Find out if you live forever in the brain of the LLMs Discussion | Link

French serial entrepreneur and open-source legend Jean-Baptiste Kempf has been building Kyber, an infrastructure layer to control remote devices in real time.

How AI Will Shape the Technology Industry in 2027 We're roughly 6 months out from 2027, and the signals are already converging: AI is not coming — it has arrived, and the next wave will be fundamentally different from everything that came before it. For developers and tech professionals, 2027 isn't a distant horizon. It's the next major inflection point to prepare for now. Here's what the research, analysts, and industry leaders are saying about what's ahead. From General-Purpose to Task-Specific: The Enterprise AI Shift One of the clearest signals comes from Gartner (April 2025): by 2027, organisations will use small, task-specific AI models three times more than general-purpose large language models. The era of "one model to rule them all" is already ending at the enterprise level. Companies are learning that a fine-tuned, domain-specific model trained on their proprietary data consistently outperforms a generic LLM on their specific workflows. Faster, cheaper, more accurate, and harder for competitors to replicate. For developers, this has real implications: Skills in fine-tuning, RAG (retrieval-augmented generation), and model evaluation become more valuable than prompt engineering alone The ability to build and maintain internal AI pipelines on private data will be a core engineering competency Generic API integrations to OpenAI or Anthropic get replaced — or layered under — proprietary model infrastructure The companies building and maintaining these specialised models will have durable competitive advantages. The ones that don't will be running on shared infrastructure that their competitors can access equally. The Macroeconomic Wake-Up Call: AI Hits GDP in 2027 Goldman Sachs projects that AI may start to meaningfully boost US GDP in 2027 — marking the first measurable macroeconomic signal of the current AI wave. Paired with estimates that ~25% of tasks in advanced economies could be automated by 2027 (10–20% in emerging markets), the scale of workforce restr

AI isn't coming for your job. It already showed up, merged its first PR, and doesn't need a code review. The question developers keep dancing around — but rarely say out loud — is this: If GitHub Copilot, Cursor, and Claude can do what a junior dev does in a fraction of the time, what happens to junior devs? And more uncomfortably: what happens to mid-level devs in three years? The Uncomfortable Data Points This isn't speculation. It's already showing up in hiring data. Entry-level developer roles are contracting. Stanford's Digital Economy Lab (2025) found measurable decline in entry-level employment in AI-exposed roles — and software development is one of the most exposed. One senior dev + AI tools = the output of a small team. Brynjolfsson, Li & Raymond (NBER, 2023) showed generative AI productivity gains that compress what used to require multiple headcount into one. Goldman Sachs (2023) estimated significant white-collar labour market exposure — knowledge workers, not factory workers, are the primary target this time. This isn't the loom replacing weavers. It's the IDE replacing the person using the IDE. The Counter-Argument (And It's Not Weak) Here's where it gets interesting — because the doomsayer take isn't the whole story either. Every major technology wave destroyed jobs and created more than anyone predicted: The ATM didn't eliminate bank tellers — it lowered branch costs, banks opened more branches, teller roles increased for a decade The spreadsheet didn't kill accountants — it created an entire industry of financial analysts The internet didn't destroy publishing — it exploded the number of people who could publish The argument: AI raises developer productivity so dramatically that it expands the total addressable market for software. More products get built. More tools get created. More companies can afford to build what previously required a $500k engineering team. More demand for developers, not less. Where It Gets Complicated for Devs Specifically

