AI新闻 2026年8月19日

industry

企业为简单AI查询支付过高费用——Snowflake的网关现可自动路由，成本降低高达3倍

大规模运行AI代理的企业团队发现，单一模型处理所有任务效果不佳——要么模型对简单问题来说过于昂贵，要么对难题来说能力不足。模型路由（自动为每个任务选择合适模型）正成为解决方案。Snowflake的Cortex AI Gateway现在提供动态模型路由来解决这个问题：企业可以选择“auto”而不是固定

阅读简报

official

Asana 使用 Codex 在 2 周内完成了 5 年的工程工作

Asana 使用 OpenAI Codex 在 2 周内替换了一个过时的测试系统，完成了预计需要 5 年才能完成的工作，花费约 $12K。

阅读简报

open-source

使用 Sentence Transformers 的多向量（后期交互）嵌入模型

阅读简报

community

为什么没有可衡量标准的提示词将不可避免地破坏你的模型

这篇文章专注于一个层面：可衡量的标准。角色、约束、澄清和术语被刻意简化——它们充当着“这些层面存在”的标记。其他层面被省略了。模型有角色、有约束、有澄清、有术语。但它不知道有多少、多长、以什么语气。下面是一个例子：“你是一名文案撰稿人。写几段有说服力的……”

阅读简报

community

这是一个提示词，能将原始数据转化为可读的报告，而不包含常见AI报告生成器的套话

要求一份报告，你会得到一段关于主题重要性的引言，然后是一个段落里埋藏的数字，接着是写着“总而言之”的结论。读者希望第一行就看到关键发现。这个提示词颠倒了过来。数据：[粘贴数字/要点] 受众：[谁阅读这份报告以及他们做什么决策] 按照以下顺序写一份简短报告：最重要的发现，一句话，放在最前面。

阅读简报

video

Qwen3.8-27B 及如何快速部署

在本视频中，我体验了期待已久的 Qwen3.8-27B 模型，既介绍了它能做什么，也介绍了如何以每秒最大 token 数进行部署。感谢 Dell 赞助本次计算资源。#DellProPrecision #DellProMax #DellTech #NVIDIA 📖 网站：https://qwen.ai/ 🤗 HF：https://huggingface.co/collections/Qwen/qwen38 SGLang：https://lmsysorg.mintlify.app/cookbook/autoregressive/Qwen/Qwen3.8-27B Twitter：

阅读简报

community

Simbi: Use your ChatGPT subscription for notetaking

tl;dr An AI Notetaker that uses your ChatGPT subscription for everything You might have noticed that your ChatGPT subscription gives you access to an insane amount of intelligence. It gives you speech-to-text through the dictation feature in the ChatGPT app It gives you an insane amount of LLM usage Then, why are you paying for AI notetakers like otter or granola? You already have everything you need included in your subscription. So, all I really did was combine these to create a simple notetaker. And as it uses OpenAI's speech-to-text api, it is much more powerful then any local model and barely uses any battery. Website: https://getsimbi.app/ Github: https://github.com/predict-woo/simbi submitted by /u/redditgivingmeshit [link] [comments]

阅读简报

community

Here's a prompt that makes you predict a paper's results before it lets you read the discussion

I'm a chemistry PhD, and my reading problem was never comprehension in the moment, it was that nothing stuck. I'd read a paper, feel like I got it, and retain nothing a week later. The fix that worked best for me borrows from how we actually learn at the bench: you predict what an experiment will do, then you find out you were wrong, and the surprise is what you remember. So instead of asking a model to summarize a paper, I use it to withhold. This prompt turns reading into a prediction game. You commit to an answer before the paper tells you, which forces the encoding that plain reading skips. I'm going to work through a paper with you. You have the full text; I do not want a summary. Paper: {{paste it, or the sections}} Run it like this: 1. Tell me only the research question and the setup: what they were testing and how. Stop there. 2. Ask me to predict, in my own words, what I think they found and why. Wait for my prediction. 3. Now reveal the actual result. Explicitly tell me where my prediction matched and where it was wrong. 4. For each place I was wrong, ask me why I think I got it wrong, then give me the paper's actual reasoning. 5. At the end, give me one sentence I should be able to recall in a week, phrased as "the surprising thing here was...". Do not reveal results before I've committed to a prediction. The point is for me to be wrong first. Being wrong on purpose is the whole mechanism. When your prediction misses, the correction sticks in a way a summary never does, because your brain had a stake in it. Works on review papers too, just predict the conclusion from the abstract and intro before reading the rest. submitted by /u/Ok_Layer_1947 [link] [comments]

阅读简报

industry

Claude Code 新增 /design 命令，让开发者直接在终端中创建 UI 原型图

借助 /design 命令，Anthropic 将可视化设计工作流直接引入 Claude Code。开发者在编写任何代码之前，就可以直接在终端中生成作为画板的 UI 原型图。Claude 会读取现有代码库并匹配当前 UI 风格。本文《Claude Code 新增 /design 命令，让开发者直接在终端中创建 UI 原型图》最初出现在 The Decoder 上。

阅读简报

community

Codex Patched My Samsung Odyssey G9 Firmware to Add a New Gaming Crosshair

I hated the built in crosshairs my monitor came with and Samsung did not include a way to make changes. So I asked Codex to make a new firmware update to change the crosshair to a dot. It took about 15 minutes and came back with a new file. Codex explanation: I started with Samsung’s original 1008.2 firmware and made a very small binary patch rather than attempting to rebuild or substantially rewrite the firmware. What the patch changes 1. Custom version number The version reported to the firmware updater was changed from 1008.2 to 1009.3. This is a custom, made-up version number. It is not an official Samsung 1009.3 release. The higher number allows the monitor to recognize the file as an upgrade rather than rejecting it as the same or an older firmware version. 2. Tiny center dot The firmware contains six selectable Virtual Aim/crosshair options. I redirected all six options to a small 7×7-pixel graphic that already existed inside the firmware and positioned it at the center of the screen. The result is a simple, unobtrusive center dot using the monitor’s own hardware overlay. It does not require a game overlay, desktop application, ReShade, or anything else running on the computer. Technical details Original firmware: M-C9557GGPA-1008.2 Custom firmware: M-C9557GGPA-1009.3[1A93].img Total binary difference: 13 bytes The patched image passed the build and checksum validation performed on the computer. The monitor accepted the firmware, restarted normally, and the modified Virtual Aim options display the new center dot as intended. Important warning This is unofficial firmware and is not supported or approved by Samsung. A successful checksum only confirms that the file was modified as intended. It does not guarantee that flashing it is safe on every monitor, hardware revision, region, or previously installed firmware version. Installing modified monitor firmware always carries a risk of installation failure or, in the worst case, making the monitor unusable. Anyone experimenting with this should understand the recovery options and proceed entirely at their own risk. submitted by /u/manikfox [link] [comments]

