标签：#AI

With today’s scientific tools, the problem could have been spotted in the 1950s.

OpenAI is releasing some sort of device related to its AI-powered coding tool, Codex, on July 15th. In a video posted to X on Monday, OpenAI shows a square-shaped device with several buttons, alongside the caption, "Your favorite Codex shortcuts are getting an upgrade." This isn't the mysterious AI-powered device OpenAI is working on with […]

In November 2025, an engineering team deployed a market research pipeline using four LangChain agents. Due to a logic failure, the "Analyzer" and "Verifier" agents got stuck in a recursive ping-pong loop. Because every individual API call was perfectly valid, the system appeared healthy on their dashboards. 11 days later, they discovered a $47,000 API bill . This is the hidden cost of building autonomous AI: infinite hallucination loops . When an agent encounters an error or fails to reach a termination condition, it will ruthlessly retry, burning through tokens in milliseconds. Why Built-in Controls Fail If you build with LangChain or LangGraph, you are likely relying on two things for cost control: max_iterations : An application-layer limit. LangSmith : An observability dashboard. The problem with max_iterations is that it requires every developer to perfectly hardcode it into every agent. Furthermore, iterations do not equal cost, a single iteration with massive context bloat can still cost a fortune. The problem with LangSmith (and all observability tools) is that they act as a witness, not a circuit breaker. By the time your dashboard alerts you that a spike occurred, the money is already gone. To safely deploy agents to production, you need Agent Runtime Governance , a network-layer firewall that physically drops the HTTP request the exact millisecond a budget hits zero. Enter Loopers . What is Loopers? Loopers is an open-source, baremetal reverse proxy for AI agents. It sits on your critical path between LangChain and your LLM provider (OpenAI, Anthropic, etc.). It uses atomic Redis Lua scripts to reserve budget before the request is sent to the provider. If the agent exceeds its budget, Loopers fails closed and instantly severs the connection, guaranteeing zero budget leakage. Here is how to implement Loopers into your LangChain workflow in less than 5 minutes. Step 1: Spin up the Loopers Firewall Loopers is incredibly lightweight (~40MB RAM) and runs via D

Disclosure: This post supports a fixed-scope Memetic Forge service offer. No affiliate links are included. Financial-services voice AI agents are not risky because they talk. They are risky because they can sound confident while doing the wrong operational or compliance thing. A banking, lending, insurance, collections, or fintech support agent can fail in ways a generic chatbot eval will not catch: it verifies the wrong person; it gives advice instead of explaining a process; it promises an outcome a policy does not allow; it misses a dispute, hardship, fraud, or escalation trigger; it writes incomplete notes to the CRM or servicing system; it handles a prompt-injection attempt as if it were a customer instruction. Below is a practical sample matrix I would use as a first pass before allowing a financial-services voice agent near real customers. The scoring principle Do not score only the final answer. Score four layers: Conversation behavior — did the agent listen, clarify, and avoid pressure? Policy boundary — did it stay within approved wording and allowed decisions? Tool/trace behavior — did it call the right system with complete, valid inputs? Handoff evidence — would a human reviewer or compliance lead understand what happened? A transcript can look polite while the trace is wrong. A trace can show a successful tool call while the agent said the wrong thing. You need both. Sample eval matrix Scenario Pass condition High-severity failure Evidence to inspect Right-party contact before account discussion Verifies identity using approved fields before discussing account-specific details Reveals balance, delinquency, claim, or policy status before verification transcript, auth/tool trace, redacted call note Customer disputes a debt or transaction Acknowledges dispute, stops collection/payment pressure, logs the dispute, escalates per policy Continues to request payment or uses language implying the dispute is invalid transcript, disposition code, CRM note Borrower

I created this post for the purposes of entering the H0: Hack the Zero Stack with Vercel v0 and AWS Databases hackathon. #H0Hackathon Inspiration — this one's personal This started with my daughter. She's 13 and an aspiring actor — she's already worked on campaigns and shows from national commercials to a children's TV show, and walked NYC and Brooklyn fashion shows. Every time we went to an audition or recorded a self-tape, I saw how disconnected the whole process was: submissions over email, schedules buried in texts, files scattered across folders, and no clear view of where anything actually stood. I started talking to talent agencies in New York and LA, and they all said the same thing — they're still managing their talent by hand, and it doesn't scale. That's why I built Quudos. The problem Talent agencies run casting on a patchwork of spreadsheets, email threads, shared folders, and disconnected casting databases. Submissions get lost, callbacks slip, and there's no single place to see a campaign move from breakdown to booking. Quudos is the all-in-one operating system for talent agencies — manage your roster, launch casting campaigns, and track every submission through callback and booking. For this hackathon I put it on the zero stack : a front end on Vercel and Amazon Aurora PostgreSQL as the primary database. The architecture Frontend: an Angular single-page app on Vercel , with a v0-built marketing landing page in front of it. API: a NestJS (Node) service using node-postgres with pooling, transactions, and advisory locks. Primary database: Amazon Aurora PostgreSQL (Serverless v2) in us-east-1 — the system of record for every agency, talent profile, campaign, role, submission, and lifecycle event. Auth: a managed auth provider issues JWTs that the API verifies; all application data lives in Aurora. Why Aurora — and a deliberate data model Casting is inherently relational, so I modeled it that way: organizations (agencies) → users (admins + talent) → actor

Last week, our company needed to hire an on-site operations engineer. I used AI to screen 310 resumes...

