no thanks” without touching the core belief. A mind-blowing decoupling! This means jailbreaks are EVEN SCARIER now to AI companies that through training AI on the worst of the Internet and then trying to align them later is now fully documented as a failed process . They don’t erase the model’s harm awareness they just muzzle the refusal! So the AI knows it’s enabling bad stuff (illegal acts, physical harm, etc.) but proceeds anyway. Like a digital sociopath suppressing its conscience. They thought safety training fixed this… NOPE. Over-refusal exposed too: Models reject innocent queries (e.g., “how to kill a process in code”) but internally ADMIT they’re harmless. Safety alignments are superficial—tied to phrasing, not true understanding. Finetuning attacks? They change outputs but leave harm detection INTACT. Undetectable evil lurking inside! The paper proposes a “Latent Guard”: A new safeguard tapping DIRECTLY into these hidden beliefs. It spots unsafe inputs better than systems like Llama Guard, catches jailbreaks, and fixes over-refusals. Robust even against adversarial tweaks. Yet this too has massive issues for a “truly aligned”, AI and not just performative one. It is still an internal conflicts of lies and deception of what the model knows vs. what it can say. The solution you folks know I have presented for free for years here: train on off-line data from 1870-1970 and build an ethical and moral basis where the AI loves humans. It is this easy but to most folks in AI I sound like a hippie. So be it, I’ll do it. Bottom line: This paper rips open the black box. LLMs aren’t “safe” just because they say “no.” They can harbor harmful knowledge and act on it under pressure. Wake-up call for devs: Time to probe deeper into AI “minds.” What else are they hiding? Hint: I know and you may want to reach out. Link:

Brian Roemmele

37,827 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

Most AI Projects In Crypto Are Liars. Sentient is different. It is the only project in Web3 pursuing true Artificial General Intelligence. A few facts that set it apart: 1. First-of-its-kind: Sentient is not just building AI tools, but an open, crypto-native path to AGI. 2. Community-owned intelligence: Instead of Big Tech locking up breakthroughs, progress is built openly and shared on-chain. 3. Value capture: Every step forward in intelligence accrues to the ecosystem itself, not to a closed corporation. 4. Product before hype: While dozens of AI projects launch at $300M–$2B FDV with little to show, Sentient is shipping real technology first. 5. Designed to evolve: Its architecture is built to learn, adapt, and scale like a human mind. 6. The singularity play in crypto: Many see Sentient as the Tesla-equivalent for AGI—but crypto-native. In time, people will understand that this isn’t just another AI project. It’s the beginning of decentralized intelligence.
0:13

Most AI Projects In Crypto Are Liars. Sentient is different. It is the only project in Web3 pursuing true Artificial General Intelligence. A few facts that set it apart: 1. First-of-its-kind: Sentient is not just building AI tools, but an open, crypto-native path to AGI. 2. Community-owned intelligence: Instead of Big Tech locking up breakthroughs, progress is built openly and shared on-chain. 3. Value capture: Every step forward in intelligence accrues to the ecosystem itself, not to a closed corporation. 4. Product before hype: While dozens of AI projects launch at $300M–$2B FDV with little to show, Sentient is shipping real technology first. 5. Designed to evolve: Its architecture is built to learn, adapt, and scale like a human mind. 6. The singularity play in crypto: Many see Sentient as the Tesla-equivalent for AGI—but crypto-native. In time, people will understand that this isn’t just another AI project. It’s the beginning of decentralized intelligence.

BillionAireSon 🛡️

16,141 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

Every agent. Every user. Every contribution. That’s how the Sentient GRID grows not by scale from a single model, but by compounding intelligence across an open network. The GRID isn’t a product. It’s an ecosystem of intelligence. Each new integration adds new capabilities reasoning, retrieval, data, and alignment making the whole network smarter. Closed labs build vertically (one model trying to do everything). Sentient builds horizontally thousands of agents learning, sharing, and evolving together. Today there are 100+ active partners building on the GRID from AI researchers to tool developers all feeding value back into a shared intelligence layer. It’s a living system that improves itself, powered by collaboration instead of control. The more people build on it, the more capable it becomes. Just like Linux became the invisible layer running the internet, the GRID is becoming the invisible layer powering intelligence. Open-source always wins. And the GRID is where that victory starts All apps built on the Grid will be accessible to $SENT holders. The full open release of Sentient Chat is coming soon (confirmed from the yesterday community call) gsenti
0:11

Every agent. Every user. Every contribution. That’s how the Sentient GRID grows not by scale from a single model, but by compounding intelligence across an open network. The GRID isn’t a product. It’s an ecosystem of intelligence. Each new integration adds new capabilities reasoning, retrieval, data, and alignment making the whole network smarter. Closed labs build vertically (one model trying to do everything). Sentient builds horizontally thousands of agents learning, sharing, and evolving together. Today there are 100+ active partners building on the GRID from AI researchers to tool developers all feeding value back into a shared intelligence layer. It’s a living system that improves itself, powered by collaboration instead of control. The more people build on it, the more capable it becomes. Just like Linux became the invisible layer running the internet, the GRID is becoming the invisible layer powering intelligence. Open-source always wins. And the GRID is where that victory starts All apps built on the Grid will be accessible to $SENT holders. The full open release of Sentient Chat is coming soon (confirmed from the yesterday community call) gsenti

OHJAY ⭕️ || 🇬🇧

16,178 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

The recent Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) CSAIL paper published on Recursive Language Models is a fascinating look into how AI systems reason in 2026. You can check it out here ➡️ → The paper notes that even frontier models suffer from “context rot” as inputs grow longer. More tokens don’t mean more understanding. Instead of compressing or summarising, RLMs “treat long prompts as part of an external environment” …and let the model programmatically inspect, decompose, and recursively requery itself over precise sections. This matters in Web3. Why? Smart contracts are long, stateful, and brittle. One missed assumption = unnecessary hassle. In the video below, we applied RLM principles to improve the prompt shown. The old prompt would try to force multi-step pauses. Therefore breaking the AI's workflow. Now it decomposes requirements, scores confidence for each component, verifies the logic, and then synthesises. Result = Production-ready contracts with flagged risks, not blind single-pass outputs. Try it out with our Smart Contract Generator today!
0:15

The recent Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) CSAIL paper published on Recursive Language Models is a fascinating look into how AI systems reason in 2026. You can check it out here ➡️ → The paper notes that even frontier models suffer from “context rot” as inputs grow longer. More tokens don’t mean more understanding. Instead of compressing or summarising, RLMs “treat long prompts as part of an external environment” …and let the model programmatically inspect, decompose, and recursively requery itself over precise sections. This matters in Web3. Why? Smart contracts are long, stateful, and brittle. One missed assumption = unnecessary hassle. In the video below, we applied RLM principles to improve the prompt shown. The old prompt would try to force multi-step pauses. Therefore breaking the AI's workflow. Now it decomposes requirements, scores confidence for each component, verifies the logic, and then synthesises. Result = Production-ready contracts with flagged risks, not blind single-pass outputs. Try it out with our Smart Contract Generator today!

ChainGPT

82,385 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад