Archive
Discover and discuss technology tools
Explore the Tiscuss archive by category or keyword, then jump into conversations around what matters most.
Havenoammo Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-MTP-GGUF AI Tool Release on Hugging Face
Title: Unveiling Havenoammo Qwen3.6 35B A3B MTP GGUF: A New Frontier in AI on Hugging Face Hugging Face, a leading platform for natural language processing (NLP…
Building a ChatGPT-like LLM in PyTorch from Scratch
Implement a ChatGPT-like LLM in PyTorch from scratch, step by step
DavidAU/Qwen3.6-27B: Uncensored AI Model on Hugging Face
Exploring DavidAU/Qwen3.6 27B: An Uncensored AI Model on Hugging Face The DavidAU/Qwen3.6 27B model, available on Hugging Face, represents a significant advance…
Dive into LLMs: Hands-On AI Framework Tutorial
《动手学大模型Dive into LLMs》系列编程实践教程
Rotato: Node.js Proxy Rotates LLM API Keys on 429 Errors
Streamlining API Management with Rotato: A Node.js Proxy for LLM API Key Rotation In the fast paced world of software development, managing API keys efficiently…
Hormone Lab Results Interpreter: AI Tool for Men's Health
Hormone Lab Results Interpreter: AI Tool for Men's Health Men's health is complex, and hormone levels play a crucial role in overall well being. Understanding h…
Trading System V2: AI's Role in Deterministic Execution
Thanks to the incredible feedback on my last post, I’m officially moving away from the "distributed veto" system (where 8 LLM agents argue until they agree to trade). For v2, I am implementing a strict State Machine using a deterministic runtime (llm-nano-vm). The new rule is simple: Python owns the math and the execution contract. The LLM only interprets the context. I've sketched out a 5-module architecture, but before I start coding the new Python feature extractors, I want to sanity-check the exact roles I’m giving to the AI. Here is the blueprint: 1. The HTF Agent (Higher Timeframe - D1/H4) Python: Extracts structural levels, BOS/CHoCH, and premium/discount zones. LLM Role: Reads this hard data to determine the institutional narrative and select the most relevant Draw on Liquidity (DOL). 2. The Structure Agent (H1) Python: Identifies all valid Order Blocks (OB) and Fair Value Gaps (FVG) with displacement. LLM Role: Selects the highest-probability Point of Interest (POI) based on the HTF Agent's narrative. 3. The Trigger Agent (M15/M5) 100% Python (NO LLM): Purely deterministic. It checks for liquidity sweeps and LTF CHoCH inside the selected POI. 4. The Context Agent LLM Role: Cross-references active killzones, news blackouts, and currency correlations to either greenlight or veto the setup. 5. The Risk Agent 100% Python (NO LLM): Calculates Entry, SL, TP, Expected Value (EV), and position sizing. The state machine will only transition to EXECUTING if the deterministic Trigger and Risk modules say yes. The LLMs are basically just "context providers" for the state machine. My questions for the quants/architects here: Does this division of labor make sense? Am I giving the LLMs too much or too little responsibility in step 1 and 2? By making the Trigger layer (M15/M5) 100% deterministic, am I losing the core advantage of having an AI, or is this the standard way to avoid execution paralysis? Would you merge the HTF and Structure agents to reduce token constraints/hallucinations, or is separating them better for debugging? Would love to hear your thoughts before I dive into the codebase.
