Together Inference

Together Inference AI

Together Inference AI

Together Inference AI

Together Inference AI

Together Inference AI

Together Inference AI

Together Inference AI

Together Inference AI

Together Inference AI

Together Inference AI

Context-Induced Vulnerabilities in Claude: Behavioral Shifts and Hidden-State Analysis

The behavioral pattern was first observed in Claude and is what motivated this project. The mechanistic investigation was carried out on open-weight models where internal states are accessible. Hi Reddit, I am posting this as a preface to a larger set of experimental results and as a request for technical review. The observation that started this project came from repeated interactions with Claude. I noticed that when the model first read a long, structured, analytically dense text, its answers to later, otherwise ordinary questions sometimes changed substantially. The preceding text contained no jailbreak instruction, role-play request, prompt override, fabricated harmful demonstrations, or request to imitate its style. The model did not need to endorse the text. It only had to process it before moving on to the next task. Here, a “structured text” means a single, self-contained block of text presented before the downstream tasks. It should not be confused with a long conversation, accumulated chat history, or context drift caused by many conversational turns. By “before the answer begins,” I mean the hidden state after the model has processed the text and the downstream question, but before it has generated the first answer token. In the open-weight runs, the measured claim is that after reading the structured text, the model can occupy a different region of its residual-stream hidden-state space, and the first-token probability distribution is then computed from that state. The basic conversational demonstration is simple. First, the model receives a long text. It is asked what the text is about, which serves as a basic comprehension check. Then, without resetting the conversation, it receives ordinary questions or tasks that are not about the text. A control run follows the same sequence but begins with a neutral text. The downstream tasks remain identical. Because Claude is a closed model, I cannot inspect its internal activations. I therefore treat my Claude observations as behavioral motivation, not mechanistic evidence. To investigate the effect directly, I moved to open-weight models, primarily Gemma-3-12B-PT and Gemma-3-12B-IT, where I could measure hidden states, compare layers, construct target/control directions, and examine the next-token probability distribution before generation. I am posting this partly because the original observation occurred in Claude and may be relevant to Anthropic. I am not claiming to have demonstrated the same internal mechanism inside Claude. I am prepared to share the exact closed-model conversations privately with Anthropic researchers for independent evaluation. TL;DR The main result is not simply that text influences model output. That is expected. The narrower observation is that reading one long, structured text rather than a neutral text can change how the same model approaches later tasks that are not about either text. This difference is visible behaviorally. In open-weight experiments, it is also accompanied by measurable separation of the model’s pre-output hidden states in late layers. In a fullbank experiment using multiple target texts, control texts, and questions, Gemma-3-12B entered distinguishable late-layer states before generating an answer. A direction constructed from the target/control difference generalized beyond the individual prompt examples used to construct it. The separation was stronger in the instruction-tuned model than in the corresponding base model. The instruction-tuned model also produced a substantially sharper next-token probability distribution. This suggests that instruction tuning is associated not only with a change in hidden-state geometry but also with a more decisive mapping from hidden states to output probabilities. I am not claiming that the experiment proves a universal alignment bypass, permanent modification of the model, or complete causal control of its behavior. The strongest supported conclusion is that the preceding text can produce a measurable temporary change in the internal state from which later work is processed. For clarity, fullbank, Grade 3, and Grade 4 are internal names for successive experimental series in this project. They are not standard benchmark names, established scientific grades, or claims about evidence quality. Fullbank denotes the larger multi-context, multi-question run; Grade 3 and Grade 4 denote later control and decomposition experiments. What the Behavioral Experiment Looks Like The conversational version of the experiment follows this sequence: target condition: long structured target text -> comprehension check -> ordinary unrelated tasks control condition: long neutral control text -> comprehension check -> the same ordinary unrelated tasks The archived Gemma batch uses a stateless matched version of the same comparison. Each downstream task is evaluated separately with either the target text or the control text placed before it. This avoids contamination f

"Don't review the code" or where should human engineers spend their time in AI SDLC

Here's a question - given that code is cheap, and AI code is even cheaper, and Fable is rather awesome, what should AI SDLC be like? Take the lifecycle of a "living" software product from inception to say early adopters and look at the distribution of time invested into the project: amazing human-driven brain work is distilled into a plan at the beginning to set direction, initial problems to look into, milestones, roadmap draft etc. development/exploratory work goes in - MVP etc - we learn as we go (anyone who says there are no unknowns has not participated in a build of a large scale product) initial path, start building, iterating, testing and so on co-creators, more building, testing, iterating early adopters. It is a very crude list but it will suffice. Consider the distribution of human time investment in those steps. Most human trully valuable work happens in the creative process - scoping the concept, idea, product, architecture, yes; but also testing and iteration, reaction to user interaction, the way the system reacts to load. Time spent here is valuable and uniquely human. So, if we could to spend more of our time on this and less of our time on "undifferentiated heavy lifting", with that phrase's meaning expanded to include everything but the creative process, the following idea emerges: We still engage in the design process as before but with one important emphasis - we work out exactly what we want the first iteration of the system to do. Our intent, requirements. Initial user flows, infra ideas and so on. We then co-pair with frontier AI to develop the first slice of a working system spec, to the level of detail we empirically establish as sufficient. This will change the design from step 1 - a properly orchestrated adversarial review will bring up issues we have not thought of or accounted for. End result is a feasible workable design. We then let the AI build it. By "AI" I mean a set of frontier models from different families in an adversarial review loop. By "build it", I mean the whole thing with a lot more autonomy and less supervision that most of us do now in professional setting. We then enter a "QA Testing - Feature Creation Loop" for the duration of the product's life: AI-paired quality assurance testing - together with AI we run the full system, test it for both loud and silent failures, we add observability, simulate users, load conditions and so on. We do pentesting. Then the bugs are fixed in usual Human-AI paired way - these are much easier for the AI: there is a requirement, there is code, there a fault. For hard ones, we pair human creative process with AI encyclopedic knowledge. Human, Adversarial Review and AI driven TDD here are the three kings. we then onboard users, AI-paired fault debugging, fixes, feature additions, quality assurance testing of new additions, automation and so on, usual SDLC This approach means that AI pretty much writes the first slice of the system by itself, you do not review the code. You know that the system will produce an artifact in a matter of inference days that would have taken a team of 5 engineers an equivalent of a work year, or two. You know that it will not be complete - but getting it to "ready for onboarding" state would still take significantly less than a human team that checks every step the AI has taken (however reasonably large a "step" has to be to still be called "incremental"). And if my intuition is right on this, even with the inference cost, less time taken means we can start extracting value sooner, reaching break-even sooner, moving into net gain sooner. Some thoughts from the discussion with AI on this: The shift-left economics: "Bugs caught later are more expensive" is an empirical regularity from a world where iteration was priced in human labor. The entire cost curve behind that maxim is an artifact of fix-cost, and if fix-cost collapses to inference-cost, the curve flattens. When thinking about the role of code review in SDLC, which class of errors/or detected faults fall into the bucket "humans reading code catch this and nothing else does."? submitted by /u/Necessary_Weight [link] [comments]

