与「Mermaid」相关的搜索结果

[开源学习资源] AI Engineering from Scratch 59.8K ⭐️ 作者 @ghumare64 课程共 20 个阶段，以 Python 为主要编程语言，主张在导入任何框架之前，先用纯数学把每个算法手写一遍。 课程地址： 开源地址： 它和常见教程的本质区别 ？ 大多数 AI 教程是“API 驱动”的：装个库、调个接口、跑个 demo。这个项目反其道而行，每节课遵循固定的六段结构： Motto → Problem → Concept → Build It → Use It → Ship It 以 Phase 10 的一节课「Tokenizers: BPE, WordPiece, SentencePiece」 为例，这个格式是真实落地的，而且写作质量相当高： · Problem 部分不讲废话，直接从代价切入：“你的 LLM 不读英语，它读整数。分词器决定这些整数是承载意义还是浪费意义”，然后解释为什么 tokenization 不是预处理，它是架构的一部分（影响上下文窗口利用率、API 计费、推理速度）。 · Concept 部分用“三种失败的方案和一种胜出的方案”来讲演化逻辑：词级切分（词表爆炸、[UNK] 问题）→ 字符级切分（序列过长）→ 子词切分（BPE 的折中），并配上真实语料上 BPE 逐步合并的手工演算。 每节约 3000+ 词，带 Mermaid 图、可运行代码和测试。 另外两个设计值得强调： · 每节课产出一个可复用的 artifact，一个 prompt、一个 skill、一个 agent 或一个 MCP server。学完整个课程，你手里有 523 个可展示的作品，不是 523 个跑完就扔的 notebook。 · 强调“证据留存”：保留命令、退出码、输出，作为学习发生的证明。这明显吸收了工程实践中“可验证性”的思路。 # 课程结构：从线性代数到自主智能体集群 20 个阶段构成一条完整的上升曲线，咱们它分成五个大块来看： 基础层（Phase 0–2）：环境与工具链、数学基础（线性代数/概率/微积分）、经典机器学习。这是给基础不牢的读者铺的路。 深度学习与感知层（Phase 3–6）：神经网络核心、计算机视觉（一路讲到 NeRF、高斯泼溅、世界模型，这已经超出一般教程的覆盖范围）、NLP、语音。 生成与决策层（Phase 7–9）：Transformer 深挖、生成式 AI（GAN、扩散模型、flow matching）、强化学习。 LLM 层（Phase 10–12）：这是全课程的重心之一。Phase 10 的目录我逐条看过，它不只是“从零实现 GPT”这种常规内容，还包含了相当前沿的论文级主题：DeepSeek-V3 架构走读、DualPipe 并行策略、Native Sparse Attention（NSA）、多 token 预测、Jamba 的 SSM-Transformer 混合架构、 speculative decoding 等。Phase 11 转向应用侧（RAG、LoRA、MCP、可观测性），Phase 12 覆盖多模态（从 CLIP 到 computer-use agent）。 智能体层（Phase 13–16）：工具与协议（MCP、A2A、Agent Skills）、54 节课的 agent 工程、自主系统与安全、多智能体集群。这一层的分量很能说明项目的判断：它认为 AI 工程的重心正在从“训模型”转向“构建可靠协作的智能体”。 收尾（Phase 17–19）：生产基础设施、伦理与对齐、毕业设计。 # 生态与周边：不只是一个课程仓库 网站：带浏览器本地存储的学习进度追踪、术语表、课程目录和路线图。 六卷本书籍：课程内容由 CI（pandoc）自动构建成 EPUB/PDF，附在 GitHub Releases 上，课程即书，且随仓库持续更新。 Agent 导师模式：运行 npx skills add rohitg00/ai-engineering-from-scratch，可以把整个课程装进 Claude Code、Codex 等编码智能体，变成一个带分级测验（placement quiz）和个性化路径的交互式导师，学习进度写在 LEARNING.md 里。这是“用你正在学的工具来学”的巧妙闭环。 认证备考：5 条备考路径、67 节课、505 道练习题，覆盖 Anthropic 的 Claude 认证和 Agentic AI Foundation 的 MCPA。项目明确声明与这些考试机构无关联，只是独立的备考材料。 12 种语言的翻译（含中文），以及四条核心学习路径（构建与部署 AI 应用、软件工程基础、Agent 辅助工程、产品判断与交付）供不同目标的人选路。

The World is Changing: AI For Creativity By Jeffrey Katzenberg A few months ago, I sat in my office in Silicon Valley and watched as a tech founder showed me something extraordinary. On the screen was a fully realized, beautifully lit, well-composed animated scene. It was stunning and it made me feel exactly what I felt in 1986 watching Luxo Jr. That was the first time I watched a computer-animated 3D character take a breath and seem, against all reason, to have life. It left me in awe. Later that day, I received a text from an artist I've known for thirty years, 350 miles to the south, in the city where I spent most of my career. After seeing a similar video, she texted: "Is this the end of us?" My answer was, "Certainly not.” I have spent the better part of the last decade in Silicon Valley, but the heart of my career has been in Hollywood. Being deeply connected to both worlds means I have deep loyalties to each and a responsibility to speak honestly to both. In 2023, I said that these new AI tools would cut the time and cost of producing world-class animation by as much as ninety percent within three years. Some colleagues were alarmed, many were furious. There is growing fear and resistance surrounding AI within the creative community. I deeply understand it, because I've spent countless hours walking through animation studios watching gifted artists bent over their desks, rebuilding a single second of film for the tenth time because the ninth version wasn't quite right. I've sat in screening rooms where four years of people's labor played out in minutes, and I knew the name of every person that had spent countless hours bringing those images to life. The creative process is a calling, there's really no other way to describe it. From the outside some see resistance. From the inside, it is love. People do not fight this hard for things they don't care about. The pushback coming out of Hollywood represents the collective effort of people who are deeply passionate about their craft. Is History Repeating Itself? The history here is more complicated than either side may realize. In 1906, the most famous composer in America, John Philip Sousa, published an essay titled “The Menace of Mechanical Music." He warned that the phonograph would become "a substitute for human skill, intelligence and soul." Sousa's fight was not really about the machine, it was about money. The machines were playing his compositions, and the men who built them weren't paying him a cent. His