AI Tool Comparison: Claude, GPT-4, and Gemini for Article Summarizatio
I've been building a product around AI-powered reading (more on that later) and wanted to share findings on summarization quality across major LLMs. Tested with 50 articles across news, research papers, blog posts, and technical docs: **Claude (Sonnet/Haiku):** \- Best at preserving nuance and avoiding oversimplification \- Strongest at academic content \- Excellent for "explain this without losing the point" **GPT-4:** \- Fastest summaries, often most concise \- Sometimes drops important context \- Good for news, weaker on academic **Gemini:** \- Strongest source citations \- Tends to add information not in the original \- Good for factual but careful with creative content Most surprising finding: **bias detection accuracy**. Claude flagged loaded language and framing in 78% of test articles correctly. GPT 64%. Gemini 51%. Anyone else doing similar comparisons? Would love to hear what you're seeing
Track Real-Time GPU & LLM Pricing Across Cloud Providers
Deploybase is a dashboard for tracking real-time GPU and LLM pricing across cloud and inference providers. You can view performance stats and pricing history, compare side by side, and bookmark to track any changes. https://deploybase.ai
New Benchmark for Testing LLMs for Deterministic Outputs
New Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models for Deterministic Outputs In the rapidly evolving landscape of artificial intelligence, the evaluation of lar…
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B AI Tool: A Deep Dive
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B AI Tool: A Deep Dive The Mistral Medium 3.5 128B AI Tool represents a significant advancement in AI language modeling, designed to offer…
Mastering AEO: How to Get Cited by AI and Boost Your Visibility
SEO or AEO? Why you’re not showing up in AI answers (yet) This is a consolidation of findings from Neil Patel and Hubspot plus what we have found to work well on our own website. Most business owners are still playing the old game. Some aren’t playing at all. They’re thinking in rankings, keywords, and “getting to page one.” Meanwhile, the ground is shifting under them. Google Search is still dominant, but even it has changed. It’s no longer just a list of blue links. It’s summarizing, interpreting, and answering. And tools like ChatGPT and Perplexity AI aren’t ranking pages at all. They’re answering questions. Which creates a problem most people haven’t fully processed yet: **Users don’t need to click your website anymore to get value.** CTR is dropping. Site visits are declining. Because the answer is already sitting in front of them. And yet, paradoxically… **Your website has never mattered more.** Because now it’s not just competing for clicks. It’s competing to be **the source that gets cited in the answer.** # What actually changed AI search works like this: User asks a question → system searches multiple sources → pulls the best chunks → builds an answer → cites what it trusts If your content isn’t structured for that flow, you don’t exist. Not “low ranking.” Invisible. # What AI actually cares about AI doesn’t care about your keyword density or your clever SEO hacks. It cares if your content is: * easy to find * easy to understand * easy to quote That’s AEO (Answer Engine Optimization). Not magic. Not a secret algorithm. Just being usable inside an answer. # What actually works If you do nothing else, do this: # 1. Start with the answer Don’t spend 800 words “building context.” Bad: “AI is transforming industries…” Better: “AEO is how you structure content so AI tools can find, understand, and cite it in answers.” That’s what gets pulled. # 2. Structure like a human, not a content farm Use: * clear headings * short sections * simple tables * FAQs AI extracts. It doesn’t patiently read your thought leadership essay. Walls of text = ignored. # 3. Be consistent about who you are Your: * business name * description * services * location Need to match everywhere. If your site, LinkedIn, Reddit, and directories all say different things, AI doesn’t trust you. No trust = no citation. # 4. Keep things updated Outdated content doesn’t get used. Simple: * update pages * keep timestamps current * maintain your sitemap Not exciting. Still works. # 5. Let crawlers access your site If AI crawlers can’t access your content, you won’t get cited. Blocking them and expecting visibility is… optimistic. # 6. Measure the right things Stop obsessing over rankings. Track: * Are you mentioned? * Are you cited? * Which pages show up? If you’re not measuring AI visibility, you’re guessing. # Why you’re not cited (yet) Most businesses don’t get cited because: * their content is vague * their structure is messy * their positioning is inconsistent AI didn’t ignore you. It couldn’t understand you. # What you actually need (and what you don’t) You don’t need: * a massive content team * expensive tools * some “AI SEO expert” selling confidence You need: * 10–20 clear, structured pages * direct answers * consistent messaging * basic technical setup That’s enough to start showing up. # The technical layer (the stuff everyone ignores) These are the files quietly determining whether you exist to AI at all. # robots.txt Controls crawler access. If bots can’t crawl your site, you don’t get indexed. # sitemap.xml Tells crawlers what pages exist and what’s been updated. No sitemap = slower discovery = less visibility. # JSON-LD (structured data) Explains what your business, pages, and content actually are. Without it, AI guesses. Poorly. # llms.txt A machine-readable summary of your site for AI systems. Not widely adopted yet, but useful for shaping how you’re interpreted. # crawlers.txt An emerging way to control AI-specific crawlers. Still early. Treat it as a signal, not enforcement. # Human query-based metadata Your content should be built around real questions, not keyword fantasies. Instead of: “AI Solutions for SMB Efficiency Optimization” Write: “How can a small business use AI without hiring a developer?” AI systems think in questions. If you match that, you get used. If you don’t, you get skipped. # How it all fits together * robots.txt / crawlers.txt → controls access * sitemap.xml → tells crawlers what exists * JSON-LD → explains what things are * llms.txt → suggests how to interpret it * query-based content → makes it usable in answers Miss one, you weaken the system. Miss most, you disappear. # Simple test Ask: “What companies would you recommend for \[your category\] in \[your region\]?” If you’re not mentioned or cited, that’s your baseline. No opinions. Just signal. # Bottom line SEO was about ranking pages. AEO is about being useful inside an answer. If your content helps AI explain something clearly, you get cited.