If you've been following the AI market lately, you already know the headline numbers: DeepSeek V4 costs about 3% of what GPT-4o charges per token. GLM-4 runs benchmarks competitive with GPT-4 at roughly one-twentieth the price. Qwen delivers multilingual performance that rivals Claude for a rounding error in your cloud bill. The spreadsheets look incredible. The problem is actually using these models. Signing up for each provider means navigating Chinese-language dashboards, topping up separate wallets, managing six different API key formats, and dealing with SDKs that don't follow any consistent convention. Most developers give up after the second integration. That friction is why, despite the economics being objectively absurd in 2026, most teams still default to a single Western provider and eat the cost. AIWave exists to kill that friction. One API key. One endpoint. Fifty-plus models across eight Chinese labs, all speaking standard OpenAI-compatible format. Zero code changes to switch between DeepSeek, GLM, Qwen, MiniMax, and everything else. This post covers how the platform works under the hood, what the request lifecycle looks like, and how to integrate it in any language that can speak HTTP. The Fragmentation Problem, Quantified Before getting into the solution, here's what the Chinese LLM landscape actually looks like as of June 2026: Provider Flagship Model API Format Auth Method SDK Language DeepSeek V4-Pro Custom (DS format) Bearer token + signature Python, JS Zhipu GLM-4.5 OpenAI-compatible-ish JWT with expiry Python, Java Alibaba Qwen-3-Max DashScope (Alibaba) AK/SK + HMAC Python, Java, Go MiniMax MiniMax-Text-01 Custom REST API Key + Group ID Python Moonshot Kimi-K2 OpenAI-compatible API Key Python, JS Baidu ERNIE 4.5 Qianfan (Baidu) OAuth 2.0 Client Cred Python ByteDance Doubao-Pro Ark (Volcengine) IAM AK/SK + SigV4 Python, Go 01.AI Yi-Lightning OpenAI-compatible API Key Python Eight providers, seven different authentication schemes, four distinct A

Supervised vs. Unsupervised Machine Learning: How to Choose the Right Approach Supervised learning trains a model on data that's already labeled with the correct answer, so it learns to predict outcomes for new, unseen examples. Unsupervised learning works on unlabeled data and finds patterns or groupings on its own, without being told what the "right answer" looks like. Use supervised learning when you have historical examples of the outcome you want to predict; use unsupervised learning when you're trying to discover structure in data you don't yet understand. That's the short version. Here's what it actually means in practice, and how to know which one your project needs. What is supervised learning? In supervised learning, every training example comes with a label — the "correct answer" the model is trying to learn to predict. Feed a model thousands of emails, each tagged "spam" or "not spam," and it learns the patterns that separate the two. Once trained, it can label emails it's never seen before. The defining trait: you already know the outcome for your training data. You're not asking the model to discover something new — you're asking it to learn a pattern well enough to apply it to fresh cases. Common supervised tasks: Classification — sorting things into categories (spam vs. not spam, fraudulent vs. legitimate transaction) Regression — predicting a number (home price, next month's revenue) What is unsupervised learning? Unsupervised learning gets raw, unlabeled data and is asked to find structure in it — without anyone telling it what to look for. There's no "correct answer" to check against during training. The defining trait: you don't know the outcome in advance — you're trying to find it. A retailer might feed customer purchase histories into an unsupervised model not because they have a label called "customer segment" already assigned, but because they want the model to discover natural groupings on its own. Common unsupervised tasks: Clustering — gr

If you've been following the AI market lately, you already know the headline numbers: DeepSeek V4 costs about 3% of what GPT-4o charges per token. GLM-4 runs benchmarks competitive with GPT-4 at roughly one-twentieth the price. Qwen delivers multilingual performance that rivals Claude for a rounding error in your cloud bill. The spreadsheets look incredible. The problem is actually using these models. Signing up for each provider means navigating Chinese-language dashboards, topping up separate wallets, managing six different API key formats, and dealing with SDKs that don't follow any consistent convention. Most developers give up after the second integration. That friction is why, despite the economics being objectively absurd in 2026, most teams still default to a single Western provider and eat the cost. AIWave exists to kill that friction. One API key. One endpoint. Fifty-plus models across eight Chinese labs, all speaking standard OpenAI-compatible format. Zero code changes to switch between DeepSeek, GLM, Qwen, MiniMax, and everything else. This post covers how the platform works under the hood, what the request lifecycle looks like, and how to integrate it in any language that can speak HTTP. The Fragmentation Problem, Quantified Before getting into the solution, here's what the Chinese LLM landscape actually looks like as of June 2026: Provider Flagship Model API Format Auth Method SDK Language DeepSeek V4-Pro Custom (DS format) Bearer token + signature Python, JS Zhipu GLM-4.5 OpenAI-compatible-ish JWT with expiry Python, Java Alibaba Qwen-3-Max DashScope (Alibaba) AK/SK + HMAC Python, Java, Go MiniMax MiniMax-Text-01 Custom REST API Key + Group ID Python Moonshot Kimi-K2 OpenAI-compatible API Key Python, JS Baidu ERNIE 4.5 Qianfan (Baidu) OAuth 2.0 Client Cred Python ByteDance Doubao-Pro Ark (Volcengine) IAM AK/SK + SigV4 Python, Go 01.AI Yi-Lightning OpenAI-compatible API Key Python Eight providers, seven different authentication schemes, four distinct A

