vibe citing: how KPMG used AI to write a report about AI and AI made them look like fools by t474-r0b07 There are companies that charge you to tell you how to use AI responsibly. KPMG is one of them. 250,000 employees. 138 countries. Decades advising governments and corporations on how to avoid costly mistakes. In October 2025 they published a report titled "Total Experience: Redefining Excellence in the Age of Agentic AI" . They wrote it with AI. The AI invented 88% of the sources. Nobody verified anything. They published it anyway. // what is "agentic AI" — because the title matters An agentic AI is not a chatbot. Not the assistant that answers your questions. It's a system that makes decisions and executes actions on its own, without a human approving each step. You give it an objective and it acts, corrects, moves forward. It's the product everyone in the tech sector was selling in 2025. KPMG was selling it too. That's why they needed a report proving their clients were already using it. Spoiler: they weren't. And the report invented it anyway. // the forensic analysis GPTZero — a company specialized in detecting AI-generated content — ran a full audit on the report. First: what is an AI hallucination, because the term is going to come up a lot. When a language model doesn't have the information you ask for, it doesn't say "I don't know." It generates a response that sounds correct. It invents with the same confidence it would use if it actually knew the truth. Perfect format. False content. No warning. That's a hallucination. Now the numbers from the KPMG report: TOTAL CITATIONS: 45 REAL CITATIONS: 5 INVENTED CITATIONS: 40 ACCURACY RATE: 11.1% 40 of 45 citations have invented titles, authors that don't exist, or sources that don't say what KPMG claimed they said. Half of the factual claims in the report are false or misattributed. A firm that charges for intellectual rigor published a document with 11% accuracy. // the organizations that read the report and sai

Few-shot learning with large language models is one of the most practical ways to steer model behavior without updating weights. By embedding task-specific examples directly into the prompt, developers can turn a general-purpose foundation model into a domain-specific classifier, parser, or reasoning engine. The technique relies on in-context learning, where the model infers patterns from exemplars rather than from gradient updates. Because it requires no training pipeline, few-shot prompting is ideal for rapid prototyping and production tasks where data volumes are too small for fine-tuning or where model weights must remain frozen. The Mechanics of In-Context Learning In-context learning is an emergent capability of transformer-based language models. During inference, the model attends to the full context window, using the provided examples as a dynamic prior. Each example adjusts the hidden-state activations for subsequent tokens, effectively conditioning the output distribution without any parameter change. Research suggests that the model locates latent task representations within its pretrained weight space and uses the few-shot examples to activate the appropriate subspace. The result is a flexible interface: change the examples, and the model adapts its behavior immediately. Zero-Shot, One-Shot, and Few-Shot Prompting These three patterns describe how much guidance you provide before the actual task input. Zero-shot: You describe the task in natural language with no examples. This works best for simple, well-known tasks that the model has seen frequently during pretraining. One-shot: You prepend a single example. This is often enough to communicate output format or tone. Few-shot: You prepend three to ten examples, sometimes more for complex schema extraction or multi-label classification. The marginal gain from each additional example typically diminishes, but for tasks with rigid output schemas, a larger set of exemplars can substantially improve consisten