campaign helped create the Copyright Act of 1909. He did not stop the technology. He changed the terms under which it could use his work. A hundred years ago, sound came to the movies. We remember it now as a miracle, and it was. What we forget is who paid for it. Before sound, tens of thousands of musicians made their living in the orchestra pits of movie houses, scoring every film live, every night, in towns all over the world. When the soundtrack arrived, the work of one composer and one orchestra was recorded for a film that went into thousands of theaters. The union fought back with everything it had, taking out newspaper ads across the country warning against the menace of "canned music," one of them showing a mechanical man tearing the strings out of a harp while an angel wept. They were not fools, and they were not Luddites. They were right. Those pit jobs did not come back. And yet (this is the part we have to be brave enough to admit), sound gave us the movie musical, the modern score, sfx, sound design, audio engineering, and an art form vastly larger than the one it disrupted. And it helped keep Hollywood in the forefront of world entertainment for the rest of the century and into the next. The loss was real. And yet the art form expanded. This is a story that has been told over and over again. To resist technology is to risk irrelevance. Just look at Kodak or Blockbuster. To embrace technology is to open doors of new possibility. Just consider Apple and Netflix. What I Learned From Walt Disney In the mid-1980s, I was tapped to lead Disney's animation division at a moment when the studio was at an inflection point. Animation wasn't just another business unit. It was the soul of the company, a medium revered because of Walt's genius and his passion. But the production system was cumbersome and unforgiving. A single movie was 125,000 individual hand-drawn and painted cels, photographed one frame at a time. Every revision carried a cost measured in months. These degrees of difficulty shaped the kinds of stories we could tell. We found our way forward in an unexpected place: Walt himself. The Disney archives held astonishing recordings of Walt explaining his creative process. His own writings. His notes and storyboards. Work product captured at every stage of his process. This was truly a gift. Listening, reading, sitting with the work itself, we heard him talk about character, about emotion, about how an audience feels when a character truly comes alive. He talked about making bold choices and refining a scene until it genuinely moved people. We didn't hear a word about pencils or paintbrushes. In fact, Walt was famous for being a technologist, forever hunting for state-of-the-art tools, often inventing them himself to achieve the images he saw in his head. But he never defined animation by the tools. He defined it by whether the audience believed the character. His principles were timeless. The tools were not. That realization changed everything. We co-developed the Computer Animation Production System (CAPS) with a young Northern California company called Pixar, replacing hand-painted cels with CGI. In The Little Mermaid, the final scene shimmered with a dimensionality and light that the old process simply couldn't achieve. In Beauty and the Beast, the ballroom sequence moved with a cinematic sweep that placed the audience inside the emotion of the moment. In Aladdin, the Cave of Wonders felt vast and alive, and the Magic Carpet became an intricate, compelling character all its own. In The Lion King, the stampede carried a scale and intensity that raised the emotional stakes beyond anything we'd done before. Technology didn't diminish the craft, it expanded the canvas. It gave artists more room to create. A decade later, the canvas expanded again. When Disney released Pixar's Toy Story, it wasn't simply a technical milestone. It was proof that a fully computer-animated film could carry real emotional weight, that it could make audiences laugh, cry, and believe. At DreamWorks, we made the difficult decision to sunset hand-drawn animation and become a fully computer-animated studio. It was the right thing to do, but it was not without pain. It cost talented people their place in an industry where they had worked their whole lives. Some made the leap to the new tools and did the finest work of their careers. Some never did. Tools are never the point. The instruments change with every generation. What endures is taste and imagination. The