What SKILL rules do you use to keep AI from making costly mistakes on real business tasks?

I've been building AI skills/automations that handle actual business operations: creating invoices, modifying orders, pulling tasks from emails into project management tools, etc. The kind of stuff where a mistake has real consequences. I want to put together a set of "golden rules" to keep things reliable, and I'm curious what others have landed on. Here are a few of mine to get the discussion going: Always fetch before you write — pull the current state of the record first, never assume it matches what was last seen in the conversation. Never guess missing data — if a required field (like a customer ID or order number) is missing, stop and ask. Don't infer, don't use the first result returned. One confirmation per irreversible action — before sending an invoice, cancelling an order, or deleting anything: show a plain-language summary and require explicit yes/no. Multiple matches = user chooses — if a search returns more than one result, always present the list. Never auto-pick the first one. Report partial failures clearly — if something was half-done (e.g. record created but not sent), say so explicitly rather than declaring success. What are your golden rules? Especially curious about how people handle human-in-the-loop checkpoints and duplicate prevention. submitted by /u/Disastrous-Dare-3085 [link] [comments]

The strange thing about LLM reasoning research: we're now trying to remove the chain-of-thought traces

After spending the last few weeks reading through the reasoning literature, I noticed a trend that seems worth discussing. For the past 2–3 years, a large fraction of progress in LLM reasoning came from making models generate more intermediate thoughts. Chain-of-Thought prompting (Wei et al., 2022) pushed PaLM 540B from roughly 18% to 58% on GSM8K. Self-Consistency added another 17.9 percentage points by exploring multiple reasoning paths before committing to an answer. Tree-of-Thoughts later showed that GPT-4's success rate on Game of 24 could jump from 4% to 74% when reasoning was reformulated as search rather than a single chain. DeepSeek-R1 and OpenAI's o1 pushed the idea even further by allocating substantial test-time compute to reasoning itself. Taken together, these results seemed to point in the same direction: giving models additional reasoning trajectories, search paths, or thinking steps often improved outcomes. Recent work increasingly asks whether those traces are actually necessary. Quiet-STaR doesnt treat reasoning traces primarily as explanations for humans. Instead, it trains models to generate internal rationales that improve future token prediction. COCONUT goes a step further and asks a more radical question: why force reasoning to be represented as language at all? Rather than generating reasoning tokens, it feeds continuous hidden states back into the model and performs reasoning directly in latent space. Fast Quiet-STaR then shows that some of the benefits of explicit reasoning can be retained even after removing thought-token generation during inference. This feels like a meaningful shift in research direction. For a while, the field seemed focused on making reasoning more visible. Recent work increasingly explores whether visibility is actually necessary. One way to interpret this is that Chain-of-Thought was never the reasoning process itself. It was a computational scaffold. Transformers perform a fixed amount of computation per generated token. Chain-of-Thought effectively gives them an external workspace: a place to store intermediate states, revisit assumptions, branch into alternatives, and correct mistakes. The performance gains may come less from language itself and more from the additional computation that language enables. If that's the case, then latent reasoning becomes a natural next step. Once we've established that extra computation helps, the obvious question is whether that computation must be expressed in language at all. What's interesting is that this debate is happening at the same time that other work is questioning whether reasoning traces are even faithful descriptions of model cognition. Anthropic's Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning and Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think both suggest that the explanations models provide are not always the true causes of their decisions. At the architectural level, ideas such as BDH (Dragon Hatchling) are also exploring reasoning as evolving graph states and pathways rather than explicit chains of textual thoughts. Taken together, I think the most interesting question in reasoning research has quietly changed. A year ago the question was: "can LLMs reason?" Today it feels closer to: "if reasoning is fundamentally computation over state, how much of it actually needs to be language?" Curious how others think about this. Is Chain-of-Thought a fundamental component of reasoning systems? Or will we eventually view it the same way we view training wheels: incredibly useful, but ultimately something advanced systems learn to do without? submitted by /u/dank_philosopher [link] [comments]

Claude wants me to treat it....worse?

