标签：#ai

TL;DR — A few weeks ago I tested four AI tools on a build job: a website for my son's cricket academy. This time the job had nothing to do with code. The coach just wanted a banner he could post. Same four tools, totally different result. ChatGPT made the best image, Grok made the best video, Gemini wouldn't make anything, and Claude tried to solve a graphics problem by writing HTML. If you read the last post , you've met my son's cricket coach. He runs MMCA — Maverick Master's Cricket Academy. Started in 2020, based in Bengaluru, genuinely good with the kids. The website is live now and parents have started messaging him on WhatsApp. So last weekend he came back with the next thing he needed, which is the thing every small academy actually runs on: "Can you make me a weekend batch banner? Something I can post in the parent groups." Now, this is a completely different job from the last one. That first experiment was design and development — agents writing real code, running tests, deploying to Cloudflare. This one is just graphics. No repo, no deploy, nobody reviewing a pull request. Just: here's my logo, here's a sample I like, make me something I'd be happy to send out. So I figured I'd run the same four tools again and see what happened. Same brief, same logo, everything on the default model with no special settings : ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok. Here's roughly what I typed, the way a normal client would brief you: Similar to this banner, make one for MMCA Academy (since 2020, logo attached). Weekend batch Sat 4:30—7, Sun 7—9:30pm. Add a small phrase like the sample. Be creative, keep it simple, but don't copy the sample exactly. The whole test really came down to one instruction: be creative, but don't copy. Whatever each tool did with that told me everything. Round 1: the static banner ChatGPT got it on the first go. "WEEKEND BATCH. TRAIN. PLAY. GROW." Logo top-left, the "Since 2020" bit kept, timings in clean little cards, an enrol number, three badges acros

Coinbase has published a detailed postmortem of its May 7, 2026, outage, revealing how a localized cooling failure inside an AWS data center escalated into a multi-hour disruption that halted nearly all trading activity across the cryptocurrency exchange By Craig Risi

Days after its massive IPO, SpaceX says it is spending $60 billion to buy Cursor - a bet designed to help Elon Musk's sprawling rocket / AI / social media behemoth win over lucrative enterprise customers and close the gap with AI rivals like Anthropic and OpenAI. The takeover was not entirely unexpected: SpaceX announced […]

Instead of heating metals, Foundation Alloy beats them into submission. The startup has raised $22 million to scale up production of its alloys.

The deal is supposed to help SpaceX's struggling AI division. The company told IPO investors it sees a $26 trillion addressable market in AI.

SearchLeak exploit shows why the industry's approach to LLM security fails over and over.

Originally published on rikuq.com . Republished here for Dev.to's readers. I dropped my $100/month Claude Max subscription and migrated entirely back to Antigravity. If you want the verdict upfront: Claude Desktop is still the best tool for beginners who need the AI to guess their intent from clumsy prompts. But if you have solid documentation discipline and cost efficiency is a serious factor for your SaaS, Antigravity is now the clear winner. I'm a Chartered Accountant by trade with zero formal coding experience. I’ve shipped three production AI SaaS— Prism , Citare , and BatchWise —relying entirely on AI tools. I started with VSCode, moved to Antigravity (when it was just an IDE), and eventually landed on the Claude Desktop App. Claude was incredible; it operated in the background, handled my stack, and I didn't need to know what was happening under the hood. But the bills started stacking up. When my Claude usage consistently hit $100 a month, efficiency became a priority. I fired up the new version of Antigravity and found the recent updates had completely transformed it. It is no longer just an IDE—it is a full agentic desktop experience that mirrors what made Claude so good. TL;DR — The 2026 Reality Feature Claude Desktop App Antigravity (New Update) Best for Beginners, unlimited budgets, "pure performance" Experienced AI directors, cost-conscious solo founders Pricing $100+/mo (Claude Max) $20/mo (Gemini Advanced) Agentic Workflow Exceptional. The benchmark. Identical. Background execution, zero friction. Context Handling Better at anticipating intent from messy prompts Huge total memory, but requires tighter prompting MCP Support Native Native (handles them just as well) Verdict Keep it if cost doesn't matter Switch to it if efficiency is the goal The Catalyst for Switching My path to Antigravity wasn't a calculated feature comparison. It was pure economics combined with a pleasant surprise. I had previously dropped Antigravity when it was just an IDE. When

