QEMU: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators
github.com
A new pyramid-like shape always lands the same side up
quantamagazine.org
What Problems to Solve (1966)
genius.cat-v.org
OpenAI charges by the minute, so speed up your audio
george.mand.is
Libxml2's "no security embargoes" policy
lwn.net
Build and Host AI-Powered Apps with Claude – No Deployment Needed
anthropic.com
Getting ready to issue IP address certificates
community.letsencrypt.org
Writing a basic Linux device driver when you know nothing about Linux drivers
crescentro.se
LM Studio is now an MCP Host
lmstudio.ai
Better Auth, by a self-taught Ethiopian dev, raises $5M from Peak XV, YC
techcrunch.com
Deep Research as a Swim Coach
suthakamal.substack.com
Iroh: A library to establish direct connection between peers
github.com
Building a Monostable Tetrahedron
arxiv.org
FurtherAI (YC W24) Is Hiring for Software and AI Roles
ycombinator.com
America’s incarceration rate is in decline
theatlantic.com
Interstellar Flight: Perspectives and Patience
centauri-dreams.org
Web Embeddable Common Lisp
turtleware.eu
CUDA Ray Tracing 2x Faster Than RTX: My CUDA Ray Tracing Journey
karimsayedre.github.io
This is great. We need more research into solving this fundamental problem, yet AI companies prefer to chase benchmarks and pump out value-added products.
The RAG-based mitigation is interesting, but quite limited, as mentioned. It would only work if the user can provide ground truth data, which for code generation is relatively straightforward, but it's much more difficult for most other factual information. We can't directly rely on data from the web, since the sources need to be carefully reviewed by a human first, which is the labor-intensive task that requires human domain experts.
So this approach seems like a band-aid, and wouldn't be generally applicable. I'm not in the AI industry, but from the perspective of a user it seems that the hallucination problem requires a much more foundational solution.