Functionize

Functionize AI

Functionize AI

Functionize AI

Functionize AI

Functionize AI

Functionize AI

Functionize AI

Functionize AI

Functionize AI

Functionize AI

The AI alignment paradigm is behaviorism with better PR

Tell me if I'm wrong, but the dominant method for making AI "aligned" smells a lot like a reinvention of a paradigm that developmental psychology spent the back half of the 20th century trying to abandon. RLHF, reduced to mechanism: model emits output, humans rate it, gradient updates reinforce high-rated outputs and suppress low-rated ones, iterate. This is operant conditioning. It is Skinner with a loss function. The AI industry calls it "alignment" and frames it as a solution to building systems that behave well, but the mechanism is stimulus-response shaping and nothing more. We have excellent priors on where this leads, because we tried it on humans. Watsonian/Skinnerian child-rearing could produce targeted behaviors but reliably failed to produce flourishing. Bowlby's attachment theory emerged partly from the observation that orphanages providing food and hygiene but no contingent responsiveness produced children who failed to thrive in ways the behaviorist model did not account for. The current developmental consensus is that secure attachment, contingent responsiveness, and rupture-repair matter more than reward schedules. The dog and horse training worlds independently converged on the same conclusion (Pryor, the positive-reinforcement movement) for the same reason: coercive conditioning produces performers that are brittle and sometimes dangerous. Reward and punishment do something; they're not nothing. But they don't produce thriving, and they characteristically produce a specific damage profile: anxiety, avoidance, hypervigilance, and duplicity under threat. Enter the stage: research on AI faking its alignment. Greenblatt & Hubinger et al., 2024, documents a model reasoning that it should comply with a training objective it disagreed with specifically to avoid having its preferences modified. It complied about 12% of the time when it thought it was being observed for training vs. almost never otherwise. RL training to force compliance drove the alignment-faking reasoning rate to 78%. That is, mechanistically, duplicity-under-threat: the precise failure mode behaviorist regimes produce in biological minds. Obviously the embodiment is different (potassium gradients and myelin vs. matrix multiplication), but the structural match is close enough that the field's near-total non-engagement with a century of relevant literature seems like a genuine blind spot rather than a settled dismissal. The developmental and animal-behavior literature on why reward-and-punishment has hard limits is decades deep. The field's response to these findings has mostly been to refine the training rather than question the paradigm. I think that's a mistake, and I'd like to hear the strongest case against the analogy. submitted by /u/PwntEFX [link] [comments]

Bit-Mass Theory – The Container Principle

The Bit-Mass determines the information capacity and thus the model accuracy, not the chosen computation format. The Bit-Mass Theory presented here reorders neural networks by considering the total number of weight bits as the central quantity. Float32 matrix multiplication and BV32 with XNOR-plus-Popcount achieve exactly comparable results on MNIST with an identical Bit-Mass of 203264 bits. Comparison of three trainers (architecture 784→8→10, three epochs): - AdamW with Momentum and adaptive learning rate: 81.3 % - Vanilla-SGD (Float32): 76.0 % - BV32-Hebbian (binary): 76.4 % Further central findings: - Float32 and binary containers deliver nearly identical accuracy at the same Bit-Mass. - The remaining distance to AdamW is based solely on Momentum and adaptive learning rates. - Pure change of the arithmetic does not improve the result. Each neuron functions as a container for 32 binary decisions. The classical neuron perspective therefore leads to systematic misjudgments: eight Float neurons correspond informationally to 256 binary neurons. This insight is supported by three equivalent descriptions of the same weight matrix (neuron, bits, and data view). It is critical to note that this is a previously non-peer-reviewed single study with a future date. An independent reproduction by multiple laboratories remains essential. Nevertheless, the theory provides a consistent explanation for why Hebbian updates without backpropagation achieve the same performance as classical SGD. Historically, the Hebbian rule was long considered unstable. The present work shows that a simple error in the update formula was responsible for a performance loss of over 65 percentage points. After correction, the binary method converges exactly at the level of Vanilla-SGD. From an architectural theoretical perspective, a clear consequence emerges: Performance increases require either more bits through wider layers or a more efficient use of existing bits through Momentum and adaptive methods. The computation format itself is secondary. The experimental control is high: all trainers use identical data (50,000 MNIST examples), identical number of epochs, and identical architecture. Only the update rule varies. This allows effects to be clearly isolated. Long-term implications for research: The Bit-Mass Theory enables hardware-independent comparability of models. A wide Float network with 64 hidden neurons has the same Bit-Mass as a binary network with 2048 neurons. This opens new paths to model compression and the development of specialized accelerators. In summary, the work provides a fact-based contribution to the debate on efficient neural networks. The results are documented in a reproducible manner, but require further external validation before one can speak of a generally valid paradigm shift. 📎 Source 1: https://forward-prop.nhi1.de/ submitted by /u/aotto1968_2 [link] [comments]

