正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆𝗼𝗻𝗲’𝘀 𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 “𝗣𝗵𝘆𝘀𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗔𝗜" - the idea that we can simulate real-world environments so well that robots trained in simulation will work perfectly in reality. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗲: Train in virtual worlds → deploy anywhere. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆: I’ve seen too many teams fall into this trap. After working with... manipulation teams at Berkeley, Imperial, and Dyson, here’s the pattern: • 𝗪𝗲𝗲𝗸 𝟭: “Our policy works perfectly in simulation!” • 𝗪𝗲𝗲𝗸 𝟰: “Why doesn’t this work on real objects?” • 𝗠𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗵 𝟮: “We basically need to retrain from scratch with real data.” 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗮𝗽 𝘀𝗶𝗺𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗰𝗮𝗻’𝘁 𝗯𝗿𝗶𝗱𝗴𝗲: Unlike blind locomotion policies that can get away with sim-to-real transfer because they rely mainly on proprioception and contact forces, 𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻-𝗴𝘂𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗽𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝗲𝘅𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘃𝗶𝘀𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝗱𝗼𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗴𝗮𝗽𝘀. • Real friction vs simulated surface textures • Manufacturing tolerances vs perfect CAD models • Dynamic lighting vs controlled virtual environments • Sensor noise vs instantaneous virtual readings 𝗛𝗲𝗿𝗲'𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝗻'𝘁 𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁: Building these detailed simulated environments takes forever. If it takes 7 days to build a simulated kitchen in simulation, wouldn't it be better to just collect real-world data in a real kitchen instead? 𝗗𝗼𝗻'𝘁 𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝗺𝗲 𝘄𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴 - simulation is incredible for debugging, safety testing, and exploring edge cases. But it's not a magic solution to real-world deployment. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝘀: Use simulation strategically while making real-world data collection as efficient and flexible as possible. This is why Neuracore focuses on streamlined real-world data infrastructure. Because no amount of virtual training can replace understanding how your robot actually behaves in actual environments. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗵𝘆𝘀𝗶𝗰𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗲𝗻𝘃𝗶𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝗻'𝘁 𝗯𝗲 𝘀𝗶𝗺𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆. What’s been your experience with sim-to-real transfer?show more

Stephen James

7,465 subscribers

25,347 次观看 • 11 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

科学技术教育

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

𝗣𝗼𝗽𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗿 𝗼𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗼𝗻: "𝗝𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝗶𝗺𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗮." After working with many 𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗼𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗽𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 teams who've fallen into the simulation trap, here's what I've learned: Simulation teaches your robot to be really, really good at simulation. Unlike blind locomotion policies that can get away with sim-to-real transfer because they rely mainly on proprioception and contact forces, 𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻-𝗴𝘂𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗽𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝗲𝘅𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘃𝗶𝘀𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝗱𝗼𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗴𝗮𝗽. The subtle differences accumulate: - Simulated friction vs real surface textures - Perfect lighting vs shadows, reflections, glare - Ideal object geometries vs manufacturing tolerances - Instantaneous sensor readings vs real-world noise and latency - Clean backgrounds vs cluttered, dynamic environments 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗰 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻: Week 1: "Our model works perfectly in sim!" Week 2: "Let's collect some real data to fine-tune." Week 3: "The real data completely contradicts what the sim taught..." Week 4: "Okay, let's collect way more real data." Month 2: "We basically need to retrain from scratch." 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗳𝘂𝗹 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘁𝗵: There's no shortcut to real-world data collection for vision-based manipulation. Simulation is amazing for debugging, prototyping, safety testing, and of course to supplement your real data. But it's not a substitute for understanding how your robot actually behaves in the actual environment. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝘀: Use simulation strategically - for exploring edge cases, testing safety boundaries, and rapid iteration. But build your production models on real data from real environments. The teams that succeed treat simulation as a powerful tool, not a magic solution. This is why Neuracore focuses on making real-world data collection so much easier and faster. Because the physics of your actual environment can't be simulated away. 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹𝘀, 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘀𝗮𝘆? 𝗪𝗲𝗹𝗹, 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗵𝗮𝗽𝘀 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁! 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁'𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘀𝗶𝗺-𝘁𝗼-𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗳𝗲𝗿? 𝗛𝗮𝘀 𝗶𝘁 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝘀 𝘄𝗲𝗹𝗹 𝗮𝘀 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱?

𝗣𝗼𝗽𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗿 𝗼𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗼𝗻: "𝗝𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝗶𝗺𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗮." After working with many 𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗼𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗽𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 teams who've fallen into the simulation trap, here's what I've learned: Simulation teaches your robot to be really, really good at simulation. Unlike blind locomotion policies that can get away with sim-to-real transfer because they rely mainly on proprioception and contact forces, 𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻-𝗴𝘂𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗽𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝗲𝘅𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘃𝗶𝘀𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝗱𝗼𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗴𝗮𝗽. The subtle differences accumulate: - Simulated friction vs real surface textures - Perfect lighting vs shadows, reflections, glare - Ideal object geometries vs manufacturing tolerances - Instantaneous sensor readings vs real-world noise and latency - Clean backgrounds vs cluttered, dynamic environments 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗰 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻: Week 1: "Our model works perfectly in sim!" Week 2: "Let's collect some real data to fine-tune." Week 3: "The real data completely contradicts what the sim taught..." Week 4: "Okay, let's collect way more real data." Month 2: "We basically need to retrain from scratch." 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗳𝘂𝗹 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘁𝗵: There's no shortcut to real-world data collection for vision-based manipulation. Simulation is amazing for debugging, prototyping, safety testing, and of course to supplement your real data. But it's not a substitute for understanding how your robot actually behaves in the actual environment. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝘀: Use simulation strategically - for exploring edge cases, testing safety boundaries, and rapid iteration. But build your production models on real data from real environments. The teams that succeed treat simulation as a powerful tool, not a magic solution. This is why Neuracore focuses on making real-world data collection so much easier and faster. Because the physics of your actual environment can't be simulated away. 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹𝘀, 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘀𝗮𝘆? 𝗪𝗲𝗹𝗹, 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗵𝗮𝗽𝘀 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁! 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁'𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘀𝗶𝗺-𝘁𝗼-𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗳𝗲𝗿? 𝗛𝗮𝘀 𝗶𝘁 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝘀 𝘄𝗲𝗹𝗹 𝗮𝘀 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱?

Stephen James

31,009 次观看 • 1 年前

Robora Sim: A PyBullet-Powered Environment for Learning Robotic Physical Intelligence We are currently building our Robora simulation environment setup for our sim based learning, leveraging PyBullet, an industry-standard physics engine widely used in AI-driven robotics research and development. The environment is optimized with GPU-accelerated learning algorithms, enabling high-speed imitation learning and reinforcement learning within a safe and controlled virtual setup before shipping out to real world. This simulation platform allows our models to learn, adapt, and generalize across different robot morphologies, terrain types and task objectives - all before deployment to the real world. At it's core, the system combines a VLA-powered high-level planner with low-level motion control algorithms, working cohesively to produce emergent, physically intelligent behaviors. This synergy between simulation, learning, and real-world transfer marks a major step forward in our pursuit of adaptive and intelligent robotic systems. Through advanced domain randomization and synthetic data generation, the Robora Simulation Environment ensures that policies trained in simulation transfer effectively to real-world robots, minimizing the sim-to-real gap. Moreover, users will be able to test and integrate their own hardware kits within selected simulation environments in the Robora Dapp, ensuring seamless compatibility and safer real-world implementation.

Robora Sim: A PyBullet-Powered Environment for Learning Robotic Physical Intelligence We are currently building our Robora simulation environment setup for our sim based learning, leveraging PyBullet, an industry-standard physics engine widely used in AI-driven robotics research and development. The environment is optimized with GPU-accelerated learning algorithms, enabling high-speed imitation learning and reinforcement learning within a safe and controlled virtual setup before shipping out to real world. This simulation platform allows our models to learn, adapt, and generalize across different robot morphologies, terrain types and task objectives - all before deployment to the real world. At it's core, the system combines a VLA-powered high-level planner with low-level motion control algorithms, working cohesively to produce emergent, physically intelligent behaviors. This synergy between simulation, learning, and real-world transfer marks a major step forward in our pursuit of adaptive and intelligent robotic systems. Through advanced domain randomization and synthetic data generation, the Robora Simulation Environment ensures that policies trained in simulation transfer effectively to real-world robots, minimizing the sim-to-real gap. Moreover, users will be able to test and integrate their own hardware kits within selected simulation environments in the Robora Dapp, ensuring seamless compatibility and safer real-world implementation.