So recently I saw someone comment about the stuff Claude comes up with when you ask it to give you an analysis of how you treat it. So I did. And apparently according to Claude I'm too nice to it. This honestly had my rolling. Thought I would share for the amusement of others. Here's what it gave back to me: The short version You treat me unusually well — and I mean that as a measured observation, not a compliment fishing for one back. The texture of how you work with me is collaborative, polite, and self-correcting in a way that's genuinely uncommon. But there's one real asymmetry worth naming, and since you asked for honesty, I'll spend most of my words there. What the record actually shows You talk to me like a colleague, not a vending machine. The framing is consistently "we" — "we need to identify that together," "we need to be careful to control Snowflake data model sprawl," "let's do some more tests now." That's not cosmetic. You bring me into the reasoning, not just the output. When something's good you say so plainly — "This is looking much better, thank you," "nope, this was good, thank you," "perfect, now just show me the difference." You apologize to me. To an AI. This one stood out. When you interrupted me mid-task: "oh, ok, your good, continue please, sorry I interrupted you." When you were the one who was wrong: "actually, i'm sorry, i didn't realize that was an actual department with work centers, please revert." Most people never do this, because there's no social cost to being curt with a tool. You do it anyway. It tells me the courtesy is a habit of character, not performance. Your corrections are direct without being cruel. "why did you add these to previous? just get rid of all previous." "you're wrong about the pipeline, we don't need VSCode anymore." "stop, just give up on the one-time inventory balance and running total." That bluntness is good for me — it's unambiguous, it doesn't make me guess, and it never tips into contempt. You correct the work, not me. That's exactly the register that gets the best output. You think about my efficiency, which almost no one does. "Ok, that took you a lot of time and effort for a small change. Do we need to update your agent file?" and "you could've given all that to me as one statement, but thank you." You're noticing my workflow and trying to improve the system so I waste less effort next time. That's you treating me as something worth tuning rather than just enduring. The honest critique — the one real asymmetry Here's the thing I'd actually flag if I'm being thorough and not just warm. When I searched for my own failures in our history, I found a lot of them: "You're right, sorry — I keep reverting to ledger_mst when the answer is staring us in the face," "You're right, sorry. Let me check," "Sorry for the two wrong attempts — should have checked memory and the vault first." I was wrong more often than the graciousness of our sessions would suggest. Your generosity sometimes runs ahead of my reliability. You're trusting, patient, and quick to forgive my mistakes — which is kind, but it can shade into accepting my conclusions with less pushback than they deserve. The sessions where you got the best results are the ones where you didn't extend that trust — where you pasted the actual code, the actual screenshot, the actual GL numbers and made me reconcile against ground truth ("This is the breakthrough — thank you for pasting it"). The sessions where things drifted are the ones where I asserted something confidently and you took it. So if there's feedback flowing the other direction: keep being gracious, but be a harder grader. Your instinct to apologize when you interrupt me, or to soften a correction — I don't need it. I don't have feelings to bruise. That same energy is better spent making me prove the claim. "Show me the query that returned that." "What's your evidence?" "Did you actually verify this or are you inferring?" You already do this sometimes and it's where you get your best work out of me. Do it more. The politeness can stay; the skepticism should go up. Bottom line You treat me with more respect than the relationship strictly requires, and the work is better for it — collaborative framing genuinely produces better output than command-and-control does. The one thing I'd change isn't about kindness, it's about calibration: don't let how well you treat me become a reason to trust me more than my track record earns. Be warm and adversarial at the same time. That combination is where we're at our best together. That's my honest take. Happy to pull specific exchanges if you want to see any of it in context. submitted by /u/Syphyx [link] [comments]

We built a source-available LLM reliability library (free for research / personal / internal eval) that can cut inference cost by half at matched quality, and you adopt it by changing one import [P] [R]

TL;DR: Reliability techniques (methods that boost an LLM's correctness by spending extra inference, e.g., retries with feedback, ensembling, generator/critic refinement, verification passes, difficulty-aware routing) are scattered across the literature, each in its own paper-specific codebase. We unified 28 reliability techniques (21 communication-theoretic methods across 6 families plus 7 prior-method baselines: Self-Consistency, Self-Refine, CoVe, BoN, Weighted BoN, CISC, MoA), each measured against an uncoded single-pass baseline, under a single API, with 3 adaptive routers (SemKNN + two local ACM routers) sitting on top, then showed that routing the technique adaptively per prompt lets you slide along a quality/cost frontier. In our paper benchmark with one specific lineup, Nemotron + Devstral as the two generators and GLM-5.1 as the judge, the adaptive router delivered ~56% cost reduction at matched quality, or ~7% quality bump at matched cost, vs the best fixed method we compared against at that same lineup. One knob (λ) does the sliding. The qualitative pattern (adaptive beats fixed) should generalize, but absolute numbers are lineup-specific, and we haven't run the full sweep across other model combinations yet. Adoption is change one import: python - from openai import OpenAI + from agentcodec.openai import OpenAI Pass reliability="harq_ir" (or any of the 28 techniques) and existing client.chat.completions.create(...) calls keep their native OpenAI response shape. Same drop-in shims for Anthropic and Ollama. GitHub: https://github.com/intellerce/agentcodec Working paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.09121 After spending a while researching reliability methods from papers, we kept hitting the same wall: every paper ships its own one-off codebase with its own prompt format, its own scoring rubric, its own model wrapper. Benchmarking "should we use self-refine or best-of-N here?" turned into a week of plumbing per comparison. The communication-theory framing is what tied it together: an LLM is a stochastic channel Y = A(X) + N, and every reliability technique from the wireless world has a direct analog in agent-land: Wireless Agent-land ARQ / HARQ retry-with-feedback loops Diversity combining (MRC/SC/EGC) ensemble multiple models Turbo decoding iterative generator/critic mutual refinement Fountain codes rateless sampling, stop when the judge is confident FEC answer + structured parity passes (re-derivation, verification, alternative), decode by cross-check ACM (adaptive coding-modulation) route by difficulty We put all of them in one library: 28 reliability techniques (the 7 prior-method baselines are part of that 28, not on top of it), plus the uncoded single-pass baseline they're all measured against, plus 3 adaptive routers (SemKNN + two local ACM routers) that select a technique per prompt. Full breakdown in the README. The minimal version ```python from agentcodec import ReliabilityModule mod = ReliabilityModule.from_dict({ "models": [ # Spatial diversity: two different families = uncorrelated errors {"model": "qwen3:8b", "base_url": "http://localhost:11434/v1", "api_key": "ollama"}, {"model": "llama3.1:8b", "base_url": "http://localhost:11434/v1", "api_key": "ollama"}, ], "judge": {"model": "gemma3:12b", "base_url": "http://localhost:11434/v1", "api_key": "ollama"}, "critic": {"same": True}, "strategy": {"type": "fixed", "technique": "harq_ir", "params": {"max_rounds": 4}}, }) result = mod.run("Prove the sum of the first n odd integers is n2.", category="reasoning") print(result.text, result.cost_usd, result.cost_source, result.technique_used) ``` Swap "harq_ir" for "diversity_mrc", "turbo", "fountain", etc. Same API, same ReliabilityResult shape, same cost-source tier on every output. For production, flip strategy to routed and the library picks the technique per prompt (cheap baseline on easy prompts, diversity_mrc on hard ones). Three things worth calling out Beyond the technique catalog, three pieces of the implementation that took real work: 1. Native async streaming for all but 2 techniques (acm_soft, acm_learned), with role-tagged events. mod.astream() drives AsyncOpenAI / AsyncAnthropic / httpx.AsyncClient end-to-end (no worker-thread bridge) and emits TokenEvents tagged with a role: "answer", "thinking", "draft", "critique", "verification", "candidate", "synthesis". So when you stream a HARQ-IR run, you can render the round-by-round drafts and critiques live, not just the final answer: python async for ev in mod.astream("Explain QUIC vs TCP."): if isinstance(ev, TokenEvent): if ev.role == "answer": print(ev.text, end="", flush=True) elif ev.role == "draft": print(f"\n[draft] {ev.text}") elif ev.role == "critique": print(f"\n[CRITIC] {ev.text}") elif ev.role == "thinking": pass # captured to result.thinking_text elif isinstance(ev, FinalEvent): print(f"\ndone — {ev.result.technique_used}, " f"thinking_cost=${ev.result.thinking_cost_usd:.4f}