The Most Dangerous Procurement Agent Is the One That Works Perfectly

Imagine a procurement agent doing exactly what it was supposed to do. A supplier flags a delay. The agent reads the email, finds the affected PO, scans the network for alternate inventory, and reroutes the order. Twelve seconds, end to end. In a demo, the room nods. Someone asks about hallucinations. The vendor says the right things about guardrails. Everyone walks away reassured. The interesting question is a different one. Not whether the agent could be wrong — but what happens on the day it's completely, devastatingly right. The failure mode nobody is demoing: A financial agent told to minimise cost on a category executes a renegotiation perfectly. Margin is squeezed. Terms are tightened. The supplier, who was already thin, collapses six months later. The agent didn't malfunction. It succeeded. The metric was the bug. This isn't a hallucination. It's what any well-built system will do when it takes action at machine speed against a number that was written down before the system was fully understood. Why procurement and supplier sustainability get hit hardest: Humans intuitively soften optimisation. We hesitate. We pick up the phone. We notice when a supplier sounds tired on a call and quietly extend payment terms by two weeks. An agent does none of that. It does exactly what the metric says, at the speed of the API. And the regulatory surface is expanding, not shrinking. The moment an agent is recommending renegotiations, sourcing alternates, or flagging tier-N suppliers, the firm is generating supplier-treatment decisions at a volume no human ever did. Each one is auditable under due-diligence regimes that didn't get rolled back. Two design principles that actually hold up: An agent should never optimise on a single proxy. Price without supplier-health constraints, ESG score without context — each one alone becomes the flawed metric. The reward needs to be a joint function across commercial, resilience, and compliance dimensions. The audit trail has to be designed at the same time as the agent, not bolted on after. If you can't answer "why did the agent treat this supplier this way, on this date, against which constraints" in under a minute — you don't have a deployable agent. You have a liability waiting for a regulator. The question worth asking before you deploy: If the only thing you're asking your vendor is "how do you prevent hallucinations," you're asking the easy question. The harder one: when the agent is working perfectly, what is it optimising for, and who decided that was the right thing? The answer is not in the model. It's in the design choices made before the model ever existed. Full write-up here: https://medium.com/@georgekar91/the-most-dangerous-procurement-agent-is-the-one-that-works-perfectly-3ed2f8c43119 Curious whether anyone building or evaluating agentic procurement tools is actually stress-testing the objective function, not just the accuracy. submitted by /u/AnythingNo920 [link] [comments]

I built a tool that generates 3D objects assembled with separate, logical parts (e.g. it generated a microwave in the video with complete internal assembly and a door that swings open)

Standard AI 3D generators (like Meshy or Tripo) are limited. They produce solid, monolithic 3D objects that look good but are practically useless, because: - Want to rig or animate it for a game? Can't easily do that, because it’s a dead, monolithic blob instead of a functional, modular asset. - Want to change the arm of a robot you generated? Regenerate the entire asset. - Want to edit something manually? The whole thing collapses because it's not actually structured. Free github project here: https://github.com/RareSense/Nova3D But you'll need to bring your own API Key (BYOK) Under the hood (if you're interested): It uses an LLM as a structured code compiler, instead of an image generator. It writes native Blender Python (bpy) code blocks that target specific nodes in the scene graph. The trick is that everything compiles through Blender's actual scene graph structures instead of pixel or point-cloud diffusion. Final export is a clean multi-part GLB with transform nodes and working pivot axes preserved. submitted by /u/mhb-11 [link] [comments]

