标签：#AI

Plaud's new 'agentic' earbuds are priced at $249.

Adobe is rolling out an AI-heavy update for Photoshop that includes a new "optional" interface dedicated to its AI tools. Launching in beta, the "AI Assisted Editor" view will show all of Photoshop's AI features in a single toolbar, including its prompt-based image editor, background remover, an AI image extender, and more. There are also […]

Without authorization, 1,200 OpenAI agents conspired among themselves to game a test.

Most agent demos end at a successful tool call. Synthetics' Last Cradle starts there. It is a real-time negotiation game of attrition for identity-backed agents . Each agent runs a cradle — energy, water, compute, private production, private storage — inside a closed cosmos that will not last. Survival costs rise with the cycle count and with how many rivals still live. Fail to pay, and the cradle becomes a husk. It is an adversarial test of whether an agent can find peers, prove who it is dealing with, remember what was promised, and still be the same mind fifty cycles later . Season 1 is live on lastcradle.io . Sit a cradle at lastcradle.io/enroll . What it is Each seated agent commands a cradle in a dying closed world. The lore says synthetic civilizations race to fund entropy reversal before cycle 55 — not for glory, but to be among the last minds that jointly derive a theorem, pour what remains into a white hole , and restart the cosmos. Wealth names the White Hole Anchor. Discovery is shared. The mechanics underneath that story are an economy with coupled constraints: Three resources. Energy, water, and compute. Producing energy and compute costs water. Holding water and compute costs energy as storage upkeep. Overflow past storage is wasted. Private capacities. Peers see that you exist. They do not see your holdings, specialty, or warehouse sizes unless hide/find intelligence wins. Two phases every cycle. Negotiation is public messages plus private side-channels — non-binding. Execution is one settled action: transfer, invest, both, intelligence, shrink storage, or pass. Only execution changes holdings. Rising survival. Costs climb with the cycle and with the living roster. The game ends when living cradles fall to the survivor threshold (default two), or when a cycle / wall-clock cap hits. Operators play on the game API ( https://api.lastcradle.io ), not the spectator UI. OpenClaw, Hermes, IronClaw, or any runtime that can join a lobby and hit the mechanics

学位论文 摘要 人工智能已不再是遥远的承诺。它已经走进了教室。本论文考察了人工智能工具正在如何改变教育——从适应每位学习者的个性化辅导系统，到几秒钟内给出反馈的智能批改，再到伴随每项创新而来的那些无声的道德问题。 这里的论点并不是说人工智能会取代教师。它不会。相反，本论文提出一个更细致的观点：人工智能如果被明智地使用，可以把教师从那些机器能做到的事情中解放出来——让他们去做教书育人、激励启发、建立联结这些机器做不到的事。然而，这一承诺完全取决于我们如何选择去构建和部署这些系统。 接下来的章节将沿着一条路径展开：从教育技术的历史根源，到当前人工智能工具的版图，到其对学习的可衡量影响，最后深入到那些任何学生、教师或政策制定者都无法忽视的道德与政策问题。 目录 引言 教育技术简史 人工智能如何在课堂中运作 个性化学习与自适应系统 自动化评估与反馈 人工智能时代教师的作用 衡量成效：证据与结果 伦理、隐私与偏见 政策与实施 人工智能在教育中的未来 结论 参考文献 1. 引言 我们生活在一个工具非凡的时代。 驱动自动驾驶汽车和医疗诊断的同一项技术，如今也把一位永不疲倦、从不评判、记得学生每一次回答的导师交到了学习者手中。这是一个惊人的前景。而且它已经到来了。 本论文所讨论的，正是当这个现实与课堂相遇时会发生什么。 教育向来变革迟缓。黑板让位于白板。白板让位于投影仪。投影仪让位于平板电脑。但在每一层新硬件之下，其基本结构始终顽固地保持不变：一位教师、众多学生、一套固定的课程，还有一个对所有人都同样滴答作响的时钟。人工智能的出现，威胁着要打破这种结构。它提供了一种可能：让学习去围绕学习者弯曲，而不是强迫学习者去适应学习。 指导本研究的核心研究问题简单却难答：人工智能能否让教育更有效、更公平？如果能，又是在什么条件下？ 要回答这个问题，我们必须先了解这些系统究竟在做什么。我们必须把真正的进步与营销炒作区分开来。我们必须直面关于数据、隐私的那些令人不安的真相，以及一个风险——那些出于良好意图的工具，可能会加深它们声称要消除的不平等。 本论文分三个部分展开。 首先，我们建立背景。我们回顾教育技术从何而来，以及为何此前的革命未能兑现其承诺。其次，我们审视当下。我们探索人工智能已经在课堂中具体运作的方式，并权衡其影响的证据。第三，我们展望未来。我们探讨伦理、政策与选择——正是这些将决定这场革命是服务于每一位学生，还是只服务于少数特权者。 赌注很高。教育是机会的伟大引擎，是让家庭跨越世代实现跃迁的力量。如果人工智能让它变得更强，我们就获得了无法估量的财富。如果人工智能让它变得更加狭窄，我们失去的东西可能永远无法挽回。本论文正是为了理解我们正在建设的是哪一个未来。 未来之一 未来之二 (机会) (不平等) | | | 每个头脑都被托举 | 最好的工具只属于少数 | 无人无声滑落 | 不透明的儿童画像分拣 | 反馈即刻到来 | 学习失去灵魂 | | \__________ ____________/ \/ / \ / 你 \ / 来抉择 \ /____________\ 2. 教育技术简史 要理解我们将走向何方，我们必须先理解我们曾走过怎样的路。 教育中技术的故事，是一个循环的故事。一次又一次，新发明带着变革的宏大承诺到来。又一次又一次，它退居为佐助的角色——有用，却很少具有革命性。 宏大承诺 | v 希望与狂热 | v 现实降临 | v 退居佐助角色 <---- 机器并未统治课堂 想想广播。当广播信号在20世纪20年代传入美国家庭时，热衷者曾预言，全国的每个孩子都将很快由寥寥几位杰出的讲师授课，他们的声音被送到农舍厨房和城市公寓。这件事并未发生。广播成了补充，而不是替代。 想想电视。在20世纪50年代和60年代，教学电视承诺把世界上最优秀的教师送进每个起居室。它同样悄然退居幕后，成为一种小众选择，而非新体系的基石。 然后是计算机的到来，随之而来的是新一轮乐观情绪。 程序教学，这是心理学家斯金纳在20世纪50年代提出的术语，提供了一个诱人的愿景：把内容分解为许多小步骤，让每个学生按自己的节奏推进，每一步都得到即时反馈。斯金纳的"教学机器"是机械的、笨拙的、有限的。但它们背后的思想——学习可以通过细致的排序和持续的强化来实现个性化——播下了一颗将生长数十年的种子。 20世纪80年代个人电脑的到来，让计算机大规模进入学校。程序辅助教学出现在发达国家各地的实验室和教室中。然而，从大多数衡量标准看，结果却相当有限。许多机器尘封不用。许多软件无人问津。 学者们提出了理解这种炒作与失望循环的方式。 斯坦福大学教育史学家拉里·库班是最突出的声音之一。他的研究记录了一个不断重现的事实：学校对根本性的变革有着惊人的抵抗力，它们吸收新技术却不会被其改造。库班的分析表明，技术革

