Pieces

Pieces AI

Pieces AI

Pieces AI

Pieces AI

Pieces AI

Pieces AI

Pieces AI

Pieces AI

Pieces AI

Pieces AI

Show HN: I turned a sketch into a 3D-print pegboard for my kid with an AI agent

We have pegboards and plywood all over our apartment, and I had an idea to make a tiny pegboard for my kid, Oli. So I naturally cut the wood, drilled in the holes, sat down at the computer to open Fusion 360 and spend an hour or two drawing the pieces by hand.<p>Then I looked at the rough sketch Oli and I had made together, took a photo of it, pasted it into Codex, and gave it just two dimensions: the holes are 40mm apart and the pegs are 8mm wide.<p>To my surprise, 5 minutes later my 3D printer was heating up and printing the first set.<p>I ran it a few times to tune the dimensions for ideal fit, but I am posting the final result as a repository in case anyone else wants to print one, tweak it, or have fun with it too. I am already printing another one to hang on our front door instead of a wreath, so people visiting us have something fun and intriguing to play with while they knock.<p>This is also going onto my list of weird uses of AI from the last few months.

Recall vs. Wisdom: What Over-Personalization Reveals About the Future of Relational AI

[Original Reddit post](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtificialInteligence/comments/1ro4k19/recall_vs_wisdom_what_overpersonalization_reveals/) The over-personalization problem isn’t really about memory. It’s about relationship. When an AI assistant drags your hiking preferences into a weather query, the failure isn’t technical recall gone haywire. It’s a system that has no idea what it means to actually be in a conversation with someone. That distinction matters more than it might seem, because the entire industry just bet big on the opposite assumption. Google recently rolled out automatic memory for Gemini. The feature is on by default. Without any prompting from the user, Gemini now recalls “key details and preferences” from past conversations and injects them into future responses. Google frames this as “Personal Intelligence,” a system that connects the dots across Gmail, Photos, Search, and YouTube to make the assistant “uniquely helpful for you.” And it’s not just Gemini. This is part of a broader push to make memory the centerpiece of the AI assistant experience. The pitch is simple: the more an AI knows about you, the better it serves you. But OP-Bench, the first systematic benchmark for over-personalization, tells a different story. It turns out that the more aggressively a system uses what it remembers, the worse the interaction gets. Not occasionally. Universally. Every memory-augmented system they tested showed severe over-personalization. And the more sophisticated the memory architecture, the harder it failed. We’ve been so focused on the capacity to remember that we’ve neglected the wisdom of when to use what we remember. That’s not an engineering oversight. It’s a relational one. Memory Without Attunement Is Just Surveillance Here’s the thing. A system that remembers everything about you and surfaces it indiscriminately isn’t being helpful. It’s performing ambient surveillance dressed up as personalization. People describe over-personalizing systems as “creepy” and “overly familiar,” and those aren’t technical complaints. They’re relational ones. The system has violated something unspoken about when personal knowledge should enter a conversation. Google’s approach makes this tension vivid. Gemini doesn’t just remember what you explicitly told it to remember. It silently mines your past conversations for details and preferences, then weaves them into future responses without asking whether that’s what you wanted. The feature shipped turned on by default. You have to go dig through Settings, find “Personal context,” and manually toggle it off. If you’re a Google AI Pro or Ultra subscriber, the “Personal Intelligence” layer goes further, pulling context from your email, your photos, your search history. The integration is seamless, which is exactly what makes it concerning. This maps onto one of the foundational problems in relational AI: the difference between knowing about someone and being attuned to them. Knowing about someone is a database operation. You store facts, retrieve them, insert them into responses. Attunement is qualitatively different. It requires reading the current moment, understanding what the person actually needs right now, and making a judgment call about which pieces of shared history belong in this exchange and which ones don’t. OP-Bench makes this distinction measurable for the first time. Their three failure modes map cleanly onto relational breakdowns. Irrelevance is a failure of contextual reading: the system can’t tell the difference between “semantically similar” and “conversationally appropriate.” Sycophancy is a failure of honesty: the system weaponizes personal knowledge to tell you what you want to hear instead of what’s true. Repetition is a failure of presence: the system is stuck rehashing old interactions instead of engaging with this one. All three are failures of attunement, not memory. The Attention Hijack The technical finding about “memory hijacking” deserves a closer look. When researchers examined attention patterns, they found that memory-augmented models attend to retrieved memory tokens at roughly twice the rate they attend to the actual user query. Let that sink in. The model is paying more attention to what it already knows about you than to what you’re saying right now. In any healthy relationship, the balance between history and presence matters. You bring what you know about the other person into the conversation, but you don’t let it drown out your ability to listen. Over-personalizing systems have lost that balance entirely. They’re so saturated with stored context that they can’t hear the present moment. And this isn’t just a chatbot problem. As we build multi-agent systems where AI agents maintain persistent memory about users, tasks, and each other, the attention hijacking problem scales in ways that should worry anyone thinking about agent coordination. An agent that over-attends to stored context about another agent’s past behavior wil