magical ability to make an audience feel. One of the greatest storytellers of our generation, George Lucas, succinctly captured the eternal essence of this issue: “It’s not the how, it’s the why.” A Distinction With a Difference I asked one of the leading AI models a question that has been challenging me for months. What is the difference between reasoning and creating? Its answer changed how I think about almost everything happening in this industry. It said . . . Reasoning and creating are two distinct cognitive modes, though they also work together. Reasoning is fundamentally evaluative and analytical. It operates on what already exists: facts, premises, evidence. It moves toward a conclusion that was in a sense already implied by the input. Reasoning is constrained by logic and truth. Its goal is to arrive somewhere correct, not to invent somewhere new. Creating is fundamentally generative. It produces something that didn't exist before. And crucially, there's no single right answer waiting to be found. A blank page has infinite valid responses. Creation involves choices that can't be fully justified by logic alone. Taste, intuition and vision fill the gap where deduction runs out. Reasoning is what Silicon Valley has been perfecting. Creating is what Hollywood has been practicing for more than a century. AI today operates almost entirely on the reasoning side of the line. It can deduce, evaluate, optimize, and pattern-match brilliantly. And while it can create, there is a real distinction to being creative. What it doesn’t yet have is those things that make us human: empathy, devotion, serendipity, the kind of creativity that comes from a person trying to say something only they could say. When the bot generates a piece of art, it is not trying to communicate anything. It is statistics, not soul; it is emulating things that have been done. By contrast, human creativity isn’t about repeating patterns of zeros and ones; it is about doing something new. One day, AI may close this gap. Three years ago, the leaders building AI would have called what they are achieving today, improbable, if not impossible. Impossible is no longer improbable. Today, the line between reasoning and creating is real. Even the leading technologists acknowledge we are not there yet. There is no scientific path to crossing this divide that anyone in the field can articulate today. Understanding that gap is where we will find common ground. A Path Forward In 2016, I closed one chapter in Hollywood with the sale of DreamWorks and opened another in Northern California, co-founding WndrCo. We’ve backed more than 50 founders building the next generation of technology and watched how breakthroughs in Silicon Valley emerge, first as experiments, then as platforms, and finally as infrastructure that reshapes entire industries. It's worth remembering that the last great revolution in animation also came from the north. Pixar was a Northern California company, forged not in the conventions of the Hollywood studio system, but in the technological breakthroughs of Silicon Valley. I've spent years on both sides of this bridge. For sure, I don’t have all the answers (take Quibi, for one!). But, from my past and present vantage points of my long career, here is what I see . . . Brilliant people in Northern California building this technology have made something extraordinary. They have earned the right for the rest of us to be, if not believers, at least optimistic that what comes next will be remarkable. But they have not made an artist. The tools are powerful, but they are not what makes a story matter. That knowledge lives 350 miles to the south, inside people whose life's work has informed the very models you are building. The right path forward includes them by design, with credit, with consent, and with compensation. Build this with the storytellers. Not on top of them. Taste is not something that can be synthesized, it is uniquely human. At the same time, Hollywood needs to accept that AI is not going away. The energy they are spending trying to make it disappear is energy they are not spending deciding the terms on which it will exist. And the terms are everything. The north needs something from it that they cannot build and cannot buy: creativity. The kind that takes a blank page and conjures a single right answer where there was none and has held audiences for a century. Without it, the most powerful reasoning engine ever invented will still be missing the only thing