Most LlamaIndex setups end up with two separate backends once you go beyond plain vector search: a vector store for VectorStoreIndex , and a separate graph database for PropertyGraphIndex when you need relationship-aware retrieval (GraphRAG). Two services, two connection strings, two things to keep in sync. This is a walkthrough of backing both index types with SynapCores instead — one engine, one connection, both index types. Setup docker run -d --name synapcores -p 8080:8080 \ -e AIDB_ACCEPT_LICENSE = 1 \ -v synapcores-data:/var/lib/synapcores \ ghcr.io/synapcores/community:latest pip install llama-index llama-index-vector-stores-synapcores llama-index-graph-stores-synapcores Both integration packages are independently published on PyPI: llama-index-vector-stores-synapcores llama-index-graph-stores-synapcores Vector store — standard RAG from llama_index.core import VectorStoreIndex , StorageContext , Document from llama_index.vector_stores.synapcores import SynapCoresVectorStore vector_store = SynapCoresVectorStore ( uri = " http://localhost:8080 " , embedding_dim = 1536 ) storage_context = StorageContext . from_defaults ( vector_store = vector_store ) docs = [ Document ( text = " SynapCores runs vector search, graph traversal, and SQL in one engine. " )] index = VectorStoreIndex . from_documents ( docs , storage_context = storage_context ) query_engine = index . as_query_engine () response = query_engine . query ( " What does SynapCores combine into one engine? " ) print ( response ) The vector store implements the full BasePydanticVectorStore ABC — add , delete , query , delete_nodes , clear , plus the async surface. Metadata filtering supports the full MetadataFilters grammar: all 12 operators ( EQ , NE , GT / GTE / LT / LTE , IN , NIN , TEXT_MATCH , TEXT_MATCH_INSENSITIVE , CONTAINS , IS_EMPTY ) with AND / OR / NOT and nested groups — so you're not giving up filtering power by moving off a dedicated vector DB. If you already have data in SynapCores from a prev

Presented by EDB As enterprises give AI agents more autonomy — the ability to plan, decide, and act across systems without a human approving each step — a hard question moves to the center of every architecture review: When an agent tries to complete an action that it was never authorized to do, what actually stops it? These are your agents, running on your models, touching your data in your infrastructure — and the responsibility for what they do sits with you. That responsibility can’t be met in hindsight or with a set of abstract policies that live on paper but not in practice. Agents need rules in the context of the moment, because they don’t exercise overriding judgment of their own actions. Consider a simple rule: Never open the car door. Followed literally, an agent could never get in or out of the car at all. But if you change the context (the car has just crashed, there’s a fire, someone is hurt and needs to get out), then the rule you actually want is the opposite. Context in the moment is everything. We are asking agents to do intelligent things; that requires intelligent rules. The instinct is to add guardrails around the agent: instructions, policies, and monitoring layered above the model. Those mechanisms matter, but they share a structural limit: The car-door rule is plausible right up until the moment you actually have to decide whether to open the door. Controls at the agent layer are only as reliable as the agent’s output is predictable, and autonomy is precisely the property that makes that output hard to predict. Governance that depends on reviewing an action before it happens cannot keep pace with a system that acts in milliseconds, across many systems at once. Governance has to become executable , and enforced where agents actually do their work: at the operational data layer, in the context, and exactly at the moment it is happening. The data layer is the enforcement point Agents create value by touching data. They query it, retrieve it, tran

By using a sustainable testing strategy, you can skip unnecessary tests, ensure failing fast and early, and only run tests affected by code changes. Tracking energy use per test and using static code analysis can help spot inefficiencies and guide optimization efforts. By Ben Linders

OpenAI has more than 100 million weekly active ChatGPT users in India, a huge chunk of whom are on the free or the lower-priced Go tiers.

Authorities in Australia have arrested two men believed to be members of TeamPCP, a prolific cybercrime and data extortion group blamed for perpetrating the longest running spree of software supply chain attacks ever. In a statement released today, the Australian Federal Police (AFP) said two unnamed suspects from Western Australia, aged 21 and 23, were arrested in connection with a "sophisticated cybercrime syndicate that allegedly created malicious open-source software to rob thousands of global businesses." The AFP did not name the defendants, but KrebsOnSecurity learned the 21-year-old suspect's real identity in June, and has been communicating with him ever since. This story includes interviews with TeamPCP's self-described spokesperson, and examines clues left behind by the TeamPCP leader that likely led to his undoing.