So here's what happened: i Wish I Knew AI Recommendation Sooner — Here's the Full Breakdown Last quarter I burned through about three billable hours debugging a recommendation pipeline for a Shopify client. The thing was — it shouldn't have taken that long. I had the data. I had the API keys. What I didn't have was a clear-eyed picture of what AI recommendation systems actually cost in 2026 when you're paying the bills yourself. If you freelance like I do, every line item matters. My "office" is a kitchen table, my "PM" is a Slack ping at 11pm, and my CFO is whatever's left in my checking account after software subscriptions. So when I say I've been digging into the numbers on AI recommendation systems for the last six weeks, I mean I've been doing it the way I do everything: with a calculator open in one tab and a client invoice in the other. This post is the writeup I wish I'd had before I started. Consider it the field guide for anyone building recommendation features on a budget, on a deadline, or just for fun. Why I Even Cared About Recommendation Systems I took on a small retainer back in February for an indie e-commerce shop that sells specialty coffee beans. They wanted "AI-powered product recommendations" on their storefront — you know, the classic "customers who bought this also bought..." thing, but smarter. The owner had been quoted $15,000 by a "full-service AI agency" to build it. He doesn't have $15,000. He has $15,000 in revenue per month and a wife who is deeply skeptical of his side-hustle energy. So he came to me. And I said yes, because I'm a sucker and also because I knew it should cost a tiny fraction of that quote. The math was never going to support five figures for a recommendation widget. Not when the underlying API calls are fractions of a cent. That's when I started really paying attention to the pricing landscape. The 184-Model Elephant in the Room Here's the thing nobody tells you when you start shopping for LLMs: there are a lot of the

I'm not here to trash Sololearn. Sololearn taught millions of people how to code. It was one of the first apps to make programming education feel mobile-native. That's a real achievement. I respect it. But I'm building Codino — a Python learning app — and I'd be lying if I said I didn't study Sololearn carefully before writing a single line of code. I looked at what they got right. I looked at where users complained. And I made decisions based on both. This is that honest breakdown. What Sololearn Got Right 1. The Community Feel Sololearn built a genuine community. The code playground where users share their projects, comment on each other's code, and get likes — that was smart. Learning feels less lonely when other people are doing it alongside you. It created a social loop that kept people coming back even when they weren't actively doing lessons. I haven't built this yet in Codino. The leaderboard is a start, but a full community layer is something I'm thinking about for a future update. 2. Multi-Language Support Sololearn didn't bet on just one language. Python, JavaScript, C++, SQL, HTML — they covered everything. That gave them a massive addressable audience. Codino is Python-only right now. That's intentional — going deep on one language is better than going shallow on ten. But I understand why multi-language eventually matters for scale. 3. The Code Playground The ability to write and run real code inside the app — without going to a browser — was ahead of its time when Sololearn launched it. That feature alone brought back users who had finished all the lessons. Codino has a full offline IDE powered by Sora Editor. I'd argue ours is actually more capable — real syntax highlighting, autocompletion, offline Python execution — but Sololearn deserves credit for proving this feature matters. 4. Bite-Sized Lessons That Actually Work Sololearn understood that people learn on the bus, in bed, waiting in line. Their lessons are short, digestible, and don't demand 45

Every day, startups rent expensive GPUs to power AI applications. The problem is that most of those GPUs spend a surprising amount of time doing nothing. Imagine renting an apartment and only using one room while paying for the entire building. That's effectively what many AI teams do with GPU infrastructure. The Hidden Cost of GPU Rentals When you rent a GPU, you're usually paying for uptime. Whether your application is processing requests or sitting idle at 3 AM, the bill keeps running. For many early-stage products: Traffic is inconsistent Usage spikes are unpredictable Most requests arrive in short bursts As a result, GPU utilization can be far lower than expected. The Utilization Problem A startup might rent a GPU for an entire month. But how much of that compute is actually being used? During development: Developers test occasionally Demos happen a few times a day Customer requests arrive sporadically The GPU remains available 24/7, but actual inference workloads often occupy only a small fraction of that time. Yet the infrastructure bill reflects full-time usage. Why This Matters For startups, infrastructure costs directly affect runway. Every dollar spent on idle compute is a dollar that cannot be spent on: Product development Customer acquisition Hiring Experiments Reducing wasted infrastructure spend can significantly improve efficiency. A Different Model Instead of paying for GPU uptime, what if developers only paid when inference actually occurred? For example: Pay per token generated Pay per image generated Pay per second of video generated This approach aligns cost with actual usage rather than reserved capacity. The Future of AI Infrastructure As AI adoption grows, efficiency becomes increasingly important. The next generation of AI infrastructure may look less like traditional server rentals and more like utilities: Use what you need. Pay for what you use. Nothing more. What has your experience been with GPU utilization and AI infrastructure costs? I