Lately I keep reaching for SQLite where, before, I'd have reached for Postgres without thinking. It started with small services, then a bigger question: could a multi-tenant SaaS actually run on SQLite? And for AI agents specifically, isn't a local, embedded database the more natural home for their state? Turso is the version of this stack I've found most compelling so far, especially when paired with Cloudflare. I wish D1 would reach embedded-replica parity with Turso, and that AWS offered a managed SQLite-style service the way it offers RDS for Postgres. This isn't a "Postgres is over" argument. I still use Postgres more often than SQLite. And it isn't advice. It's just where my thinking has drifted recently — written down mostly so I can find out where it's wrong. Read it as one person's notes, not a recommendation. Where I've landed for now (and expect to keep revising): SQLite isn't replacing Postgres. For work state , it's increasingly my first reach, not my last. AI agents push this harder: their state is high-churn, local, and mostly private. The answer isn't all-local. It's a local workbench plus a central ledger . Why the old default existed For years, "where does the data live?" had one practical answer: a server, behind an API, in a shared Postgres. A lot of that wasn't architecture — it was the cheapest shape available. SQLite was already everywhere, but it lacked the operational layer that makes a database viable as SaaS infrastructure: networking, replication, managed backups, and a way to run many small databases without drowning in tooling. So centralizing was the path of least resistance, and a tenant_id column in shared Postgres became the reflex. What changed isn't SQLite. It's that the ecosystem grew the missing parts — and for a growing class of workloads, the thing doing the most frequent writing moved onto my own machine. The constraint that's lifting SQLite itself is, by design: Embedded, not networked — a library, nothing listens on a port.

We’ve all heard "it works on my machine," but when it comes to AI-driven features, that phrase is a recipe for disaster. You can have a perfectly tested agent today, but if you upgrade your base model or change your quantization strategy tomorrow, you might inadvertently kill your agent's reliability. You can’t afford to wait for production to find out your agent is hallucinating or failing its tool calls. This is why we built the headless QuantaMind CLI—to shift AI evaluation left into your CI/CD pipeline. By integrating custom eval JSON collections into your build process, you can now treat your AI agent like any other piece of code. If a model upgrade or a quantization tweak causes your agentic reliability to dip below your required threshold, your CI pipeline should block that merge. It’s not just about testing; it’s about enforcement. If you aren’t gating your deployments based on real, repeatable model performance, you aren’t shipping software—you’re shipping a guessing game.

AI agents are making software development faster. That is great. But there is a problem I do not think we are talking about enough: testing is not speeding up in the same way. In many teams, testing is still held together by spreadsheets, meeting notes, screenshots, chat messages, and the memory of a few experienced QA engineers. That worked when delivery was slower. It becomes fragile when one developer can use multiple agents to change code across several modules in a single afternoon. The bottleneck is no longer "can we write more test cases?" The bottleneck is: Can the team prove what was tested, why it was tested, what failed, what was fixed, and whether the release is safe? That is the problem I built testboat for. The Most Dangerous Sentence Before A Release The sentence I worry about most is not: We did not test this. At least that is honest. The dangerous sentence is: I think we tested this. That sentence usually means the team has test artifacts, but they are disconnected: requirements live in a doc test cases live in a spreadsheet automation scripts live somewhere in the repo execution results live in CI logs or chat bugs live in an issue tracker release reports are written manually before sign-off Each piece may be useful on its own. But when a Tech Lead asks, "Which requirements are not covered?" or a founder asks, "Can we release today?", the team has to reconstruct the answer manually. That is not a testing process. That is institutional memory under pressure. AI Makes This Gap Worse AI agents are very good at increasing throughput. They can: implement a feature faster refactor code faster generate UI faster write automation faster fix bugs faster But faster change creates more testing uncertainty. If an agent changes the authentication module, what should be rerun? If a test fails, is it a product bug, a flaky automation script, or an environment issue? If a developer says "fixed", has the failed test actually been rerun? If a release report says "ma

