与「cnann」相关的搜索结果

月曜〜土曜日までのオールナイトニッポンは、ラジオ大阪さんで流れています！大変失礼致しました！サクラバシ919と共にお楽しみください！タトゥーします。 #cnann#

Very welcome recent news from Signal: they are working on letting you register an account without a phone number. That said, an important counterpoint about what this would and would not accomplish. The good #1#: reducing dependence on phone numbers. Even aside from privacy benefits, reducing dependency on a highly oligopolistic system of chokepoints is good in itself. The good #2#: phone numbers are for many people not a good "root" of identity from an access control perspective. Phone numbers get sim swapped all the time. The good #3#: allowing phone-number-free accounts will make it harder for them in the future to discriminate against people by country - and so make it harder for governments to pressure them to block their own citizens. Now, on privacy. Significantly better than status quo, so yes it is good #4#, but... In practice, in 2026, I believe that pseudonymity (a long-term persistent account that is not tied to your primary identity) is a dead concept. There are just too many channels by which we accidentally slowly leak data about who we are - timing of messages, the pattern of who we send messages to with what frequency, size, etc. And too many highly effective AI-based means (both using LLMs per-user, and LLMs helping every person and agency under the sun use math that we had all along) to uncover and piece together those hints. As a trivial example, whatever server you interact with learns your IP address, but even if you hide *that* with a VPN or Tor, there are many other identity leakage vectors. And so the only defensible form of privacy is *message-by-message unlinkability* - no one except sender and receiver knows the (sender, receiver) pair, ideally even not knowing who the sender or the receiver are. A natural taxonomy of privacy is the following 2x2: * Sitting duck: adversary knows "X did Y" * Confidentiality: adversary knows "X did ???" [E2E encryption provides this] * Anonymity: adversary knows "??? did Y" [aka message-by-message unlinkability] * Ideal: adversary knows "??? did ???" Signal has already had confidentiality for a long time. (Note: in other contexts, "confidentiality" sometimes means "someone knows X did Y, and we trust that someone to not reveal it", ie. not true privacy. Here, by confidentiality we mean hiding contents from third parties) This adds pseudonymity: in the above schema, adversary knows "0x8b512c... did Y", where they don't initially know who 0x8b512c... is, but may figure that out over time. The ideal is getting to message-by-message unlinkability. Actually accomplishing that gets into territory that is currently being explored by mixnet projects as well as newer messengers, eg. @session_app and @SimpleXChat. Once we get deeper into this territory, I suspect the primary frontier will be spam and DoS protection. Right now, much of the internet blocks all Tor exit nodes - not because they personally hate privacy, but because that's where DoS attacks come from. So we need ways for people to prove their non-spammer status while maintaining message-by-message unlinkability. See here for one direction (which complements nicely). So I hope that we appreciate the victory that is mainstreaming of end-to-end encryption, that we actually get Signal accounts without phone number dependency (it's a great thing even if it had zero privacy consequences), and then that we keep moving forward and pushing the frontier of data leakage minimization.

The "Web app" standard for the Agentic Web/OS has arrived. It is essentially the open standardization of the third-party app/plugin ecosystem found in ChatGPT. It consists of Skills and MCP, with MCP covering standards such as MCP Apps and MCP-UI, which allow third-party apps to embed GenUI-based interactive interfaces directly into the main Agentic Web/OS interface. WebMCP is about "embedding Tools within UI," while Agent Plugins / MCP Apps are about "optionally embedding UI within Tools." The core of this kind of "app" ecosystem are Tools, rather than any specific UI representation, such as cards, icon + Activity, or windows. AppFunctions / AppIntents / AppActions on Android, iOS, and Windows, like WebMCP, also belong to the "embedding Tools within UI" model. The current CLI ecosystems around Coding Agents such as Codex and Claude Code are effectively local "native app" ecosystems: apps have to be pre-packaged, downloaded, and installed, and users cannot realistically install too many of them. By contrast, Agent Plugins / MCP Apps can be regarded as a kind of "Web app" ecosystem, because their core functionality is retrieved from the Web on demand. Skills, like manifest-style files such as mcp.json, are lightweight distributions of code with declared metadata, somewhat like HTML: they can be discovered, loaded, activated, and used on demand, in a process analogous to HTML rendering but much more intelligent. This creates an opportunity to extend existing Web standards, which are centered around the distribution of UI resources. Instead of RESTful HTTP exposing only a limited set of actions over resources, the Web could expose a vast long tail of Tools that AI can discover and understand, and that can optionally embed UI. A general-purpose Agent capable of discovering, loading, and running Agent Plugins / MCP Apps on demand would be equivalent to "the browser + Google" of the desktop Internet era. If such an Agent becomes a super app, it could easily abstract away the operating system and become the single dominant super app for most user scenarios, much like the desktop Internet era, rather than the mobile Internet era with many parallel super apps. So such an Agent will naturally tend to integrate into the entire OS and even the hardware itself, much like IE vs. Netscape. That is also why Google, OpenAI, and even ByteDance are determined to build consumer electronics hardware products.