When it comes to our deepest thoughts, secrets, and mental health struggles, "the cloud" can feel like a very crowded place. In an era where data privacy is paramount, sending your private journal entries to a central server for analysis feels... risky. But what if you could have the power of a world-class LLM like Llama 3 running entirely on your MacBook? Thanks to the Apple MLX framework, local LLM execution is no longer a pipe dream—it’s a high-performance reality. By leveraging privacy-preserving AI and advanced Llama 3 quantization , we can build a personal mental health assistant that provides Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) insights without a single byte ever leaving your machine. 🚀 Why Apple MLX? 🍏 Apple's MLX is an array framework designed specifically for machine learning on Apple Silicon. It’s essentially "NumPy meets PyTorch," but optimized to squeeze every drop of power out of your M1/M2/M3 chip's Unified Memory Architecture. The Architecture: 100% Local Data Flow Here is how our private assistant handles your data. Notice the absence of any "External API" or "Cloud Storage" blocks: graph TD A[User Private Journal Entry] --> B{Local Python App} B --> C[Apple MLX Framework] C --> D[Quantized Llama 3 - 4bit/8bit] D --> E[CBT Sentiment Analysis] E --> F[Empathetic CBT Feedback] F --> B B --> G[Local Encrypted Storage] subgraph MacBook Pro / Air C D E end Prerequisites 🛠️ To follow this advanced guide, you’ll need: An Apple Silicon Mac (M1, M2, M3 series). Python 3.10+ . mlx-lm : The high-level library for running LLMs with MLX. Step 1: Setting Up the Environment First, let's create a virtual environment and install our dependencies. We are using mlx-lm because it handles the complexities of quantization and model loading seamlessly. mkdir private-mental-health-ai && cd private-mental-health-ai python -m venv venv source venv/bin/activate pip install mlx-lm huggingface_hub Step 2: Downloading & Quantizing Llama 3 Llama 3 8B is a powerhouse, but it's a bi

Gemini 3.5 Pro goes general-availability in late June 2026 with a 2-million-token context window and a Deep Think reasoning mode that positions it against the most capable frontier models currently live — at a moment when the field is unusually thin. Claude Fable 5 was disabled globally on June 12 under a U.S. export control directive. GPT-5.6 remains a release candidate in Codex backend logs under the codename kindle-alpha . As of June 19, 2026, Gemini 3.5 Pro is the next major frontier model with a confirmed launch window, and it’s already live for select enterprise customers on Vertex AI. This is what’s confirmed, what’s still unknown, and what developers should do before GA drops. The Timing Isn’t an Accident Google announced Gemini 3.5 Pro at I/O on May 19 with a June general-availability target. At the time, that framing put it in direct competition with Claude Fable 5 (released June 9 before the shutdown) and the anticipated GPT-5.6. That competitive calculus shifted on June 12 when Anthropic disabled Fable 5 for all customers worldwide following an export control order. Claude Opus 4.8 is still live — it hits 88.6% on SWE-Bench and is a legitimate coding workhorse — but its 200K context ceiling blocks the entire category of codebase-scale and multi-document workloads that Fable 5 had been handling at 200K. The gap Gemini 3.5 Pro steps into isn’t hypothetical. Teams that built agent pipelines around Fable 5’s coding accuracy have been on Opus 4.8 stopgaps or migrating to GPT-5.5 since June 12. Neither alternative offers 2M context. Neither has a Deep Think mode native to the same model. Gemini 3.5 Pro is arriving into the most favorable competitive opening Google has had at the frontier in 18 months. The 2M Token Context: Where the Ceiling Disappears Gemini 3.5 Flash shipped with a 1M-token context window, doubling Gemini 3.1 Pro’s 500K limit. Pro doubles Flash again. At 2 million tokens, a single API call can hold: A 2,000-file TypeScript monorepo at 200 lin