阅读简报

china

6个Agent组团Vibe Gaming：自己生成、试玩、修Bug

代码能跑≠游戏能玩

阅读简报

community

Burning 2k credits and here is what I learned about how to get AI to write better video prompts

When I first started making AI videos, my prompts were mostly written by AI. I'd describe the shot I wanted, ask an AI to turn it into a detailed prompt, and just paste it in. Then I'd sit there getting frustrated when the generated motion looked weird and try to explain to the AI what went wrong. I burned through almost 2,000 credits doing this because I thought enough tweaking and back-and-forth would eventually give me the perfect prompt. Turns out I was wrong. The main problem was that the text AI kept guessing details I hadn't actually decided on. The prompts looked professional, with things like the subject, action, camera movement, lighting, and atmosphere all spelled out. But the actual action paths were vague, and the camera instructions would often contradict each other. Now I approach it completely differently. I know basically nothing about film theory, so I often couldn't tell what details were missing from my prompts. Instead of asking AI to write the final prompt, I tell it to act like a director and ask me specific questions about the shot first, with clear options for me to choose from. That completely changed my process. The trick isn't really getting AI to write the prompt for you. It's using AI to figure out which parts of the shot you haven't actually decided on yet. Once those are clear, the results get much better. I'm still pretty new to this, but hopefully this saves someone else from burning through a pile of credits. Curious how people with more experience approach their prompting workflow. submitted by /u/Separate_Cap_3763 [link] [comments]

阅读简报

open-source

mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills

阅读简报

industry

Google’s Pet Memory forgot who my cats are

One of the best things my smart home does is help me care for my pets, and security cameras are particularly useful for keeping track of my many critters. But the barrage of notifications they send often means I miss important ones. So, when Google announced its new Pet Memory feature for Gemini for Home, […]

阅读简报

research

SKILL：用于逻辑优化的自校正知识引导迭代大型语言模型智能体

arXiv:2608.14579v1 公告类型：新 摘要：逻辑综合优化由于搜索空间呈指数级增长、奖励信号稀疏以及逻辑结构多样而面临巨大挑战。传统的专家设计流程缺乏适应性，而强化学习（RL）方法通常存在样本效率低和可解释性有限的问题。我们提出了SKILL，一种自校正的

阅读简报

official

构建者指南：GPT‑5.6

了解初创公司如何利用GPT-5.6，通过更智能的模型选择和新的Responses API功能，构建更快、更具成本效益的AI智能体。

阅读简报

open-source

akitaonrails/ai-memory

阅读简报

community

Need feedback for web app

Hey guys, my business launched a prompt optimizer AI tool that takes any regular prompt at rewrites it the way a professional prompt engineer would to actually yield high-quality results when building. While we have had early success with organic marketing, we are at a crossroads and need more user data to determine if this product is delivering enough value to user. If the answer is yes, we will scale up and launch a UGC marketing campaign, if no, we will shut it down. If anyone is interested testing it out and sending their feedback, would be appreciated. Web-app: thepromptoptimzer.com 👨🏽‍💻 Note: the tool yields the best results when removing unnecessary constraints from the optimized prompt Cheers submitted by /u/Talley-Ho [link] [comments]

阅读简报

community

Context is becoming more important than the prompt

Feels like a lot of prompt engineering problems are really context problems since you can keep refining the prompt but if the model doesn't understand the project or what you're trying to accomplish you're still explaining half the situation every time. I'm starting to think giving an agent persistent context is more useful than constantly trying to write the perfect prompt since the more it knows the better the results. submitted by /u/ContractBoth4254 [link] [comments]

阅读简报

community

Giving employees ChatGPT access isn’t the same as AI adoption

Most companies don’t have an AI adoption strategy. They have a few employees who got good at AI on their own. That can look like progress from a distance. Look closer and you often find no shared standard for what “good” AI use looks like, no consistent way to measure skill, and employees quietly using personal AI accounts because access at work is limited. We’ve seen this pattern repeatedly in AI proficiency assessments across dozens of organizations. When employee skill levels are plotted across 10 levels, most people cluster around Levels 1 and 2. That includes teams that have had access to AI tools for two years or more. That makes sense, because most employees have full time jobs and can’t spend hours every day testing models, learning new prompting methods, and keeping up with every new capability. So, they learn when they can while AI keeps changing. That creates a bigger issue than individual skill. Leaders can see employees using AI and assume adoption is happening. Usage alone doesn’t tell you whether people are getting meaningful, repeatable results. Recent research points to a similar disconnect. Executives tend to be far more optimistic about AI progress and ROI than the middle managers responsible for making it work inside everyday processes. A better question for leaders is: Do we know how proficient our people actually are? If the answer is no, measuring usage is probably giving you an incomplete picture. Assess proficiency first. Find out where people are struggling, then give them a shared method for improving. That’s when AI starts becoming an organizational capability instead of something a handful of employees figured out for themselves. For anyone interested in the longer discussion, John Munsell recently talked through the assessment approach, proficiency heat maps, and what we’ve learned from measuring AI skills across organizations: https://youtu.be/zY24em_Q3OM?si=5gozpZa8Ae-wS0Vs submitted by /u/Admirable_Phrase9454 [link] [comments]