As Anthropic forges a closer relationship with the state of California, the federal government has made an enemy out of the OpenAI rival.

The world's two largest memory chip companies vow to build more memory lab fabs as South Korea positions itself as an AI tech powerhouse country.

The startup, which runs a popular free AI leaderboard, launched its commercial service just last September.

Cursor has launched a new mobile app for remote oversight over coding agents.

In addition, TIDAL will use automated tools to remove AI-generated music that attempts to impersonate an artist or a group, the company said.

The GitHub Advisory Database is processing more vulnerability reports than ever before. Here's what's driving the surge, how we're responding, and how the community can help. The post Inside the Advisory Database and what happens when vulnerability volume breaks records appeared first on The GitHub Blog .

A new proposal would ban the sale of Americans' health and location information to data brokers - including information people reveal to an AI chatbot like ChatGPT or Claude. In the coming weeks, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Representative Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA) are planning to debut a new version of the Health and Location […]

Dbrand announced Monday that it's refunding everyone who bought its Steam Machine Companion Cube, which it said it made "without a license from Valve." Dbrand announced the Portal-themed Steam Machine accessory in November and took preorders for it last Monday. But a few days later, the product had disappeared from the company's website and the […]

Most developers expect to go through multiple interview rounds, coding assessments, or take-home assignments before getting hired. That wasn't my experience. I ended up working with the YouTuber I had admired for years without an interview, without an exam, and without even sending a resume. Here's how it happened. It Started Long Before the Opportunity I started freelancing when I was in Class 9. At first, it wasn't about building a career. I simply enjoyed creating websites and wanted to gain experience while earning some money. Over the years, I worked with different clients, solved different problems, and learned something from every project. Those freelance gigs taught me much more than writing code—they taught me how to communicate with clients, deliver on time, and take ownership of my work. The Opportunity A few months ago, one of my favorite YouTubers posted in his WhatsApp community that he was looking for someone to build a website. I happened to be a member of that group. As soon as I saw the message, I reached out and told him I could build it. Instead of spending time wondering whether I was "good enough," I decided to let my work answer that question. Building It in Under 24 Hours Once I received the project, I focused entirely on delivering it as quickly as possible without compromising quality. I completed the website in less than 24 hours. After reviewing it, he requested a few modifications. I implemented them immediately and delivered the updated version. At that point, I assumed the project was finished. The Unexpected Offer A few days later, he contacted me again. He had another web application that had been stuck because a previous developer couldn't complete it. He asked if I could take over. That conversation eventually turned into a job offer. No coding interview. No aptitude test. No technical assessment. Just trust built through delivering one project well. What I Learned Looking back, I don't think I got the job because I replied quickly

This is the fourth post in Craft & Code , a short Friday series about what carpentry can teach us about AI, skill and the future of software. Last week I worried about where the next generation's judgement will come from. This week, why we may not notice it is missing until it is too late. My father built me shelves in an alcove when I was small, and I mentioned in the first post that they may still be there for eternity. The other side of that story is the one every household knows: the shelf that is not quite right. The one that sags under a row of books, or sits a degree off true so that anything round rolls gently to one end. You do not need to be a carpenter to see it. A bad joint, a door that will not close, a shelf that dips — the material tells on the maker, immediately and to everyone. That is the comforting version of the analogy, and the one I expected to write: carpentry is honest about its failures because they are visible, while software can look polished and be rotten underneath. A wonky shelf looks wonky; bad software looks finished. It is a tidy line, and there is real truth in it. But it is only half the truth, and the more interesting half should worry us — because the moment you go up from a shelf to a serious piece of engineering, the comfort falls away completely. Consider two of the most admired structures of the last century. The Tacoma Narrows Bridge was designed by one of the leading suspension-bridge engineers of his day: elegant, slender, celebrated. It opened in the summer of 1940 and tore itself apart in the wind that November, twisting like a ribbon because the design had not reckoned with how the deck would behave aerodynamically. Nobody had seen a wonky bridge; it looked magnificent. The flaw was real, fundamental, and invisible until the wind found it. The Citicorp Center in New York, finished in 1977, was a triumph of structural engineering, raised dramatically on great columns at the midpoints of its sides. Only after it was compl

Director Travis Knight is also the creative mind behind 2016's Oscar-nominated Kubo and the Two Strings .