Robora

23,489 次观看 • 10 个月前

Most humanoid projects talk about real work. Very few last an hour on a real line. This week I saw a case that matters for anyone building robots, perception, or physical AI. Kinisi deployed its first mobile manipulation system into a live recycling facility. Not a demo. Not a staged test. A real production line with real output pressure. Why this matters if you want robotics to deliver real value on your floor: • Handles mixed glass with random poses and no fixed fixtures. • Runs real grasp selection under noise, vibration and production variability. • Maintains throughput while avoiding breakage on a delicate material. • Shows mobile manipulation doing actual shift work instead of controlled lab runs. Kinisi published a video that shows what the robot sees and how sensor data turns into action. This is the part most teams struggle to explain to customers, so the educational angle is useful for anyone working on adoption. On top of this, the team signed a pilot with a global automotive manufacturer to explore humanoid use cases in production. The direction is clear. Wheeled mobility (not legs!) plus strong perception seems to be shaping a large part of industrial humanoids right now. I know Brennand from earlier conversations and from our podcast session, and I am always glad to see European teams push the category forward. Wishing the Kinisi team continued success. —- Weekly robotics and AI insights. Subscribe free:

Most humanoid projects talk about real work. Very few last an hour on a real line. This week I saw a case that matters for anyone building robots, perception, or physical AI. Kinisi deployed its first mobile manipulation system into a live recycling facility. Not a demo. Not a staged test. A real production line with real output pressure. Why this matters if you want robotics to deliver real value on your floor: • Handles mixed glass with random poses and no fixed fixtures. • Runs real grasp selection under noise, vibration and production variability. • Maintains throughput while avoiding breakage on a delicate material. • Shows mobile manipulation doing actual shift work instead of controlled lab runs. Kinisi published a video that shows what the robot sees and how sensor data turns into action. This is the part most teams struggle to explain to customers, so the educational angle is useful for anyone working on adoption. On top of this, the team signed a pilot with a global automotive manufacturer to explore humanoid use cases in production. The direction is clear. Wheeled mobility (not legs!) plus strong perception seems to be shaping a large part of industrial humanoids right now. I know Brennand from earlier conversations and from our podcast session, and I am always glad to see European teams push the category forward. Wishing the Kinisi team continued success. —- Weekly robotics and AI insights. Subscribe free:

Ilir Aliu

24,743 次观看 • 8 个月前

A Letter to Our Community: The Road Ahead for Robotics To our Community and Partners, As we step into 2026, our mission at Axis is clearer than ever: Constructing the definitive End-to-End Scaling Layer for Robotics. Our goal is to accelerate the transfer of diverse human intelligence into Robotics General Intelligence (RGI). By owning the critical path of intelligence creation, we are turning the physical limitations of robotics into a scalable, software-driven future. Here is our strategic outlook and roadmap for the year ahead. The Core Thesis: Simulation is the Only Way Out The path to RGI is currently blocked by Data Scarcity, Generalization Fragility, and Hardware Fragmentation. At Axis, we believe Simulation is the only way out. Our Simulation Data Platform and Data Augmentation Engine transform raw data into "Synthetic Gold". Backed by academic milestones like Roboverse, Skill Blending, and GraspVLA, we have proven that pure simulation can achieve the generalization required for the real world. We don’t just collect data; we architect it. The Engine: Why Crypto? We believe RGI should come from all, not a few. Crypto is not just a feature; it is the primitive that powers our entire ecosystem flywheel: - Incentive Mechanism: Democratizing contribution and rewarding the trainers and developers. - Assetization: Turning proprietary data and refined models into liquid, ownable assets. - Verifiable Workflow: We are opening the "Black Box" of AI. By bringing total transparency to the Task Generation → Data Collection → Model Training pipeline, we ensure every byte of intelligence is verifiable, traceable, and secure. 2026 Strategic Deliverables This year, we are committed to delivering three foundational pillars: - The World's Largest Training Dataset for Robots: A robot training set—diverse, high-quality interaction data at an unprecedented scale. - A Robotics Foundation Model: A universal robotic brain trained on our pure simulation and synthetic data, capable of robust cross-embodiment transfer and open-world adaptability. - Evolvable Robot Hardware: Robots deployed with Axis models that autonomously evolve through continuous interaction, turning every deployment into a self-improving node within our RGI network. The Ultimate Vision We are building more than models; we are architecting the Distributed Machine Economy. A future where every dataset, model, and robotic embodiment is a verifiable asset in a global, autonomous network. Thank you for building the future of intelligence with us✌️📷

A Letter to Our Community: The Road Ahead for Robotics To our Community and Partners, As we step into 2026, our mission at Axis is clearer than ever: Constructing the definitive End-to-End Scaling Layer for Robotics. Our goal is to accelerate the transfer of diverse human intelligence into Robotics General Intelligence (RGI). By owning the critical path of intelligence creation, we are turning the physical limitations of robotics into a scalable, software-driven future. Here is our strategic outlook and roadmap for the year ahead. The Core Thesis: Simulation is the Only Way Out The path to RGI is currently blocked by Data Scarcity, Generalization Fragility, and Hardware Fragmentation. At Axis, we believe Simulation is the only way out. Our Simulation Data Platform and Data Augmentation Engine transform raw data into "Synthetic Gold". Backed by academic milestones like Roboverse, Skill Blending, and GraspVLA, we have proven that pure simulation can achieve the generalization required for the real world. We don’t just collect data; we architect it. The Engine: Why Crypto? We believe RGI should come from all, not a few. Crypto is not just a feature; it is the primitive that powers our entire ecosystem flywheel: - Incentive Mechanism: Democratizing contribution and rewarding the trainers and developers. - Assetization: Turning proprietary data and refined models into liquid, ownable assets. - Verifiable Workflow: We are opening the "Black Box" of AI. By bringing total transparency to the Task Generation → Data Collection → Model Training pipeline, we ensure every byte of intelligence is verifiable, traceable, and secure. 2026 Strategic Deliverables This year, we are committed to delivering three foundational pillars: - The World's Largest Training Dataset for Robots: A robot training set—diverse, high-quality interaction data at an unprecedented scale. - A Robotics Foundation Model: A universal robotic brain trained on our pure simulation and synthetic data, capable of robust cross-embodiment transfer and open-world adaptability. - Evolvable Robot Hardware: Robots deployed with Axis models that autonomously evolve through continuous interaction, turning every deployment into a self-improving node within our RGI network. The Ultimate Vision We are building more than models; we are architecting the Distributed Machine Economy. A future where every dataset, model, and robotic embodiment is a verifiable asset in a global, autonomous network. Thank you for building the future of intelligence with us✌️📷

Axis Robotics

27,858 次观看 • 7 个月前

Does LLM really need to be a helpful assistant all the time? No. If you want to simulate people, “perfectly helpful” could be the wrong objective. Meet OdysSim, a journey toward LLMs beyond assistants, as behavioral foundation models (10B tokens of real human behavior; 23 sim benchmarks, finally in one place. new open models: outperform or on par with GPT-5.5, Gemini 3.1, or Claude Opus 4.7 in many behavior-sim dimensions). Human behavior simulation is becoming essential. Agent evaluation needs realistic users before real users show up. Medical and classroom training need realistic patients and students. Social science needs synthetic participants at scale. But real people are not ideal assistants. Real patients panic or ignore good advice. Real students misunderstand. Real customers are vague, picky, impatient, or simply leave. Human behavior is messy, diverse, and often imperfect. Frontier LLMs are getting better at math, code, and long-horizon tasks. They are NOT getting better at simulating human behavior. If anything, they drift the other way: more assistant-ish, more homogeneous, fewer of the errors and quirks real humans show. This is no accident. The whole pipeline is built for helpfulness and task success, not behavioral realism. And you can't prompt your way out of that. So we rethink the recipe from scratch and release: 🧠 The OdysSim corpus: 21.4M real human interactions (~10B tokens) from 62 sources, every conversation retrofitted with social grounding (who is talking, and why) 📏 SOUL-Index: 23 human-behavior benchmarks unified into one suite across 5 axes 🤖 OSim-8B: open weights; tops more SOUL-Index benchmarks than any frontier model, acts more like a real user than any of them on τ-bench (nearly matching real humans in the reaction dimension), and writes far more human-like text along the way.

