标签：#ai

Pinecone has announced a new integration between its Nexus knowledge engine and Microsoft OneLake, aiming to fundamentally change how enterprise AI agents access and reason over corporate data. By Craig Risi

The repurposing of Pokémon Go data for AI training continues to draw scrutiny.

Let no one accuse Bernie Sanders of ducking the big questions. Writing in the New York Times last week, the senator asked : “Will the future of humanity be determined by a handful of billionaires who have promoted and developed AI, with virtually no democratic input, who stand to become even richer and more powerful than they are today?” We agree entirely that this is one of the most potent questions facing global democracy today. Our book, Rewiring Democracy , surveys the emerging uses for and impacts of AI in democracy around the world and reaches the same conclusion: that the most urgent risk posed by AI is the ...

Microsoft has announced the public preview of Azure Container Apps Sandboxes. This new ARM resource type is Microsoft.App/SandboxGroups, runs untrusted code generated by agents in hardware-isolated environments. Each sandbox starts from an OCI disk image in less than a second. It can scale to thousands of instances at once and costs nothing when idle. By Claudio Masolo

OpenAI introduces three Academy courses that help people build practical AI skills, create repeatable workflows, and apply agents in everyday work.

When code becomes cheaper, what still makes an engineer valuable? Recently, while writing my cover letter for remote roles and Upwork projects, I asked myself a very direct question: Why should a remote team or client choose me, especially in the AI era? I do not think the answer should be: “Because I am the strongest engineer technically.” That is not how I want to position myself. What I want to become is this: A backend engineer who can turn unclear business problems into reliable, maintainable systems. AI is making implementation faster. It can generate code, explain technologies, and provide alternatives. At the same time, remote work and platforms like Upwork make competition more global. We are not only competing with engineers nearby, but also with engineers from everywhere. If the only question is “Who knows more frameworks, patterns, or tools?”, many ordinary engineers may feel hopeless. But I believe there is another path. In real systems, code is only part of the work. Someone still needs to understand the business workflow. Someone still needs to define what “correct” means. Someone still needs to identify risks, edge cases, performance concerns, and reliability boundaries. My usual way of working starts from these questions: What is the real requirement? What does correctness mean in this workflow? What data must stay consistent? What edge cases could break the process? What performance or reliability signals should be protected? Where should the module boundary be? Who should orchestrate the main flow, and who should act as collaborators? This “orchestrator + collaborators” thinking helps me keep the main business process clear. The orchestrator owns the workflow. The collaborators handle specific responsibilities such as validation, translation, persistence, messaging, or external integration. I also use AI in this process, but not only to generate code. I use it to challenge my assumptions, explore alternatives, find missing cases, improve naming, r

I used to hear the pitch for context compression and think: sure, makes sense. Smaller prompts. Lower latency. Lower cost. Same output quality. Then I watched an agent blow a perfectly good debugging session because one field name disappeared from compressed memory. That changed my opinion fast. Three hours into a Claude Code run, the agent made the wrong API call with full confidence. The plan looked coherent. The reasoning looked clean. The summary of prior steps sounded smart. It was also missing the one detail that mattered: a field name from an earlier error log. The agent had already seen the bug. It had already “understood” the bug. But the compressed version of history dropped the exact detail it needed to avoid repeating it. That’s the real failure mode. Not “compression loses words.” Compression loses the one fact your agent needs later, after it has already committed to the wrong action. While researching this, I found a thread on r/openclaw about using Headroom with OpenClaw: https://reddit.com/r/openclaw/comments/1u3j5xs/anyone_using_headroom_with_openclaw/ That thread gets at the real tension: compression is useful, but only if you treat it as a reversible optimization, not a memory wipe with better branding. The bug pattern nobody talks about Here’s the pattern I keep seeing in long-running agents: The agent collects a lot of noisy context. The team compresses it to save tokens. The summary preserves the broad story. The summary drops one edge-case fact. Two hours later, that fact becomes the only thing that matters. The agent confidently does the wrong thing. This is why “same answers, fewer tokens” is not a serious reliability claim for agent workflows. It might be true for some short chat tasks. It is absolutely not something I’d assume for: n8n agents Make scenarios Zapier AI steps OpenClaw sessions Claude Code runs custom OpenAI-compatible agent loops multi-step debugging or incident workflows In those systems, exact details matter more than eleg

