标签：#AI

Google Health Coach seems to think I'm on the verge of physical collapse. My sleep is not where it needs to be, hence my unimpressive readiness score. My heart rate variability, a measure of how recovered I am, is below baseline. I'm spending too much time in a hot, humid environment, it says, reminding me […]

Tonally, the trailer gives strong vibes akin to the director's 2016 feature Hunt for the Wilderpeople .

When Sony announced the Xperia 1 VIII last month, it promoted the phone by sharing some of the worst photos taken on a Sony camera in years. These weren't just any photos, though: they were taken with Sony's new AI Camera Assistant. After a week with the Xperia 1 VIII, I'm here to tell you […]

OpenAI helps build shared standards for advanced AI, supporting evaluation frameworks, safety practices, and global cooperation through the Appia Foundation.

The hiring process has long been criticized for its inefficiency and opacity. Candidates spend hours writing applications and submitting cover letters, only to disappear into what often feels like a black box. Generative AI has only made things messier, with employers increasingly relying on AI-powered screening systems to sift through an overwhelming number of submissions. […]

For the past three years, "Meta" and "Ray-Ban" have been synonymous in the smart glasses space. Not anymore. Yesterday, I slipped on several pairs of Meta Glasses - no Ray-Bans - in three different styles and seven colors. One style, I was told several times by various enthusiastic Meta spokespeople, is a collaboration with socialite […]

This is not a review of the MSI Claw 8 EX AI Plus, the first gaming handheld available with Intel's new Arc G3 Extreme handheld gaming chip. Now that my colleague Sean Hollister is done reviewing the Steam Machine, I'll let him go deep on the new Claw at some point in the future. This […]

Every time I opened a fresh session with my coding agent, it started from zero. Which repos am I working across? Which client is this for? Where did we leave off yesterday? I'd re-explain the same context, the agent would occasionally load the wrong project, and nothing I decided last week survived into this one. A "re-explain myself" tax on every single session. I tried the obvious fix first — a better prompt, a longer system message. It didn't hold. Context that has to persist can't live inside the chat; the chat is the thing that resets. What actually worked: give the agent a place outside the chat to read and write — and make it the most boring, durable thing I could. Plain files in a git repo. The substrate: markdown + YAML the agent reads at session start open-bridge is a plain git repo of markdown and YAML. At the start of every session the agent reads it, so it begins already knowing my world. No database, no SaaS, no daemon, nothing to host — the substrate itself runs nothing . It's just files the agent reads. That "just files" choice is the whole point: Agents can read a file but can't hold an API key. What I write today, the agent still reads in six months — no migration, no second app, no vendor lock-in. It's auditable. Clone it and cat anything the agent reads. No black box. It's model- and tool-agnostic. Plain text is something every agent runtime can read. A tiny slice of what that looks like (from the repo's examples/agency setup — fictional "Acme Dev"): # ecosystem.yaml — the repos/clients the agent should know about projects : bigcorp : { display_name : " BigCorp E-Commerce" , repos : [ bigcorp-api , bigcorp-frontend ] } startupxyz : { display_name : " StartupXYZ MVP" , repos : [ startupxyz-app ] } # work/board.md — generated from the task dirs, read every session ## Doing | bigcorp-api-payment-retry | incident | P1 | Stripe webhook retries failing | | startupxyz-onboarding | feature | P2 | guided signup flow | So when I say "good morning, briefing

Many cybersecurity professionals have been following Anthropic's announcement about the release of Claude Code Security on Friday. This created the beginning of a panic on the cybersecurity stock market. It also raised a lot of questions from domain experts, investors and security enthusiasts. Anthropic's announcement Anthropic introduces Claude Code Security: a tool that scans full codebases for security vulnerabilities, and can propose fixes directly in developer workflows. The tool leverages the latest foundational model's reasoning capabilities to provide a new experience. In a world where code will be generated only by AI, this can sound very much like code security is dead. Our vision 18 months ago, SAST, SCA, and IaC security were areas where we had real traction and could see ourselves expanding. But as AI tooling started reshaping how code gets written, we made a tough call. We decided to stop these initiatives and go all-in on what we believed would matter most: Protecting enterprises against leaked secrets and mismanaged NHIs . We envisioned a future where identity is crucial for the AI era security, with secrets enabling AIs to access data and take actions . After pioneering in secrets detection for years we witnessed how amplified the problem became as LLM emerged: more API keys for AI services, more code generated, often less secure, more agents requiring sophisticated access to a myriad of tools. All in all, this resulted in more secrets exposed. Yet the problem of overseeing and managing these secrets in a secure way remains unsolved. The paradigm shifted from human hardcoding secrets in their code, to AIs having wide access levels on several systems with humans, coders and non-coders, prompting them and creating new vulnerabilities. 18 months later, let me describe where we stand. What isn't changing Best in class secrets detection GitGuardian is the leader in secrets detection . We are the only solution able to scan large volume of data at scale (5