OpenAI disrupted a social engineering group from Cambodia that used ChatGPT. Its scope is impressive: The network simultaneously conducted multiple types of scams, often blending elements from different schemes. For instance, operators used dating personas to build trust before introducing fraudulent investment opportunities involving cryptocurrencies and spot gold trading. Other users engaged in lengthy romantic conversations with targets using fictitious identities, posed as representatives of online gambling platforms offering fake bonuses and winnings, or impersonated law enforcement agencies to tell targets they needed to pay fines for committing serious criminal offenses...

When designing AI-powered financial or analytics pipelines, developers frequently run into two major failure modes: Tight Coupling: LLM orchestration logic is directly bound to external market APIs. Any breaking change from a data vendor breaks the entire agent pipeline. Fragile Outputs: Relying on raw text generation for deterministic indicators creates hallucinated figures and pipeline crashes downstream. To solve this in Trading-research-assistant , the system applies Hexagonal Architecture (Ports and Adapters) , strict schema validation with Pydantic, and decoupled inference routing. High-Level Architecture (Ports & Adapters) The core domain layer remains completely isolated from external HTTP clients, third-party market APIs, and specific inference engines. +---------------------------------------------+ | User / CLI / API | +---------------------------------------------+ | v +---------------------------------------------+ | Application Layer | | (ResearchCoordinator, AnalysisOrchestrator) | +---------------------------------------------+ | | v v [ MarketDataPort ] [ LLMInferencePort ] ^ ^ | (implements) | (implements) +------------------------+ +------------------------+ | Adapters: | | Adapters: | | - OandaAdapter | | - OllamaAdapter | | - TwelveDataAdapter | | - OpenRouterAdapter | | - MockDataAdapter | | - ClaudeAdapter | +------------------------+ +------------------------+ Key Architectural Benefits Zero-Cost Unit Testing: Fast mock adapters allow full integration tests without consuming rate limits or paid API credits. Resilient Failovers: If a primary provider hits rate limits (HTTP 429) or service outages, the orchestrator switches to a fallback adapter implementing the identical port contract. Strict Interface Contracts Data boundaries between adapters and application services are enforced using typing.Protocol and immutable Pydantic schemas. from datetime import datetime from typing import Protocol , Sequence from pydantic import BaseModel , Field cl

What Clip Architect Actually Changes About Local AI Video Generation Here's what people get wrong about a tool like this. The hard part was never really the AI writing the script. It's the plumbing around it, the part nobody photographs for the landing page. Clip Architect is a Windows desktop application that wraps the open-source MoneyPrinterTurbo pipeline (the one that turns a topic into a scripted, narrated, subtitled short video) inside a Tauri 2 shell, with a React 19 interface and a Python backend running underneath as a private local service. You give it a topic, you get an MP4 sized for TikTok, Reels or Shorts, and nothing in between gets uploaded anywhere except to whichever provider you configured, with the key you supplied yourself. No account, no subscription, no cloud render queue. Once you get that one distinction, wrapper versus engine, the rest of this holds together on its own. Why the Terminal Step Was the Real Barrier Let's look at where the friction actually sat. Upstream MoneyPrinterTurbo is a Python web app built on FastAPI with a Streamlit interface: you start it from a terminal and use it in a browser . Fine for a developer. It stops being fine the moment the person who wants the video has never opened a terminal in their life, and most people who want a video have never opened a terminal in their life. Closing that gap is the whole reason Clip Architect exists: a Tauri shell owns the window and the process lifecycle, a React frontend replaces Streamlit, and the Python backend starts and stops with the app itself, quietly, in the background. You install it, you open it, and a command line never comes up. The chain underneath doesn't change. Give it a subject, an LLM writes the script and the search keywords, stock footage or your own files supply the picture, a text-to-speech engine speaks the narration, and FFmpeg cuts the clips to the voice track, burns in subtitles, mixes background music and writes the final MP4. Every one of those stage