Ah yikes, World of Warcraft: Midnight's otherwise solid housing system is soured by its premium currency, which makes you 'minimize leftovers' even though Blizzard said it wouldn't

I want to say something at the top of this—I still think [World of Warcraft: Midnight's](https://www.pcgamer.com/world-of-warcraft-midnight/) player housing system is very, very good. That's not just to soften the blow of the microtransaction analysis I'm about to hammer Blizzard with, if player housing sucked I'd say that. But the bones are really solid. You've got enough creative control to [create Star Destroyers](https://www.pcgamer.com/games/world-of-warcraft/i-can-tell-world-of-warcrafts-player-housing-is-going-well-by-the-amount-of-star-wars-stuff-this-one-player-keeps-building/), you can clip things to your heart's content, and there's a generous amount of decor already in the game. However, with the expansion's release comes [Hearthsteel](https://www.pcgamer.com/games/world-of-warcraft/blizzards-reason-for-adding-premium-currency-to-world-of-warcraft-after-21-years-of-doing-just-fine-without-one-has-everyone-worried-about-player-housing/), a new premium currency (hurk) that lets you buy store-exclusive decor elements. In practice this isn't that big of a deal, since if you don't have an item, chances are you can rotate and clip five different pieces into each other to achieve a similar effect. But in practice it's also kinda skeevy. I've got the store open right now, and Blizzard's doing that really goddamn annoying "you can only buy this premium currency in staggered amounts" bullcrap, which is especially frustrating because it said it *wouldn't.* Here's a [blog post](https://worldofwarcraft.blizzard.com/en-us/news/24242736) from November of last year where the studio wrote that one of its guiding principles for Hearthsteel would be the following: "The costs of items are designed to align with Hearthsteel offer amounts in a player-friendly way. Buying Hearthsteel at the amount you want lets you purchase the items you want without requiring you to think about which packs should be added together to minimize leftovers." You do, in fact, have to minimise leftovers. Hearthsteel is available in the following increments: 100 ($1/£0.90)500 ($5/£4.50)1,000 ($10/£9)2,500 ($25/£22.50)5,000 ($50/£45)10,000 ($100/£90)  (Image credit: Blizzard) While a lot of the decor packs—priced at 2,500 Hearthsteel—are priced along these lines, the individual items are lab-designed to be super goddamn annoying. Alliance/Horde doormats are 200 Hearthsteel and the Spring Blossom Chair and Spring Blossom Tree are 250, slap bang in the middle of 100 and 500. The Spring Blossom Gazebo is 800 Hearthsteel, 200 shy of the 1,000 Hearthsteel purchase. There are some items that aren't like this, in fairness, like the plushies and Lush Garden Fungal Fountain—but on the whole? You are in fact having to spend more than you'd otherwise want to if you wanna snag some of these items individually. Which blows. Then there's the pricing itself. Purchasing these items with Hearthsteel only adds one copy to your chest, rather than say, unlocking them for purchase from a vendor somewhere. Which means you're paying $5/£4.50 for, say, two trees. They're very *pretty* trees, with animated spring blossom particle effects, but it does feel stingy for a game that already asks you to pay a subscription (or grind that out with gold via WoW tokens in-game). And this is a discounted price. After some *passionate* player feedback, Blizzard reduced the [price of a single blossom tree](https://www.wowhead.com/news/spring-blossom-housing-decor-pack-removed-from-battle-net-and-in-game-store-380656) from 750 Hearthsteel (cripes!) to the aforementioned 250. You could, theoretically, get enough in-game gold to convert to battle.net balance via the WoW token. At the time of writing on my server, a WoW token costs about 346,000 gold, which would convert to $15/£10, or 1,000 Hearthsteel. That's, er, 86,500 gold per tree. Which is affordable for the [frog-farming capitalists](https://www.pcgamer.com/games/world-of-warcraft/world-of-warcraft-players-are-once-again-slaying-hundreds-of-frogs-this-time-to-skin-their-hides-before-blizzard-catches-them/) of the world, but not yours truly.  [**Best MMOs**](https://www.pcgamer.com/the-best-mmos/): Most massive[**Best strategy games**](https://www.pcgamer.com/the-best-strategy-games/): Number crunching[**Best open world games**](https://www.pcgamer.com/best-open-world-games/): Unlimited exploration[**Best survival games**](https://www.pcgamer.com/the-best-survival-games-on-pc/): Live craft love[**Best horror games**](https://www.pcgamer.com/best-horror-games/): Fight or flight --- *From [PCGamer latest](https://www.pcgamer.com/) via [this RSS feed](https://www.pcgamer.com/rss/)*

