标签：#ai

Apple's AI image generator is getting a makeover that could make it more competitive.

A new spatial "Reframe" feature will let users use AI to adjust perspectives.

Hello, I'm Shrijith Venkatramana. I'm building git-lrc, an AI code reviewer that runs on every commit. Star Us to help devs discover the project. Do give it a try and share your feedback for improving the product. A few years ago, choosing a Go mocking framework was mostly a matter of personal preference. Today, things are different. Most Go developers have at least one AI coding assistant generating tests alongside them. Some teams even generate the majority of their unit tests automatically. Yet one area remains surprisingly messy: mocks. Ask an LLM to write a test for the same interface and you'll often get completely different results depending on whether your project uses GoMock, Mockery, MockIO, Minimock, Moq, or hand-written test doubles. The problem isn't that the models are bad. The problem is that mocking libraries represent very different philosophies: Strict vs flexible Generated vs runtime-created DSL-heavy vs idiomatic Go Feature-rich vs minimalist In this article we'll compare the most popular Go mocking libraries in 2026, examine their strengths and weaknesses, and discuss which one may be the best fit for your project. What Makes a Good Mocking Library? Before comparing tools, it's worth defining what matters. A good mocking library should ideally provide: Easy mock generation Clear test failures Minimal boilerplate Strong refactoring support Good IDE experience Readable tests Reliable call verification Different libraries optimize for different parts of this list. That's why there is no universally correct answer. 1. GoMock: The Enterprise Workhorse GoMock remains one of the most widely used mocking frameworks in the Go ecosystem. Originally created by Google and now actively maintained by Uber, it has become the standard choice for many large organizations. Its philosophy is straightforward: define expectations explicitly and verify them rigorously. Example func TestUserService ( t * testing . T ) { ctrl := gomock . NewController ( t ) repo := New

Siri is finally getting its own app.

"If you're grabbing a bite with friends and point your iPhone at the bill, then [you can] select what you ordered to split the tab with Apple Cash," said Apple VP of Software Sebastien Marineau-Mes.

Most people pick a model the wrong way around. They look at the leaderboard, see Opus on top, and reach for it by default. Sonnet if they want to save money. Haiku almost never, because the name says "small." That habit costs you. For a lot of what you actually build, Haiku is the right call, and you're paying three to five times more for capability the task never uses. This post is about how to choose, and why Haiku should be your default more often than it is. The short version: don't start from "what's the best model." Start from "what does this task need." Most tasks don't need much. Comparison Here is the current lineup, with the numbers that matter when you're choosing. Haiku 4.5 Sonnet 4.6 Opus 4.8 Model ID claude-haiku-4-5 claude-sonnet-4-6 claude-opus-4-8 Input price (per 1M tokens) $1 $3 $5 Output price (per 1M tokens) $5 $15 $25 Context window 200K 1M 1M Max output 64K 64K 128K Best at speed, volume balance hardest reasoning Two things jump out. First, price . Haiku input is a fifth of Opus and a third of Sonnet. Output is the same ratio. If you send a million tokens through Opus for $25 and the same work would have been fine on Haiku, you spent $20 for nothing. And that gap is per request, so it compounds. A feature that runs ten thousand times a day on Opus instead of Haiku is not a rounding error. It is the difference between a feature that ships and one that gets cut for cost. Second, the context window . This is where Haiku gives something up: 200K tokens instead of 1M. That is the real tradeoff, and it points straight at when to use it. We'll come back to that. The mental model Stop ranking models. Rank tasks . Ask three questions about the task in front of you: Does it need real reasoning, or is it bounded? A task is bounded when a competent junior could do it from a clear spec without much judgment: pull these fields out, sort this into one of five buckets, rewrite this in a different tone, answer this from the text I gave you. A task needs reason