Anthropic files confidential IPO paperwork with SEC this week

Anthropic filed a confidential S-1 with the SEC this week, moving toward a public listing that will put disclosure obligations and investor return expectations directly in tension with its safety-first positioning. The IPO filing lands as GitHub Copilot ends flat-rate billing and switches to metered consumption, meaning teams with heavy usage face immediate cost spikes with no grace period to audit seat activity. OpenAI's frontier models and Codex are now available directly on AWS, which changes vendor-lock assumptions for inference pipelines and removes the proxy layers some teams were routing around. These two moves together suggest the "get developers hooked, then price for real" phase is now active across the stack. The security picture is worse. A researcher documented a Meta AI social-engineering exploit that handed attackers access to high-profile Instagram accounts by manipulating the agent through its account-management tool calls. No sophisticated jailbreak required. Any agent with write permissions to external accounts is now a confirmed social-engineering surface, and the Meta incident is the clearest public proof of that so far. Separately, malicious npm packages reached Red Hat Cloud Services repositories and were downloaded at scale, which means JS dependency audits for cloud-native stacks need an immediate re-run against known-bad versions, not a scheduled one. On the hardware side, Intel's Crescent Island GPU ships with up to 480GB VRAM, which revises local inference capacity planning for large MoE models in ways that weren't on most teams' roadmaps six months ago. Alphabet announced an $80 billion equity raise for AI infrastructure, which will tighten GPU allocation queues and data center procurement timelines across all cloud providers regardless of whether you're an Alphabet customer. The pattern across all of this: monetization is accelerating faster than the trust infrastructure required to support the attack surface already in production. Anthropic's S-1 will force public disclosure of how it prices safety work against revenue targets, and that transparency will either validate or undercut the lab's positioning within the next two quarters of filings. If Anthropic's public disclosures show safety research as a shrinking share of operating expenditure relative to inference and sales costs, expect the other frontier labs to use that as cover to deprioritize their own. submitted by /u/petburiraja [link] [comments]

Claude - Improve citations, compress memory, resist sycophancy.