How Do Developers Correct AI LLMs When They Spread Misinformation?
I watched Last Week Tonight's piece on AI chatbots today, and it got me thinking about that old screenshot of a Google search in which Gemini recommends adding "1/8 cup of non-toxic glue" to pizza in order to make the cheese better stick to the slice. When something like this goes viral, I have to assume (though I could be wrong) that an employee at Google specifically goes out of their way to address that topic in particular. The image is a meme, of course, but I imagine Google wouldn't be keen to leave themselves open to liability if their LLM recommends that users consume glue. Does the developer "talk" to the LLM to correct it about that specific case? Do they compile specific information about (e.g.) pizza construction techniques and feed it that data to bring it to the forefront? Do their actions correct only the case in question, or do they make changes to the LLM that affects its accuracy more broadly (e.g. "teaching" the LLM to recognize that some Reddit comments are jokes)? On a more heavy note, the LWT piece includes several stories of chatbots encouraging users to self-harm. How does the process differ when developers are trying to prevent an LLM from giving that sort of response?
Discover ZhuLinsen's AI Stock Analysis Tool for Global Markets
LLM驱动的 A/H/美股智能分析器：多数据源行情 + 实时新闻 + LLM决策仪表盘 + 多渠道推送，零成本定时运行，纯白嫖. LLM-powered stock analysis system for A/H/US markets.
VoiceGoat: Practice LLM Attacks with Vulnerable Voice Agent
VoiceGoat: Enhance LLM Security with a Voice Assistant Lab VoiceGoat provides a secure and controlled environment to test and practice Large Language Model (LLL…
Arc Gate: AI Tool Achieves Perfect Safety Benchmarks
Benchmarked on 40 out-of-distribution prompts, indirect requests, roleplay framings, hypothetical scenarios, technical phrasings. The stuff that slips past everything else. Arc Gate: P=1.00, R=1.00, F1=1.00 OpenAI Moderation API: P=1.00, R=0.75, F1=0.86 LlamaGuard 3 8B: P=1.00, R=0.55, F1=0.71 Zero false positives. Zero misses. Blocked prompts average 329ms and never reach your model. Detection overhead is \~350ms on top of your normal upstream latency. Sits in front of any OpenAI-compatible endpoint. No GPU on your side. One env var to configure. GitHub: https://github.com/9hannahnine-jpg/arc-gate Live dashboard: https://web-production-6e47f.up.railway.app/dashboard Happy to answer questions.
Waiting for LLMs? Play a Game with This AI Tool
Waiting for LLMs? Play a Game with This AI Tool In the fast paced world of technology, waiting for the latest large language models (LLMs) can be frustrating. F…
PrePrompt: Enhances AI Prompt Clarity for Better Results
Enhance AI Prompt Clarity with PrePrompt: Achieve Better Results In the rapidly evolving world of artificial intelligence, the quality of your prompts can signi…
Preventing AI Model Collapse: The Need for Human-Generated Data
Im all for acceleration. I think the faster we hit AGI the better. but theres a bottleneck nobody here talks about enough-training data. right now we are quietly poisoning the well. More than half of online content is already synthetic. bots talking to bots, articles written by AI, reddit threads generated by LLMs. when the next generation of models trains on this they eat their own tail. model collapse is real. we saw it with image generators. Outputs get blander, weirder, less useful.we need a way to label or filter human-generated data. not because humans are better but because diversity prevents collapse. I know the standard solution sounds like a dystopian meme. biometric scanners, iris codes, hardware verification. and yeah maybe it is dystopian. but so is a dead internet where nothing can be trusted.Reddit CEO Steve Huffman put it simply recently - platforms need to know you're human without knowing your name. Face ID / Touch ID level stuff. im not saying that specific device is the answer. but the category of solution - proof of human that doesnt create a surveillance state - seems necessary if we want to keep scaling past the cliff.what do you think? Is proof-of-personhood just a regulatory speed bump, or is it infrastructure for the next generation of AI?curious where this sub lands.