How to Call Windows Native APIs in Electron Calling Windows native APIs in an Electron app feels like wanting to see the ocean but only having a map. After some trial and error, I've found a few paths—writing this article serves as a record and a guide for others who might follow. Background When building Electron desktop applications, you inevitably need to interact with the operating system. On Windows, these requirements are quite common: Calling Windows Store APIs for in-app purchases Handling file system virtualization specific to Windows Store apps Obtaining system-level permissions and resources Interacting with Windows Runtime (WinRT) components Electron is fundamentally a Node.js environment, and Node.js doesn't natively provide direct access to Windows native APIs. A bridge is needed between the two. It's like trying to communicate with a friend who doesn't speak Chinese—you need a translator. Electron is written in JavaScript, Windows APIs in C/C++. The language barrier requires building a bridge. That's the harsh reality of the code world. About HagiCode The solutions shared in this article come from our practical experience with the HagiCode project. HagiCode Desktop needs to call Microsoft Store APIs to handle subscription purchases and license management, which is why we developed a set of technical solutions. After all, necessity drives innovation—that's a truth. Technical Solution Comparison When calling Windows native APIs in Electron, there are several mainstream approaches to choose from. Each has its applicable scenarios—like different tools in a toolbox, they work best when used in the right place, otherwise just add trouble. Solution Applicable Scenarios Pros Cons dynwinrt WinRT APIs (e.g., Store API) Type-safe, auto-generated bindings, modern JavaScript support Only supports WinRT APIs, requires Windows SDK Native Node.js Extensions High performance, any Windows API Complete control, optimal performance Requires C++ development skills, comple

I used to think a serious developer needed a serious IDE. Big project? Open PhpStorm. Design work? Open Photoshop. Need every refactor, every inspection, every plugin, every panel, every button? Load the heavy tool and wait for the machine to breathe again. But something changed. Not overnight, and not because those tools suddenly became bad. They are still powerful. The change is that AI started taking over the parts of the IDE I actually needed most. Today, I spend more time in VS Code and the terminal than in heavy IDEs. My machine feels lighter. My workflow feels less crowded. And honestly, I do not miss the old setup as much as I thought I would. The old IDE was a safety net For years, big IDEs won because they could see the whole project. They understood symbols, imports, frameworks, database models, refactors, formatting, inspections, and tests. A good IDE felt like a senior assistant sitting beside you, quietly warning you before you made a mess. That was valuable. It still is. But AI has started to move that intelligence out of the IDE shell. The useful part is no longer tied to one huge application. It can live in your editor, your terminal, your pull request, your CI pipeline, or even in a chat window with access to your codebase. When AI can read the files, reason about the bug, generate a test, run the test, inspect the failure, and propose a patch, the IDE becomes less like the brain of the workflow and more like one possible place to type. AI is becoming the environment The phrase "AI coding assistant" already feels too small. Autocomplete was the first version. The newer pattern is closer to an AI developer environment. You ask it to find the bug. It searches the repo. You ask it to explain a weird error. It follows the stack trace. You ask it to write a benchmark. It can create the benchmark file, run it, compare the result, and tell you what changed. You ask it to add tests. It can inspect the code path and generate cases you probably would have de

A pip-installable CLI tool that auto-centers off-center page number annotations created by macOS Preview, or batch-adds new ones — with smart content avoidance and landscape support. The Problem If you've ever used macOS Preview to add page numbers to a PDF (via the text annotation tool), you know the pain: numbers land wherever you drop them, never centered, and manually positioning dozens or hundreds of them is soul-crushing. Especially when the PDF has mixed portrait and landscape pages. I ran into this preparing a thesis — 200+ pages of final manuscript, page numbers visibly off-center on every single page. Editing each one by hand wasn't an option. The Solution pdf-pagenum is a single CLI command that reads a folder of PDFs and centers every page number annotation to the bottom of its page. It works by: Detecting FreeText annotations that look like page numbers Measuring body content boundaries on each page Repositioning the annotation to a clean, centered position below the content — with proper margins Preserving the original page dimensions (no resizing, ever) If your PDF has pages with no annotations at all, it can generate new page numbers from scratch in the correct position. Install pip install pdf-pagenum That's it. PyMuPDF and natsort come along as dependencies. Usage Fix Mode (default) Reposition existing page number annotations so they're centered at the bottom: pdf-pagenum ./scans/ ./output/ This is the mode you'll use 90% of the time — it takes whatever rough page numbers Preview gave you and snaps them to the mathematically correct center. Add Mode Generate brand-new page numbers on pages that lack them: # Number all pages starting from 1 pdf-pagenum ./scans/ ./output/ --add all # Number pages 3 through 7 only pdf-pagenum ./scans/ ./output/ --add 3-7 # Number specific pages, starting count from 10 pdf-pagenum ./scans/ ./output/ --add 1,3,5-7 --start 10 Ranges and comma-separated lists can be mixed freely. Start Offset The --start N flag works in b