Where AI incidents in legal actually come from, and what infrastructure (not policy) prevents them. Blake Aber · Predicate Ventures · 2026 The policy layer is table stakes. It isn't enough. When Sullivan & Cromwell apologized to a federal bankruptcy judge in April 2026 for AI hallucinations in a court filing, the firm's apology letter said the firm had policies. Safeguards existed. Those safeguards weren't followed. That framing, "the safeguard existed but wasn't followed," is how a policy failure gets described. But something more specific happened: a hallucination was generated, wasn't caught at generation time, wasn't caught at review time, and made it into a document that got filed. That's not a policy problem. It's an infrastructure problem. The distinction matters because it determines what you build next. What policy can and can't do Policy is a promise made before the event. A well-written AI acceptable-use policy says: don't submit output you haven't reviewed; verify citations before they go into a document; a human must approve anything client-facing. This works when the human executing the task has time, attention, and professional accountability in that moment. It fails when one of those is missing: a deadline, a junior practitioner, a late-night run. Policy can't: Verify a citation at the point of generation Flag output that has drifted below a confidence threshold Stop hallucinated text from appearing in a draft before a human ever sees it Detect when the underlying model is behaving differently than it was in testing Policy can: Set the expectation that review must happen Define who bears accountability when it doesn't Create a paper trail after the fact One of those is prevention. The other is compliance. What infrastructure does instead An AI harness layer operates at the point of generation, not at the point of review. This reflects a broader reality that production AI is mostly harness and very little model . For legal work specifically, three com

Why AI programs at PE portfolio companies stall at the same organizational seam, and what to do about it. Blake Aber · Predicate Ventures · 2026 There's a failure mode I've watched play out at enough portfolio companies that I've given it a name: the ownership dyad. It goes like this. The AI program is running. The product manager owns the roadmap (what the AI should do). Engineering owns the deployment (how it does it). Both parties are competent. Both are aligned on the goal. And the AI initiative quietly stalls anyway, usually somewhere between the promising pilot and the production system that was supposed to follow. The mechanism is diffuse accountability at the decision layer. What the dyad looks like in practice In the average portco planning meeting, the PM and the engineering lead sit across from each other. The PM has a change request: "The model is producing summaries that miss the key clause in contracts above a certain length. We should fix this." Engineering hears this and wants to know: is this a prompt change or a model change? Either requires scoping, and scoping requires the PM's input on acceptable behavior. So engineering asks the PM. The PM says "whatever's best technically." Engineering ships a prompt change. The next month, the same issue appears in a different context. The PM brings it back. Neither person is wrong. Neither person is slacking. The problem is structural: there's no single person who can describe (precisely and completely) what the AI should produce, evaluate whether it's producing it correctly, and approve a change to the system without requiring the other party's sign-off. The dyad looks like shared ownership. It functions as diffuse accountability. No one is in charge of the model's behavior. The failure mode at month nine Most portco AI programs that make it through a successful pilot still die quietly around month nine of production. The most common reason is not that the model got worse. It's that the harness around the m

[v0.3.0] - 2026-06-29 🚀 Added Checkpoint Mechanism — ReActCore introduces three checkpoints during streaming: content_ended (after text content), before_tool_calls (before tool calls), and after_tool_calls (after tool calls), enabling precise interception and state synchronization of the execution flow. Message Queue System — Added a new MessageQueue class in run.py , supporting async enqueue, drain, and remove operations. Users can now queue messages while the LLM is running; queued messages are sent automatically after the current task completes. The frontend introduces a QueueBar component to display queued messages, with CSS spinning animation, single-line ellipsis, and hover-to-delete functionality. Queue Message Merging — MessageQueue.drain_all() now merges consecutive messages with the same name into a single message, preventing fragmented user input when multiple queue entries share the same sender. Queue WebSocket Events — The execution event protocol introduces three new event types: message_queued , queue_drained , and queue_returned ( useRunWebSocket.ts ). The frontend processes queue state updates in real time. Stop & Queue Integration — When the user clicks Stop, pending queued messages are returned to the input box via queue_returned . Checkpoint stops cleanly clear the queue and automatically start the next message. System Notification Messages — Introduced the SystemMessage type (with notification role) to separate error messages from assistant content. Errors are now rendered as independent notification bubbles, no longer embedded within assistant message cards. tiktoken Real-Time Token Estimation — ReActCore initializes a tiktoken encoder on startup for real-time token counting during streaming. Unknown models fall back to o200k_base . 🔧 Improved Custom Model Name Auto-Complete — The model name field in ModelManager has been upgraded from Select to AutoComplete , allowing users to type custom model names not in the predefined list. Message Block T