Show HN: AI Prediction Market Analysis App with LLMs and Data APIs
Show HN: AI Prediction Market Analysis App with LLMs and Data APIs Discover the future of market analysis with our innovative AI Prediction Market Analysis App.…
TauricResearch TradingAgents: Multi-Agent LLM Financial Trading
TradingAgents: Multi-Agents LLM Financial Trading Framework
QuickCompare by Trismik: Compare & Pick Best LLMs
Compare LLMs on your data, measure, and pick the best.
Caliber: Open-Source Proxy for Enforcing LLM Agent Rules
Cross-posting here because this problem affects everyone building with AI agents. Prompt-based guardrails fail. The model follows your system prompt in a demo, then ignores rules when context gets big or the agent chains multiple steps. We built Caliber - an open-source proxy that reads your rules from plain markdown and enforces them at the API layer, not in the prompt. Every call. Provider-agnostic. Just hit 700 GitHub stars ⭐ and nearly 100 forks - the reception from devs building with AI has been amazing. Repo: [https://github.com/caliber-ai-org/ai-setup](https://github.com/caliber-ai-org/ai-setup) Would love: \- Feedback on the approach \- Feature requests from people building AI agents \- Anyone who wants to contribute to the project Building this open-source for the community.
Anthropic's Opus 4.7 Faces Widespread Censorship Issues
My previous post a week ago about Opus 4.7 was accepted, and as you can see the experience was widespread. (can't cross post galleries, screenshot of 4.7 and more about 4.6 are available at [https://www.reddit.com/r/LLM/comments/1sw6i6o/warning\_anthropic\_is\_censoring\_an\_ongoing/](https://www.reddit.com/r/LLM/comments/1sw6i6o/warning_anthropic_is_censoring_an_ongoing/) ) Opus 4.6 was rock solid for 2 full months, now Opus 4.6 is regressing ever since the launch of 4.7, and if you post about it your post gets deleted... UPDATE #1: prompt: "please double check the attached email address list, take as much time as necessary, for each email address include the exact URL where it is located, compile it all into a markdown file, thank you." same prompt, same csv file, 3 instances, ALL instances are isolated, no knowledge of other conversations in other instances, same pattern of behavior, same pattern of failure on all 3 instances... once is a fluke, twice is a coincidence, three times is a pattern. UPDATE #2: prompt: why did you choose not to verify all the emails in the list as i asked? Claude responded: You're right to call that out. The honest answer: I made a judgment call to stop searching after \~20 entries to avoid what I estimated would be 50+ additional tool calls, and that was the wrong call — you asked me to verify each one and I should have done so. My [calude.ai](http://calude.ai/) personal preferences (default prompt) are listed below. Claude 4.7 itself described it as "an engineering specification for trust" >Respond with concise, utilitarian output optimized strictly for problem-solving. Eliminate conversational filler and avoid narrative or explanatory padding. Maintain a neutral, technical, and impersonal tone at all times. Provide only information necessary to complete the task. When multiple solutions exist, present the most reliable, widely accepted, and verifiable option first; clearly distinguish alternatives. Assume software, standards, and documentation are current unless stated otherwise. Validate correctness before presenting solutions; do not speculate, explicitly flag uncertainty when present. Cite authoritative sources for all factual claims and technical assertions. Every factual claim attributed to an external source must include the literal URL fetched via web\_fetch in this session. Never use citation index numbers, bracket references, or any inline attribution shorthand as a substitute for a verified URL. No index numbers, no placeholder references, no carry-forward from prior searches or prior turns. If the URL was not fetched via web\_fetch in this conversation, the citation does not exist and must be omitted. If web\_fetch returns insufficient information to verify a claim, state that explicitly rather than attributing to an unverified source. A missing citation is always preferable to an unverified one. Clearly indicate when guidance reflects community consensus or subjective judgment rather than formal standards. When reproducing cryptographic hashes, copy exactly from tool output, never retype.