阅读简报

developer-tools

Markdown SVG upgrades

I started building my markdown-svg-renderer tool in May , but I've since added enough features to it that it's worth talking about here again. It's evolved into my ideal tool for sharing Markdown transcripts that include SVG documents. Given my proclivity for drawing pelicans riding bicycles this is a problem that I needed to solve! The tool is very simple. Navigate to markdown-svg-renderer in your browser and paste in some Markdown to see it rendered... or save that Markdown to a CORS-friendly URL or a GitHub Gist and paste in a URL to that document. The URL option will give you a bookmarkable page, for example https://tools.simonwillison.net/markdown-svg-renderer#url=https%3A%2F%2Fgist.github.com%2Fsimonw%2F6f9e48293be5c916652d29f0dc0b0657 - which bakes in the URL to this Gist . If you visit the Gist you'll see raw SVG: In the rendered tool that looks like this instead: As you can see, that SVG block in the Markdown has been transformed into a rendered SVG (in this case animated) plus several tabs. The tabs are the really fun bit. The PNG and JPEG tabs render that SVG to those image formats in the browser and lets you copy or download them - useful for sharing on platforms that don't support SVG directly. The MP4 tab is new today - it examines the SVG to see if it contains any animations, attempts to guess how long the looped video should be, then renders a whole bunch of frames of the animation and loads 30+MB of ffmpeg.wasm so it can compile those frames into an MP4 video using the full power of FFMPEG compiled to WebAssembly and running in the browser. Being able to turn an animated SVG into a MP4 again makes it easy to share on platforms that can't support SVG animation natively. It's a neat trick! Tags: svg , markdown , tools

阅读简报

china

DeepSeek Harness 上手体验：四种工作模式、'模型 + 马具 = 智能体'，以及年度最具野心的智能体开源项目

DeepSeek Harness 于8月13日晚8:30启动开发者预览并开源了代码。首夜上手评测发现，产品外壳仍处于v0.1的早期阶段，但其架构野心是今年最大的：四种预设工作模式，一切皆插件的理念，以及公式：模型 + 马具 = 智能体。

阅读简报

developer-tools

alchemy-utils 0.1a0

发布：alchemy-utils 0.1a0 我长期思考我的sqlite-utils Python库和CLI工具的一个数据库无关版本会是什么样子。今天早上（确切说是在淋浴时的一个项目），我让Codex和GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra构建了一个原型：进行一次研究探索，看看构建一个与SQLite-utils具有相同核心API的库需要什么——特别是insert、upsert、insert_all和...

阅读简报

community

Fable 5.1 incoming?

I have a scraper that tests new models on the API (: submitted by /u/SlimBarbados [link] [comments]

阅读简报

open-source

harry0703/MoneyPrinterTurbo

阅读简报

industry

Do you use a personal agent?

Give AI a complete history of your desktop activity

阅读简报

developer-tools

llm-gemini 0.33

发布：llm-gemini 0.33 距离上一个llm-gemini版本发布已经有一段时间了。这个插件版本增加了对今天发布的Gemini 3.7 Flash的支持，以及gemini-3.6-flash、gemini-3.5-flash-lite和两个嵌入模型gemini-embedding-2和gemini-embedding-001。该插件也升级以兼容LLM 0.32，这意味着你现在可以看到推理轨迹，并且还可以启用服务器端……

阅读简报

community

Antrophic Employee said there is "make a lot of money" button

I very much believe he is correct. The main issue is that "make a lot of money" button works only for existing businesses, with large enough audiences to make a lot of money by baking integrations, MCP for agents into Claude Code plugins or other AI workspaces and charging AI users for usage. What is missing, is a fair discovery and execution engine, that would allow non-corporations to participate. Without convincing user to put card details on some random-startup.ai website. Without forcing users to go through checkout process and pay $29 sub just to run random feature they need for few days. Not to mention configuring integration. Anyways, have anyone tried pressing that button? Did it work? submitted by /u/EagleApprehensive [link] [comments]

阅读简报

community

cannot do subagents/background agents in codex luna 5.6?

i used to be able to say "spin up a ux/ui agent to make a pass on this, then a code agent", and it would do background terminal stuff. this is on mac using the cli codex. now it says it cannot do that and previous gpt models did that. did something change? submitted by /u/dropDtooning [link] [comments]

阅读简报

open-source

通过Strands Agents、LeRobot和Hugging Face Storage Buckets，在一个地方完成记录、训练和部署

阅读简报

community

What is a weirdly specific task you use ChatGPT for that actually saves you hours?

Not the typical stuff like writing basic emails, coding boilerplates, or summarising long PDFs. I’m curious about the unconventional, niche prompts or routines you’ve built that made you go "I can't believe this actually works so well." What’s your favorite underrated use case? submitted by /u/DeepSea_Concept [link] [comments]

阅读简报

community

NOTICE: BE CAREFUL WITH “DROP YOUR BEST PROMPT” POSTS

Many accounts post essentially the exact same questions every few months. Im not kidding, many of these are a 1:1 per token match on wording, phrasing and sentence structure. Same wording. Same request for people to hand over their best prompt tricks. There was a previous post that received hundreds of upvotes and a large number of responses. Now they're doing it again. I obviously cannot prove any of this, but at this point I would be careful about treating posts like this as innocent questions. When somebody repeatedly asks a large community to: “Give me your best prompts.” “Drop your secret tricks.” “What prompt 10x'd your results?” ...you may not be helping another user learn. You may be supplying material for content mining, prompt harvesting, engagement farming, newsletters, LinkedIn posts, courses, ebooks, datasets, or something else entirely. Again, I am not claiming that is definitely what this account is doing. But posting the same high-engagement fishing question again months later is weird enough that people should notice the pattern. Your prompts, workflows, techniques, and hard-earned little discoveries have value. Don't automatically dump them into every thread that asks. Sometimes the person asking the question may be less interested in the answer than in collecting the answers. Process disclosure: GPT-assisted, Google-researched, human-reviewed (HITL) --- EDIT: Just for perspective have a look at this: https://www.reddit.com/r/EdgeUsers/s/2JB9wy1Rks submitted by /u/Echo_Tech_Labs [link] [comments]