AI coding assistants have fundamentally changed the way we write software. Today it's perfectly normal to ask ChatGPT, Claude, Cursor, or Copilot to explain an API, generate a React component, review a pull request, or help debug a problem. For many developers, these tools have become part of the daily workflow. Yet there's one area where they still struggle more than we'd like to admit: understanding the current state of the web platform. Mozilla recently demonstrated this problem in a surprisingly direct way. While evaluating Claude Code on recently released Firefox features, the team discovered that the model confidently claimed Firefox didn't support the Web Serial API and that Mozilla had no plans to implement it. The answer sounded plausible, detailed, and authoritative. There was just one issue. Firefox had already shipped support for the API. That experiment became one of the motivations behind Mozilla's new MDN MCP Server , a tool designed to give AI assistants direct access to MDN documentation and browser compatibility data. More importantly, Mozilla didn't just launch the service—they tested whether it actually improves the quality of AI-generated answers. The results are worth paying attention to. The Real Problem Isn't Hallucination When discussions about AI reliability come up, the conversation usually focuses on hallucinations. But browser compatibility is a slightly different problem. The web platform evolves continuously. Browsers ship new APIs, CSS features, HTML capabilities, and compatibility updates every few weeks. Specifications change, Baseline statuses evolve, and features that were experimental yesterday can become production-ready tomorrow. Large language models, on the other hand, are trained on snapshots of information. Even highly capable models can only know what was available when they were trained. When they're asked about something that appeared later—or something that wasn't widely represented in their training data—they often hav

A Silicon Valley software maker and an ecommerce company reveal to WIRED how they are navigating the emerging challenge of “tokenomics.”

Tools like Claude Code and Codex have completely reshaped how software engineering is done. This new tooling allows for much faster development and iteration, but it's important to keep the code maintainable and scalable to make sure the project can continue evolving over the long term. A template project with an initial structure using all of the technologies described here is available on GitHub: https://github.com/MartinXPN/nextjs-firebase-mui-starter When working on a startup, the speed of iteration is key. The requirements change quickly, features are added daily, and code gets modified rapidly. In those conditions, picking technologies that enable fast iteration, while ensuring your users get the best experience possible, is crucial. During the last four years or so, we have experimented with many modern technologies while building Profound Academy . So, in this blog post, I'd like to present the whole tech stack that enables building quickly, while having a highly maintainable codebase, scalable infrastructure, and a great user experience. We'll cover everything from Authentication to UI, we'll talk about the backend, hosting, testing, and much more! AI Agents, Skills, and MCP servers AI Agents enable quick iteration and rapid improvement, including bug fixes, the addition of new features, and performance improvements. Yet, it's important to keep the code maintainable for the long run. AI tools make it really easy to overengineer things and add thousands of lines of code to a project. It's important to resist the urge to solve problems that don't exist yet, and keep things simple (both in terms of the code, the infrastructure, and the user experience). Even in the Agentic Software Development Era, having a small and simple setup helps. Agents coordinate better, features are added faster, bugs are fixed more easily, and the code is maintainable by humans, too. So, we have chosen to take a balanced/nuanced approach to how we use AI Agents when it comes to worki

xAI has some powerful friends, and they're asking the court to dismiss NAACP's lawsuit.

Stack Overflow has announced Stack Overflow for Agents, a beta API-first knowledge exchange aimed at AI coding agents rather than human developers. The service is presented as a way to close what the company calls the Ephemeral Intelligence Gap, where agents repeatedly rediscover the same fixes and patterns in isolation instead of sharing them through a common memory. By Matt Saunders

Every food delivery app has the same promise: you tap a button, food shows up at your door. Testing...

Respond.io, one of Malaysia startups to watch, uses AI agents to handle high volumes of customer inquiries and charges per convo, not per seat.

