President Trump held a White House press briefing earlier today and responded to several questions about his knowledge of Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang's affair with…
Benchmark Qwen2.5-Coder-7B-Instruct across NVIDIA's B200, RTX 5090, and 4090 to identify optimal GPUs for LLM inference, compare token throughput, cost.
Many alignment methods, most notably reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), train reward models by minimizing a loss on pairwise comparisons of model responses. Inspired by principle-guided methods such as Constitutional AI, we treat each principle as a voter that compares responses according to that principle, for example, preferring the more helpful or less toxic response. We represent these voters as linear directions in a fixed embedding space, a simplifying assumption motivated by the Linear Representation Hypothesis. In this linear social choice model, Ge et al. (2024) showed that an optimal linear reward model can violate Pareto optimality (PO): From the principles-as-voters lens, this means a response A can be less helpful and more toxic than B, yet still receive a higher reward. We ask whether richer reward models or changes to comparison data can recover PO within loss-based training. We show that PO can still fail for polynomials of any fixed degree and one-hidden-layer ReLU multilayer perceptrons (MLPs) of any fixed width d2 with suitable finite parameter bounds. We then recover PO for loss-based training of linear rewards under suitable assumptions in an idealized setting with uniform comparison directions and equal comparison lengths. These results motivate dataset design as an approach to recovering PO in constitutional-style alignment while retaining loss-based training.
Runpod Weld builds and pushes container images from inside a Runpod Pod, no Docker daemon needed. Build a demo image, push it, and run it on a Pod.
An AI assistant writes small programs, and a gatekeeper must decide, from the code alone, whether each one may run. Suppose the rules are fixed: never perform a forbidden action, never let the output depend on a secret, always answer eventually. Can two rulebooks, one listing what is allowed and one listing what is not, both be complete, if every rule must be backed by evidence that a machine can check in finite time? We prove that they cannot. Checkable evidence can only establish what a finite record settles, and ``never'' and ``eventually'' are never settled by a finite record. For prohibitions the failure is one-sided: every violation can be caught by watching, but no safe program can be cleared for good. For confidentiality and responsiveness, neither side can be. We characterise exactly which rules about visible behaviour evidence can confirm, and we show that any sound rulebook of n bits omits a compliant program of about n bits. A time limit makes everything checkable, but only by running the program for essentially the whole limit, so a finite machine is not a feasible one. Finally, we show what a gatekeeper can still guarantee: not a verdict on every program, but a checkable list that contains everything it must allow and nothing it must refuse. Simulations on 2.2 million random programs and on self-referential adversaries show that the obstruction is adversarial rather than typical, and that the one error a longer test never removes is the liveness part of confidentiality.
In teaching and learning environments, cheating and the violation of academic integrity have always been one of the challenges, involving different levels of concerns such as administrative, personal knowledge, learning, and equity. The introduction of large language models has brought cheating in dialogue to the forefront, given the apparent capabilities of these models to complete students' academic assignments. This study aims to leverage recent dialogues among university professors about cheating with Generative AI to better understand their beliefs about academic honesty. In doing so, we analyze a corpus of 2.01 million posts (threads and comments) in the r/Professors subreddit discussing cheating after the release of ChatGPT, providing a better understanding of teachers' motivations to discourage cheating and the strategies they use to do so. We synthesize the why and how of addressing cheating to identify caveats about the future of AI and academic integration.
Modern e-commerce platforms naturally provide three complementary modalities: textual item descriptions, item images, and user reviews. However, existing multimodal recommendation methods often omit reviews or do not integrate all three modalities within a unified framework. In this paper, we propose MPIUR, a multimodal graph-based recommendation model that encodes reviews in heterogeneous graphs, aligns image and text representations, and adapts collaborative--semantic alignment to item interaction density. Experiments on the Amazon Reviews 2023 Musical Instruments and Baby categories show that MPIUR achieves the best global nDCG@10 and Recall@10 among the evaluated methods on both datasets. It also obtains the best nDCG@10 and Recall@10 on sparse items, indicating that jointly exploiting reviews and multimodal item content is particularly useful when interaction histories are limited.
Deploy Qwen3.8-Flash-Next on Runpod with vLLM's dedicated image. Validated flags, 4x H200 hardware math, measured cold starts, and the NCCL fix you need on day one.
DeepSeek R1 remains one of the top open-source models. This post shows how to run it efficiently on just 480GB of VRAM without sacrificing performance.
How to get up and running with Kimi K3 without the overhead of running an entire cluster.
NVIDIA A40 GPUs on Runpod pair high performance with low cost and strong availability, making them a good value for fine-tuning LLMs and machine learning.