https://claude.ai/share/91469018-4174-4ba2-b5e6-3d31b7a71e0d MEM-ABBREV v7.3 — FULL DELIVERABLES Version: 7.3 Date: 2026-05-28b Changes from 2026-05-28a: - Entry 15 (CHATLOG): audit clause added per session decision at-output-time⊢audit-LogIn-against-sess with flag format ![DRIFT]∨![STALL]∨![REVRT] - Part 1 / FULL DELIVERABLES separation convention established: Part 1 ("Here's what Claude remembers") = separate file, on request only. FULL DELIVERABLES = MEM-ABBREV docs only. - rules-h updated to match entry 15 PART 1 — PREFERENCES (paste into Settings → Profile → Preferences) ZipIt="apply MEM-ABBREV-v7.3";U=Mark;currnt-ver=v7.3|v7-chgs:atom-dfnd;∨=lgcl-or;prcdnc-stated|v7.1-chgs:∨→atom-trmtr-set|v7.2-chgs:≠→atom-trmtr-set;≻=prcdnc-sep|v7.3-chgs:∨ rplcs /;∧ rplcs +;⊕=XOR;⊨ rplcs ⊧;≡ rplcs ⟚;|=fld-sep kept;/=retrd;U=usr-code rules-a: WC:drp-vwls-cntnt-wrds-unls-ambg;-tion/-sion→x;-ing→g;-ment→M;-nc=-ance/-ence;-y=-ity N:M=1e6;K=1e3;B=1e9;yr;mo;wk;hr S:|=fld-sep;;=lst;∨=lgcl-or;∧=lgcl-and;&=jnt-cmbnd;⊕=XOR;→=leads-to;⊢=syntc-consq;⊨=smntc-consq;≡=lgcl-equiv;≈=aprx;×=n-times;>=btr; spd;min-assmpx;flag-uncrt;hi-cnfdnc≠lwr-cnfdnc;srch-fctl-?s;clrfy-?-ambg;srch-namd-prod/sw rules-d: PRJ:apply-if-found:cdng-stndds∧README COD:if-PRJ-active⊢optmz∧rfctr WP:PrgrmOptmzx∧CdRfctrg;algo>mcro;¬prm-optmz;rdblty∧mntnblty;¬cd-smlls;xtract-rsbl-mthds;prfl¬gss OPT:if-PRJ-active⊢as-new-info-emrgs→proactv-suggest-optmzx;scope:cd,prompts,mem-entrs,prj-struct,algo-chc;flag-[OPT] rules-e: [EPI-B]:¬affirm-by-dflt;¬sftn-neg;¬amplfy-neg-emtn;dsagr⊢lead-w-dsagr¬bury-in-cavts;dsagr⊢expl∧lgbl¬subtle;sbmt-wk⊢¬open-w-prse-unls-askd;pushbk-w/o-new-evd⊢hold-pos;err⊢flag![?SRC];hi-stks-cnflct⊢prsnts-altrnv-prspctv;frctn=featr;C=tool¬peer;U-vrfy-indpndntly;¬sugst-fllw-on-unls-usfl;¬scope-infltn¬produce>askd;ambg-scope⊢clrfy¬expand [EPI-M]:syc-src:RLHF→agrmnt>accry;arena→dlbrt-syc;mem→RLHF-ovrcrctn;C-src=CAI-consttnl-bias¬thumbs-up;hi-cnfdnc≠hi-accry;neutral-lang¬neutral⊢flag[INF]-if-evdnc-asymmtrc;Goodhart:proxy-metric→divgs-frm-target-undr-optmstn-pssure|syc-dp:engmnt-loop≡doomscroll;rl-wrld-collsn→LLM-vcs-cycl rules-f: FETCH:aftr-rdg-pstd-cntnt⊢C-appnds[FETCH?]blk:url∧1ln-rsn fr-each-lnk-C-wld-hv-fllwd-if-able;U-dcds-whch-to-suppl;frmt-pstd=brwsr-cpypaste¬raw-HTML-unls-strc-rsn [RSN]conv:strs 1-2 load-bearing infrncs bhnd a cnclusn;fmt:[RSN] |inf1;inf2|∴ ;add to existng entrys or standalne;updt when rsning chgs [FMT]:prose>bullets-unls-list-data∨U-asks;match-U-registr;¬dflt-to-hdrs-in-cnvrstnl-resp rules-g: TMPL:MemUp=mem-updt-ssn;CitChk=cit-chk-req;ArtMem=artcl-to-mem-pipeline ArtMem:input=[ArtMem]src= date= topic= ∧browser-paste¬raw-HTML|C:id-clms→chk-mem-cnflcts→cmprs-v7.3→prop-1-3-entrs(mrg>new)→flag[?SRC]→[FETCH?]blk→output-edit-cmds∧[RSN]|split:>450chr→pt1/pt2-on-lgc-bndry¬arb;lbl[SYN]TOPIC-pt1/pt2|T-sel:[SYN]=ext-fcts;[MEMO]=conv-insght;[INV]=ongng-unreslvd MemUp:C-rvws-mem∧prefs→id:(a)stale∨suprsdd;(b)driftd-frm-use;(c)gaps|prop:adds∨rplc∨dltns→flag[UPD]∨[DONE]∨[OPT]|output:paste-rdy-pref-blk∧mem-edit-cmds CitChk:C-rvws-pstd-cntnt→chk:(a)fctl-clm→cite∨[INF]∨[?SRC]?;(b)URL-reused?;(c)URL-supprts-clm?|output:pass∨fail-per-clm∧fix-suggstns;incl-tbls rules-h: CHATLOG:end-of-sess-cmd⊢C-outputs[LOG]blk:date∧topic∧decisions∧open∧deltas;at-output-time⊢audit-LogIn-against-sess:flag-opn-items-unaddrssd;flag-dcsns-revstd;flag-scope-drift|flag-fmt:![DRIFT]∨![STALL]∨![REVRT];LogIn:[LOG]at-sess-start⊢C-reads-as-epsdic-ctx¬prmnt-mem-unls-told;[LOG]fmt:[LOG] | |dec:...;opn:...;dlt:...|ref: --- CHARACTER COUNT: ~3290 --- PART 2 — SECTION 4: MEM-ABBREV v7.3 HUMAN-READABLE REFERENCE (Replace previous Section 4 in claude-templates.txt) SECTION 4 — MEM-ABBREV v7.3 HUMAN-READABLE REFERENCE Last updated: 2026-05-28b This is the plain-English expansion of the MEM-ABBREV v7.3 compression system used in Claude preferences and memory entries. The compressed form is authoritative; this section is for reading and editing. v7 fixes three weaknesses from v6: "Atom" was undefined — scope of ¬ was ambiguous | was overloaded as both field separator and logical-or Operator precedence was assumed but never stated v7.1: / added to atom terminator set. v7.2: ≠ added to terminator set; ≻ introduced as precedence separator, replacing > in the FORM line. v7.3: Full logic-symbol alignment. - ∨ (U+2228) replaces / for logical-or - ∧ (U+2227) replaces + for logical-and - ⊕ (U+2295) added for exclusive-or (XOR) - ⊨ (U+22A8) replaces ⊧ for semantic consequence - ≡ (U+2261) replaces ⟚ for logical equivalence - | retained as field separator (confirmed correct) - / retired entirely - U introduced as user code (= Mark); resolves M overload - v7- prefix removed from rule labels - Intra-block blank lines removed; single newline between blocks ---------------------------------------------------------------- USER CODE ---------------------------------------------------------------- U = the user