The Seven Richest Billionaires Are All Media Barons

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/15136 > [](https://www.mintpressnews.com/donations/) > > Trump loyalist and CIA contractor Larry Ellison’s purchase of CNN appears imminent, and marks the latest venture into media for the world’s second-richest individual. But Ellison is not alone. Indeed, the world’s seven richest individuals are all now powerful media barons, controlling what the world sees, reads, and hears, marking a new chapter in oligarchical control over society and striking another blow at a free, independent press and diversity of opinion. > > Media Monopoly > -------------- > > Paramount Skydance– an Ellison-owned company– is in pole position to purchase Warner Brothers Discovery, a conglomerate that controls gigantic film and television studios, streaming services like HBO Max and Discovery+, franchises like DC Comics, and TV networks such as HBO, TNT, Discovery Channel, TLC, Food Network, and CNN. This lead is largely due to Ellison’s proximity to President Trump, who will ultimately have to sign off on such a deal. > > Ellison has already [spoken](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/20/warner-bros-discovery-takeover-paramount-skydance-larry-ellison) to senior White House officials about axing CNN hosts and content that Trump is said to dislike, including anchors, Erin Burnett and Brianna Keilar. It is this willingness to completely reorientate the network’s political direction that has made him the White House’s preferred purchaser of Warner Brothers Discovery. He is reportedly so wealthy that he can afford to pay in cash. > > Ellison, whose [net worth](https://www.forbes.com/real-time-billionaires/) stands at a staggering $278 billion, has been on a media spending spree of late. Earlier this year, he provided the funds for Skydance to [purchase](https://www.mintpressnews.com/israels-biggest-us-donor-now-owns-cbs/290347/) Paramount Global, another gigantic conglomerate that controls such products as CBS, BET, MTV, Comedy Central, Nickelodeon, Paramount Streaming, and Showtime. > > Immediately upon being appointed CEO of CBS News, Larry’s son, David, began drastically reorientating the network’s political outlook, firing staff, pushing it to become pro-Trump, and appointing [self-described](https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2025/06/blind-support-for-israel-has-muzzled-bari-weisss-free-press) “Zionist fanatic” Bari Weiss as its editor-in-chief. > > The Ellison family, however, is far from finished. In September, President Trump signed an executive order approving a proposal to force through the sale of social media platform TikTok to an American consortium led by Ellison-owned tech company, Oracle. > > Under the planned arrangement, Oracle will oversee the platform’s security and operations, giving the world’s second-richest man effective control over the platform that [more than](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/12/20/8-facts-about-americans-and-tiktok/) 60% of Americans under thirty years of age use for news and entertainment. Trump himself stated that he was extremely pleased that Oracle would be controlling the platform. “It’s owned by Americans, and very sophisticated Americans,” he [said](https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/25/trump-approves-tiktok-deal-through-executive-order.html). > > The Ellison family’s sudden venture into the realm of media and communications has shocked many, with senior media figures sounding the alarm. Longtime CBS News anchor, Dan Rather, [warned](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/dan-rather-warns-against-ellisons-buying-warner-bros-1236371969/) that “we all have to be concerned about the consolidation of huge billionaires getting control of nearly all of the major news outlets.” “It is a particularly tough time for anybody working at CBS News,” he stated, citing pressure to change coverage to be more pro-Trump. “I think if [the Ellisons] were to buy CNN, it would change CNN forever, and it might be another very serious wound to CBS News,” he concluded. > > Billionaire Capture > ------------------- > > Rather is correct. No other period in history has seen such a rapid and overwhelming buy up of our means of communications by the billionaire class – a fact that raises tough questions about freedom of speech and diversity of opinion. Today, the world’s seven richest individuals are all major media barons, giving them extraordinary control over our media and public square, allowing them to set agendas, and suppress forms of speech they do not approve of. This includes criticisms of them and their holdings, the economic system we live under, and the actions of the United States and Israeli governments. > > Sitting on a fortune of over $480 billion, Elon Musk is the [wealthiest]