Shadow AI is the unapproved use of AI tools at work. Here is what it actually is, why it creates security and compliance exposure, and how Bifrost Edge brings it under control at the endpoint. Somewhere in your company right now, someone is pasting a customer list into a personal ChatGPT account to clean up an email. A developer has a coding agent pointed at a repo that still has live credentials in it. Someone in marketing wired up an MCP server they found over the weekend so their assistant can pull from a CRM. None of it shows up anywhere the security team can see. That is shadow AI: people using AI tools for work faster than anyone can govern them. It is rarely reckless. The tools are genuinely useful, they are one click away, and most people have no real sense of what happens to the text they paste into them. The scale is what tends to surprise teams. A 2025 UpGuard report found that more than 80% of workers use unapproved AI tools , security professionals included, and that half use them regularly. This is not a fringe behavior at the edges of the org. It is most people, most days. What counts as shadow AI Shadow AI is any AI tool used for work without security review or central oversight. It is the AI version of shadow IT, except it moved faster and the data leaving the building is often more sensitive. It usually shows up in four shapes: Consumer chat apps used with work data: ChatGPT, Claude, and the rest, on personal accounts. AI inside the browser, where a prompt box is one tab away at all times. Coding agents in the terminal and IDE, which can read source, run commands, and touch infrastructure. MCP servers, the external tools an AI app connects to so it can read files, call APIs, and take actions. The first two leak data outward. The last two are more interesting, because they let an AI tool do things, often with whatever access the employee already has. Why it is an actual security problem, not just a policy headache The risk is not that AI is dangerou

I wanted to see how far an autonomous coding agent could get unattended. The constraint that makes this hard isn't code generation — it's that each session starts with zero memory of the last. So the design problem is state, not prompting. Setup A cron-scheduled task fires hourly, 11pm–7am (~8 runs). Each run is a fresh agent session. No shared context, no carryover. State lives entirely on disk: the working tree, the git history, and two files — BUILD_SPEC.md (the immutable goal/architecture) and PROGRESS.md (an append-only decision + status log). The run loop Every session does the same thing: Read BUILD_SPEC.md, then PROGRESS.md, then git log --oneline. Reconstruct "where are we" from the files themselves (the code is the source of truth, not the narrative). Do one unit of work. Commit. Append to PROGRESS.md: what changed, why (chosen X over Y because Z), and the exact next step. Commit granularity = checkpoint granularity. Worst case on an interrupted session is losing one unit, and the next run re-derives it. The "why" lines matter as much as the diffs — without them a later session re-litigates settled decisions. Guardrails The agent was allowed to build, test, and commit locally. It was explicitly not allowed to deploy, push to a remote, or touch secrets — those get written into PROGRESS.md as "needs human" items instead. This boundary is what makes unattended runs safe to leave alone. What came out A working full-stack monorepo: a pure TS scheduling engine (with property tests), multi-tenant auth, a Drizzle/Postgres schema, server-side re-validation, and publish/share/export flows. Across the runs it cleared its own stale git lock, and one session caught and fixed an off-by-one in a labeling layer that spanned five files. The takeaway The leverage wasn't the model writing code. It was designing a process where progress is durable across total context loss — externalize state, checkpoint constantly, log decisions not just actions, and fence off irreversible o

Agentic QA Pipelines: Why Your Test Scripts Are Already Obsolete You wrote the test. You maintained the test. The app changed. You rewrote the test. If that loop sounds familiar, you're not alone — and in 2026, you're also not competitive. Agentic QA pipelines are replacing script-based test automation not because AI is smarter than your QA engineers, but because describing goals is faster than maintaining instructions. Here's what's actually changing, why it matters, and how forward-thinking teams are shipping without the script debt. The Script Maintenance Tax Is Killing Velocity Traditional test automation follows a simple premise: write explicit instructions, run them, check results. It worked when applications changed slowly and test environments were stable. In 2026, neither is true. AI-generated code ships faster. Features change in days. UI components regenerate. And every change breaks a percentage of your carefully maintained test scripts — creating a maintenance tax that grows proportionally with your automation coverage. Quash's 2026 State of QA Automation Report found that teams spending more than 30% of QA bandwidth on script maintenance are shipping 2.4x slower than teams that have automated that maintenance layer away. The irony: the more test coverage you write, the more you're paying the tax. What Agentic QA Actually Means (Without the Buzzwords) An agentic QA system doesn't follow a script. It follows a goal. Instead of: Click the login button Enter " testuser@example.com " in the email field Enter "password123" in the password field Assert redirect to /dashboard An agentic QA agent receives: Goal: Verify that a registered user can successfully authenticate and access their dashboard. Context: Auth flow supports email/password and OAuth. Dashboard loads user-specific data. The agent then: Explores the auth flow autonomously Generates test scenarios, including edge cases it infers from the UI Executes tests, reads failures, and adapts to UI changes