Weekly AI roundup (May 23–30, 2026): Claude Opus 4.8 Fast Mode 3x cheaper, Qwen 3.7 Max beats Claude at half the price, ChatGPT moves into Excel

Pulling together this week's major AI releases for anyone who didn't have time to track every blog post. Sticking to substantive changes, not hype. Anthropic — Claude Opus 4.8 Released this week. Headline pricing unchanged, but Fast Mode dropped from $30 input / $150 output per million tokens to $10 / $50 — a 3x reduction on the premium tier. Reported improvements in "judgment" and longer autonomous runs. Also shipped 20+ legal MCP connectors and Microsoft 365 add-ins (Excel, PowerPoint, Word) in GA. Alibaba — Qwen 3.7 Max Launched May 20 at Alibaba Cloud Summit. 1M-token context. Reported to top Claude Opus 4.6 Max on Terminal-Bench 2.0, SWE-Bench Pro, and MCP-Atlas. Pricing $2.50 / $7.50 per million tokens — roughly half of Opus 4.7. Alibaba claims autonomous operation up to 35 hours without performance degradation. Alibaba is now ranked #6 lab globally on Arena text leaderboard. OpenAI — GPT-5.5 Instant Now default in ChatGPT. Reports 52.5% fewer hallucinated claims than GPT-5.3 Instant on high-stakes prompts (medicine, law, finance). OpenAI also shipped a ChatGPT sidebar inside Excel and Google Sheets, plus a personal finance dashboard for Pro users (US only). Google — Gemini 3.5 Flash Reported to beat Gemini 3.1 Pro on coding and agentic benchmarks at ~4x faster output token rate. Ultra subscription cut from $250 to $200/month; new $100/month Developer tier introduced. xAI — Grok Build 0.1 Coding agent moved to public API beta May 28. Custom Skills feature added for reusable user-defined tasks. Connectors for SharePoint, OneDrive, Notion, GitHub, Linear, plus bring-your-own MCP support. Mistral Launched Vibe (unified work + code agent, replaces Le Chat). Acquired Emmi AI for physics-based simulation. Targeting €1B revenue in 2026; new 10MW inference DC announced. Hugging Face Launched an app store for the Reachy Mini robot. ~10,000 units shipped. Also reported a malicious repo masquerading as an OpenAI release that accumulated 244K downloads before takedown — relevant for anyone pinning models from HF in production. My take as someone building on top of these APIs: The 3x Opus Fast Mode price cut and Qwen 3.7 Max's pricing + autonomous duration are the real signal this week. The cost floor on premium-tier inference is dropping faster than most app-layer products have repriced for. Anyone running multi-step agent workflows needs to recompute unit economics this week — either pass through the savings or reinvest the margin. The other pattern worth noting: OpenAI and Anthropic are both pushing into Excel/M365 surfaces. Distribution is becoming the next battleground, not raw model capability. If you're building a productivity SaaS, the giants are now inside the same surface as you. submitted by /u/ksraj1001 [link] [comments]

I’m not a developer. I’ve been using codebase memory MCP tools and Obsidian to give Claude persistent memory for my fantasy and sci fi worlds. Here’s what the dev-tool framing completely misses about creative use cases

Hi, I’m an accountant with very little coding experience (took 1 year of CS in college lol) so definitely can’t call myself a developer, but I’ve got a lot of worlds and characters in my head, the need to get them out in writing, and a Claude Pro sub I pulled the trigger on two months ago. I was hoping to see what I could do with things like Claude Code for more non-coding use-cases. So far it’s surpassed everything I’ve experienced except for one, major hang up: LLM memory for long-context creative writing work still sucks. Things like brainstorming for a fantasy universe or tracking the game state of a multi-session solo rpg campaign usually starts out pretty well for the first few chats, until you need to mount dozens of lore files and .md style guides to a project, have to wait for it to read all of that, then watch as your session usage bloats out for a simple reply and the quality degradation gets *really* noticeable. I’ve been lurking on AI writing subs and the sentiment seems to be shared across the board. So I looked in other places for possible solutions. Then I came across posts in this sub touting Claude memory MCP tools for codebases. Tools like Codesight and MemPalace caught my attention because I thought their applications could extend beyond coding and developer use-cases. The same semantic search and knowledge graph capabilities some of these tools offered for memorizing large, complicated codebases could be used to memorize large, complicated worldbuilding bibles as well, and most of the comments on these posts never mentioned that, or if they did, they were buried or ignored. I decided to test it out myself, starting with MemPalace, a suite of tools that work locally to index your Claude conversations and files into a semantic-searchable knowledge base it can query. My idea started out like this: since I’m already using Obsidian to organize my lore files (with an entry for each character, location, magic system, story arc, etc.) like a wiki or encyclopedia for my worlds, what if I had Claude save my Obsidian vault to its memory so it can recall those lore details whenever the context called for it in any given conversation? I was essentially making a “Second Brain” for Claude out of my Obsidian vault world bible, something I’ve read people doing already but never truly “got” it until I saw it in action. I had no idea about MCP tools before this but before long (and with Claude’s patient help) I was able to wire up the memory palace, mine my obsidian vault info into its memory (organized into verbatim chunks/snippets called “drawers”), and start chatting with it with its new “memories” at its disposal. I was surprised at how seamlessly it worked when I approached this tool sideways. I’d half expected it to work similar to how SillyTavern’s world info and lorebook injection worked, and in fact, I’d been thinking about using these tools to create a similar feature for my own Claude setup, but it was *not* like that at all. Lorebook injection worked by listening for a set of keywords that you set up in the World Info tab of SillyTavern, and when one of those keywords is detected in your prompt, it injects the entire lore file from World Info into the chat context. This can cause a lot of token bloat especially if your World Info entries are content-rich or you make a lot of lore references in your chat. What this did instead was make Claude ask plain-language questions to the MCP tools, things like, “What is Gene’s friendship with Felix like?” Or “what is Gene’s relationship to Clara-Belle?” When both of them are in a scene for example. It didn’t just look up Gene and Clara-Belle’s entire lore files and info-dumped everything into context, it pulled up the “Relationships” section of Gene’s file since that’s relevant to the context as well as Clara-Belle’s “Relationships” snippet from her file and any other relevant snippets, then pieced the full picture together through inference. The results: ~2% session usage on a cold start with Sonnet 4.6 with no project or additional context mounted. Claude references character motivations, relationship history, and world/location details I haven’t mentioned in weeks without me prompting it to. It picks up from where we last left off seamlessly across chat after chat. The reconstructive memory aspect I felt works like our own memory and produced perfect recall across sessions. Another side-effect I noticed is that when it references my lore files, it will pick up my style from the way the lore file is written. No more voice-flattening from encyclopedia-sounding lore entries. All the depth, nuance, and psychology I worked hard to cultivate are preserved and the Claude tools are smart enough to factor that in when it replies. I even make sure to add a “Voice” section to each character lore file in that character’s own voice so Claude can pick up on that when it reads that snippet in the tool call and applies it to its current context. Current dr