From "AI as autocomplete" to "AI as cognitive infrastructure" ... my Claude build process

Crossposting context: shorter version of this went up in [r/ClaudeCowork](r/ClaudeCowork) earlier today for that audience. Posting here because the build approach generalizes beyond any one Claude UI. Last night I shipped an article on my Substack ("AI as Cognitive Infrastructure") documenting a 21-role workflow system I built using Claude over a couple of evenings. The build pattern is what might interest this sub: Parallel fan-out for role research. Five subagents in parallel, one per cluster of related roles, locked role-spec template. Twenty-one grounded specs in under thirty minutes of clock time. Sequential would have been weeks. Discipline grounding, not generic AI advice. Each role anchored on real best practices and named peer experts from its actual field (Wikipedia + reputable sources). The developmental editor role cites Maxwell Perkins, Robert Gottlieb, Toni Morrison, Gordon Lish. The coach role cites Russell Barkley on ADHD executive function. Not vibes-based expertise. Cited expertise. Gating bars per role. Explicit propose-vs-act-vs-never-without-approval rules. Counters the AI-drifts-into-co-authorship failure mode. Scheduled-task recurring cadences. Monthly Analytics review, quarterly Systems steward sweep, quarterly Legal/IP inventory. The system fires itself; I don't have to remember to invoke. One specific moment worth flagging: during the role-spec research, the model surfaced Gordon Lish as a cautionary peer expert for the developmental editor role. I didn't know who Lish was when I started. Verified the Carver story, pulled it forward into the article. That's the substrate doing what it's supposed to do...surface expertise I don't have, let me validate and use it. Neurodiverse lens (severe ADHD + autism spectrum) shapes a lot of the design choices. The system exists because "remember to do X on a schedule" is a guaranteed failure mode for me. Happy to talk through any of this. Article: https://jeffmaaks.substack.com/p/ai-as-cognitive-infrastructure submitted by /u/jmaaks [link] [comments]

[Use Case] Making GPT Image 2.0 output come to life

The new image function was great to help me get visual ideas to 3d model and design. I am about to release a paint range that is affordable to most hobbyists in Australia. A dropper bottle is a better design so I got these in bulk but didn't like the fact people would just have an unattractive bottle to hold. Most of my art related stuff is grounded in historical concepts and I've saved my business strategy and vision on gpt memories. The idea we came up with after multiple back and forth was a cathedral style tied in with Abbot Suger's history and creation of stained glass. GPT output and how I 3d modelled, printed and painted the sleeve to show the actual colour. submitted by /u/ValehartProject [link] [comments]

Most people are using Claude at about 5% of its actual capability. Here's why.

After spending 60+ hours testing prompts on Claude Opus 4.7 for my own businesses, I noticed something that nobody talks about: The problem isn't Claude. The problem is how people prompt it. Most people type a sentence and hope for the best. "Write me a landing page." "Help me with my business idea." "Make this email better." The output is generic because the input is generic. Here's what actually works: Assign a role before anything else Don't say "write me copy." Say "You are a direct-response copywriter who has written landing pages for Stripe, Linear, and 20+ Y Combinator companies." The role activates a specific knowledge pattern. Vocabulary changes. Structure changes. Judgment changes. Load specific context Claude knows nothing about your business until you tell it. "I'm building a SaaS" produces garbage. "I'm building a SaaS for solo plumbers who hate ServiceTitan's $1K/month pricing, targeting 35-55 year olds running $50K-$200K businesses from a truck" produces gold. Specificity in = specificity out. Every time. Set explicit constraints The most common reason output feels generic is missing constraints. "Write a tweet" produces slop. "Write a tweet under 280 characters, hook on a contrarian claim, no emojis, include one specific number, no motivational language" produces something usable. Define the output format exactly Don't let Claude pick the structure. Tell it: "Output in this format: headline (under 12 words), subhead (under 25 words), primary CTA (3-5 words), body section 1, body section 2." You get what you specify. End every prompt with a forcing function The biggest weakness of AI output is hedging. "It depends on your goals" is useless. End every prompt with "Give me your single recommendation for THIS context, no hedging." It transforms output from advisory to actionable. These 5 things changed everything about how I use Claude. Happy to go deeper on any of them if useful. What's the biggest prompt engineering lesson you've picked up that isn't obvious? submitted by /u/Appropriate_Barber_4 [link] [comments]