Does LLM really need to be a helpful assistant all the time? No. If you want to simulate people, “perfectly helpful” could be the wrong objective. Meet OdysSim, a journey toward LLMs beyond assistants, as behavioral foundation models (10B tokens of real human behavior; 23 sim benchmarks, finally in one place. new open models: outperform or on par with GPT-5.5, Gemini 3.1, or Claude Opus 4.7 in many behavior-sim dimensions). Human behavior simulation is becoming essential. Agent evaluation needs realistic users before real users show up. Medical and classroom training need realistic patients and students. Social science needs synthetic participants at scale. But real people are not ideal assistants. Real patients panic or ignore good advice. Real students misunderstand. Real customers are vague, picky, impatient, or simply leave. Human behavior is messy, diverse, and often imperfect. Frontier LLMs are getting better at math, code, and long-horizon tasks. They are NOT getting better at simulating human behavior. If anything, they drift the other way: more assistant-ish, more homogeneous, fewer of the errors and quirks real humans show. This is no accident. The whole pipeline is built for helpfulness and task success, not behavioral realism. And you can't prompt your way out of that. So we rethink the recipe from scratch and release: 🧠 The OdysSim corpus: 21.4M real human interactions (~10B tokens) from 62 sources, every conversation retrofitted with social grounding (who is talking, and why) 📏 SOUL-Index: 23 human-behavior benchmarks unified into one suite across 5 axes 🤖 OSim-8B: open weights; tops more SOUL-Index benchmarks than any frontier model, acts more like a real user than any of them on τ-bench (nearly matching real humans in the reaction dimension), and writes far more human-like text along the way.

Xuhui Zhou

141,893 次观看 • 2 个月前

𝗗𝗼𝗻'𝘁 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗲-𝘁𝘂𝗻𝗲 𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗼𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹𝘀. 𝗦𝘁𝗲𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗵𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗱, 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘆 Modern VLAs and world-action models can perform impressive manipulation skills, but adapting them reliably to new robots and tasks remains challenging. A natural solution is DAgger-style online imitation learning: deploy the robot, collect human corrections, and update the policy. Yet foundation models are fragile in the low-data regime, fine-tuning on a handful of interventions can improve one behavior while degrading others. Online post-training or reinforcement learning can require costly data collection and exploration, making real-world learning expensive and potentially unsafe. In our new paper, 𝗙𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗗𝗔𝗴𝗴𝗲𝗿, we take a different approach: 𝗜𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹, 𝘄𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝘁 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗵𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀. The key idea is 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻: we map human corrective actions back into the latent noise space of the frozen generative policy. These latent targets train a lightweight controller that adapts the robot while preserving the original model's capabilities. Across simulation and real robots, FlowDAgger: 📈 Learns from only 5–20 human intervention episodes 🏆 Outperforms supervised fine-tuning and latent-space reinforcement learning 🤖 Works across VLAs, diffusion policies, and world-action models ✔️ Provides reliable improvements without modifying the pretrained policy We believe this offers a practical path toward making robot foundation models improve during deployment, learning from the way humans naturally teach: through corrections. 📄 Paper: 🌐 Project: 💻 Code: This project was led by my amazing colleague Michael Murray with help from Daphne Chen, Simran Bagaria, Dean Fortier, Tess Hellebrekers, Harshavardhan Reddy Gajarla, Galen Mullins and Andrey Kolobov at Microsoft Research and Maya Cakmak at University of Washington

𝗗𝗼𝗻'𝘁 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗲-𝘁𝘂𝗻𝗲 𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗼𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹𝘀. 𝗦𝘁𝗲𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗵𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗱, 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘆 Modern VLAs and world-action models can perform impressive manipulation skills, but adapting them reliably to new robots and tasks remains challenging. A natural solution is DAgger-style online imitation learning: deploy the robot, collect human corrections, and update the policy. Yet foundation models are fragile in the low-data regime, fine-tuning on a handful of interventions can improve one behavior while degrading others. Online post-training or reinforcement learning can require costly data collection and exploration, making real-world learning expensive and potentially unsafe. In our new paper, 𝗙𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗗𝗔𝗴𝗴𝗲𝗿, we take a different approach: 𝗜𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹, 𝘄𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝘁 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗵𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀. The key idea is 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻: we map human corrective actions back into the latent noise space of the frozen generative policy. These latent targets train a lightweight controller that adapts the robot while preserving the original model's capabilities. Across simulation and real robots, FlowDAgger: 📈 Learns from only 5–20 human intervention episodes 🏆 Outperforms supervised fine-tuning and latent-space reinforcement learning 🤖 Works across VLAs, diffusion policies, and world-action models ✔️ Provides reliable improvements without modifying the pretrained policy We believe this offers a practical path toward making robot foundation models improve during deployment, learning from the way humans naturally teach: through corrections. 📄 Paper: 🌐 Project: 💻 Code: This project was led by my amazing colleague Michael Murray with help from Daphne Chen, Simran Bagaria, Dean Fortier, Tess Hellebrekers, Harshavardhan Reddy Gajarla, Galen Mullins and Andrey Kolobov at Microsoft Research and Maya Cakmak at University of Washington

Oier Mees

13,032 次观看 • 1 个月前

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:

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 次观看 • 1 个月前

$We all remember. We all remember when blockchain was pitched as the next big thing. And today, we feel like we’ve been waiting and waiting. Until recently, Blockchain was too expensive, slow under load, and hard to integrate for most businesses. So enterprises ignored it. It didn’t solve their business problems. That’s changed. Why blockchain, why now? Businesses don’t care about the tech, they care about cost and performance. They’d ask a simple question “Does it save or make me more money?” For a long time, blockchain didn’t clearly do this. That’s no longer true. Blockchain is proving real business cases, especially on Avalanche. On Avalanche, transactions cost fractions of a cent. settle in about a second. And instead of forcing everything onto one shared chain, businesses can launch their own Avalanche L1s with their own rules. To understand this let’s identify the problem and then provide the solution in a way that's easy to understand. Where Businesses Lose Money Most large industries lose money due to operational inefficiencies. Data lives in different systems. Teams spend hours reconciling records that should already match. Intermediaries sit in the middle, taking fees to coordinate all of it. Individually, each step looks small. Together, they create real cost: > Labor spent on manual processes > Capital locked up during settlement delays > Fees paid to intermediaries > Risk introduced by time gaps and mismatched data This is where businesses actually lose money. Not in big, obvious ways. In constant, compounding friction. Take Private Credit, for Example Private credit is loans held outside of traditional banks. It’s a multi-trillion dollar market, and much of it still runs on spreadsheets and weekly reconciliation processes. Loan data is tracked across systems. Teams manually process requests. Funds move on traditional rails, often on delayed cycles. It doesn’t have to be this way Entire teams exist just to keep systems in sync. Now move that system onto Avalanche. Loan data updates in real time. Transactions settle in about a second. Every participant sees the same state instantly. Reconciliation isn’t a separate step because the system itself is the source of truth. The impact is straightforward. > Reduced manual work > Shortened settlement cycles > Fewer layers of coordination between parties Avalanche is Infrastructure for Real Businesses Avalanche is designed to match how businesses actually operate. Instead of sharing a single chain, they can launch their own Avalanche L1s with custom rules, built-in compliance, and predictable performance. They control the system. Avalanche’s Moment For the longest time, blockchain naysayers said this could all be done better with spreadsheets or existing systems. They were right. That’s what the technology allowed. Now it’s changed. Avalanche can replace many of those systems with real-time settlement, shared data, and automated execution. For the first time, the economics work. Built for business. 🔺$