AI design system output is approximate by default. Wrong border radii, raw hex values, inconsistent tokens across 60 components. The fix isn't better prompts. Here's the structural change that made it exact using Figma's REST API. The fourth time I manually corrected the same border radius mistake in an AI-generated component, I stopped and asked why this kept happening. Not "what prompt would fix this?" The deeper question: why does every AI tool I tried get the structure right and the values wrong? The button was correct. The variants were there. The layout matched the Figma spec. But borderRadius: 8 when it should be borderRadius: '8px' . A spacing gap of 8 when the spec said 6 . The color #3B82F6 sitting in the file where semantic.button.primary should be. None of it wrong in a way that breaks the build. All of it wrong in a way that breaks the design system. After hitting this wall enough times, I realized the problem wasn't the AI. It was the question I was asking it. Why AI keeps generating the wrong Figma design tokens When you give an AI tool a Figma screenshot and ask it to produce a component, it does something reasonable: it interprets what it sees. The structure, the layout, the hierarchy - it gets most of that right. What it cannot get right is the token mapping. The AI doesn't know your semantic token file. It doesn't know that #3B82F6 maps to semantic.button.primary in your codebase. It doesn't know that your MUI setup multiplies numeric border radii by 4, which means borderRadius: 8 renders at 32px instead of 8px . So it approximates. Here's what that looks like in practice: What AI produces What the spec requires Why it's wrong borderRadius: 8 borderRadius: '8px' MUI multiplies numeric values by 4 gap: 8 gap: 6 Spacing value not extracted from Figma color: '#3B82F6' semantic.button.primary Raw hex instead of semantic token fontSize: 14 variant="MD_Medium" Typography token not resolved Across one component, these deviations are small. Across 60 comp

We wired our LLM eval suite into Datadog over about four months. Most of the panels we built got deleted. These are the five that stayed, and the metrics that feed them. TL;DR: We run an LLM-as-judge eval suite on every PR that touches a prompt, and we ship the results to Datadog as custom metrics. The dashboard started with fourteen panels. We kept five. The one that catches the most real regressions is per-criterion pass-rate split out by judge criterion, not the single rolled-up pass-rate number, because an aggregate of 91 percent hid the fact that one criterion had dropped from 0.95 to 0.62. Below are the metrics we emit, the Python that submits them, the monitor config we alert on, and the panels we tried and dropped. Some context on the setup so the rest makes sense. We are a Series-C dev-tool startup. We have a handful of prompts in production that do real work (classification, extraction, a summarization step in an agent loop). Each one has an eval set of tagged examples, somewhere between 80 and 400 per prompt. The judge is a separate model call that scores each output against a rubric. We run the suite in GitHub Actions. The eval job emits metrics to Datadog at the end of every run. Backend service health was already in Datadog, so putting eval data next to it meant one place to look during an incident instead of two. 1. Emit per-criterion pass-rate, not just the rolled-up number This is the one that earns its place. Our judge scores each output against multiple criteria. For the extraction prompt it is four: correct fields, no hallucinated fields, format valid, no refusal. Early on we only emitted one number, prompt_eval.pass_rate, the fraction of examples that passed every criterion. That number is fine for a smoke test and useless for debugging. The problem showed up on a prompt change that looked clean. Overall pass-rate went from 0.93 to 0.91. Two points. Nobody would block a PR on two points. But underneath, the "no hallucinated fields" criterion had

80%. That is the share of code currently being merged into Anthropic's production systems that was written by Claude. Not code-reviewed. Not pair-programmed. Written. In February 2025, when Claude Code launched, that number was in the low single digits. Sixteen months later, the company decided that data point — and the trajectory behind it — was worth a public warning. On June 4, 2026, Anthropic published "When AI Builds Itself," a research paper co-authored by Marina Favaro, head of the Anthropic Institute, and Jack Clark, one of the company's co-founders. It was the first major publication from the Anthropic Institute since its founding in March 2026. The paper did two things simultaneously: disclosed internal productivity data that most AI companies keep private, and called for a global mechanism to slow or pause frontier AI development before the process becomes self-sustaining without meaningful human direction. The data came first. The policy recommendation followed from it. Here is what the numbers actually show and why every developer building on AI infrastructure today should read this carefully. The Productivity Curve Nobody Predicted Anthropic published a chart of engineering output per engineer, indexed to a baseline from 2021–2024. The curve is flat for four years. Then Claude Code shipped in February 2025. The multiplier progression from that point: 1.2x, 1.5x, 1.9x, 2.5x. By Q1 2026: 5.8x. By Q2 2026: 8x. The typical Anthropic engineer is now merging eight times as much code per day as they were in 2024. Not 8% more. Eight times more. That is not a productivity improvement — it is a different category of output from the same headcount. To understand what drives the number, you need to understand what Claude Code actually does inside Anthropic's engineering workflows. The tool was built for and by engineers working on frontier AI systems — which means the tasks it handles are not boilerplate CRUD endpoints. Claude is writing test harnesses for novel m

Cycle tracker will now notify women when their cycle patterns are suggestive of perimenopause.