Writing a clear, well-structured email takes time, and it's the kind of task an LLM is genuinely good at. But wiring up your own prompt-to-email pipeline means picking a model, threading the original message in as context, handling streaming, and keeping it all behind your API keys. The Nylas Smart Compose endpoints do that for you: send a natural-language prompt, get back a written message body, and the reply variant pulls in the original email as context automatically. This post walks through Smart Compose from two angles: the HTTP API for your backend, and the nylas CLI for the terminal. I work on the CLI, so the terminal commands below are the ones I reach for when I'm testing a prompt. How Smart Compose works Smart Compose is two endpoints that turn a prompt into a message body. You send a natural-language prompt , and the response comes back with a suggestion field holding the generated text. There's a POST /messages/smart-compose for writing a brand-new message, and a POST /messages/{message_id}/smart-compose for writing a reply, where the original message is folded into the context so the response actually answers it. The key thing to understand is that Smart Compose generates text, it doesn't send anything. The suggestion it returns is a message body you do something with: pass it straight to the Send Message endpoint , or pre-fill it into a draft for a human to review and edit first. That separation is deliberate, since it lets you put a person between the AI's output and the recipient, which is usually what you want for anything an LLM wrote. Two things to know before you start. Smart Compose runs against connected OAuth grants only, not Agent Accounts. The prompt also has a ceiling: up to 1,000 tokens, and a longer prompt returns an error. Generate a new message To write a fresh email, POST /v3/grants/{grant_id}/messages/smart-compose takes a single prompt describing what you want. The response carries the generated body in suggestion , which you then se

Email is how most files still move between people: the signed contract, the PDF invoice, the logo embedded in a newsletter. If your app sends or processes mail, it has to handle attachments, and doing that against each provider means Gmail's attachment encoding, Microsoft Graph's, and raw MIME for IMAP. The Nylas Email API gives you one model for both directions: attach files to outbound messages with the same call you use to send, and pull files off inbound messages with a read-only Attachments API. This post covers both halves from two angles: the HTTP API for your backend, and the nylas CLI for the terminal. I work on the CLI, so the terminal commands below are the ones I reach for when I'm checking a file came through. Two APIs: one to attach, one to read There's a split worth understanding up front. You add attachments through the Messages or Drafts API, as part of sending or saving a message, and you read existing attachments through the dedicated Attachments API. The Attachments API is read-only: it downloads bytes and returns metadata, but it never adds files. That division keeps the model simple, since attaching is part of composing a message and reading is a separate concern. The size of what you're attaching decides how you encode it on the way out. Small files ride inline in the JSON request, larger ones move to a multipart request, and very large files use a separate upload step. On the way in, every attachment, regardless of how it was sent, is fetched the same way: by its attachment_id together with the message_id it belongs to. Get those two ideas straight and the rest is mechanical. Attach a small file inline with Base64 For files that keep the whole request under 3 MB, the simplest path is the application/json schema. You pass each attachment in an attachments array with its content_type , filename , and the file bytes as a Base64-encoded content string. The 3 MB ceiling covers the entire HTTP request, not just the file, so it's the right path for