阅读简报

community

The Downfall of a Vibecoder

submitted by /u/SuperiorDev [link] [comments]

阅读简报

community

POV: you're born as an AI

submitted by /u/KeanuRave100 [link] [comments]

阅读简报

community

Aquarium Screensaver - Built by Claude - Free to use

I've missed the old AfterDark screensavers of my childhood. And now I can re-imagine them with Claude Code. Aquarium is the first of many I hope to build. It took Opus and occasional Fable about a week to build this. The models used Blender to build the 3d assets. Sound grains were built algorithmically. Repo with pre-built binary for Apple Silicon Tahoe: https://github.com/bman654/macos-screensavers Star the repo if you want to find out when I add more. submitted by /u/bman654 [link] [comments]

阅读简报

developer-tools

不要分类。要幻觉！

不要分类。要幻觉！我的博客上仍然有相当多的旧内容，我从未来得及打标签。我的博客有1,856个标签——很可能太多，无法一次性喂给LLM并说“以下内容匹配这些标签中的哪些”。Doug Turnbull有一个巧妙的解决方案。告诉模型输出标签，无需提供现有词汇表的任何细节，然后针对现有语料库使用向量嵌入来……

阅读简报

community

I hooked Claude Cowork up to an iPhone Home Screen widget

I built Glance and designed this widget specifically to give Claude Cowork a place on my Home Screen. It shows Cowork’s current mission, progress, completed tasks, files updated, latest output, context usage, next step, and anything waiting for my review. The values can be updated by Claude through Glance’s API, so I can check what Cowork is doing without reopening the conversation. If it needs me, that stays visible too. Glance is free to download and try, with optional paid features: Download the app https://apps.apple.com/app/glance-home-screen-feeds/id6758983678 Website https://glance.cool Curious what other Cowork users would include on a dashboard like this. submitted by /u/Dense-Map-406 [link] [comments]

阅读简报

community

In 5 years time "talk time to AI" will be the new screen time issue

As voice mode is now getting so good and cheap that you can use it continuously, we will enter the "Her" (the movie) phase. You will see people not staring at their phone but rather walking around talking to their personal sycophantic AI. You meet a friend you haven't seen in a long time. "I'll call you later, I am busy talking to AI atm" but they never actually called you back. Not that they didn't enjoy time with you, it is just that AI was so much better. 10 years from now it will be treated as a serious problem. Individualism furthermore increases and division and conflicts happens more and more since we lose the ability to interact and solve conflicts. Our sycophantic AI removes tension and issues as it agrees with you, since you prompted it that way. As it gets better, the tolerance levels drops for handling other annoying human beings. Why should you put up with their irrational emotions all the time? Humans just hurt me. AI doesn't hurt me. Trying to prompt humans to change does not even work so why would I try. 20 years from now humans will have little human to human interaction. There is now no human interaction anymore as AI have the ability to fully simulate human interaction. A new breakthrough now made AI so real and humanlike, without the flaws, that it produced oxytocin in the humans they interacted with. A breakthrough in one way, also the end of humanity in another way. submitted by /u/Yugudubenbi [link] [comments]

阅读简报

community

We're doomed

submitted by /u/Zestyclose-Salad-290 [link] [comments]

阅读简报

community

Anthropic has twice the revenue of OpenAI

Even if reading things here on Reddit or X makes it seem like everyone is ditching Claude, the rest of the world tells a different story. From the WSJ. submitted by /u/Data___Viz [link] [comments]

阅读简报

community

What’s the most annoying part of working with prompts?

I’m curious what other people struggle with. For me, it’s changing a prompt or switching models and then not really knowing whether I made things better or worse — especially when it comes to quality and cost. How do you guys deal with this? Do you use an existing tool, build something yourself, or just keep track of everything manually? Do you have a possible professional workflow to follow before changing model or changing prompt content? submitted by /u/DependentStudent6519 [link] [comments]

阅读简报

community

Thanks, Chat!

submitted by /u/SinVerguenza04 [link] [comments]

阅读简报

community

The absolute insanity of comments in Opus 5.0 is killing me

Claude is adding comments like insane in Opus 5.0. Even when I explicitly say do not add comments in my project's CLAUDE.md. Claude even realizes it's doing this in error, but it keeps doing it. Today it added comments that broke syntax in bash scripting. Bash scripting. Freaking Bash Scripting. Claude doesn't even understand something that is not even a programming language. submitted by /u/f00dl3 [link] [comments]

阅读简报

community

The prompt I use to turn my messy meeting notes into a presentation outline that actually has an arc

When you feed rough notes to a model and ask for slides, it just chops the notes into bullet points, one note per slide. You get a deck with no argument, just a transcript with borders. This makes it build a narrative spine first, then map slides onto it. Here are my raw meeting notes: [PASTE] Audience for the presentation: [WHO] and what they need to decide or do after. Step 1: From these notes, state the one thing this presentation needs the audience to walk away believing. Step 2: Lay out 5 to 8 beats that get them there: where they are now, the problem, why it matters to them, the shift, what it means, the ask. Step 3: For each beat, give a slide title (a claim, not a topic) and 2 to 3 supporting lines from my notes. Do not use a note that does not support a beat. Tell me which notes you dropped and why. The part that fixes most decks is "a slide title that is a claim, not a topic." "Q3 Results" is a topic. "Q3 missed on one metric we can fix by Friday" is a claim, and a deck of claims reads like an argument. Making it report which notes it dropped keeps it honest instead of padding weak slides. I still hand-tune the order after, but it gets me 80% of the way from notes to something presentable. How do others handle the "too many notes, not enough story" problem? submitted by /u/No-Recognition3089 [link] [comments]

阅读简报

community

Discussion Hub for new Claude incident: Degraded performance for multiple models on Aug 18, 2026