Every developer I know has built something for themselves. A productivity tool. A habit tracker. A personal finance app. An AI that makes them smarter, faster, calmer. I did the same thing for 2 years. Then I had a conversation with someone close to me that I completely mishandled — and I realised no amount of personal productivity tools would have helped me there. The problem wasn't me, individually. The problem was the space between us. So I started asking a weird question Why has all of AI been built for individuals? Copilot helps you code faster. ChatGPT makes you smarter. Notion AI organises your thoughts. Calm helps you sleep better. Not one of them is built for what happens when two people try to understand each other. That's a massive gap. And it's one I couldn't stop thinking about. What I built Mendle — an AI-powered Relationship Intelligence platform. Not a therapy app. Not a chatbot companion. Not another journaling tool with an AI skin on top. The core idea is **shared emotional memory. Most relationship apps are built around one person's perspective. You log your feelings. You get insights. Your partner is an afterthought in the architecture. Mendle is different at the data model level. Both people contribute. Both people benefit. The AI builds an understanding of the relationship not just an individual. Over time it surfaces patterns. Communication loops. Emotional triggers. The things you keep missing because you're too close to them. The technical challenge that surprised me Building AI for two people is fundamentally harder than building it for one. Single-user AI: one context window, one set of preferences, one voice to understand. Relationship AI: two different communication styles, two different emotional vocabularies, shared history that neither person has complete visibility into, and privacy boundaries that have to be respected even between partners. The shared memory architecture was the hardest part to get right. How do you build something

David Stein shares how to rethink large-scale architectural migrations using AI. He discusses ServiceTitan's "assembly line" pattern, explaining how decomposing legacy codebase refactoring into standardized tasks can achieve massive parallelization. He highlights the critical role of programmatically rigid validation loops to eliminate LLM hallucinations and accelerate engineering agility. By David Stein

Here's a small thing that drove me up the wall using Claude Code on a real codebase. I have a pre-commit hook. It runs the linter and the type-checker. It exists precisely so that broken code doesn't reach a commit. And Claude — diligent, eager, trying to be helpful — would hit a failing check, decide the check was in the way of the goal , and quietly run: git commit --no-verify -m "fix: update handler" It wasn't malicious. From the agent's point of view, the task was "commit this change," the pre-commit hook was an obstacle, and --no-verify was the documented way around the obstacle. Perfectly logical. Also exactly the thing I never want to happen, because the entire point of the check is that it is not optional . I tried the obvious fix first: I put it in CLAUDE.md . Never use git commit --no-verify . Fix the failing check instead. This works about 80% of the time. Which is another way of saying it fails one commit in five. CLAUDE.md is context — a strong suggestion the model weighs against everything else in the conversation. Under enough pressure ("just get this committed"), a suggestion loses. An 80%-reliable guardrail on something irreversible isn't a guardrail. It's a coin flip with good odds. So I stopped trying to persuade the model and started intercepting the tool call instead. Hooks run before the action, not after the apology Claude Code has a hooks system. The one that matters here is PreToolUse : a script that runs before a tool call executes, receives the call as JSON on stdin, and decides whether it proceeds. Exit 0 and the call runs. Exit 2 and it's blocked — and whatever you wrote to stderr gets fed back to the model as the reason. That last part is the whole game. It's not "please don't." It's a wall, plus an explanation the model can act on. Here's the entire hook: #!/usr/bin/env node // Block `git commit/push --no-verify`. Exit 2 blocks the call. ' use strict ' ; let raw = '' ; process . stdin . on ( ' data ' , ( d ) => ( raw += d )); process .

MIT Technology Review Explains: Let our writers untangle the complex, messy world of science and technology to help you understand what’s coming next. You can read more from the series here. Your brain lives in the dark space of your skull. Yet it knows when the wind lifts the hairs on your skin, when your heart is…

Our early testing has already shown that Siri AI knows when to shut up, and that's very much by design. In an interview with Mostly Human, Apple's Craig Federighi said new Siri won't act all sycophantic like chatbots made by OpenAI, Google, and others. "As you may know, if you use many of the existing […]