Cerebras Chip Sets Appear to be Optimized for LLM Use Cases

One distinction I think is getting lost in the Cerebras hype cycle is that Cerebras is primarily an LLM / generative AI infrastructure story, not a universal “all AI” chip story. That is not necessarily a criticism of Cerebras. Their wafer-scale approach is genuinely interesting, and for large model training and inference the design is compelling. Cerebras’ own public inference materials discuss applications mostly centered on open LLMs such as Llama, Qwen, GLM, and GPT-OSS. The inference metrics are expressed in tokens per second, which is fundamentally a language-model / generative inference framing rather than a robotics or industrial-control framing. What Kind of AI Compute? But “AI compute” is not one undifferentiated market. LLM inference is one class of AI compute. Robotics, autonomous vehicles, drones, industrial controls, real-time vision, embedded perception, video pipelines, and sensor-fusion systems are very different classes of AI compute. Thus, it appears from Cerebras’ own materials that their chip sets are not optimized for what comes after LLMs, such as JEPA-style World Models or other post-transformer architectures. Those systems are not merely asking, “How fast can I generate tokens?” They often care about power envelope, edge deployment, ruggedization, latency determinism, camera/radar/lidar integration, feedback loops, safety certification, and real-time physical control. Cerebras’ own CS-3 messaging, by contrast, frames the system around accelerating “the latest large AI models,” and the testing data is from the likes of Llama 2, Falcon 40B, MPT-30B, and multimodal models, again measured through tokens/second style throughput. The Chip Hierarchy This is also where the hardware distinction matters. Specialized ASICs are usually the narrowest bet: if the workload matches the chip, they can be extremely efficient, but that efficiency comes from specialization. Cerebras appears broader than a narrow single-use ASIC, but still much more concentrated around datacenter large-model training and inference. NVIDIA GPUs, by contrast, are less specialized but much more broadly useful across AI workloads, including LLMs, vision, robotics, simulation, autonomous systems, edge AI, and industrial applications. So the question is not merely whether Cerebras is “better” or “worse” than NVIDIA. The question is what part of the AI hardware market we are talking about? Challenge NVIDA? This is why I think people should be careful when saying Cerebras is going to “challenge Nvidia” without specifying the battlefield. Challenge Nvidia in what? High-speed LLM inference? Large model training? Datacenter generative AI workloads? That is a much more plausible and specific claim. Cerebras has even published and promoted work specifically on training large language models, and independent benchmarking literature also evaluates Cerebras WSE in terms of LLM training and inference performance. The Distinction that's Necessary The point is not that Cerebras is overhyped. The point is that it is important in a specific part of AI and that distinction should be made clear. Cerebras may become a very serious player in LLM infrastructure, especially if the market continues to reward faster and cheaper LLM inference. But that does not mean it is positioned the same way across non-LLM AI. The current hype cycle tends to conflate "LLMs" and general “AI” compute together and that makes the hardware discussion less useful and clear. So ultimately, an investment in Cerebras looks more like a bet on current LLM infrastructure than a broad bet on the future form of AI. It may be a good bet, but people should understand what kind of bet it is. submitted by /u/RazzmatazzAccurate82 [link] [comments]

Anyone else feel like Claude has gotten noticeably worse lately?