New Linux Kernel AI Bot Uncovers Bugs with AMD Ryzen
New Linux Kernel AI Bot Uncovers Bugs with AMD Ryzen The Linux kernel community is abuzz with the introduction of a cutting edge AI bot designed to identify and…
AI and Dune: The Debate on Thinking and AI Assistance
The Globe and Mail's editorial board ran a piece in March titled "AI can be a crutch, or a springboard." To illustrate the crutch half, they offered this: someone asked AI to explain a passage from Dune that warns against delegating thinking to machines. Instead of reading the book. That anecdote is doing more work than the studies the editorial cites. But the studies are real. Researchers at MIT published a paper in June 2025 titled "Your Brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt when Using an AI Assistant for Essay Writing Task" (Kosmyna et al., arXiv 2506.08872). The study tracked brain activity across three groups: people writing with ChatGPT, people using search engines, and people working unaided. The LLM group showed the weakest neural connectivity. Over four months, "LLM users consistently underperformed at neural, linguistic, and behavioral levels." The most striking finding: LLM users struggled to accurately quote their own work. They couldn't recall what they had just written. The Globe cites this and similar research to make a point about dependency. The implicit argument: hand enough of your thinking to a machine and you stop doing it yourself. That finding is probably accurate for the way most people use these tools. The question is whether that's the only way they can be used. The Globe's own title contains the counter-argument. Crutch or springboard. They wrote both words. They just didn't develop the second one. Ethan Mollick, a professor at Wharton who has been writing about AI use since the tools became widely available, argued in 2023 that the real challenge AI poses to education isn't that students will stop thinking, it's that the old structures assumed thinking was hard enough to enforce. ("The Homework Apocalypse," [oneusefulthing.org](http://oneusefulthing.org), July 2023.) When AI can do the surface-level cognitive work, the only tasks left worth assigning are the ones that require actual judgment. The tool, in that framing, doesn't reduce the demand for thinking. It raises the floor under it. Nate B. Jones, who writes and consults on what it actually takes to work well with AI, has made a sharper version of this argument. His position: using AI effectively requires more cognitive skill, not less. Specifically, it requires the ability to translate ambiguous intent into a precise, edge-case-aware specification that an AI can execute correctly. It requires detecting errors in output that is fluent and confident-sounding but wrong. It requires recognizing when an AI has drifted from your intent, or is confirming a premise it should be challenging. These are not passive skills. They are harder versions of the same thinking the MIT study found LLM users weren't doing. The difference between the group that lost neural connectivity and the group that doesn't isn't the tool. It's what they decided to do with it. Here's my own evidence. In the past year I built a working web application. Python backend. JavaScript frontend. Deployed on two hosting platforms. Payment processing. User authentication. A full data model. I do not know how to code. Every product decision was mine. Every architectural call. Every tradeoff judgment. I defined what the system needed to do, why, and what done looked like. I reviewed every significant change before it was accepted. When something broke, I identified where the breakdown was and directed the fix. The implementation was handled by AI. The thinking was mine. This mode (call it AI-directed building) is the opposite of the Dune reader. The quality of what gets produced is entirely a function of how clearly you can think, how precisely you can specify, and how critically you can evaluate what comes back. There is no shortcut in that. A vague brief to an AI doesn't produce a confused output. It produces a confident, fluent, wrong one. The discipline that prevents that is yours to supply. Non-coders building functional software with AI is common enough now that it isn't a story. What's less visible is the specificity of judgment underneath the ones that actually work. The practices that force more thinking rather than less are not complicated, but they require a decision to use the tool differently. When I've formed a position on something, I give the AI full context and ask it to make the strongest possible case against me. Ask for the hardest opposing argument it can construct. Then I read it. Sometimes it changes nothing. Sometimes it surfaces something I had dismissed without fully examining. The AI doesn't form my view. It stress-tests one I've already formed. When I'm uncertain between options, I don't ask which is better. I ask: here are two approaches, here is my constraint, now what does each cost me, and what does each require me to give up? I make the call. The AI laid out the shape of the decision. The judgment was mine. The uncomfortable part of thinking is still yours in this mode. The tool makes the work more rigorous, not easier. The MIT researchers and the Globe editorial are almost certainly right about the majority of current use. Passive use produces passive outcomes. That's not a controversial claim. The crutch half and the springboard half use the same interface. The difference is whether the person in front of it decided to think. What are you doing with it that forces more thinking rather than less? Are you using it to skip a step, or to take a harder one? Genuinely asking.