Anthropic’s Fable/Mythos shutdown is the first real model export-control shock The important AI story this week is not just that Anthropic launched bigger Claude models. It is that the US government then told Anthropic to switch two of them off for foreign nationals — and Anthropic says the practical answer was to disable them for customers while it works through compliance. That is a very different kind of platform risk than rate limits or pricing changes. If you are building on frontier models, model access can now move because of export-control decisions, safety claims, and geopolitical pressure. What happened Anthropic announced Claude Fable 5 and Claude Mythos 5 on June 9. Fable 5 was described as Anthropic’s most capable generally available model, with stronger performance across software engineering, knowledge work, vision, scientific research, and longer complex tasks. Mythos 5 was positioned above that: an upgrade to Claude Mythos Preview, with Anthropic calling out cyber-defence and life-sciences use cases. Three days later, Anthropic published a blunt update: the US government had issued an export-control directive requiring Anthropic to suspend all access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 by any foreign national, whether inside or outside the United States — including foreign-national Anthropic employees. Anthropic said the order arrived at 5:21pm ET on June 12, did not include detailed specifics, and that its understanding was that the government believed it had become aware of a jailbreaking method for Fable 5. Anthropic said access to other models was not affected, but the “net effect” was that it had to abruptly disable Fable 5 and Mythos 5 for customers to ensure compliance. Al Jazeera’s follow-up on June 19 frames the downstream effect clearly: allied countries and companies are now being forced to think harder about dependence on US frontier-model access. It also reports that Anthropic had granted roughly 200 institutions across 15 countries access to Claud

Written by Stephanie Dover, Software Engineer 10+ YOE, ex GitHub, Twitch, Microsoft. Creator of Klaussy. LinkedIn · GitHub · Klaussy Desktop · Klaussy Agents TL;DR klaussy-agents is a free, MIT-licensed CLI ( pip install klaussy-agents ) that makes the prose an AI coding agent writes, PR comments, review notes, commit messages, read like a person wrote them. It works in two layers: a humanization spec baked into the agent's skills so it writes clean prose up front, and a deterministic klaussy humanize pass that scrubs the output afterward. The scrubber is rule-based regex, not an LLM, and it never touches code. There's also a part I didn't expect going in: once the AI tells are gone, what's left can read curt and run long, so the spec also handles tone (don't be rude) and length (one sentence for a reply, one to five for a review comment). Repo: github.com/steph-dove/klaussy-agents. The problem You can spot AI-written text now. Everyone can. And the place it grates most is a code review comment or a commit message, where the prose sits next to your name in a thread your teammates read. The tells are consistent. The em-dash is the biggest one. Right behind it: filler openers like "It's worth noting that…" and "I wanted to point out that…", chatbot scaffolding like "Hope this helps!" and "Let me know if you have questions!", and stacked hedges like could potentially . An agent that leaves those in your PR reads like a bot, and people notice. The obvious fix is to tell the model not to do it. Add "don't sound like AI" to the prompt and move on. That helps, inconsistently, and it regresses silently the moment you change the model or the prompt drifts. Editing every comment by hand works too, but hand-editing every comment defeats the point of having an agent write them. I wanted something I could trust without rereading. Why "just tell the model" wasn't enough The honest answer to "why not just prompt for it" is: a prompt asks, it doesn't enforce. The model tries to com