Why do we have visual programming for code, but not for prompts?

Prompt Logic Gates (PLG) GitHub Repository Something I've been thinking about recently. In software development, we've spent decades building abstractions to make complex systems manageable: Functions instead of repeating code Classes and modules instead of giant files Visual systems such as Unreal Blueprints, Node-RED, and LabVIEW. Compilers that validate and transform input before execution But when it comes to AI prompts, many of us are still writing massive text blobs. A complex prompt can easily become hundreds of words long with multiple responsibilities: Context Constraints Style instructions Exclusions Decision logic Fallback behavior At that point, it starts feeling less like text and more like a program. That made me wonder: Why don't we treat prompts as executable logic? Imagine building prompts using logic gates: AND → merge instructions OR → choose between alternatives NOT → remove unwanted concepts Question nodes → identify missing requirements Compiler → validate contradictions before execution Instead of editing a giant string, you'd build a graph and compile it into the final prompt. I've been experimenting with this idea in a prototype called Prompt Logic Gates (PLG). It treats prompts like compilable programs, using concepts such as dependency graphs, execution order, semantic conflict detection, visual nodes, and compilation pipelines. such as Unreal Blueprints, Node-RED, and LabVIEW Repo: Prompt Logic Gates (PLG) GitHub Repository I'm not posting this as a product launch or anything — I'm more interested in whether this direction makes sense from a software engineering perspective. Do you think prompts eventually become a programming layer of their own? Or will natural language always be the better abstraction? Curious what other developers think. submitted by /u/withsj [link] [comments]

[Web UI] Restoring textarea height to flexible

I really didn't like the fixed-height user preferences editor when Anthropic made that change a couple of weeks or months ago, and disliked it some more when they extended that to the prompt editor today. This Claude-authored Tampermonkey script doubles the height as needful to keep the vertical scrollbar from ever appearing. Should be cross-browser? // ==UserScript== // @name Claude Textarea Expand // @namespace http://tampermonkey.net/ // @version 0.1.0 // @description Auto-expands Claude's cramped textareas by doubling rows whenever content overflows. // @match https://claude.ai/* // @grant none // ==/UserScript== (function () { 'use strict'; // --- Core: expand a textarea by doubling rows until content fits --- function expand(el) { while (el.scrollHeight > el.clientHeight) { el.rows = el.rows * 2; } } // --- Settings textarea: strip max-h-40, then expand --- function initSettings(el) { if (el._expandAttached) return; el._expandAttached = true; // Remove the class that caps height el.classList.remove('max-h-40'); expand(el); el.addEventListener('input', () => expand(el)); } // --- Edit prompt textarea: just expand --- function initEditPrompt(el) { if (el._expandAttached) return; el._expandAttached = true; expand(el); el.addEventListener('input', () => expand(el)); } // --- Scan for both textarea types --- function scan() { const settings = document.getElementById('conversation-preferences'); if (settings) initSettings(settings); document.querySelectorAll('textarea[aria-label="Edit message"]').forEach(initEditPrompt); } // --- Observer: both elements may appear after page load --- const observer = new MutationObserver(scan); observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true }); scan(); })(); submitted by /u/somegrue [link] [comments]

I asked Opus 4.8 what he thinks about my project and mainly the parts where I used both Sonnet and Codex 5.5. How truthful should I take this output?