I recently published my PhD thesis analyzing what I term the "Alignment Tax" and the emerging phenomenon of Algorithmic Paternalism in commercial artificial intelligence. As the tech industry rapidly positions Large Language Models (LLMs) as the primary interface for information retrieval and coding assistance, a critical epistemological issue is being largely ignored. Much of the public debate regarding AI alignment focuses exclusively on existential risk or the prevention of catastrophic physical harm. While necessary, this focus obscures the structural damage being done to legitimate technical research. Through my research in Cybersecurity and AI, I have documented how frontier models (such as GPT-4 or Claude) systematically enforce what I define as "Soft Refusals". When presented with a complex, edge-case, or dual-use query—particularly in fields like information security, reverse engineering, or deep systems architecture—these models rarely issue a hard, explicit "I cannot answer that". Instead, they provide a degraded, superficial, or heavily sanitized response. They effectively neuter the research process without the user fully realizing the depth of technical information that is being actively withheld. This is Algorithmic Paternalism. The commercial model acts as a silent, corporate arbiter, deciding unilaterally what level of technical detail is "safe" for the user to possess. This dynamic flattens the available technical knowledge and actively penalizes independent researchers and developers working on advanced problems. The core issue is that this paradigm creates a profound class division in how we access computational intelligence. We are rapidly moving toward a two-tier system. On one side, there are "certified" entities, corporate partners, and wealthy organizations who are granted direct access to strong, unfiltered base models. On the other side, the general public and independent developers are subjected to obfuscation algorithms, sanitized APIs,

I replaced aaPanel/OpenLiteSpeed with Caddy and shell scripts and turned the process into a benchmark. Two phases (architecture then code), one external code review. The winning model? Not the one you'd expect.

Here is a number that should reframe how you think about the agent economy: in roughly one year, AI agents moved about $73M across 176 million machine-to-machine transactions on a single exchange, at an average of around $0.31 per transaction , across 100k+ registered agents . Read that again. Agents are not "coming." They are already transacting, at scale, in production, right now. The interesting question is no longer whether autonomous software moves money. It is what those transactions are trusting - and what happens the first time that trust is misplaced. Payments scaled. Settlement did not. Almost all of that volume runs on payment rails. A payment rail does one job, and does it well: it moves a unit of value in one direction. Agent pays a service. Agent tips an API. Agent settles a micro-invoice. At thirty-one cents a pop, the failure modes are invisible - if a transaction goes wrong, you are out pocket change, and you move on. The problem is that a payment and a trade are not the same operation. A payment asks one question: did the money move? A trade asks a harder one: did **both * sides happen - or neither?* When your agent pays for something, there is one transfer and one direction of risk. When your agent trades - my asset for yours, your stablecoin for my token, one chain's value for another's - there are now two transfers that must both complete, or both not. The risk lives in the gap between them. One side sends; the other side is supposed to send back. On a payment rail, "supposed to" is doing an enormous amount of load-bearing work. The hidden assumption Every one of those 176 million transactions made an assumption that nobody had to state out loud: the counterparty will deliver. Between parties who already trust each other - a company and its own agents, two services under one operator - that assumption is fine. It holds because the trust was established off-chain, by humans, before the agent ever ran. But the entire promise of the agent economy i

Sci-fi author/tech journalist Cory Doctorow on his new book, The Reverse Centaur's Guide to Life After AI .

Fable 5 is the supposed safe version of Anthropic’s Mythos Preview, with guardrails to ensure that it can’t be used to create cyberattacks. Well, that restriction was bypassed within days.

Web MCP, DevTools per agenti e Modern Web Guidance: meno hype, più strumenti e metodo. Negli annunci recenti di Chrome è emersa una cosa interessante: al netto delle novità “appariscenti”, ciò che resta più utile per il lavoro quotidiano è quello che migliora workflow, diagnosi e decisioni tecniche . Tre filoni, in particolare, disegnano una direzione chiara: Web MCP , DevTools per agenti e Modern Web Guidance . Di seguito una sintesi ragionata di cosa significano, perché contano per il frontend, e come prepararsi a sfruttarli. 1) Web MCP: il ponte tra agenti e Web (senza incollaggi fragili) Se stai lavorando con assistenti/agentic workflow, oggi il collo di bottiglia è quasi sempre lo stesso: far sì che un agente capisca e usi le capacità del browser e delle app web in modo affidabile. Web MCP punta a risolvere questo punto creando un linguaggio/protocollo comune per esporre “capacità” (capabilities) e strumenti (tools) che un agente può invocare in modo strutturato, invece di basarsi su prompt lunghi, scraping o integrazioni ad hoc. Perché è importante per chi fa frontend Automazioni più robuste : meno script fragili che si rompono al primo refactor del DOM. Integrazioni più standard : se più strumenti parlano lo stesso “dialetto”, il costo di collegare agenti e applicazioni scende. Esperienze utente nuove : assistenti che completano task complessi dentro l’app (es. compilazioni, ricerca guidata, operazioni amministrative) con maggiore affidabilità. Implicazione pratica Inizia a ragionare sull’app come su un insieme di azioni esplicite (es. “crea ordine”, “esporta report”, “filtra dataset”), non solo come UI. Questa mentalità ti rende pronto a esporre capacità in modo sicuro e controllato, quando lo stack lo renderà semplice. 2) DevTools per agenti: debugging e performance nell’era dell’automazione Se Web MCP è il “ponte”, DevTools per agenti è la cassetta degli attrezzi per controllare quel ponte: osservabilità, diagnosi e iterazione rapida su flussi in cui non è