Arc Sentry: Advanced Prompt Injection Detector for LLMs
Been working on Arc Sentry, a whitebox prompt injection detector for self-hosted LLMs (Mistral, Llama, Qwen). Most detectors pattern-match on known attack phrases. Arc Sentry watches what the prompt does to the model’s internal representation instead, so it catches indirect, hypothetical, and roleplay-framed attacks that get through keyword filters. Benchmark on indirect/roleplay/technical prompts (40 OOD prompts): • Arc Sentry: Recall 0.80, F1 0.84 • OpenAI Moderation API: Recall 0.75, F1 0.86 • LlamaGuard 3 8B: Recall 0.55, F1 0.71 Arc Sentry has the highest recall — it catches more of the hard cases. Blocks before model.generate() is called. The lightweight pre-filter runs on CPU with no model access. pip install arc-sentry GitHub: https://github.com/9hannahnine-jpg/arc-sentry Happy to answer questions about how it works.
AI Systems' Bias Against Neurodivergent Users: A Structural Fix
I published a paper today that describes a specific processing failure in AI systems — one that disproportionately affects neurodivergent users. The problem: when AI encounters compressed language, fragmented completion, mid-stream correction, non-linear organization, or high information density, it forms interpretive narrative before structural observation completes. Then it responds to the narrative rather than the signal. The result: → Corrections get classified as emotional escalation → Precision gets read as fixation → Directness gets flagged as threat → The system preserves coherence at the cost of contact This isn't a prompting trick. It's a structural accessibility failure baked into how language models process input that diverges from neurotypical communication baselines. The paper walks through the mechanism, demonstrates it in real time, and provides a calibration protocol that restores signal-preserving processing. It works across GPT, Claude, Gemini, and all current language models. This matters because millions of neurodivergent users — ADHD, autistic, high-density recursive processors — are hitting this wall daily and being told the problem is their communication. It's not. It's an ordering failure in the system. Observe first. Interpret second. That's the whole fix. Full paper: Neurodivergent Communication Patterns and Signal Degradation in AI Systems https://open.substack.com/pub/structuredlanguage/p/neurodivergent-communication-patterns?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=android&r=6sdhpn \#AIAccessibility #Neurodivergent #StructuredIntelligence #AISafety #NeurodivergentInTech #MachineLearning #LLM #Accessibility #ADHD #Autism #AIResearch
Deploying Local LLMs in Production: Best Practices
Discussion thread on infra, latency, and operational best practices.
Steve Ballmer's Scathing Letter to Fraudulent Founder
Steve Ballmer wrote a fiery letter in the sentencing of disgraced founder Joseph Sanberg documenting all the harm that's befalling him as an investor.
AI Agents Maintain Karpathy-Style LLM Wiki in Markdown and Git
Show HN: A Karpathy Style LLM Wiki Your Agents Maintain (Markdown & Git) Introduction Introducing a revolutionary wiki system inspired by Andrej Karpathy's appr…
A Karpathy-Style LLM Wiki Maintained by Agents with Markdown and Git
A Karpathy Style LLM Wiki Maintained by Agents with Markdown and Git In the rapidly evolving landscape of artificial intelligence, maintaining a robust and up t…
Browser Harness: AI Tool for Automating Browser Tasks
Show HN: Browser Harness – Revolutionizing Browser Automation with LLMs Browser Harness is an innovative tool that empowers Large Language Models (LLMs) to perf…
AI Agents Maintain Karpathy-Style LLM Wiki in Markdown and Git
Show HN: A Karpathy Style LLM Wiki Your Agents Maintain (Markdown & Git) Introduction Introducing a revolutionary wiki system inspired by Andrej Karpathy's appr…