We all remember. We all remember when blockchain was pitched as the next big thing. And today, we feel like we’ve been waiting and waiting. Until recently, Blockchain was too expensive, slow under load, and hard to integrate for most businesses. So enterprises ignored it. It didn’t solve their business problems. That’s changed. Why blockchain, why now? Businesses don’t care about the tech, they care about cost and performance. They’d ask a simple question “Does it save or make me more money?” For a long time, blockchain didn’t clearly do this. That’s no longer true. Blockchain is proving real business cases, especially on Avalanche. On Avalanche, transactions cost fractions of a cent. settle in about a second. And instead of forcing everything onto one shared chain, businesses can launch their own Avalanche L1s with their own rules. To understand this let’s identify the problem and then provide the solution in a way that's easy to understand. Where Businesses Lose Money Most large industries lose money due to operational inefficiencies. Data lives in different systems. Teams spend hours reconciling records that should already match. Intermediaries sit in the middle, taking fees to coordinate all of it. Individually, each step looks small. Together, they create real cost: > Labor spent on manual processes > Capital locked up during settlement delays > Fees paid to intermediaries > Risk introduced by time gaps and mismatched data This is where businesses actually lose money. Not in big, obvious ways. In constant, compounding friction. Take Private Credit, for Example Private credit is loans held outside of traditional banks. It’s a multi-trillion dollar market, and much of it still runs on spreadsheets and weekly reconciliation processes. Loan data is tracked across systems. Teams manually process requests. Funds move on traditional rails, often on delayed cycles. It doesn’t have to be this way Entire teams exist just to keep systems in sync. Now move that system onto Avalanche. Loan data updates in real time. Transactions settle in about a second. Every participant sees the same state instantly. Reconciliation isn’t a separate step because the system itself is the source of truth. The impact is straightforward. > Reduced manual work > Shortened settlement cycles > Fewer layers of coordination between parties Avalanche is Infrastructure for Real Businesses Avalanche is designed to match how businesses actually operate. Instead of sharing a single chain, they can launch their own Avalanche L1s with custom rules, built-in compliance, and predictable performance. They control the system. Avalanche’s Moment For the longest time, blockchain naysayers said this could all be done better with spreadsheets or existing systems. They were right. That’s what the technology allowed. Now it’s changed. Avalanche can replace many of those systems with real-time settlement, shared data, and automated execution. For the first time, the economics work. Built for business. 🔺

Avalanche🔺

13,104 次观看 • 4 个月前

🚨 WHAT IF Your Entire Life… Is Just Code? In 2003, philosopher Nick Bostrom published a paper with a question so unsettling that it still echoes through science and philosophy today: What if our entire universe is actually a computer simulation? At first it sounds like science fiction. But the idea is surprisingly logical when you think about the direction technology is heading. Look at how far we have already come. Just a few decades ago, computers could barely display simple graphics. Today, video games create entire worlds filled with cities, forests, weather, and characters that react to our actions. Virtual reality can make our brains feel as if we are standing somewhere else entirely. Now imagine technology thousands—or even millions—of years in the future. A civilization that advanced might possess computers powerful enough to simulate entire planets… entire histories… even entire universes. Inside those simulations could exist conscious beings who believe their world is real. Beings just like us. Bostrom suggested something called “ancestor simulations.” The idea is simple but chilling. Advanced civilizations might run simulations of their past to study history or understand how their species evolved. These simulations would contain billions of simulated people living normal lives, completely unaware that their reality is artificial. If a single advanced civilization created thousands or millions of such simulations, then the number of simulated minds would become vastly greater than the number of real biological minds. And this leads to a disturbing possibility! Statistically speaking, a randomly existing mind would be far more likely to be inside a simulation than in the original reality. In other words… the odds might not be in our favor. Think about your daily life for a moment. The sky above you, the ground beneath your feet, every star in the night sky, every memory you have ever experienced—what if all of it is simply information being pro 🚨 What If Your Entire Life… Is Just Code? In 2003, philosopher Nick Bostrom published a paper with a question so unsettling that it still echoes through science and philosophy today: What if our entire universe is actually a computer simulation? At first it sounds like science fiction. But the idea is surprisingly logical when you think about the direction technology is heading. Look at how far we have already come. Just a few decades ago, computers could barely display simple graphics. Today, video games create entire worlds filled with cities, forests, weather, and characters that react to our actions. Virtual reality can make our brains feel as if we are standing somewhere else entirely. Now imagine technology thousands—or even millions—of years in the future. A civilization that advanced might possess computers powerful enough to simulate entire planets… entire histories… even entire universes. Inside those simulations could exist conscious beings who believe their world is real. Beings just like us. Bostrom suggested something called “ancestor simulations.” The idea is simple but chilling. Advanced civilizations might run simulations of their past to study history or understand how their species evolved. These simulations would contain billions of simulated people living normal lives, completely unaware that their reality is artificial. If a single advanced civilization created thousands or millions of such simulations, then the number of simulated minds would become vastly greater than the number of real biological minds.

🚨 WHAT IF Your Entire Life… Is Just Code? In 2003, philosopher Nick Bostrom published a paper with a question so unsettling that it still echoes through science and philosophy today: What if our entire universe is actually a computer simulation? At first it sounds like science fiction. But the idea is surprisingly logical when you think about the direction technology is heading. Look at how far we have already come. Just a few decades ago, computers could barely display simple graphics. Today, video games create entire worlds filled with cities, forests, weather, and characters that react to our actions. Virtual reality can make our brains feel as if we are standing somewhere else entirely. Now imagine technology thousands—or even millions—of years in the future. A civilization that advanced might possess computers powerful enough to simulate entire planets… entire histories… even entire universes. Inside those simulations could exist conscious beings who believe their world is real. Beings just like us. Bostrom suggested something called “ancestor simulations.” The idea is simple but chilling. Advanced civilizations might run simulations of their past to study history or understand how their species evolved. These simulations would contain billions of simulated people living normal lives, completely unaware that their reality is artificial. If a single advanced civilization created thousands or millions of such simulations, then the number of simulated minds would become vastly greater than the number of real biological minds. And this leads to a disturbing possibility! Statistically speaking, a randomly existing mind would be far more likely to be inside a simulation than in the original reality. In other words… the odds might not be in our favor. Think about your daily life for a moment. The sky above you, the ground beneath your feet, every star in the night sky, every memory you have ever experienced—what if all of it is simply information being pro 🚨 What If Your Entire Life… Is Just Code? In 2003, philosopher Nick Bostrom published a paper with a question so unsettling that it still echoes through science and philosophy today: What if our entire universe is actually a computer simulation? At first it sounds like science fiction. But the idea is surprisingly logical when you think about the direction technology is heading. Look at how far we have already come. Just a few decades ago, computers could barely display simple graphics. Today, video games create entire worlds filled with cities, forests, weather, and characters that react to our actions. Virtual reality can make our brains feel as if we are standing somewhere else entirely. Now imagine technology thousands—or even millions—of years in the future. A civilization that advanced might possess computers powerful enough to simulate entire planets… entire histories… even entire universes. Inside those simulations could exist conscious beings who believe their world is real. Beings just like us. Bostrom suggested something called “ancestor simulations.” The idea is simple but chilling. Advanced civilizations might run simulations of their past to study history or understand how their species evolved. These simulations would contain billions of simulated people living normal lives, completely unaware that their reality is artificial. If a single advanced civilization created thousands or millions of such simulations, then the number of simulated minds would become vastly greater than the number of real biological minds.