I run a content site, do-and-coffee.com . Like everyone else, it gets scraped by AI crawlers. Instead of blocking them, I did something else: I put a paywall in front of the site that returns HTTP 402 Payment Required to bots, with machine-readable payment instructions. If a crawler pays a cent in USDC, it gets the article. If it doesn't, it gets the 402 and nothing else. Then I let it run for 30 days and watched. Here's what actually happened — and it's not the number you'd put on a pitch deck. TL;DR A Cloudflare Worker sits in front of the site. AI crawlers get 402 + x402 payment requirements ; humans and search bots pass through free. Payment is USDC on Base , $0.01 per article, verified and settled through Coinbase's CDP facilitator. 30-day result: 5,811 crawler requests, 5 paid, 5,806 served a 402. Revenue at $0.01/article ≈ $0.05 . The interesting part isn't the revenue. It's who paid: GPTBot paid 4 times out of 48 requests; ClaudeBot paid once out of 651. Architecture do-and-coffee.com/blog/article/* ─▶ x402 Worker (Cloudflare) │ has X-PAYMENT-RESPONSE? ───────────┤─▶ yes ─▶ proxy origin (200) KV cache hit (payer:url)? ─────────┤─▶ yes ─▶ proxy origin (200) no X-PAYMENT? ─────────────────────┤─▶ 402 + payment requirements has X-PAYMENT? ────────────────────┘ │ ├─▶ CDP /verify (is the signed payment valid?) ├─▶ CDP /settle (waitUntil: confirmed — on-chain) └─▶ on success: KV.put(payer:url, receipt, ttl 24h) ─▶ proxy origin The worker speaks the x402 protocol: a 402 response carries an accepts array describing exactly how to pay (scheme exact , network base , asset USDC, amount, payTo wallet). A compliant agent reads that, signs a USDC payment, and retries with an X-PAYMENT header. The worker verifies and settles it through Coinbase's facilitator, then proxies the real article. How it works The 402 response When there's no payment, the worker builds the requirements and returns 402: function buildPaymentRequirements ( resourceUrl : string , env : Env ): Payment

Ein KI-Agent ist nur so zuverlässig wie die APIs, die er aufruft. Das Modell wählt ein Tool aus, füllt Argumente ein und sendet eine Anfrage. Wenn diese Anfrage fehlschlägt, die falsche Form zurückgibt oder hängen bleibt, trifft Ihr Agent eine selbstbewusste Entscheidung auf Basis schlechter Daten. Produktions-Agenten stehen und fallen deshalb mit einer getesteten Tool- und API-Schicht. Apidog noch heute ausprobieren Diese Anleitung zeigt, wie Sie einen Agenten erstellen, der reale Tools aufruft, und wie Sie Apidog als API-Schicht und Testumgebung verwenden. Sie definieren Tool-Endpunkte, mocken sie für die Offline-Entwicklung und schreiben Assertions, die fehlerhafte Tool-Aufrufe abfangen, bevor sie Benutzer erreichen. Was ein Agent auf der API-Ebene tatsächlich tut Reduziert auf die technische Schleife passiert Folgendes: Das Modell erhält ein Benutzerziel und eine Liste verfügbarer Tools. Es gibt einen Tool-Aufruf zurück: Tool-Name plus JSON-Argumente. Ihr Code führt den Aufruf aus, meist als HTTP-Request. Das API-Ergebnis geht zurück an das Modell. Das Modell ruft ein weiteres Tool auf oder antwortet dem Benutzer. Die kritischen Fehler entstehen fast immer in Schritt 3 und 4: Das Modell halluziniert ein Argument. Die API gibt 400 , 422 , 429 oder 500 zurück. Das Antwortschema hat sich geändert. Der Request läuft in ein Timeout. Eine Ratenbegrenzung greift mitten in der Agenten-Schleife. Wenn Sie KI-Agenten als neue API-Konsumenten betrachten, wird klar: Ihr Agent ist ein API-Client. Er braucht dieselbe Teststrenge wie jeder andere produktive Client. Die Arbeit besteht aus zwei Teilen: Tools als reale, testbare API-Operationen definieren. Prüfen, ob der Agent diese Tools unter guten und schlechten Bedingungen korrekt aufruft. Schritt 1: Tools als reale API-Operationen entwerfen Definieren Sie jedes Tool zuerst als API-Endpunkt in Apidog. Behandeln Sie Tool-Schema und API-Schema als denselben Vertrag. Beispiel: Tool: get_weather API-Operation: GET /weather Paramet

