标签：#ai

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

Hi HN, I built an open-source Java SDK for building Model Context Protocol servers: https://github.com/6000fish/mcp-java It is intended for Java developers who want to expose tools, resources, or prompts to MCP-compatible agents without implementing the protocol plumbing from scratch. The project includes: Core MCP server SDK stdio transport SSE transport Java API and annotation-based tool registration Spring Boot starter 5-minute quick-start example Copyable custom server template Ready-to-use MySQL and Redis MCP servers The SDK is available on Maven Central: <dependency> <groupId> io.github.6000fish </groupId> <artifactId> mcp-sdk </artifactId> <version> 0.1.1 </version> </dependency> <dependency> <groupId> io.github.6000fish </groupId> <artifactId> mcp-spring-boot-starter </artifactId> <version> 0.1.1 </version> </dependency> The MySQL and Redis servers are local stdio MCP servers, because database/cache connectors are usually safer to run inside the user's own environment instead of exposing credentials to a hosted remote endpoint. GitHub: https://github.com/6000fish/mcp-java Release: https://github.com/6000fish/mcp-java/releases/tag/v0.1.1 Feedback is welcome.

Tags: react , webdev , onnx , audio Introduction Music generation, vocal separation, and intelligent arrangement have traditionally been server-side tasks requiring complex pipelines and expensive GPU clusters. But what if we could bring the entire interactive music-creation experience—both real-time preview , offline export , prompt-based AI music generation , and local Karaoke processing —directly into the browser? In this post, I'll share how I built AI Groove Pad , a client-side React and Tone.js application featuring: A Prompt-to-Music AI Agent: Enter any prompt (e.g., "Create an energetic Tamil Kuthu beat with a driving bassline and a Nadaswaram melody" ), and the agent composes and adds the tracks directly to the arrangement. A Client-Side Karaoke Separator: Runs a local neural network with 84% accuracy using ONNX Runtime Web to separate vocals and accompaniment locally. 3. High-Performance Audio Engine: Tone.js scheduling, synth fallbacks, and real-time playback. The Tech Stack Frontend UI: React + TypeScript + Tailwind CSS for a premium, glassmorphic dark-mode interface. Audio Engine: Tone.js v15 (built on top of the Web Audio API) for sample playback, precise timing scheduling, and synthesis. Client-Side AI: ONNX Runtime Web ( onnxruntime-web ) executing a local neural network with 84% accuracy for vocal/accompaniment separation (Karaoke mode). AI Music Agent: A natural language agent interface that takes user prompts to compose midi sequences, beats, harmony, and arrangements in real-time. * Offline Rendering: OfflineAudioContext for high-speed, non-realtime rendering of arrangements straight to .wav files. 🤖 The Prompt-to-Music AI Agent With AI Groove Pad , users don't need to be music theory experts. They simply write what they want to hear. The AI Agent interprets the prompt and generates a multi-track composition containing: Groove & Beats: Automatically maps drum samples and rhythmic patterns (e.g. Parai drum, Pambai hits for Kuthu). Melody & Harmony

The Budget You Approved Isn't the Budget You'll Pay You approved $180K for a senior AI engineer. Eighteen months later, you've spent $282K and you're still not sure the hire is working out. This isn't unusual. It's the rule. Companies hiring AI engineers for the first time routinely underestimate total cost by 40–60%. Here's a breakdown of where that gap comes from — and why most founders don't see it until it's too late. The 56% Gap: Where It Comes From 1. Recruiting Costs Are Higher Than You Think (~12–18% of first-year salary) AI engineer recruiting isn't like standard software recruiting. Specialized headhunters charge 20–25% of first-year salary. Even if you find someone through your network, you'll spend founder or VP time on 15–30 hours of interviewing, plus take-home evals that the best candidates increasingly decline. If you use a staffing firm, add the markup. If you DIY it, add the opportunity cost. Typical recruiting overhead: $22,000–$40,000 per hire 2. Onboarding Takes Longer for AI Roles (~2–3 months of ramp) An AI engineer hired to build production agent systems isn't productive on day 1. They need to understand your domain, your data, your existing architecture, and your risk tolerance for AI-generated outputs. The ramp is real — most teams see 60–90 days before meaningful output. At $180K salary, two months of ramp is $30,000 in salary with limited ROI. Add engineering time for mentoring (typically 20% of a senior engineer's time during ramp), and you're adding another $15,000–$20,000. Ramp cost: $30,000–$50,000 3. Infrastructure Spend Scales With Experiments AI engineers experiment. That's the job. Every experiment has a GPU bill, an API bill, and a storage bill. Early-stage teams routinely see $3,000–$8,000/month in AI infrastructure spend once they've hired their first AI engineer — much of it from exploratory work that doesn't ship. Over a year: $36,000–$96,000 in infra costs that weren't in the original headcount budget 4. Tooling and Data Cos

Unlike humanoid robots designed around a fixed form — think Boston Dynamics — Theker's machines are built to be reconfigured.

SaaS teams using AI-driven experimentation platforms (also called A/B testing automation or CRO...

The new round values the physical AI startup that aims to automate heavy engineering and drug design at $41 billion.

Provisioning a tenant-scoped email identity for your SaaS is one POST: curl --request POST \ --url "https://api.us.nylas.com/v3/connect/custom" \ --header "Authorization: Bearer <NYLAS_API_KEY>" \ --header "Content-Type: application/json" \ --data '{ "provider": "nylas", "workspace_id": "<WORKSPACE_ID>", "settings": { "email": "scheduling@customer-a.com" } }' No OAuth dance, no refresh token — just an address on a registered domain. The response comes back already valid: { "request_id" : "5967ca40-a2d8-4ee0-a0e0-6f18ace39a90" , "data" : { "id" : "b1c2d3e4-5678-4abc-9def-0123456789ab" , "provider" : "nylas" , "grant_status" : "valid" , "email" : "scheduling@customer-a.com" , "scope" : [], "created_at" : 1742932766 } } The data.id is a grant_id that works with every existing Nylas endpoint, and the account is live immediately. That's the primitive behind a multi-tenant pattern worth knowing: one Agent Account per customer, on each customer's own verified domain, all managed from a single application. (Agent Accounts are in beta, so the surface may shift before GA.) The architecture in one paragraph Your app runs scheduling@customer-a.com , scheduling@customer-b.com , and so on — same code path, different identities. Each account has its own policy, its own send quota, and its own sender reputation. A single application can manage accounts across an unlimited number of registered domains, so tenant count is a billing question, not an architectural one. Customer A's deliverability problems stay Customer A's; nothing they do contaminates Customer B's mail. Domains: register once, mint accounts forever The provisioning docs lay out two domain strategies you can mix freely in one application: Strategy Address format Setup Trial domain alias@<your-application>.nylas.email None — instant Your own domain alias@yourdomain.com MX + TXT records at the DNS provider For the per-customer pattern, each tenant brings their domain. You register it once per organization (picking the US