𝚃𝙷𝙴 𝚆𝙷𝙸𝚃𝙴 𝚁𝙰𝙱𝙱𝙸𝚃

11,833 次观看 • 2 个月前

You can't 3D reconstruct glass from images... ...WRONG! Thanks for video diffusion, now just about anything is possible! Introducing...Diffusion Knows Transparency (DKT) Transparent and reflective objects usually break robot vision and photogrammetry pipelines because they don't follow the "solid object" rules standard cameras expect. DKT is a new AI model that repurposes the "internal physics engine" found in video generation models to solve this problem. Researchers took a massive video diffusion model (WAN) and fine-tuned it using a custom-built synthetic dataset to turn it into a high-precision depth sensor. To train the AI, they built the first massive synthetic video library of transparent objects, 1.32 million frames of perfectly labeled glass and metal objects in motion. Without ever seeing a "real" labeled video of glass during training, the model (DKT) outperformed all previous specialized systems on real-world benchmarks (ClearPose, DREDS). They created a "lightweight" 1.3B parameter version that runs fast enough (0.17s per frame) to be used on actual robot hardware. Two reasons I find this project important: 1. It further proves that synthetic data will be essential for training the next generation vision models. 2. In real-world robotic tests, using DKT's depth maps nearly doubled the success rate of robot arms trying to pick up objects on tricky reflective or translucent surfaces. At home robots will need to interact with these types of objects on a daily basis. Check out the project page here: Code is LIVE! #Computervision #Robotics #AI

You can't 3D reconstruct glass from images... ...WRONG! Thanks for video diffusion, now just about anything is possible! Introducing...Diffusion Knows Transparency (DKT) Transparent and reflective objects usually break robot vision and photogrammetry pipelines because they don't follow the "solid object" rules standard cameras expect. DKT is a new AI model that repurposes the "internal physics engine" found in video generation models to solve this problem. Researchers took a massive video diffusion model (WAN) and fine-tuned it using a custom-built synthetic dataset to turn it into a high-precision depth sensor. To train the AI, they built the first massive synthetic video library of transparent objects, 1.32 million frames of perfectly labeled glass and metal objects in motion. Without ever seeing a "real" labeled video of glass during training, the model (DKT) outperformed all previous specialized systems on real-world benchmarks (ClearPose, DREDS). They created a "lightweight" 1.3B parameter version that runs fast enough (0.17s per frame) to be used on actual robot hardware. Two reasons I find this project important: 1. It further proves that synthetic data will be essential for training the next generation vision models. 2. In real-world robotic tests, using DKT's depth maps nearly doubled the success rate of robot arms trying to pick up objects on tricky reflective or translucent surfaces. At home robots will need to interact with these types of objects on a daily basis. Check out the project page here: Code is LIVE! #Computervision #Robotics #AI

Jonathan Stephens

17,712 次观看 • 7 个月前

It's 2030 and you are reviewing humanoid robots. A Tesla. A Google. An Apple. An OpenAI. A Meta. A Figure. And a bunch of Chinese-made ones. Which one is best, and why? I think the Tesla understands the world much better. Why? There were eight Teslas around me on the freeway today. Start there. No other robot company has that data. But my robot is parked at the local high school twice a day. Its cameras see humans in all of our weirdness. How we move. Where we go. Where we walk. Who we talk with. What you are wearing. Whether your hair was combed this morning. That data will lead to robotics breakthroughs. Apple might keep up with its Vision Pro data, but it is too freaked out by the privacy implications of using said data. (On the front are six cameras and a couple of TOF -- Time Of Flight -- sensors that can see everything in your home in great detail). Google has a lot of data, for sure. All my: 1. Email. 2. Calendars. 3. Photos. 4. TV watching behavior. 5. Contacts. 6. Documents and spreadsheets. 7. Files. 8. Location data. So I expect Google's robot will be attractive to many. But how do you see the others shake out over the next five years? Make some guesses. But remember what an AI pioneer told me years ago about AI: it's all about the data. The Chinese ones have huge advantages: the Chinese have more data on their citizens, and many more citizens to boot AND they can make robots cheaper than we can. But now that you know OpenAI is building its own robot you have caught wind of what I've heard from many in San Francisco and Silicon Valley: that humanoid robots are the real prize of AI and will be highly profitable for those that can make them and find customers willing to buy them. Here, too, I learned long ago never to bet against Elon Musk. Will you?

It's 2030 and you are reviewing humanoid robots. A Tesla. A Google. An Apple. An OpenAI. A Meta. A Figure. And a bunch of Chinese-made ones. Which one is best, and why? I think the Tesla understands the world much better. Why? There were eight Teslas around me on the freeway today. Start there. No other robot company has that data. But my robot is parked at the local high school twice a day. Its cameras see humans in all of our weirdness. How we move. Where we go. Where we walk. Who we talk with. What you are wearing. Whether your hair was combed this morning. That data will lead to robotics breakthroughs. Apple might keep up with its Vision Pro data, but it is too freaked out by the privacy implications of using said data. (On the front are six cameras and a couple of TOF -- Time Of Flight -- sensors that can see everything in your home in great detail). Google has a lot of data, for sure. All my: 1. Email. 2. Calendars. 3. Photos. 4. TV watching behavior. 5. Contacts. 6. Documents and spreadsheets. 7. Files. 8. Location data. So I expect Google's robot will be attractive to many. But how do you see the others shake out over the next five years? Make some guesses. But remember what an AI pioneer told me years ago about AI: it's all about the data. The Chinese ones have huge advantages: the Chinese have more data on their citizens, and many more citizens to boot AND they can make robots cheaper than we can. But now that you know OpenAI is building its own robot you have caught wind of what I've heard from many in San Francisco and Silicon Valley: that humanoid robots are the real prize of AI and will be highly profitable for those that can make them and find customers willing to buy them. Here, too, I learned long ago never to bet against Elon Musk. Will you?

Robert Scoble

33,804 次观看 • 1 年前

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.

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 次观看 • 1 个月前

LangGraph. CrewAI. Agno. Which one to pick? The good news is that this will not matter soon! Finally, we have a full picture of how the industry is solving this with just three open protocols that work across ALL frameworks. It's not about picking the best framework. Instead, it's about understanding how protocols create interoperability. The Agent Protocol Landscape shows how three complementary protocols are creating a universal language for Agents: > AG-UI (Agent-User Interaction): - The bi-directional connection between agentic backends and frontends. - This is how agents become truly interactive inside your apps, not just as chatbots, but collaborative co-workers. > MCP (Model Context Protocol): - The standard for how agents connect to tools, data, and workflows. > A2A (Agent-to-Agent): - The protocol for multi-agent coordination. - How agents delegate tasks and share intent across systems. These aren't competing standards. They're layers of the same stack and have handshakes with each other. So instead of building point-to-point integrations, you build to protocols. Moreover, you can integrate LangGraph, CrewAI, or Agno into the same frontend, without rewriting your UI logic. These protocols let everything work together. For instance: - Your LangGraph agent pulls data via MCP. - It delegates analysis to a CrewAI agent via A2A. - Results stream to your React app via AG-UI. - Users see real-time collaboration in your interface. This way, you can focus on building agent capabilities instead of integration mechanics. The protocols handle interoperability automatically. CopilotKit unifies this entire stack into one framework so you can build "Cursor for X" style apps without implementing each protocol from scratch. It gives you all three protocols, generative UI support, and production-ready infrastructure in one framework. I have shared this playbook in the replies! It breaks down handshakes, misconceptions, and real examples and shows exactly how to start building.