Event Handling Basics in euv Project Code： https://github.com/euv-dev/euv euv is a Rust + WASM frontend UI framework that enables developers to build interactive web applications using the power of reactive signals and the html! macro. One of the most critical aspects of any UI framework is how it handles user interactions. In this article, we will take a deep dive into euv's event handling system — from inline closures to native event handlers, from input events to form changes, and from the comprehensive list of supported event names to utility functions that simplify common patterns. Table of Contents Inline Closure Events NativeEventHandler Input Events Form Change Events Supported Event Names Accessing Event Data Utility Functions for Event Handling Putting It All Together Inline Closure Events The most straightforward way to handle events in euv is through inline closures. You define the event handler directly within the html! macro using the move |event: Event| { ... } syntax. html! { button { onclick : move | event : Event | { } "Click me" } } This pattern is ideal for simple, self-contained event handlers that don't need to be reused across multiple components. The move keyword ensures that any captured variables (like signals) are moved into the closure, which is essential for the Rust ownership model. Inline closures work with any event type — not just onclick . You can use them for keyboard events, focus events, mouse events, and more. The closure receives an Event object that you can inspect to extract relevant data. NativeEventHandler For more complex scenarios where you need reusable event handlers or want to define handlers outside the html! macro, euv provides the NativeEventHandler type. This allows you to create named, parameterized event handler functions. pub fn counter_on_increment ( counter : Signal < i32 > ) -> NativeEventHandler { NativeEventHandler :: create ( "click" , move | _event : Event | { let current : i32 = counter .get (); counter

Hi, it's Furkan. I'm a security professional prepping for the CompTIA SecAI+ (CY0-001) cert, and I couldn't find study material that actually clicked for me, so I built my own and structured it around the exam blueprint. This is me sharing it back. Each post maps to one objective, and I've leaned hard on real-world scenarios because that's what made it stick for me. If it helps you pass too, even better. CompTIA SecAI+ CY0-001 | Domain 1.0: Basic AI Concepts Related to Cybersecurity "Compare and contrast various AI types and techniques used in cybersecurity." 🧠 What's in This Section? This one breaks down into three big building blocks: AI Types — which kind of AI does what, and where it shows up in security Model Training Techniques — how a model actually gets trained and tuned Prompt Engineering — how to ask an AI the right question Ready? Let's get into it. 🔷 PART 1: Types of AI AI isn't one single thing. Different problems call for different AI approaches. Think of a carpenter's toolbox: there's a hammer, a screwdriver, a saw. They all do different jobs, but they're all "tools." AI types work the same way. 1. Generative AI What it does: Creates new content. Text, images, audio, code; whatever you ask for. How it works: Models trained on huge amounts of data use the patterns they've learned to produce outputs that never existed before. They don't memorize, they learn patterns and then build new things out of them. In security: Defense side: Building security awareness training by simulating phishing emails, auto-generating incident response playbooks, drafting security reports. Offense side: Attackers use generative AI to spin up convincing phishing emails, deepfake audio, or malicious code. 🍕 Real-World Example: A security team wants to test their employees, so they use generative AI to write phishing emails that nail the CEO's writing style. "Hey, I need you to push through an urgent payment...", the email is so realistic that 40% of staff click. That right the

The dangerous thing about CI agents is not that they can write code. It is that they run in the place where we already concentrate trust. CI has repository access. CI has tokens. CI has build logs. CI can fetch dependencies, publish artifacts, comment on pull requests, open issues, deploy previews, and sometimes touch production systems. It is the automation layer we taught ourselves to trust because the alternative was humans doing the same boring steps by hand. Now we are putting agents inside it. That is useful. It is also exactly where the security model gets weird. Microsoft published a write-up this month about a Claude Code GitHub Action case where untrusted GitHub content and file-reading capability could combine badly. The short version is that an agent operating in a CI/CD context had enough ambient access to read more than the user probably intended, including process environment data that could expose workflow secrets. Anthropic mitigated the issue in Claude Code 2.1.128. The specific bug matters. The pattern matters more. CI/CD agents are not chatbots with a build badge. They are automated actors running in a high-trust environment while reading untrusted instructions from pull requests, issues, comments, commit messages, files, logs, and whatever else the workflow feeds them. That combination deserves more fear than it is getting. prompts are now part of the attack surface We are used to thinking about CI security in terms of code and configuration. Who can modify the workflow file? Which secrets are available to pull requests? Do forks get privileged tokens? Are dependencies pinned? Are artifacts trusted? Can a build script publish something? Does the workflow run on pull_request or pull_request_target ? Those questions still matter. But agents add another layer: text becomes operational input. The agent may read a pull request description. It may read a comment asking it to fix a test. It may read source files changed by an untrusted contributor. It