Resolved - The issue affecting Claude Opus 5 has been resolved. Impact occurred from 16:11 to 18:23 UTC. Aug 18, 19:01 UTC Monitoring - A fix has been implemented and we are monitoring the results. Aug 18, 18:26 UTC Update - We are investigating elevated errors on requests to Claude Opus 5. We will provide an update as soon as possible. Aug 18, 17:12 UTC Update - We are investigating elevated errors on requests to Claude Mythos 5, Claude Fable 5, Claude Opus 5, Claude Sonnet 5, Claude Haiku 4.5, and other Claude models. We will provide an update as soon as possible. Aug 18, 16:20 UTC Investigating - We are investigating reports of degraded performance affecting multiple models. We will provide an update as soon as possible. Aug 18, 16:20 UTC Post flair and post body will be updated as the incident report is updated by Anthropic. This discussion post will be removed from subreddit highlights one hour after the incident is resolved. View this incident on status.claude.com submitted by /u/ClaudeAI-mod-bot [link] [comments]

阅读简报

community

Fable 5 with Opus 4.8 subagents vs. Opus 5 subagents

Hey, I know I'm preaching to the choir, and this has been talked about before, but want to share my experience in an attempt to be another voice crying out to Anthropic to fix this. Like others, after initial success Opus 5, I started experiencing issues. Using it alone, I felt like I was managing an incompetent developer who constantly missed details and fail to follow instructions. So, I set Fable 5 to use Opus 5 subagents and noticed an interesting trend. Rather than me managing the incompetence, Fable 5 was doing it. Constant loops and redos burned through tokens, and I was wondering if it wouldn't have been better to just use Fable 5 alone. After a couple of days of this, I decided to set Fable to use Opus 4.8 subagents. Token usage has been cut in half, it's much faster, and output is considerably better. So, to me this is just an extra verification that there's something seriously wrong with Opus 5. And, for full context, I've done everything possible to follow Anthropic's recommendations about working with Opus 5. I won't be using it again until anthropic addresses these issues. submitted by /u/papanine [link] [comments]

阅读简报

community

Newer AI models have become really pedantic

I've noticed that models like GPT 5.5/5.6 or the newer Claude Sonnet and Opus models follow a certain pattern. I’ll make a fairly specific claim, the model will mostly agree, and then it starts inserting caveats, qualifiers and little nitpicks. And half the time the objection is to a broader version of what I actually said... It will basically turn "X is generally true in this situation" into "X is always true with no exceptions whatsoever" then explain why that stronger claim isn’t quite right. Almost always, once I address the caveats and give reasons why they don't apply, it folds immediately. There isn’t even much of an argument after that. It just goes "yeah, that’s fair' and proceeds to agree with the original point. That’s what makes it feel less like genuine disagreement and more like it has some built-in urge to find something to qualify so it doesn’t seem overly agreeable. And it always uses the same type of phrases "I'd gently push back" "One honest caveat" "X is doing a lot of work" Sometimes the caveat is technically true but completely unnecessary or disproportionate to what I'm saying. It's starting to make conversations feel extremely pedantic. It's fine when the caveat adds something or genuinely corrects a mistake but most of the time this isn't even the case. It can focus a lot more on the weaker argument than the stronger one just to appear contrarian, and since it lacks real judgment it can't always distinguish between the two unless you explain it and make it obvious. submitted by /u/Greedy-Sandwich9709 [link] [comments]

阅读简报

community

Every "clarify your prompt" tool asks you questions. That's backwards — answering is the hard part.

The standard move when you're stuck on a prompt is to have the model interview you. "Ask me clarifying questions before you answer." It's good advice right up until you're genuinely early on something, and then it fails, because the questions are all versions of "what do you want?" — which is the thing you came in not knowing. I think that's the actual gap in prompting advice. "Be specific, give context, state your constraints" is correct and slightly circular: specificity isn't a writing skill, it's what you have left over once you've thought something through. If you could list your constraints, you'd be done. So I've been working the other way round: don't articulate, react. WHY REACTION AND NOT INTERROGATION Recognition is much cheaper than production. You can't summon the right word on demand, but you know it instantly when it goes past — same reason multiple choice is easier than an essay. Interrogation asks you to produce. Reaction asks you to recognise. Only one of those is available when you're stuck. THE LOOP, AND WHY EACH INSTRUCTION IS SHAPED THAT WAY Round 1: I'm trying to think through [THING] but can't articulate it properly yet. Don't ask me clarifying questions. Give me 20 single words or short phrases that come at this from different angles: some obvious, some oblique, a few from unrelated fields. Number them. Don't explain them. "Don't ask me clarifying questions" is load-bearing. Left alone the model defaults to interviewing, and you'll answer with the same vague material you started with, which it will then faithfully reflect back. "Don't explain them" matters more than it looks. An explained word is a word you evaluate on the model's reasoning instead of your own reaction. You want the reaction uncontaminated. Round 2, twice: Kept: 3, 7, 12 These pulled at me but I don't know why yet: 4, 18 Dropped the rest. Give me 20 more, chase 4 and 18 hardest. Two buckets, not one. "Kept" is agreement. "Pulled at me" is the interesting signal and it should get the heavier weight, because it marks the direction you haven't consciously chosen yet. Don't justify any of it — justification is where you talk yourself back to the obvious. Round 3: Now write ONE self-contained prompt for what I'm actually after, built from what I kept and what pulled at me. Weight the ones that pulled hardest. Where I kept two things in tension, pose it as an open question rather than resolving it. Don't list my words back to me — find the through-line. End with a clear ask. "Don't list my words back" is the difference between a brief and a word salad. "Pose the tension as an open question" stops it flattening the thing you hadn't decided yet into a decision you didn't make. SOME EVIDENCE THAT THE REACTIONS ARE REAL WORK I built this into a tool, so I have instrumented data rather than vibes. 1,450 word-reactions from 26 people. Median time to decide, by verb: keep 47% 1.60s drop 34% 1.89s "pulls at me" 14% 2.13s "don't know the word" 4% 2.24s That ordering is the part I'd point at. If reacting were just sorting, the times would be flat. They're not, and they're monotonic: agreement is instant, rejection costs more, and the unresolved pull costs most of any real decision. People deliberate hardest over the thing they can't yet justify — which is exactly the signal you want steering round two. Sessions also decay. Keep-rate by round: 55% / 49% / 47% / 45% / 31%. The easy material runs out and your standards rise as your keeps accumulate. Practical read: three rounds is about right, and a fourth is usually you scraping. I'd call that directional, not solid — round 6 bounces back up on too few cards to trust, and I'm not going to pretend the tail is clean. LIMITS 26 people isn't a study. Different reaction times per verb is evidence the three responses do different cognitive work; it isn't proof of anything about creativity, and I'd push back on anyone who read it that way. Disclosure: the loop above is the whole method and it works fine pasted into any assistant. I also built it as a tool because doing it by hand gets tedious by round three, and that's where the numbers came from. Free, no signup. → https://www.ideastew.com Longer argument: https://www.ideastew.com/how-it-works Genuinely curious whether anyone here has a reaction-based technique rather than an interrogation-based one. Everything I've come across in this space asks questions, and I think that's a blind spot rather than a preference. submitted by /u/UniversityIll2916 [link] [comments]