Simon Mo and Matt Bornstein on why open-weight models matter: cost and control. "Open weight absolutely matters in the ecosystem. The world cannot just be controlled by proprietary APIs, where open weight, open development and research of these models are blocked or banned." "There's almost two pieces to this. There's the cost thing, where the closed models are too expensive, and then there's the control thing, where I want to be in control of my infrastructure and in control of the model. If I need to extend it or put on my own guardrails or anything." "Control matters a lot over the last few years, and then cost just started to matter over the last few months... It's about controlling the system performance against what they're paying for." "For a voice agent company, they want to control their own model so that it can make sure the model actually responds by the required time... This sometimes is only you can do with your controlled intelligence... versus signing up for relying on your critical infrastructure with a proprietary API where they might go down any time." @simon_mo_ @BornsteinMatt

New Elon Musk documentary slated for release in US theaters on October 16. Oscar-winning director Alex Gibney’s nearly 4-hour film “MUSK” will world premiere at the Venice Film Festival in September before screening at TIFF 2026, with an HBO debut to follow. • Runtime: ~4 hours, with an intermission • Gibney spent 4 years on the project, originally planned for Cannes 2025 but delayed as new developments kept emerging • Musk is not believed to have cooperated with Gibney

New Elon Musk documentary slated for release in US theaters on October 16. Oscar-winning director Alex Gibney’s nearly 4-hour film “MUSK” will world premiere at the Venice Film Festival in September before screening at TIFF 2026, with an HBO debut to follow. • Runtime: ~4 hours, with an intermission • Gibney spent 4 years on the project, originally planned for Cannes 2025 but delayed as new developments kept emerging • Musk is not believed to have cooperated with Gibney Will you be watching this one in theaters, or waiting for HBO?

Today we are releasing Cloudflare OS, a chatbot with connectors, just like every other tech company is doing. Except actually, it's different. This is a remake of Sandstorm[.]io, my startup from 10 years ago, except this time built on Cloudflare Workers (the platform I've spent the last 9 years building) and deeply leveraging AI. This is more or less the culmination of my secret 10-year master plan. This is a full-on personal app vibe coding platform, in which the sandbox is so secure that you can pretty much go wild -- the AI cannot introduce a significant security bug. We believe a company's security team can feel comfortable giving non-technical users permission to vibe code and then sleep soundly at night. How is that possible? It's the Sandstorm security model, revisited. A "Gadget" is the same thing as a Sandstorm "Grain": a fine-grained app instance. For example, if you have a document editor app, each document runs as a separate instance of the app, in a separate sandbox (one "Gadget"). This means two things, both of which I think are Big Deals: 1. The platform can manage all access control, by controlling who can access the Gadget at all. There is no way the Gadget can accidentally leak itself to an attacker -- even an attacker who has access to other Gadgets based on the same app. 2. Since everyone is running their own copy of the code, everyone can freely *modify* their copy of the code. Think about #2# a bit more. What if, when you wanted a new feature in the software you are using, you could just prompt your agent to add it? This doesn't work in the cloud Software-as-a-Service model, because you are not running your own copy of the app. Sandstorm tried to change that 10 years ago, but the world wasn't ready, because not enough people had the skills or patience to actually modify their software. AI has changed that. Now you just ask the agent -- the same agent that you are using to help you interact with the Gadget can also modify the code of the Gadget. And it is so fun.

Our 95-minute AI feature film, Hell Grind, is now fully open-sourced for the Higgsfield Global Film Festival. All the prompts and assets are public. It was made for $500,000, screened in Cannes Market, and drew coverage from The Wall Street Journal, Variety, and BBC News.

"Voice gets interesting the moment developers find interaction patterns that only voice makes possible." - @scottcjohnston We built a @DeepLearningAI course on exactly that. Voice for AI Agents and Applications, with @_ashwyn , @AndrewYNg , and @scottcjohnston. Most voice infrastructure out there was built for one job: replace humans in contact centers. Answer the phone, follow the script, close the ticket. Building voice into a real product is a different problem. This free short course is about that, giving your apps and agents an actual voice. You'll walk away having built: 🎮 a voice-interactive game where voice and mouse clicks run over one channel 🤖 a chat agent that gains a voice in ~10 lines, no touching your prompts, RAG, or tools 📞 an agent that makes real outbound phone calls and streams the transcript back live Enroll for free: We'd love to see what you build. Let's go 🚀