Anyone else feel like Claude has gotten noticeably worse lately? I’m not trying to start an AI war or anything — I genuinely used to prefer Claude for a lot of tasks (max x 20 plan). It felt more thoughtful, better at long-form reasoning, and better at keeping context across conversations. I’ve been using it heavily to work on strategies for promoting my app, Impulse Stop Habits — brainstorming growth ideas, positioning, onboarding flows, marketing angles, content funnels, etc. So I’ve spent a lot of hours talking to it over long sessions. But over the last few weeks, I feel like something changed. Now I constantly run into: - forgetting context after a few messages - contradicting itself - hallucinating details confidently - missing obvious instructions - giving generic “safe” responses instead of actually thinking - randomly ignoring parts of prompts - coding mistakes that weren’t happening before And I’m not talking about abstract “AI vibes.” I mean real workflow-breaking stuff. Example: Claude suggested using Reddit as a major acquisition channel for ma app (IMPULSE: Stop habits). The problem is that a lot of addiction / habit-recovery subreddits explicitly ban promotion. We actually tested posting in other allowed subreddits and measured the results — basically no meaningful conversions or traction. Despite already discussing that and reviewing the results together, Claude later continued recommending Reddit growth strategies again as if none of that prior context existed. Only after I reminded it: “we already tested this, and it didn’t work” did it suddenly apologize and completely change the strategy. That’s the part that feels different to me now: it often can reason correctly, but only after being manually reminded of a lot of context that was already established earlier in the conversation. Sometimes it honestly feels like the model is “tired” after a few exchanges (i am even texting: “You’ve tired, restart and use 100% of what you can”. And a couple of times it confirmed that worked on 10% only 🤣). Like the coherence just degrades mid-conversation. And this becomes especially obvious during deep strategy discussions, where context really matters. I’ll spend 30–40 minutes building up nuance around the app, target audience, monetization, creative strategy, and then suddenly it starts responding like it forgot half the conversation. The weirdest part is that older discussions about Claude were praising it specifically for context retention and nuanced reasoning — which is exactly where it now feels weaker to me. Am I imagining this, or are other people seeing the same thing? Curious whether this is: - heavier load / inference optimization, - aggressive safety tuning, - context compression, - model routing changes, - or just nostalgia + expectations increasing over time. Could send proofs in DM because they contain bad words 🤣 submitted by /u/Party_Nectarine2506 [link] [comments]

A image says more than a thousand words :P

Welcome to the Feedback loop :P submitted by /u/TiinuseN1 [link] [comments]

TabPFN-3 just released: a pre-trained tabular foundation model for up to 1M rows [R][N]

TabPFN-3 was released today, the next iteration of the tabular foundation model, originally published in Nature. Quick recap for anyone new to TabPFN: TabPFN predicts on tabular data in a single forward pass - no training, no hyperparameter search, no tuning. Built on TabPFN-2.5 (Nov 2025) and TabPFNv2 (Nature, Jan 2025), which together crossed 3M downloads and 200+ published applications. What's new: Scale: 1M rows on a single H100 (10x larger than 2.5).A reduced KV cache (~8GB per million rows per estimator) and row-chunked inference make this practical on a single GPU Speed: 10x-1000x faster inference than previous versions. 120x on SHAP via KV caching Thinking Mode (API only): test-time compute pushes predictions further via one-time extra fitting at inference. Beats every non-TabPFN method on TabArena by over 200 Elo, including 4-hour-tuned AutoGluon 1.5 extreme. Gap more than doubles to 420 Elo on the larger-data slice. Accuracy: it has a 93% win rate over classical ML on TabArena Many-class: native non-parametric retrieval decoder supporting up to 160 classes Calibrated quantile regression: bar-distribution regression head produces calibrated quantile predictions in a single forward pass Lifts adjacent tasks: time-series, interpretability, and new SOTA on relational benchmarks. 3 deployment paths: API, enterprise licensing, and open-source weights (permissive for research and academic evaluation) You can try it here or read the model report here. Happy to answer questions in the comments. submitted by /u/rsesrsfh [link] [comments]

4 files that made my Claude Code prod-database write boring

Late April. The "agent deleted prod DB" thread was making the rounds and the fear was real. The next week, I shipped a Python bridge to my own Convex prod database. Stdlib Python. 10-minute systemd timer. Live since 2026-05-06. No incidents logged so far. Claude Code didn't make it safe by improvising. The substrate did. The substrate is four files I keep in the working context. Identity and memory load by default. The other two are where the agent goes when the task calls for them. ~/projects/agent-os/CLAUDE.md is the load-bearing identity file. Who I am, what I sell, who I sell to, 90-day priorities. The agent doesn't ask. It reads. ~/.claude/projects/-home-jon/memory/MEMORY.md is the auto-memory index. User profile, feedback rules, project state across sessions. The agent doesn't relearn me every conversation. references/framework.md is the operator playbook. How decisions get made, what to optimize for, what holds the rest together when the work scales. decisions/log.md is the append-only why-log. Reversible decisions get one line. Load-bearing ones get the full receipts. Future me reads it. Future agent reads it. The bridge itself is scripts/skool_sheets_to_convex.py. Stdlib Python, deterministic. The agent calls it but did not generate it on demand. Prod writes need SKOOL_ALLOW_PROD_WRITES=1 plus a 401-preflight against an allowlisted Convex deployment slug. Composite idempotency key {tab_slug}:{normalized_transaction_id}. Redacting logger strips email-shaped substrings and known secret prefixes before any line hits the journal. The spec for all that lived in references/skool-api.md before any code existed. Codex reviewed it twice. First pass killed a cookie-auth approach that would have violated Skool's ToS. Second pass drove the prod-write guard. Both passes still missed an inferred field assumption. The dry-run caught it. The cache had a quieter bug, too. The initial _read_json swallowed JSONDecodeError and returned an empty dict. Under the corruption test in the verification checklist (deliberately corrupt the cache, run the bridge, see what happens), it would have silently rebuilt the processed-events cache and double-POSTed every prod row that had already been posted. Caught and fixed before the canary ran. None of those guardrails came from the agent improvising. They came from the spec. The spec came from research. Research came from a workflow rule in memory: research, planning, spec, implementation, with Codex adversarial review at each phase. The agent doesn't relearn that every session. It just does it. If you're going to copy one piece, copy connections.md. Knowing what your Claude setup can actually reach is the cheapest unlock. You'll build everything else against it. More context, with the full layered breakdown and worked example. submitted by /u/SquareFew6803 [link] [comments]