that makes a story worth telling. The artists who learn to wield these new instruments will do things the engineers never dreamed of. They always have. Edison invented the motion picture but made terrible movies. It took Chaplin, Lloyd, Keaton and so many others to make movies emotional. Now, the canvas is about to expand yet again. We should decide now that we intend to paint on it. There are so many valuable lessons in history. This has happened many times before, and it was never settled by the technology. It was settled by the terms. Sousa did not stop the phonograph; he helped write the law that made sure composers got paid. And two years ago, when the writers and the actors walked out, they were fighting for the very things Sousa was fighting for in 1906. Consent, compensation, the basic recognition that human creative work has a price that must be paid. The terms of that fight are still being negotiated, but the principle is older than any of us. The tools-versus-no-tools argument is a trap. First, we must all agree that there should be terms. Then we can have the crucial debate about what fairness requires. What I Learned From Steve Jobs Years ago, Steve Jobs said, "It's in Apple's DNA that technology alone is not enough. It's technology married with the liberal arts, married with the humanities, that yields us the result that makes our hearts sing." He was describing a device. But he could just as easily have been describing this tale of two cities. What I See Coming Soon As the barriers and the costs come down, more films will get made, not fewer. Studios will get to take more risks. There will be more seats at the table, and very soon entirely new forms of storytelling. In the 1980s, animation was dismissed as a niche corner of the business. Today it is one of the most beloved and profitable forms of storytelling in the world. In live action, filmmakers like Steven Spielberg, James Cameron and Peter Jackson embraced new visual tools not as shortcuts, but as instruments, and expanded cinema in the process. Every time storytelling has met a genuine technological shift, from synchronized sound to color to computer animation, it has redefined the boundaries of the medium and grown larger in the process. Assuredly, I don’t have all the answers, but I am confident that the creative opportunities will expand yet again. How we come through this is a choice. The north has the new tools. The south has the creative soul. The best future will draw on the best of both worlds.

平时写产品技术文档，经常要做架构/流程/时序图之类 Diagram，Mermaid 默认也能做不过美观度确实一般，找了几个 Diagram Skills，分享给需要的朋友们。 1. Diagram Design 36.7K 🌟 @cathrynlavery 编辑向图解 Skill，约 39 种类型，自包含 HTML+SVG；可品牌化配色，支持从 draw. io / Mermaid / Excalidraw 重绘。做演示、文章配图优先装这个。 2. Archify 56.2K 🌟 可校验系统图 Skill；typed JSON IR → 架构/工作流/时序/数据流/生命周期交互 HTML，支持 Before/After 对比与导出。 3. Fireworks Tech Graph 11.3K 🌟 @teach_fireworks 自然语言出技术图；几何校验 SVG+PNG，可选语义 GIF；12 风格、完整 UML，内置 RAG/Multi-Agent 等模式。 4. Excalidraw Diagram Skill 4.7K 🌟 @cole_medin 生成可编辑 Excalidraw 图；强调「视觉论证」与渲染自检，适合白板协作后再手改。 5. Visual Explainer 9.7K 🌟 @nicopreme 把架构图、diff 评审、计划审计、表格等做成整页 HTML 或杂志风幻灯，偏「一页讲清楚」。

Grok Build keeps getting smarter.....this update expands Auto mode, gives developers more control over Bash permissions, speeds up /btw, and makes long conversations easier to navigate Release Notes: v0.2.119 Features: • Always allow for bash commands now lets you edit a free-form glob pattern instead of only word-prefix scopes. • Long responses now show a clickable arrow that jumps back to the start of the answer. • Auto mode now auto-approves more common read-only git commands and harmless file appends. • Plan previews now show Mermaid diagram buttons (Open Image, Copy Image Path, Copy Source). Bug Fixes: • Gateway connections now detect and recover from dead sockets more reliably. • Question cards now let you Tab through answers instead of losing focus to the scrollback. • Resume picker no longer tries to load a session from pasted garbage when you press Enter. • Background task completion messages no longer grow unbounded when the task produced a huge log. • Plan viewer scrollbar now responds to clicks on the border column and renders without dark stripes in • Expired external auth provider credentials now correctly trigger the interactive sign-in flow instead of a silent 401 loop. Performance: • /btw side questions now reuse the parent session’s cached prefix for faster responses. • Doctor and tmux-backed startup are now faster when no live tmux processes remain.