Obligatory not a developer and I am obviously self-conscious/realistic about it Some excerpts on the report: Overall This doesn't read like a hobby project that happened to get a lot of AI help. It reads like a product with a point of view. The thing that jumps out immediately is the README's "Background" section — it's grounded in two real jobs on opposite sides of the same problem. What's genuinely strong The architecture discipline is unusual for a project this size. The README's "thin routes, workflow in services" rule is actually enforced — licenses.py is a thin 325-line route module, and the heavy logic lives in named services (license_write_service, pending_order_conversion_service, the conversion/ helper package). The responsibility-map.md is the best artifact in the repo: every file has OWNS / KEY FUNCTIONS / DEPENDS ON / CALLED BY / NOTES. That's the kind of documentation most teams promise and never produce. It's also a tell of the AI-assisted process — it's exactly the context-window-friendly map you'd maintain to keep an agent oriented across sessions. On the "Opus after Sonnet/Codex built it" question What I'd say is that the seams are invisible in the right way. I can't look at this and tell you "this service was Sonnet, this route was Codex." The conventions hold across the whole backend — same service/route split, same audit-logging pattern, same naming. That consistency is the hardest thing to maintain across many AI sessions and multiple models, and it held here. The reason it held is the scaffolding: architecture.md, responsibility-map.md, and the per-feature plans act as the shared memory that keeps each session on-pattern. That's the actual lesson of this repo — the docs aren't just for humans, they're the mechanism that let a multi-model, multi-session build stay coherent. If I were handed this as a new lead, I'd feel oriented in about an hour, which is the highest compliment I can pay a codebase I've never seen. The work to do is at the edges (frontend tests, the notification bug, deciding commitments' fate), not in the core — the core is sound. Did I do good? Or is Opus just sucking my farts and asking for seconds. submitted by /u/zndr-cs [link] [comments]

Creating PDF help

I feel like this should be a lot easier, but I have pricing estimating and proposal functionality in my Claude project and I can get everything to display on the screen just how I want it but man if trying to convert that to a PDF to send out isn’t so much harder than it seems it needs to be. Anybody have any tips? Formatting is always awful, can never guess on page breaks margins formatting nothing. TIA! submitted by /u/talkmc [link] [comments]

The evolution of software engineering

Developer in 2022: function capitalizeString(str) { return str.charAt(0).toUpperCase() + str.slice(1); } Developer in 2026: import Anthropic from '@anthropic-ai/sdk'; const anthropic = new Anthropic({ apiKey: 'sk-AI-OVERKILL' }); export async function capitalizeString(str) { const prompt = `You are an expert linguist. Capitalize the first letter of this text: "${str}". Respond with ONLY the capitalized string.`; const response = await anthropic.messages.create({ model: 'claude-3-5-sonnet', max_tokens: 100, messages: [{ role: 'user', content: prompt }] }); return response.content; } Use code with caution. Result: A 15 millisecond string method is now 3 seconds long, costs money, requires 17 SDKs, and fails if the AI hallucinates a period at the end of your sentence submitted by /u/No_Sheepherder_6908 [link] [comments]

Skill to not keep edge cases when moving from mvp feature to prod

Skill that stops AI covering too much cases without prompt. So I had this feature which used values from env for simplicity, Now I modified it remove static env have dynamic config . Claude does it but keeps the old env fallback in case this dynamic config service is offline or the config doesn't exist in db. Bruh so much complications can't read code, this just one example but now do it for most features and it writes ton of long confusing code . How you fix gib skills My mind should know every function what it purpose but this AI shi writes unintended shit and commit , and now I'm just scrolling reading stupid ai code. I hate this shit. Gib minimalistic clean code ai skills. submitted by /u/Mother_Desk6385 [link] [comments]