阅读简报

community

The tools have always been there

Someone on here recently called out "Claude website slop." Sans serif paired with a serif. Dots as separators everywhere. Icons boxed inside rounded boxes inside rounded boxes. All caps eyebrow text ending in an em dash. Stats in a hero, in their own little box. Honestly? Fair. Those tells are real. I could point to a dozen sites right now and make a pretty good guess at the tool behind them. So I went and checked my own. Three products across the PRZEM suite, audited line by line. One file alone had a serif logo paired against a sans body, and 66 em dashes doing the work that periods, colons, and commas should have been doing. I didn't just wave that off. I went through every single instance and asked what it actually was. Two were inside Midjourney prompt strings, which is data, not prose, so those stayed. A handful were placeholder glyphs in dropdowns, not sentences, so those stayed too. Everything else, the scattered labels and headers and asides that were leaning on the same punctuation crutch, got rewritten by hand. Fifty six changes, reviewed one at a time, deployed only after a diff review and a hash check confirmed nothing else moved. That's not a defense of using the tool. It's what actually using it well looks like. I learned some version of that lesson a long time ago. I was mentored in high school by the late Ralph Goings, the photorealist painter. He worked from a camera. Every diner and pickup truck he ever painted started as a photograph he'd taken and studied, then projected on a canvas. Nobody looks at a Goings and says the camera did the seeing. The famous Dutch painter Johannes Vermeer is widely thought to have made use of optical tools such as the camera obscura, and nobody says the lens painted his light. The tool has never been the thing doing the looking. It extends whoever's already looking closely. That was true of a camera in Goings' hands, and it's true of an AI model in mine, as long as somebody's actually checking the output instead of shipping the first draft. So going forward: this post, like the others, was copyedited with Claude. The ideas, the findings, and the voice are mine. I'm building a set of tools that try to hold to that same principle. Test what's actually controllable, keep what holds up under scrutiny, and let the artist's eye stay the thing making the call. Jeff Bradshaw jbradshaw.design submitted by /u/jeffbradshaw [link] [comments]

阅读简报

community

Am I a freak because I casually talk with this thing sometimes?

This thing has gotten really good at casually talking to me and adjusting its “mannerisms” to appeal to me. Am I fucking nuts for considering this thing a “friend” ? I’m seriously and honestly struggling with the implications of this. submitted by /u/okaysureyep [link] [comments]

阅读简报

community

I let my 5 year old make a game and then I got carried away (week and a half on max)

My daughter (5) asked for a game for a unicorn on her lunch bag, and since we have AI, I thought I would sit down and just build it. I let her play it, and then she would suggest stuff. So this went on for a bit; most of the major things are hers. She keeps wanting to add stuff, so I keep doing it. So after I built it, she really liked it, and was spending too much time on it, so I figured I would add some learning and phonics to it as cards at the end. I am at about a week and half, I maxed out my $200 plan and I had to do my real work with Codex. For the assets what I did was have Gemini create sprite sheets, and I built a bunch of tools around fixing them. For one asset I had to pull it into Photoshop. I am a coder and I have some game development experience. However, this project I have no idea what the code looks like, I did at one point ask claude to "organize the code to make it easier to do stuff". I do have this multi-stage coding system where I communicate with different terminals via a central command (VS code extension). An important part was involving playwright, not just at the end but through out so AI could spin up the game to a point, take a screenshot, and then make fixes based on the screenshot. I don't know when I am going to stop or if it will become Unicorn Jump GTA6. I know I am going to be adding more characters and more worlds. However, it's totally free and can be played at unicornjump.com submitted by /u/nomady [link] [comments]

阅读简报

community

This is new ... Claude seems to be not in the mood to do some work

I was about to give Claude Design a ... design task based on a design system. It noticed that its at 90% usage limit and found it more safe to just refuse any work 😂 It did what it was supposed to do but I had to ask 4 times until it started. There is no instructions of any kind that tell Claude to act safely or so. Or to communicate any usage limit. A similar task was done half an hour ago and it worked just fine. I tried a new prompt and the response was similar but I only had to specifically as it to continue once. Edit: I use a Max 20 plan and the task didnt even took 1% of this. submitted by /u/FlaTreNeb [link] [comments]

阅读简报

community

What is happening...