LangGraph. CrewAI. Agno. Which one to pick? The good news is that this will not matter soon! Finally, we have a full picture of how the industry is solving this with just three open protocols that work across ALL frameworks. It's not about picking the best framework. Instead, it's about understanding how protocols create interoperability. The Agent Protocol Landscape shows how three complementary protocols are creating a universal language for Agents: > AG-UI (Agent-User Interaction): - The bi-directional connection between agentic backends and frontends. - This is how agents become truly interactive inside your apps, not just as chatbots, but collaborative co-workers. > MCP (Model Context Protocol): - The standard for how agents connect to tools, data, and workflows. > A2A (Agent-to-Agent): - The protocol for multi-agent coordination. - How agents delegate tasks and share intent across systems. These aren't competing standards. They're layers of the same stack and have handshakes with each other. So instead of building point-to-point integrations, you build to protocols. Moreover, you can integrate LangGraph, CrewAI, or Agno into the same frontend, without rewriting your UI logic. These protocols let everything work together. For instance: - Your LangGraph agent pulls data via MCP. - It delegates analysis to a CrewAI agent via A2A. - Results stream to your React app via AG-UI. - Users see real-time collaboration in your interface. This way, you can focus on building agent capabilities instead of integration mechanics. The protocols handle interoperability automatically. CopilotKit unifies this entire stack into one framework so you can build "Cursor for X" style apps without implementing each protocol from scratch. It gives you all three protocols, generative UI support, and production-ready infrastructure in one framework. I have shared this playbook in the replies! It breaks down handshakes, misconceptions, and real examples and shows exactly how to start building.

Avi Chawla

30,762 次观看 • 9 个月前

In 2025, demand for blockchain applications with genuine real-world utility has collided with a technical barrier that leaves developers questioning what they can realistically build. Anyone building things like tokenized assets, supply chains, AI agents, or prediction markets still juggle a mess of middleware, and somehow end up spending more time stitching than innovating. How so? Every: - Bridges to move assets, - oracles to fetch data, - indexers to make that data searchable, - relayers and bots to keep everything on schedule— is necessary, but each layer also adds cost, latency, and new risks. The end result is an application that’s expensive to run, fragile under stress, and slower than the Web2 software it’s trying to replace. This is the problem Rialo says it wants to solve. Built by Subzero Labs and backed by $20 million from investors like Pantera Capital and Coinbase Ventures 🛡️, Rialo’s pitch is simple: instead of accepting the middleware tower as an unavoidable cost of doing business, compress it into the base chain itself. But Rialo doesn’t describe itself as another Layer 1, its very name, Rialo Isn’t a Layer One, makes that clear. The team frames it instead as a unified real-world network: a protocol rebuilt from the ground up with the assumption that external connectivity is not an afterthought but a core design principle. To understand what this means, consider how today’s dApps are typically assembled. A typical RWA dApp stack involves: - Oracle providers (Chainlink, Pyth, Band) for asset pricing and event settlement - Bridges (Wormhole, Multichain, custodians) for cross-chain asset movement - Indexers (The Graph, Aleph, Stacks API) for querying and preprocessing chain data - Schedulers/relayers for automated tasks and monitoring - Web2 integrations via cloud services, centralized APIs, and off-chain pipelines Each of these steps adds another vendor, another trust boundary, and another operational layer to monitor. By the time the application is live, it resembles a patchwork of loosely coupled services, each carrying its own risks. You don’t have to look far for proof: - Base went dark for 29-43 minutes in August 2025 when its sequencer misfired, freezing every DeFi app on it. - A few months earlier, an AWS outage rippled through Binance and KuCoin, stalling withdrawals because even “decentralized” systems leaned on centralized middleware. - When Infura has faltered, Ethereum dApps have gone offline in sync, not because Ethereum broke, but because the middleware holding it together did. What should feel like building an application instead feels like maintaining a fragile machine. Rialo architecture embeds the primitives that normally live in middleware directly into the protocol. Smart contracts on Rialo can: - be event-driven, able to respond not just to blockchain state changes but also to external events through built-in webhook and API triggers. - fetch data from the web natively, without relying on external oracles or relayers. - include privacy and identity management—KYC hooks and two-factor authentication, at the protocol level rather than as add-ons. - handle cross-chain communication without wrapped assets or third-party bridges. - run on a virtual machine that is compatible with ecosystems like Solana but extended with RISC-V to support modern programming concepts such as async/await and event loops. If these features work as intended, the implications are significant. Today, much of a team’s energy goes into building and maintaining infrastructure: fullnodes, indexers, monitoring scripts, oracle integrations, relayer logic, bridge infrastructure. Each requires engineering headcount and ongoing maintenance. With Rialo, much of this is absorbed by the protocol, freeing developers to concentrate on business logic. Projects can deliver production-grade dApps with smaller, leaner groups focused directly on product design and execution. Operational costs also shrink: indexing and oracle services can run into thousands of dollars a month; collapsing those into built-in functions reduces recurring expenses while simplifying onboarding for new developers. But folding middleware into the chain doesn’t erase complexity, it reshapes it. Some of the problems to be encountered include: - Scale and complexity: Rialo’s validators won’t just be securing transactions; they’ll also be securing APIs, cross-chain data, and scheduled triggers. Any failure in one subsystem could ripple across the entire network. - Performance vs. decentralization: Richer indexing, scheduling, and data ingress could make nodes heavier to run, narrowing who can realistically participate as a validator. That risks reducing the decentralization blockchains depend on for resilience. - Governance pressures: Disputes or failures involving real-world data feeds, external APIs, or cross-chain actions will arise more often, requiring not just technical fixes but robust social infrastructure, clear rules for voting, transparent arbitration, and mechanisms for community trust. Without them, Rialo risks re-centralizing decision-making around a handful of operators. Where, then, does this model make the most sense? That would be in sectors where external connectivity is indispensable and middleware bloat has consistently been a blocker: - Real-world assets: settling tokenized securities or commodities against off-chain events. - Supply chains: triggering a payment the moment a shipment clears customs, without relying on a third-party oracle. - Agent systems: AI agents interacting with real-world APIs and on-chain contracts simultaneously. - Real-time markets: prediction markets or insurance contracts that must resolve immediately against external data. For purely on-chain domains like DeFi primitives or NFTs, where composability matters more than external triggers, the advantages may be less pronounced. This shift is familiar to anyone who remembers the rise of Web2 platform services. Just as Heroku and Firebase abstracted away server maintenance so developers could focus on building products, Rialo is betting that a unified real-world network can let blockchain developers do the same. Adoption will ultimately depend on: - whether its protocol primitives mature quickly, - whether the ecosystem builds out SDKs and tooling that make them usable, - whether compliance features can adapt to changing regulations, - and whether governance proves resilient under adversarial conditions. The first applications will be the test case. If they show that Rialo can replace a fragile patchwork of middleware with a secure, auditable, and cost-effective base layer, it could set a new standard for real-world connectivity in blockchains. If not, it risks simply moving complexity from one part of the stack to another. But at a minimum, Rialo has forced the question: should real-world connectivity in blockchains continue to depend on layers of external vendors, or should it be built into the chain itself? That’s the question Rialo has put on the table — and it’s why I got interested in Rialo .