Agentic frontend layer between Figma and Cursor & Claude Discussion | Link

See if Japanese AI search recommends your brand Discussion | Link

Ploy turns your website into your company's growth engine. Discussion | Link

Turn your Mac notch into an intelligent active workspace Discussion | Link

Automated profanity censoring for video & audio Discussion | Link

Every tool call, every structured output, every agent decision travels as JSON. Here is the serialization knowledge that separates the amateur from the architect — now that the stakes have never been higher. A developer ships an AI agent on a Friday. In the demo it's flawless: the model reads a request, calls a tool, returns a clean answer the app renders perfectly. A week later, production dashboards are full of garbage. A date is showing up as raw text. A field that was definitely there is silently gone. Under one big payload, the whole server froze for two seconds. And here's the maddening part — nothing threw an error. The model returned JSON. The code parsed it. Everything "worked." The bug wasn't in the model, and it wasn't in the parser. It lived in the narrow gap between text and data — the place every JSON value has to cross twice. That gap is serialization , and in 2026 it has quietly become one of the most important things a JavaScript engineer can actually understand. Why now? Because the most important conversations in modern software aren't between humans anymore. They're between models and machines — an LLM deciding which tool to call, a server answering, an agent chaining ten steps together. And every one of those conversations happens in the same format: JSON. So let's open up the refinery and see how raw structure becomes a clean stream of bytes — and back again — without losing anything precious on the way. JSON is not a JavaScript object This is the misunderstanding that creates most JSON bugs, so it's worth saying plainly: JSON only looks like a JavaScript object. It isn't one. JSON is a transport format — flat, inert text meant to travel across a network or sit on a disk. A JavaScript object is a live structure in memory that your application can read, mutate, and call methods on. They resemble each other the way a flat-packed cardboard box resembles assembled furniture: same thing in spirit, completely different states. const user = { name : "

How I Cut Costs 65% Migrating LangChain to DeepSeek I want to tell you about a switch I made recently that genuinely surprised me. If you're running LangChain in production and haven't explored the DeepSeek models yet, this one's for you. Let me show you what I learned, what broke, and what I'll never go back to. The short version? I was burning cash on a generic LLM setup. I migrated to DeepSeek through Global API's unified interface, and my monthly inference bill dropped by over 60%. Setup took me less time than brewing coffee. Let me walk you through it. Why I Even Looked at This in the First Place Here's the thing about working in AI engineering: the model landscape moves so fast that whatever you chose six months ago is probably overpriced now. That's been my experience, anyway. When I first built my LangChain pipeline, I defaulted to a popular name-brand model because, well, that's what everyone was using. It worked. It was fine. Then I looked at my AWS bill. That's when I started digging into alternatives. And let me tell you, the rabbit hole is deep. Global API alone exposes 184 AI models at prices ranging from $0.01 to $3.50 per million tokens. That's a wild spread. The trick is finding the sweet spot where cost meets quality, and for migration workloads (think: code translation, schema conversion, content rewrites), I found it with DeepSeek. Let me show you the numbers that actually mattered to me. The Pricing Reality Nobody Talks About I built a comparison table when I was making this decision, and I want to share it because staring at these numbers side by side is what convinced me. Here's the lineup I evaluated through Global API: DeepSeek V4 Flash sits at $0.27 per million input tokens and $1.10 per million output tokens, with a 128K context window. That's my default for most production traffic now. Fast, cheap, and smart enough for almost everything. DeepSeek V4 Pro comes in at $0.55 input and $2.20 output with a beefier 200K context. I use this when