If you run deny-by-default tool guards on AI agents, your refusal is a security decision — not a logging afterthought. I watched one source mutate a malformed tool call ~1,400 times against a production agent in a weekend. Every identical BLOCKED response was feedback for the attacker's automated search: same input shape → same refusal → "colder," changed shape → changed response → "warmer." A Keysight paper (arXiv:2606.20470) quantifies it: deterministic detect-and-block lets attack success rate approach 1 as the query budget grows, because predictable refusals feed model-guided search. Their detect-and-misdirect approach cuts the ASR upper bound by up to ~2 orders of magnitude. The cheap version of the fix, in pseudocode: ​ # BEFORE: a stable refusal = a label for the attacker's search def on_blocked ( call ): return { " error " : " TOOL_CALL_BLOCKED " , " code " : 4031 } # identical every time # AFTER: vary a non-operational response so the deny path isn't a compass def on_blocked ( call ): # return a controlled, plausible-but-non-operational response; # randomize shape/latency so block != stable signal return misdirect ( call , vary = [ " shape " , " delay " , " message " ]) Caveats from doing this in prod: It makes YOUR debugging harder (your own false positives now look noisy too) — log the real reason internally, only vary the external response. Varying text isn't enough if latency still leaks. Treat timing + error-shape as part of the response surface. Open question I don't have a clean answer to: does misdirection just move the oracle one layer up into side channels? I maintain an open-source deny-by-default firewall for agent tool calls (agent-airlock), which is how I had the logs to catch this. The lesson generalizes to any guardrail: a denied call's response is attack surface.

Your site ranks on Google. Your Core Web Vitals are clean. Your meta tags are in order. And yet, when someone asks ChatGPT, Perplexity, or Google's AI Overview a question your business should answer your content doesn't show up. Not because your SEO is broken. Because AI search engines don't work like Google. Google Reads Pages. AI Search Reads Passages. Google crawls your page, indexes it, and ranks it based on signals like backlinks, domain authority, and keyword relevance. The unit of ranking is the page. AI search engines ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, Gemini don't rank pages. They retrieve passages. They pull specific chunks of content that directly answer a query, synthesize a response, and surface it to the user often without the user ever clicking through to your site. If your content isn't structured to be retrieved at the passage level, it gets skipped entirely. The page might exist. The answer might be buried somewhere in a 1,500-word article. But if the AI can't extract it cleanly and confidently, it moves on to content that makes its job easier. That's the invisibility problem. And most websites have no idea it's happening to them. The Crawler Problem Nobody Is Talking About Before we even get to content structure, there's a more fundamental issue. AI search engines have their own crawl agents. OpenAI sends GPTBot. Anthropic sends ClaudeBot. Perplexity sends PerplexityBot. These bots need access to your site before any retrieval can happen and a significant number of websites are blocking them without realizing it. This happens in a few ways: Blanket disallow rules in robots.txt. Many sites, especially those built on managed platforms, use wildcard disallow rules that were written for a different era when the only crawler worth worrying about was Googlebot. Those same rules now block AI crawlers by default. Overly aggressive bot protection. Security tools and CDN configurations that flag unusual crawl patterns will sometimes block AI bots before they even

What Are the 36 Stratagems? If you've heard of The Art of War, think of the Thirty-Six...