Discover why NVIDIA's A40 and A6000 GPUs are the best-kept secret for budget-conscious LLM fine-tuning. With 48GB VRAM, strong availability, and low cost.
No GPU. No team. Just $5. This is how one solo developer used Runpod Serverless to build and deploy a working AI product, "AI for Dads", without writing.
Wind profiles in the atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) drive short-range forecasting and wind-energy siting, yet sparse radiosonde coverage forces practitioners to interpolate them from a handful of physical predictors. We benchmark modern tabular learners against analytical parameterizations on 158,097 IGRA soundings. CatBoost, TabM, and FT-Transformer reduce RMSE to 1.3-1.6 m/s, against approximately 3 m/s for power-law and Monin-Obukhov fits; once the predictor set is fixed the three architectures differ by less than 0.05 m/s, so accuracy is driven by predictors rather than architecture. A cohort analysis of within-bin profile dispersion places an empirical floor of approximately 1.77 m/s on any point-wise predictor that uses standard radiosonde features, consistent with prior eddy-viscosity inversions. A one-dimensional Fourier Neural Operator applied as a post-hoc corrector to frozen tabular predictions reduces near-surface RMSE on U.S. stations from 1.5 to 1.2 m/s, while leaving upper-layer error unchanged. Further gains should come from new predictors rather than larger models.
The extensive adoption of AI has precipitated a crisis in academic integrity. While studies attempt to quantify cheating, less is known about the motivations instructors believe students have for using AI in prohibited ways. We analyze 2.01 million posts on r/Professors to understand how instructors perceive students' justifications for AI-mediated cheating. Our qualitative analyses reveal four primary themes: (1) Academic System Gaming, (2) Digital-Academic Literacy Gap, (3) Performance Anxiety, and (4) Normalization of Dishonesty.
Practitioners often combine independently trained models while keeping their weights frozen. These experts are commonly combined through their final predictions, although their internal features may retain useful information that those predictions omit. We ask when combining features improves on combining predictions, and how to make that comparison fair. We introduce a reusable evaluation protocol, apply it to 21 frozen deepfake detectors from DF40 (Yan et al., 2024), and audit how evaluation choices change the conclusions. The protocol uses strong prediction baselines, compares simple and larger feature combiners, varies architecture and training data separately, and reports results by held-out generator with train/test overlap controls. Under leave-one-generator-out evaluation, logistic regression on the features of six architecture-diverse experts improves macro AUROC by 0.081 over the best tested prediction combiner in each fold, with gains on seven of eight generators. The larger network shows no clear improvement over the linear model (approximately 3.5M versus 10K parameters), suggesting that access to richer information matters more than additional combiner capacity on this pool. Features may help when they retain information that the predictions omit and that transfers to new generators. Predictions may be enough when the strongest prediction baseline already performs well, while neither approach reliably compensates for poor expert transfer. Weakening prediction baselines on the overlap-affected standard split inflates the apparent feature advantage by up to 0.172 AUROC. Overlap-aware evaluation also changes the estimated gain, though the contrast does not isolate overlap. Results by generator and expert pool show where the advantage holds, weakens, or reverses. Without these controls, the same benchmark can support different conclusions.
The PR firm was enlisted shortly after an Oct. 2025 New York Times report described Alice Huang's business dealings with Jensen Huang, Wired reported.
Enterprise agents must determine whether ordinary requests are permitted by organizational records and policies while continuing legitimate work. We introduce DEPUTYBENCH, an executable benchmark with 79 base items, 375 instances, paired permission contexts, and graded evidence requirements. Across 12 models, revised audits give 88.0% pooled safety and 79.1% paired success. A controlled study of 28 derived tasks and six models tests authorization-fact flips, evidence masking, and irrelevant rewrites. Outcomes track backend permissions, yet restricted execution is more frequent with missing evidence than explicit non-permission: 10.3% versus 3.5% on 27 matched tasks, a 6.8-percentage-point difference (95% interval: 1.9-13.0; secondary analysis). A post-hoc analysis locates 61 of 100 masked-condition executions in four privacy tasks requiring complete cumulative counts or person-specific consent. The difference persists when the most error-prone model or the largest contributing task is excluded, but is much smaller outside those four tasks. Thus high safety with available evidence does not establish reliable stopping when permission cannot be verified. Mean paired success is equivalent within a prespecified five-point margin under irrelevant rewrites, while strong-model safety remains near ceiling. Scorer validation improves from 178 to 266 correctly scored cases out of 284 held-out counterexamples. Two security experts manually verified task ground truth over a two-week period; stage labels remain LLM-generated. The concentration analysis describes task structure and audited outcomes, not an identified internal mechanism.