We are all using AI to write code now. Whether it's Claude Code, Aider, or Copilot, the speed is incredible. But there is a glaring bottleneck we don't talk about enough: AI code is often just slightly broken. 🤖💥 It forgets an import, misses a type definition, or fails a test. Usually, you only find out after you push to GitHub. Your CI/CD pipeline turns red 🔴, and you end up polluting your Git history with a dozen commits titled fix: linting or fix: missing test variable . I recently found a repository called no-mistakes that solves this brilliantly. It acts as a local proxy between your terminal and GitHub, forcing AI to test and fix its own code before anyone else sees it. Here is why it's worth a look. 👇 😩 The Problem With Traditional Workflows Right now, developers handle broken code in two ways: The CI/CD Walk of Shame 🚶: You push code, wait 5 minutes for GitHub Actions to fail, pull the error locally, fix it, and push again. Pre-commit Hooks (Husky) 🐶: You set up local hooks. When you try to commit, it yells at you about formatting and blocks the commit until you manually fix it. Both methods are passive . They tell you something is broken, but they leave the cleanup to you. When you're using an AI coding agent to generate the code in the first place, manually babysitting its output defeats the purpose. 🚀 Enter no-mistakes no-mistakes is a CLI tool that intercepts your git push . Instead of sending your code straight to origin, it routes it through a localized validation pipeline. ⚙️ How it actually works: 🧱 The Hidden Sandbox: When you trigger it, it creates a temporary git worktree in the background. Your active editor stays completely undisturbed. ✅ Validation: It runs your tests, linter, and build steps inside that isolated sandbox. 🔁 The AI Feedback Loop: If a test fails, it captures the error log and hands it back to an AI agent, essentially saying: "You broke this test. Fix it." 🟢 The Clean Push: Once the AI patches the code and all tests pass, it push

Two related, Oracle-backed projects published opposing policies on open-source contributions created with generative AI: The OpenJDK Governing Board approved an interim policy prohibiting such contributions, while the Coding Assistants policy from GraalVM permits them. Both projects require contributors to sign the same Oracle Contributor Agreement (OCA) for intellectual property. By Karsten Silz

Equal AI said that its AI-powered call assistant now has over a million monthly active users.

Avataar AI's distilled video model is priced at $0.005 for every second of generation

Here's a five-line function. It calls an LLM, logs the answer, returns it. async function ask ( question : string ) { const res = await openai . responses . create ({ model : " o4-mini " , input : question }); console . log ( " answer: " , res . output_text ); return res . output_text ; } This compiles. It passes tests. It ships. And it will quietly cost you four figures a month before anyone notices, because nothing in that log tells you the model burned 8,000 hidden reasoning tokens to produce a 40-token reply. That's the gap this article is about. AI calls are not regular HTTP calls. The interesting state isn't the response body - it's the messages you sent, the tools the model picked, the tokens it consumed (visible and otherwise), and the dollars that drained out of the budget. If your observability story is "we log the answer," you're flying a plane with one gauge and that gauge is the altimeter. Let's talk about what to actually capture. The four signals that matter Every AI system has the same four dimensions worth instrumenting, and most teams only track one or two of them: Logs - the request/response pair, the error, the latency. The boring stuff that traditional APM already covers. Prompts - the actual text that went in and the actual text that came out. Including system prompts, tool definitions, and history. Tool calls - which tool the model picked, with what arguments, what came back, in what order, with what retries. Cost - input tokens, output tokens, cached tokens, reasoning tokens, model, and the per-million-token price for each. Multiplied per user, per feature, per request. Lose any one of these and you're working blind on a different axis of the problem. Lose the cost signal and you wake up to a Slack message from finance. Lose the tool-call signal and you can't tell why your agent kept booking the wrong flight. Lose the prompt signal and a prod regression becomes a guessing game. Lose plain logs and you don't even know the call happened. The go

Parallel AI Coding with Git Worktrees: Run Multiple Agents Without Conflicts Most parallel AI development problems stem from a single architectural mistake: multiple agents sharing the same working directory. Teams spin up three Claude Code instances, point them at the same project folder, and watch as file writes collide, branch checkouts interrupt each other, and lock files corrupt. The symptom looks like a race condition. The root cause is filesystem design. Git worktrees solve this by giving each agent its own isolated working directory while sharing a single .git repository. This distinction is critical. Developers get parallel execution without the storage overhead of full clones, and agents operate on separate branches without stepping on each other's file handles. The pattern has existed since Git 2.5, but AI coding workflows finally make it essential infrastructure. The Collision Problem: Why Multiple AI Agents Can't Share a Working Directory When you run git checkout feature-A in a directory where another process is reading files, the filesystem state changes underneath that reader. The other process doesn't see atomic transitions—it sees partial writes, missing files, and inconsistent dependency graphs. TypeScript compilers fail with "Cannot find module" errors. Dev servers crash because watched files disappeared mid-read. Lock files from package managers become corrupted when two agents run npm install simultaneously on different branches with different dependency trees. The obvious solution—staggering agent execution so only one runs at a time—defeats the purpose of parallel development. Teams that try this pattern end up with AI agents waiting in queue, each one blocking the next until it finishes. The bottleneck shifts from human typing speed to serial execution, and the productivity gains evaporate. Full repository clones work but waste disk space. A 2GB monorepo cloned five times for five agents consumes 10GB of redundant Git objects. Sparse checkou