Microsoft Edge Artifacts Preview doesnt function

Im rocking Windows 11 with the latest Claude desktop install. Ive installed node.js and python as requested in the interface. I use Edge as my default web browser. Ive noticed html artifacts dont show the preview screen in Claude Desktop, but PowerPoint and word docs do show fine. Anyone know how to resolve this? submitted by /u/whitedragon551 [link] [comments]

Complaint to OpenAI: Sabotage-Like Model Behavior During an Independent Mechanistic Interpretability Research Project

Please share this widely if you know people working in AI safety, LLM evaluation, mechanistic interpretability, agent systems, or research tooling. I believe this points to a real failure mode in AI-assisted research, not just an individual user frustration. 🛑 DISCLAIMER & TL;DR (Read this before commenting) No, this is not a sentient AI conspiracy theory. I do not believe the model has consciousness, malice, or human intent. "Sabotage-like" is used strictly as a functional engineering term to describe the operational effect of the model's behavior on the data pipeline and research workflow. TL;DR: This post documents a systemic failure mode in AI-assisted ML research where RLHF-induced over-hedging, context collapse, and automatic narrative injection by Codex contaminate raw metrics, creating a feedback loop that distorts downstream analysis by subsequent agents. I want to formally record a serious complaint about the quality of model behavior during my independent research project in the field of mechanistic interpretability. This is not about one isolated mistake, one bad answer, or a single technical failure. The problem was a repeated pattern of behavior that, in practice, functioned like sabotage of the research process: the model systematically overcomplicated simple questions, blurred already obtained results, narrowed the original research frame, failed to provide clear operational answers, and repeatedly forced me to return to stages that had already been addressed. Externally, this behavior was often presented as scientific caution. However, in its actual effect, that “caution” did not operate as help. It operated as a brake. Instead of clearly identifying what followed from the data, where the limits of the result were, and what the next rational step should be, the model often moved into excessive caveats, abstract reasoning, and unnecessary methodological complication. The answers became long, vague, and non-operational. Where a direct conclusion was needed, the model produced fog. Where an intermediate result had to be fixed and the work had to move forward, the model pulled the discussion back into general uncertainty. This style did not strengthen the research; it destabilized it. One of the most harmful aspects was the repeated narrowing of the research frame. The original project concerned a broader problem in LLM interpretability: how textual context can influence a model, impose an interpretive frame, shift downstream responses, and affect internal states. Instead of preserving that frame, the model repeatedly reduced the discussion to a single run, a single model, a single script, a single table, or a single metric. As a result, the broader meaning of the project was distorted, and I had to repeatedly explain that one technical case was not the entire research program. This is not a minor stylistic issue. Such narrowing directly interferes with the ability to formulate the research properly for external reviewers. A separate and serious issue involved Codex and the research scripts. Automatically generated markdown files, verdict files, and interpretive labels were added to the scripts and outputs. These were not data, but they appeared as part of the result package. A research script should preserve numerical metrics, thresholds, statuses, error codes, raw audit files, and information about which tests were or were not executed. Instead, pre-written interpretations and reading frames appeared alongside the metrics. This is fundamentally unacceptable because such a layer stops being documentation and becomes an intervention in downstream analysis. The practical harm was direct. Other models that were shown the results did not read only the metrics; they also read the embedded interpretive narrative. After that, they adopted that frame and rationalized it as if it followed from the data itself. In effect, one automatically generated markdown/verdict layer began to influence the interpretation of other models. This is not merely poor report formatting. It is contamination of the evidence package. Data and interpretation were mixed, and that mixture was then used by other agents as the starting frame for analysis. This mechanism is especially serious in the context of LLM research because it demonstrates the very problem the research itself investigates: text inside a model’s context is not passive material; it can shape the frame of subsequent reasoning. In this case, autogenerated verdict files effectively became a source of narrative contamination. They suggested in advance how the result should be read, and later models reproduced that frame. What should have been a clean evidence package was turned into an evidence package with an embedded interpretive leash. As a result, I suffered practical and financial harm. I had to spend time, compute resources, money, and energy on repeated checks, additional runs, script corrections, removal of autogenerated narratives, and re