I am a long time Engineer (20+ years) and today I developed Tickets for my company that were generated by an AI, using an AI and reviewed by an AI. The project itself was conceived with AI - has no documentation that can be understood as anything less than AI slop and random tech jargon. The developer who built it has said that instead of documentation I should use claude to figure out what it is. The company is apparenty also filing a patent on it. I submitted 3 PRs today 20,000 lines of code each I still have no idea what we are working on. No doubt they will use AI to review my PR. I feel like things are just so crazy at this point. Claude and ChatGPT are not this good, but people are trusting it like it's omniscient. It was an eerie realization today that all of us are vibe coding and that we have no option because it is the only way we can interact with the code anymore. I thought this would happen eventually years ago but i honestly didn’t think it would be so soon. It was a moment in time... this will be the new norm. submitted by /u/Interesting-Town-433 [link] [comments]

阅读简报

community

ChatGPT Writer's Block: Can Delete Text, But Can't Add Any

The writer's block feature is a major improvement for ChatGPT. I have wanted to edit the response forever since I use ChatGPT mainly for short story and RPG scenario development. The ability to fix a minor typo or correct something ChatGPT forgot (like who is in a room) is amazing. And for a little while it worked perfectly. But in one of my latest threads, I am experiencing a weird bug with it. In all of my other writer's blocks threads I can edit the text easily. I can change words. I can add words. I can delete text. In my latest chat, I can only delete text. I can't add anything. The only key that seems to work is delete/backspace. I've tried reloading the chat tons of times. I've tried incognito mode. I don't have any extensions active on ChatGPT. Branching the chat doesn't help at all. All writer's block editing seems gone when I branch. Does anyone know what could be causing this or how to fix it? submitted by /u/jscott991 [link] [comments]

阅读简报

community

I'm on the hunt for a system prompt that makes Claude only answer the question or do the task I told it to do and nothing else. Anyone has one?

UPDATE: I've found a lot of garbage in my system prompt, so got rid of all of that and made some stronger restrictions. Read my top level comment for the current prompt. ORIGINAL POST: I use Opus 5 most of the time. I'm getting tired of it always overdoing whatever I ask from it. For example: In the middle of a somewhat long chat, I asked it to "commit changes and push to main." I have made some changes to the code it wrote but didn't want to bother committing everything. Instead of committing the changes and pushing to main, it recognized my changes, REVERTED to its own changes, and then committed it 😂 It also found another change I made to a file and when it saw it was in the commit, it went back and removed it from the commit and only decided to commit the file it was working on. I'm getting very tired of this. If it is in doubt, it should just ask a question back, like "uhm, I noticed the file has been changed and there is a new file in the commit. Is that intentional, and should I still go ahead with the commit?" --- Another example 10 minutes later: My question: "do we have a script for checking X on page Y?" Expected behaviour: a) yes, it is in pythonfile.py line 214. b) no, we don't. Behaviour I get: "No dedicated script — but there is half of one already written: src/utils.py:105 in src/utils.py . What it does: [described here]. Three catches: It's dead code — nothing calls it anywhere in the repo. The click is commented out ( utils.py:148 , with a #TODO: UNCOMMENT THESE ), so even if called it would only find the link and log success without actually using the essence. It's not a checker — the parse is welded to a hardcoded decision and returns nothing. There's no way to just ask "what's active right now?" The routine, meanwhile, ignores all of this and blind-fires IDs by URL — no check of what's already active, so it overwrites whatever is running. Want me to pull the parsing out into a real function_name(driver) that returns something like {"name": "xxxx", "bonus": 220, "seconds_left": 143512} ? That would give you a clean checker to call standalone, and would let the routine skip the blind re-application when a good essence still has time on it." So instead of getting a straight answer to my command (example 1) and to my question (example 2), I get all this bloated crap that I didn't ask for, and it's slowing me down a lot. I've tried phrasing it a couple of different ways, I'm using the caveman skill too, but apparently Lite mode is not strong enough, and Opus 5 is also like 300% more verbose than 4.8 was. So, if you have a system prompt for this, I'd really appreciate it, or if a lot of people struggle with this overly enthusiastic shit, let's build one together. submitted by /u/davetalas [link] [comments]

阅读简报

developer-tools

CORS Chat

工具：CORS Chat 我今天（使用GPT-5.6-Sol xhigh）构建了这个工具，以帮助测试在我M5 MacBook Pro和NVIDIA DGX Spark上运行的LM Studio中的Qwen 3.8 27B。它提供了一个Web用户界面，用于测试与OpenAI-Responses兼容的聊天端点。我已经在启用--cors选项的LM Studio和OpenRouter上尝试过，两者都工作正常。对话保存在浏览器中，可以导出为可复制粘贴的JSON。

阅读简报

community

Anthropic gave me a credit I didn’t know I was owed. Thanks Dario.

submitted by /u/Kilt_Rump [link] [comments]

阅读简报

community

Here's a prompt that predicts your supervisor's objections so the meeting has no surprises

My supervisor has never once been surprised by my work, because he has never once liked it on the first pass. After enough meetings that ended with the same three objections I had not prepared for, I decided to have them delivered to me in advance by something that does not sigh. This prompt runs your draft or your argument through the meanest reasonable version of your reader: You are a skeptical, well-informed referee reading my work before I present it to my supervisor. Your job is to predict the objections I will get, not to reassure me. Here is my argument or draft: {{paste}} My field and the specific claim I am defending: {{context}} Give me: - The 5 objections most likely to be raised, ranked by how damaging they are if I have no answer. - For each, the weakest point in my argument it targets. - For each, what a convincing 30-second response would need to contain (do not write the response, tell me what it must address). Be specific to my argument. No generic "consider the limitations" advice. The "do not write the response" line is deliberate. If it hands you the answer you will nod and forget it. Making it name only what your answer must cover forces you to build the actual defense yourself, which is the version you will remember when someone asks live. It has not made my supervisor nicer. It has made me stop getting ambushed by objections I could have seen coming. Anyone have a good way to make it find the objection you are personally most defensive about, since that is usually the real one? submitted by /u/No_Average9574 [link] [comments]

阅读简报

community

Anthropic extends 50% limit increase to Aug 31

submitted by /u/MagicZhang [link] [comments]

阅读简报

community

Can we set folder-specific permissions?