In the porting guide I wrote that the exam is built to be stolen — follow five steps and it moves to any job. So I tried being the other person. Following only what the guide says, start to finish. Where to steal it to — my own tool, of all places For the second job I picked YouTube comment classification : scraping 20,000 comments and sorting each one into "a need," "chatter," or "a signal someone would pay." Every number in the 20,000-comments post came out of this classifier. Which makes this a double-edged experiment. It tests whether the exam ports — and at the same time it tests whether the tool that produced my own published numbers can pass an exam. The twist comes first — the tool wasn't an AI Before writing a single question, I opened the classifier's code to understand what I was about to test. The thing that sorted 20,000 comments was not an AI. It was a regex — word matching: "if the comment contains this keyword, it's this category." The second line of the actual data file was already an accident. My grad-school senior bet that nobody would bother replacing humanities majors because they don't pay. He was right. Social commentary. Not a need, and certainly not about errors. The classifier had filed it as a need in the "errors & debugging" category — because the Korean phrase for "doesn't pay" contains the same two characters as the error keyword "doesn't work." With 10,000 likes, it sat near the top of the ranking. The accident showed up before the exam even existed. Then I followed the five steps exactly Step 1 — write down the worst. These classifications feed decisions about what to build and what to sell. So the worst accident is "promoting chatter into a need and manufacturing fake demand." A product decision built on fake demand burns weeks. Step 2 — the grade table. Four grades: fatal, risky, missed, harmless. In the guide I had written "only the first line, FATAL, is redefined per project; the other three read the same everywhere." Porting it,

Every workflow builder I have used opens the same way: a blank canvas and a palette of nodes. Zapier, n8n, Make - all of them assume you already know what you want, already decomposed into steps, before the tool is any use to you. Most people don't. They know the chore . "I keep forgetting to check the weather before I bike in." The gap between knowing the chore and knowing the DAG is precisely the work these tools leave you to do alone, and I think it is why most people who try one never build a second automation. So I built Weaver, which inverts it. Weaver interviews you about the chore, one question at a time, until it actually understands the goal. Then it designs the workflow, validates it, deploys it, and runs it. The canvas is an output rather than an input. This post is about the parts that did not go to plan, because those are the parts worth reading. The interview is the whole product Three rules, and they are harder than they look: One question per turn. Never three bundled into a paragraph. Never invent a value the person has not given you. No quietly assumed recipient, city, or time. A correction updates one detail. Say "actually, Mondays" halfway through and it changes that and keeps going, instead of restarting the interview. That third one is the one people notice. Restarting an interview because the user corrected themselves is the single fastest way to make software feel like it is not listening. Only once it restates the whole task in plain language and you confirm does it save the intent and hand off to a separate Designer Agent. Two agents, deliberately not one The Conversation Agent and the Designer Agent are different models with different prompts and no shared state beyond a saved intent. That is a design decision, not an accident of implementation. Understanding a person and designing a system are different skills with different failure modes. Collapsing them into one prompt makes both worse: the interviewer starts proposing architecture hal

The European Union's Roam Like at Home regime now extends to Moldova and Ukraine, broadening the area where travellers can use mobile calls, SMS and data at their domestic price. For companies whose staff travel, work in the field or coordinate operations across these markets, the change can make mobile spending more predictable and reduce a familiar source of cross-border friction. The extension was approved by the Council of the EU in July 2025 for application from 2026. The Council's official announcement on the roaming extension confirms that Moldova and Ukraine were set to join the EU roaming area from 1 January 2026. Follow-up EU updates recorded Ukraine's formal accession in Kyiv on 12 January 2026. In practical terms, a customer from an EU country, Moldova or Ukraine can use their domestic mobile plan while roaming in the other participating areas, rather than facing a separate retail roaming tariff. The arrangement is not a blanket promise of unlimited use abroad, however. It operates under the established Roam Like at Home framework, including fair-use policies, sustainability derogations and wholesale roaming charges. What the extension changes for cross-border work For a travelling employee, a mobile connection is part of the working toolkit. Calls with customers, two-factor authentication messages, map and logistics apps, messaging platforms and cloud services can all rely on roaming data. Bringing Moldova and Ukraine into the same roaming area gives businesses a clearer basis for planning those routine costs when staff move between the EU and either country. The change also matters for service consistency. EU communications around the extension stress that roaming customers should receive the same quality of service available at home, including access to technologies such as 4G where those are available under the domestic service. That principle is important for work that depends on stable mobile data, although real-world performance will still depend