In 2025, demand for blockchain applications with genuine real-world utility has collided with a technical barrier that leaves developers questioning what they can realistically build. Anyone building things like tokenized assets, supply chains, AI agents, or prediction markets still juggle a mess of middleware, and somehow end up spending more time stitching than innovating. How so? Every: - Bridges to move assets, - oracles to fetch data, - indexers to make that data searchable, - relayers and bots to keep everything on schedule— is necessary, but each layer also adds cost, latency, and new risks. The end result is an application that’s expensive to run, fragile under stress, and slower than the Web2 software it’s trying to replace. This is the problem Rialo says it wants to solve. Built by Subzero Labs and backed by $20 million from investors like Pantera Capital and Coinbase Ventures 🛡️, Rialo’s pitch is simple: instead of accepting the middleware tower as an unavoidable cost of doing business, compress it into the base chain itself. But Rialo doesn’t describe itself as another Layer 1, its very name, Rialo Isn’t a Layer One, makes that clear. The team frames it instead as a unified real-world network: a protocol rebuilt from the ground up with the assumption that external connectivity is not an afterthought but a core design principle. To understand what this means, consider how today’s dApps are typically assembled. A typical RWA dApp stack involves: - Oracle providers (Chainlink, Pyth, Band) for asset pricing and event settlement - Bridges (Wormhole, Multichain, custodians) for cross-chain asset movement - Indexers (The Graph, Aleph, Stacks API) for querying and preprocessing chain data - Schedulers/relayers for automated tasks and monitoring - Web2 integrations via cloud services, centralized APIs, and off-chain pipelines Each of these steps adds another vendor, another trust boundary, and another operational layer to monitor. By the time the application is live, it resembles a patchwork of loosely coupled services, each carrying its own risks. You don’t have to look far for proof: - Base went dark for 29-43 minutes in August 2025 when its sequencer misfired, freezing every DeFi app on it. - A few months earlier, an AWS outage rippled through Binance and KuCoin, stalling withdrawals because even “decentralized” systems leaned on centralized middleware. - When Infura has faltered, Ethereum dApps have gone offline in sync, not because Ethereum broke, but because the middleware holding it together did. What should feel like building an application instead feels like maintaining a fragile machine. Rialo architecture embeds the primitives that normally live in middleware directly into the protocol. Smart contracts on Rialo can: - be event-driven, able to respond not just to blockchain state changes but also to external events through built-in webhook and API triggers. - fetch data from the web natively, without relying on external oracles or relayers. - include privacy and identity management—KYC hooks and two-factor authentication, at the protocol level rather than as add-ons. - handle cross-chain communication without wrapped assets or third-party bridges. - run on a virtual machine that is compatible with ecosystems like Solana but extended with RISC-V to support modern programming concepts such as async/await and event loops. If these features work as intended, the implications are significant. Today, much of a team’s energy goes into building and maintaining infrastructure: fullnodes, indexers, monitoring scripts, oracle integrations, relayer logic, bridge infrastructure. Each requires engineering headcount and ongoing maintenance. With Rialo, much of this is absorbed by the protocol, freeing developers to concentrate on business logic. Projects can deliver production-grade dApps with smaller, leaner groups focused directly on product design and execution. Operational costs also shrink: indexing and oracle services can run into thousands of dollars a month; collapsing those into built-in functions reduces recurring expenses while simplifying onboarding for new developers. But folding middleware into the chain doesn’t erase complexity, it reshapes it. Some of the problems to be encountered include: - Scale and complexity: Rialo’s validators won’t just be securing transactions; they’ll also be securing APIs, cross-chain data, and scheduled triggers. Any failure in one subsystem could ripple across the entire network. - Performance vs. decentralization: Richer indexing, scheduling, and data ingress could make nodes heavier to run, narrowing who can realistically participate as a validator. That risks reducing the decentralization blockchains depend on for resilience. - Governance pressures: Disputes or failures involving real-world data feeds, external APIs, or cross-chain actions will arise more often, requiring not just technical fixes but robust social infrastructure, clear rules for voting, transparent arbitration, and mechanisms for community trust. Without them, Rialo risks re-centralizing decision-making around a handful of operators. Where, then, does this model make the most sense? That would be in sectors where external connectivity is indispensable and middleware bloat has consistently been a blocker: - Real-world assets: settling tokenized securities or commodities against off-chain events. - Supply chains: triggering a payment the moment a shipment clears customs, without relying on a third-party oracle. - Agent systems: AI agents interacting with real-world APIs and on-chain contracts simultaneously. - Real-time markets: prediction markets or insurance contracts that must resolve immediately against external data. For purely on-chain domains like DeFi primitives or NFTs, where composability matters more than external triggers, the advantages may be less pronounced. This shift is familiar to anyone who remembers the rise of Web2 platform services. Just as Heroku and Firebase abstracted away server maintenance so developers could focus on building products, Rialo is betting that a unified real-world network can let blockchain developers do the same. Adoption will ultimately depend on: - whether its protocol primitives mature quickly, - whether the ecosystem builds out SDKs and tooling that make them usable, - whether compliance features can adapt to changing regulations, - and whether governance proves resilient under adversarial conditions. The first applications will be the test case. If they show that Rialo can replace a fragile patchwork of middleware with a secure, auditable, and cost-effective base layer, it could set a new standard for real-world connectivity in blockchains. If not, it risks simply moving complexity from one part of the stack to another. But at a minimum, Rialo has forced the question: should real-world connectivity in blockchains continue to depend on layers of external vendors, or should it be built into the chain itself? That’s the question Rialo has put on the table — and it’s why I got interested in Rialo .

Jen

12,178 次观看 • 10 个月前

Two weeks ago I fixed one of my teeth with algorithms I wrote a couple of years ago! I got hooked by 3D scanning when I started to work for a software shop in Zurich that was programming 3D computational geometry algorithms for denture scanning to produce crowns (and more). Back then, a typical reconstruction pipeline was like: scan the patient’s teeth using an intraoral scanner, reconstruct the surface mesh, design the restoration digitally, and finally mill the crown out of ceramic. We were working mostly with point clouds and meshes, but it wasn’t just math, it was craftsmanship translated into a digital process. Every micron mattered. You could literally see how a good algorithm meant a better fit in someone’s mouth. Gaussian Splatting isn’t about surface reconstruction, it’s about appearance reconstruction. It doesn’t care about explicit topology, it captures how light interacts with the scene. In a sense, it’s the opposite philosophy of the dental world: instead of modeling what the object is, it models how the object looks. 3D Gaussian Splatting enables applications like training self driving cars, teaching robots to understand their environment, creating virtual worlds, or monitoring real sites. It represents scenes as millions of small Gaussians rendered in real time without the need for meshes or textures. Coming from a world where precision geometry was everything, this shift felt natural. It’s still about reconstruction, but with a different goal: not manufacturing a perfect object, but reproducing how the world actually looks. Two weeks ago I got my first dental crown, made with the same software, reconstruction algorithms, and Swiss precision I once helped develop. I haven’t worked there in two years, but sitting in that chair and seeing the process from the other side was a proud moment. It reminded me why I love this field.

Two weeks ago I fixed one of my teeth with algorithms I wrote a couple of years ago! I got hooked by 3D scanning when I started to work for a software shop in Zurich that was programming 3D computational geometry algorithms for denture scanning to produce crowns (and more). Back then, a typical reconstruction pipeline was like: scan the patient’s teeth using an intraoral scanner, reconstruct the surface mesh, design the restoration digitally, and finally mill the crown out of ceramic. We were working mostly with point clouds and meshes, but it wasn’t just math, it was craftsmanship translated into a digital process. Every micron mattered. You could literally see how a good algorithm meant a better fit in someone’s mouth. Gaussian Splatting isn’t about surface reconstruction, it’s about appearance reconstruction. It doesn’t care about explicit topology, it captures how light interacts with the scene. In a sense, it’s the opposite philosophy of the dental world: instead of modeling what the object is, it models how the object looks. 3D Gaussian Splatting enables applications like training self driving cars, teaching robots to understand their environment, creating virtual worlds, or monitoring real sites. It represents scenes as millions of small Gaussians rendered in real time without the need for meshes or textures. Coming from a world where precision geometry was everything, this shift felt natural. It’s still about reconstruction, but with a different goal: not manufacturing a perfect object, but reproducing how the world actually looks. Two weeks ago I got my first dental crown, made with the same software, reconstruction algorithms, and Swiss precision I once helped develop. I haven’t worked there in two years, but sitting in that chair and seeing the process from the other side was a proud moment. It reminded me why I love this field.

MrNeRF

290,202 次观看 • 9 个月前

Thank you Gary Vaynerchuk for telling people the truth about natural flavors. It takes immense courage to take a stand about an ingredient found in almost every packaged food on the shelf. Especially with so many guilty parties in attendance at the biggest natural food show in the world, Expo West. Gary knows, because his wife Dr Mona Vand Vaynerchuck told him the truth. ⚠️ Natural flavors are made in a lab from hundreds of different substances that may not even resemble the flavor itself. Like using beaver anal gland to make something taste like vanilla. ⚠️ That flavor needs to be preserved and stabilized and has agents added to help it mix well into a product. ⚠️ They contain preservatives, emulsifiers, solvents and other additives (such as: sodium benzoate, glycerin, potassium sorbate, and propylene glycol). None of which are labeled. ⚠️These formulas are top secret, so you don’t know what you are really eating. ⚠️ They’re designed to taste better than real food, meticulously engineered to get you hooked! ⚠️ They allow food companies to use less real food and trick consumers into thinking they are getting nutrition that isn’t there. This is why you can’t call your product “clean” while it’s filled with flavors designed in a lab to trick our taste buds. Check every product you eat and avoid those with Natural Flavors. This is how we will change the marketplace together and get these flavors out of our food!