The Seven Richest Billionaires Are All Media Barons

[](https://www.mintpressnews.com/donations/) Trump loyalist and CIA contractor Larry Ellison’s purchase of CNN appears imminent, and marks the latest venture into media for the world’s second-richest individual. But Ellison is not alone. Indeed, the world’s seven richest individuals are all now powerful media barons, controlling what the world sees, reads, and hears, marking a new chapter in oligarchical control over society and striking another blow at a free, independent press and diversity of opinion. Media Monopoly -------------- Paramount Skydance– an Ellison-owned company– is in pole position to purchase Warner Brothers Discovery, a conglomerate that controls gigantic film and television studios, streaming services like HBO Max and Discovery+, franchises like DC Comics, and TV networks such as HBO, TNT, Discovery Channel, TLC, Food Network, and CNN. This lead is largely due to Ellison’s proximity to President Trump, who will ultimately have to sign off on such a deal. Ellison has already [spoken](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/20/warner-bros-discovery-takeover-paramount-skydance-larry-ellison) to senior White House officials about axing CNN hosts and content that Trump is said to dislike, including anchors, Erin Burnett and Brianna Keilar. It is this willingness to completely reorientate the network’s political direction that has made him the White House’s preferred purchaser of Warner Brothers Discovery. He is reportedly so wealthy that he can afford to pay in cash. Ellison, whose [net worth](https://www.forbes.com/real-time-billionaires/) stands at a staggering $278 billion, has been on a media spending spree of late. Earlier this year, he provided the funds for Skydance to [purchase](https://www.mintpressnews.com/israels-biggest-us-donor-now-owns-cbs/290347/) Paramount Global, another gigantic conglomerate that controls such products as CBS, BET, MTV, Comedy Central, Nickelodeon, Paramount Streaming, and Showtime. Immediately upon being appointed CEO of CBS News, Larry’s son, David, began drastically reorientating the network’s political outlook, firing staff, pushing it to become pro-Trump, and appointing [self-described](https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2025/06/blind-support-for-israel-has-muzzled-bari-weisss-free-press) “Zionist fanatic” Bari Weiss as its editor-in-chief. The Ellison family, however, is far from finished. In September, President Trump signed an executive order approving a proposal to force through the sale of social media platform TikTok to an American consortium led by Ellison-owned tech company, Oracle. Under the planned arrangement, Oracle will oversee the platform’s security and operations, giving the world’s second-richest man effective control over the platform that [more than](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/12/20/8-facts-about-americans-and-tiktok/) 60% of Americans under thirty years of age use for news and entertainment. Trump himself stated that he was extremely pleased that Oracle would be controlling the platform. “It’s owned by Americans, and very sophisticated Americans,” he [said](https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/25/trump-approves-tiktok-deal-through-executive-order.html). The Ellison family’s sudden venture into the realm of media and communications has shocked many, with senior media figures sounding the alarm. Longtime CBS News anchor, Dan Rather, [warned](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/dan-rather-warns-against-ellisons-buying-warner-bros-1236371969/) that “we all have to be concerned about the consolidation of huge billionaires getting control of nearly all of the major news outlets.” “It is a particularly tough time for anybody working at CBS News,” he stated, citing pressure to change coverage to be more pro-Trump. “I think if [the Ellisons] were to buy CNN, it would change CNN forever, and it might be another very serious wound to CBS News,” he concluded. Billionaire Capture ------------------- Rather is correct. No other period in history has seen such a rapid and overwhelming buy up of our means of communications by the billionaire class – a fact that raises tough questions about freedom of speech and diversity of opinion. Today, the world’s seven richest individuals are all major media barons, giving them extraordinary control over our media and public square, allowing them to set agendas, and suppress forms of speech they do not approve of. This includes criticisms of them and their holdings, the economic system we live under, and the actions of the United States and Israeli governments. Sitting on a fortune of over $480 billion, Elon Musk is the [wealthiest](https://www.forbes.com/real-time-billionaires/) person in world history, and is [projected](https://time.com/7333033/elon-musk-trillionaires-democracy-campaign-finance-wealth-gap/) to, with