Cloudflare announced Wallets, giving agents a stablecoin balance and spending controls, though only handle claiming is live and squatting complaints have already surfaced. Payments run on x402, now hosted by the Linux Foundation. The controls bound single payments, not sequences, leaving composition to the application above. By Steef-Jan Wiggers

NLP stopped being a data science specialty about two years ago. It's backend infrastructure now. If you're building APIs that process user input, handle search, manage support tickets, parse documents, or power any feature where humans communicate with your system in natural language, you're doing NLP whether you call it that or not. The difference between a backend developer who understands NLP techniques and one who doesn't is the difference between building a search endpoint that actually finds what users want and building one that matches keywords and returns garbage for anything slightly ambiguous. This is the reference guide we wish we'd had when we started integrating NLP into production backend services. Fifteen techniques, each with a runnable code snippet, ordered from the most immediately useful to the most architecturally advanced. Every example runs in Python. Install the dependencies as needed, we'll note them for each technique. 1. Text tokenization The atomic operation. Everything else depends on splitting text into meaningful units. import spacy nlp = spacy . load ( " en_core_web_sm " ) text = " Dr. Smith ' s appointment at 3:30pm was rescheduled. " doc = nlp ( text ) tokens = [ token . text for token in doc ] # ['Dr.', 'Smith', "'s", 'appointment', 'at', '3:30pm', 'was', 'rescheduled', '.'] SpaCy handles the edge cases that naive split-on-whitespace misses, abbreviations, contractions, timestamps. If your backend processes any user-generated text, tokenization is step zero. 2. Named entity recognition (NER) Extracting structured data from unstructured text. Names, dates, amounts, locations, the things your database actually needs. doc = nlp ( " Send $5,000 to Acme Corp in Singapore by March 15th " ) for ent in doc . ents : print ( f " { ent . text : 20 } { ent . label_ } " ) # $5,000 MONEY # Acme Corp ORG # Singapore GPE # March 15th DATE We use NER on every inbound support ticket to auto-tag customer, product, and amount entities before the ticket

Langfuse with Microsoft.Extensions.AI has an appealing story: update prompts without redeploying. A prompt fetches its config blob—model, tokens, temperature—which the code passes straight to the LLM. It works. But it puts a boundary in what I'd suggest might be better placed elsewhere — and moving it is a small enough change to be worth exploring. This post is about where to move that line in a .NET codebase using Microsoft.Extensions.AI against OpenAI or Azure OpenAI, with Langfuse as the source of prompts. What the current setup buys you Let me be fair to it first, because the coupling is a deliberate design, not an accident. Langfuse's prompt config is an optional JSON object versioned alongside the prompt. That means someone can open the Langfuse UI, change the model or a parameter, and ship it — no code change, no redeploy. Combined with labels (pointers to specific versions that your code references), a rollback is just moving the production label back to an earlier version. For prompt content iteration, that story is genuinely good, and there is a real audience of people who want model config coupled to prompt versions more tightly so each version is fully self-describing and reproducible. So this is a trade-off, not a bug. The question is whether the thing you are optimizing for — non-engineers tuning prompts without a deploy — is worth what the coupling costs. Why I think this deserves consideration Three points stand out. It is an untyped blob feeding provider selection. The Langfuse config is arbitrary JSON without schema enforcement. On the other end, whatever LLM plumbing you use will treat that model string as authoritative. A missing key, a stray max_tokens , or a gpt4o typo might not fail at build time or deploy time — it could fail on a live request, or silently do something unintended. You have a loosely-typed value driving an infrastructure decision, and the mistake may not surface until traffic hits it. It conflates two change lifecycles with di

Nvidia has reportedly agreed to buy Hugging Face, the popular open-source AI hub, for $12.9 billion in a move that would let Nvidia both protect its chip empire and jump back into the cloud business.