Thank you Gary Vaynerchuk for telling people the truth about natural flavors. It takes immense courage to take a stand about an ingredient found in almost every packaged food on the shelf. Especially with so many guilty parties in attendance at the biggest natural food show in the world, Expo West. Gary knows, because his wife Dr Mona Vand Vaynerchuck told him the truth. ⚠️ Natural flavors are made in a lab from hundreds of different substances that may not even resemble the flavor itself. Like using beaver anal gland to make something taste like vanilla. ⚠️ That flavor needs to be preserved and stabilized and has agents added to help it mix well into a product. ⚠️ They contain preservatives, emulsifiers, solvents and other additives (such as: sodium benzoate, glycerin, potassium sorbate, and propylene glycol). None of which are labeled. ⚠️These formulas are top secret, so you don’t know what you are really eating. ⚠️ They’re designed to taste better than real food, meticulously engineered to get you hooked! ⚠️ They allow food companies to use less real food and trick consumers into thinking they are getting nutrition that isn’t there. This is why you can’t call your product “clean” while it’s filled with flavors designed in a lab to trick our taste buds. Check every product you eat and avoid those with Natural Flavors. This is how we will change the marketplace together and get these flavors out of our food!

Vani Hari

14,630 次观看 • 5 个月前

This week is already so hot. 🔥 Massive release from Decart : Lucy 2.0 a World Editing Model running at 1080p, 30FPS in realtime. This is truly exciting, the era of real-time generative reality is here. We are moving from watching AI video to living inside AI video. A breakthrough model capable of transforming the visual world in real-time. Moving beyond offline rendering, Lucy 2.0 delivers high-fidelity 1080p video generation with near-zero latency. Lucy 2.0 literally "redraws" the entire world pixel-by-pixel, while you are watching it. e.g. If you want to be an anime character, it doesn't just put a mask on you. It turns your skin into anime skin, your hair into anime hair, and the lighting in your room into anime lighting. Lucy 2.0 is also trained to stop the generated video from slowly falling apart over time, so the same stream can run much longer without faces and details drifting. So why is this a "Massive Deal"? Traditional AI video-generation model takes a prompt, you wait 10–20 minutes, and the computer "bakes" a video for you. You couldn't touch it or change it while it was happening. But Lucy 2.0 works like a mirror. It happens in real-time (30 frames per second). There is no waiting. You move your hand, the AI character moves its hand instantly. The craziest part isn't the visuals; it's the physics. Usually, AI hallucinations are glitchy—hands merge into faces, walls melt. Lucy 2.0 understands how the world works without being told. It knows that if you take off a helmet, there is hair underneath. It knows that if you splash water, droplets fly. It learned "physics" just by watching millions of videos. The physical behavior you see emerges from learned visual dynamics, not from engineered geometry or explicit physics engines. Their official technical report explicitly states that the model does not use traditional 3D engines, depth maps, or wireframes. It is a "pure diffusion model."

This week is already so hot. 🔥 Massive release from Decart : Lucy 2.0 a World Editing Model running at 1080p, 30FPS in realtime. This is truly exciting, the era of real-time generative reality is here. We are moving from watching AI video to living inside AI video. A breakthrough model capable of transforming the visual world in real-time. Moving beyond offline rendering, Lucy 2.0 delivers high-fidelity 1080p video generation with near-zero latency. Lucy 2.0 literally "redraws" the entire world pixel-by-pixel, while you are watching it. e.g. If you want to be an anime character, it doesn't just put a mask on you. It turns your skin into anime skin, your hair into anime hair, and the lighting in your room into anime lighting. Lucy 2.0 is also trained to stop the generated video from slowly falling apart over time, so the same stream can run much longer without faces and details drifting. So why is this a "Massive Deal"? Traditional AI video-generation model takes a prompt, you wait 10–20 minutes, and the computer "bakes" a video for you. You couldn't touch it or change it while it was happening. But Lucy 2.0 works like a mirror. It happens in real-time (30 frames per second). There is no waiting. You move your hand, the AI character moves its hand instantly. The craziest part isn't the visuals; it's the physics. Usually, AI hallucinations are glitchy—hands merge into faces, walls melt. Lucy 2.0 understands how the world works without being told. It knows that if you take off a helmet, there is hair underneath. It knows that if you splash water, droplets fly. It learned "physics" just by watching millions of videos. The physical behavior you see emerges from learned visual dynamics, not from engineered geometry or explicit physics engines. Their official technical report explicitly states that the model does not use traditional 3D engines, depth maps, or wireframes. It is a "pure diffusion model."

Rohan Paul

12,761 次观看 • 6 个月前

The ATG School One-Pager I’m not trying to reinvent schooling. There are just a handful of things I believe in which I haven’t seen in any school I’ve been around as a student or parent. Policy #1: Each student gets to be responsible for growing some of their own food, no matter how small, and THROUGHOUT schooling (not just a quickie project here or there). Policy #2: Minimum 1:1 ratio of time NOT SITTING IN THE CLASSROOM. What you do with this is up to you. There are so many real world skills, sports, gardening, music, etc. The strict ratio in the school day is the key for me. Common sense and personal interests can take it from there. Policy #3: Daily time to read whatever you want to read about. The biggest barrier for my reading was INTEREST. Be there to ensure the book is at their level, and to help them if they don’t understand something. Other than that, LET THEM ENJOY READING, ALL THE WAY THROUGH SCHOOL, not just in early years. Policy #4: (This is the most unusual yet the biggest reason I’m in education.) High school is a 50/50 bridge to winning in real life. Mornings are for actual work, making and SAVING UP MONEY. Afternoons are for learning finances and professional skills of YOUR INTEREST. With average work, you’ll finish school with $50,000-$100,000 in the bank, more skills than the norm, and a greater chance of creating your life and work from there on out, rather than conforming to make a paycheck. Policy #5: As part of the high school 50/50 system, ensure each student learns the adult financial red tape in your state/country before you’ve got bills, kids, etc.

The ATG School One-Pager I’m not trying to reinvent schooling. There are just a handful of things I believe in which I haven’t seen in any school I’ve been around as a student or parent. Policy #1: Each student gets to be responsible for growing some of their own food, no matter how small, and THROUGHOUT schooling (not just a quickie project here or there). Policy #2: Minimum 1:1 ratio of time NOT SITTING IN THE CLASSROOM. What you do with this is up to you. There are so many real world skills, sports, gardening, music, etc. The strict ratio in the school day is the key for me. Common sense and personal interests can take it from there. Policy #3: Daily time to read whatever you want to read about. The biggest barrier for my reading was INTEREST. Be there to ensure the book is at their level, and to help them if they don’t understand something. Other than that, LET THEM ENJOY READING, ALL THE WAY THROUGH SCHOOL, not just in early years. Policy #4: (This is the most unusual yet the biggest reason I’m in education.) High school is a 50/50 bridge to winning in real life. Mornings are for actual work, making and SAVING UP MONEY. Afternoons are for learning finances and professional skills of YOUR INTEREST. With average work, you’ll finish school with $50,000-$100,000 in the bank, more skills than the norm, and a greater chance of creating your life and work from there on out, rather than conforming to make a paycheck. Policy #5: As part of the high school 50/50 system, ensure each student learns the adult financial red tape in your state/country before you’ve got bills, kids, etc.

KneeOverToesGuy

31,525 次观看 • 4 个月前