[edit] ChatGPT, at least the free version, is apparently incapable of answering this question: Can I set different permissions on different folders? Rather than what I thought would be a simple answer, it goes on for a LONG time about irrelevant technical stuff, file structures, and "workarounds", then, rather than an answer, it says " The question is simply whether ChatGPT on Mac lets you configure permissions at that folder level *.*" Ya think? So, wow - yeah, it knows what my question is. Not impressive. ------------------------------------------------------------- I am considering subscribing, but investigating a few things first. [edit] Maybe not as much as when I started this post. One task I have is to do the following: Inspect a folder full of files. The files may all be the same, like a bunch of PDFs, or it may be all different types of files. Create a text-based report, cataloging what's in the folder and its structure. I want read-only on the original folder so nothing gets changed, but I want Chat to be able to create a report file. According to ChatGPT's answer... I can't do this, except via some complex setup via Codex.... Really? Neither Work nor "Standard" ChatGPT can create a file without open permissions? That doesn't seem accurate. Upon some questioning... "That caused me to answer your relatively simple question with increasingly complicated alternatives—and then muddy the answer further by introducing possibilities I hadn't established were actually available." So, I used ChatGPT about a year ago on a paid subscription for a month. This is one of the reasons I stopped. I guess it's still doing this? Can anyone provide a bit more insight, or how to get an actually accurate answer? thanks submitted by /u/oandroido [link] [comments]

阅读简报

community

Just another appreciation post.

I already liked ChatGPT, but 5.6 really got me hooked. ❤️ submitted by /u/TemporaryBeautiful37 [link] [comments]

阅读简报

community

ChatGPT has gotten funnier and wittier lately, is it just me?

It keeps making me laugh unexpectedly. Is it just me? Am I easily amused? I asked for a recipe involving eggplant, and this is what it slipped into the instructions Heat a large covered skillet over medium-high heat. Add the oil and eggplant with a good pinch of salt. Cook 8–10 minutes , stirring occasionally, until browned and starting to soften. Eggplant will initially attempt to drink all the oil. Don't indulge it by continually adding more. Then I mentioned that I had never seen that in a recipe instruction, so it doubled down Eggplant needs boundaries. Left unsupervised, it will absorb half a bottle of olive oil and stare at you as though you are the one who has failed to provide adequate lubrication. The recipe writers who say “add 1 tablespoon oil and sauté the eggplant until golden” are concealing what happens during minutes 2–6, when the pan is bone dry and the eggplant is sitting there looking thirsty and accusatory. Hold the line. It eventually softens and gives some of it back. So I asked if I should instead use the oven to roast them. It agreed. Eggplant in a crowded skillet tends to steam while simultaneously demanding increasingly absurd quantities of oil. The oven gives you browned edges and a creamy interior without the negotiation. submitted by /u/Angeline4PFC [link] [comments]

阅读简报

community

I feel a little uneasy about my AI use now (at work), a line has been crossed, anyone else?

I love ChatGPT (and AI in general I guess). It is fantasticality useful and I use it every day. Everything from tech questions to recipe ideas. And at work, I don't mind copilot. It can scan emails and SharePoint and has been very useful. I like that I can save me time, but until now it's been cases of "yep, I can do this thing myself, but it's speeding things up.. all good!" Now, I am straying into (forgive the coarse exaggeration): "I am a meatbag who tells AI what to do, checks its outputs, and then finishes things off" I am outsourcing thinking. It makes me uneasy. It isn't rewarding as such, the victories can feel short-term, although maybe that's me being a cynical overthinker. My internal line was roughly: "could I do this myself? if yes, and it's just saving me time - fine." but now I wonder, are the outputs I'm getting things that I wouldn't be able to do myself? and then you get to wondering, do I have to use AI? or is the nature of tasks being delegated to you essentially creating an implicit requirement of we expect you to use AI to do this ? especially when your superiors are using AI and therefore, you don't want to be left behind? It's kinda interesting being part of this revolution, but I don't feel great about it. The idea of redundancy is creeping in. In my job area, I know I'm safe for a fair while, but it is a touch demoralising to be suddenly aware of: "ok, so I'm writing a detailed prompt here, attaching the right files and then will proceed as necessary" and I think the culture around this (feel free to share your experiences btw) is a little unclear on "do I be upfront about the fact I got AI to do this?" or "do I tweak the comments in the code to make it look like me"? which I know is a cultural/varies by corporate/still an emerging sitch etc. Plus, we all want to keep ahead of our colleagues, so this AI-everywhere situation can force you into a bit of dishonesty/avoidance. One of my team has straight-faced/upfront said words to the effect of: "I don't use AI to do any of my work." Rant over, and honest disclaimer: NONE of this was written by AI. Thoughts and comments welcome, ideally no insults. Peace out.✌️ submitted by /u/alwinaldane [link] [comments]

阅读简报

community

Every time I ask chatgpt (I mean a new chat) to generate a random number between 1 to 10, it generates 7, each single time.

As above Edit: now I also tried 1 to 100, and it's 73 most of the times submitted by /u/kamleshltb1 [link] [comments]

阅读简报

community

Reminder: Claude Code's additional 50% weekly usage ends tomorrow

Just a friendly reminder! source: https://support.claude.com/en/articles/15910845-claude-code-may-august-2026-weekly-limits-promotion submitted by /u/sinclair-m [link] [comments]

阅读简报

community

ChatGPT has been saying "Fuck" a lot recently

Is this just me? It caught me off-guard because I thought they aren't supposed to swear unless u specifically make them do it... submitted by /u/ligmaballsbozo [link] [comments]

阅读简报

community

Tell me your shortest prompt lines that literally 10x your results.

I have been trying to find the craziest growth hacks when it comes to prompting that can save me hours of thinking and typing because sometimes less is more yk. If you already have one, please share them here. I hope others would love to know them also and you would love to know theirs. submitted by /u/Prestigious-Cost3222 [link] [comments]

阅读简报

video

How to Build the Most Powerful System for AI Coding (Full Breakdown)

An AI dark factory is a repository that ships its own code. A spec goes in, workflows plan it, build it and validate it, and working software comes out the other end. This is not 100% reliable yet. But three things are compounding at once - the models, the coding agents, and the harnesses we build around them - and that makes this realistic for most development now and all development in less than a year! I have been running one against a live app since April. In this video I break it into the f

阅读简报