The idea behind the new "Siri AI" is to turn the assistant from a voice controlled assistant into an AI companion that can do a lot more.

Amazon is expanding its print-on-demand features to AI-generated designs created using Alexa for Shopping for products like T-shirts, water bottles, and hoodies. Shoppers can use text prompts to generate images that are then printed on to blanks for sale on Amazon. They can then share the link to the design so other people can buy […]

Two years after first revealing its plans for Apple Intelligence and a smarter Siri that never fully materialized, at WWDC, Apple just revealed a new set of AI features and a smarter, more personalized Siri. Apple calls Siri AI an "entirely new version of Siri" and says it's both more conversational and more capable than […]

If you’re a user—owner?—of this cryptocurrency, this is important: On May 29, the security researcher Taylor Hornby found a critical vulnerability in Zcash Orchard privacy pool using Claude Opus 4.8. The Zcash team hired Hornby specifically to look for this kind of issue. He found one fast enough to be embarrassing. The Orchard pool is the newest and most advanced shielded transaction system in the cryptocurrency Zcash. Introduced in 2022, it allows users to send and receive ZEC while keeping transaction details private. It uses zero-knowledge proofs to validate transactions without revealing amounts or participants. The bug: a specific check that was supposed to validate transaction inputs wasn’t actually enforcing the rules it appeared to enforce. An attacker could have exploited the flaw to feed false inputs into that check and generate ZEC from nothing, with the zero-knowledge proof system blessing the fraudulent transaction as valid...

Google is rolling out "across the board" updates to NotebookLM. The AI-powered note-taking app now uses Google's upgraded Gemini 3.5 model, which will allow it to respond with "more accurate and reliable information," according to a blog post on Monday. Launched in 2023, NotebookLM allows you to interact with your notes and sources using AI, […]

Per-request attribution starts with five fields on every call: provider, model, input tokens, output tokens, and ownership tags such as team, feature, and customer. A monthly vendor bill cannot explain why one feature, one tenant, or one prompt template suddenly became expensive. Request-level math can. As of June 8, 2026, OpenAI lists GPT-5.4 mini at $0.75 per 1M input tokens and $4.50 per 1M output tokens, while Anthropic lists Claude Sonnet 4 at $3 and $15 respectively. Gateway logs are useful, but they rarely solve AI cost tracking per feature unless you enrich them with business context and retry metadata. The practical operating model is simple: calculate cost on every request, attach ownership dimensions, then roll the data up into team, feature, and customer views. If you are searching for "LLM cost attribution per request," you are usually already past the basic billing problem. You can see your OpenAI or Anthropic invoice, but you cannot answer the questions finance and engineering actually care about: which feature drove the spike, which team owns it, which customers are unprofitable, and which prompt or model change caused the jump. That is why per-request attribution matters. It turns AI spend from a monthly surprise into an operational metric you can act on in the same day. Why LLM cost attribution per request matters now According to the FinOps Foundation's 2025 State of FinOps report, 63% of respondents now manage AI spending, up from 31% the year before. That jump is the real signal. AI cost is no longer a side bucket inside cloud spend. It is becoming a first-class FinOps workload. For teams spending $5,000 to $50,000 per month on LLM APIs, averages break down quickly. A support assistant, an internal coding copilot, and a customer-facing generation feature can all hit the same vendor account while having completely different margins, latency targets, and prompt shapes. If you only look at total spend by provider, you lose the unit economics. Per-r

OpenRouter is a unified API gateway to hundreds of language models from providers such as OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and Meta. You use one API key and one billing surface, and swap models by changing a provider/model slug. OpenRouter exposes a Chat Completions -compatible HTTP API. This post shows three Node.js integration paths: the official @openrouter/sdk , the openai package with baseURL , and the Vercel AI SDK with @openrouter/ai-sdk-provider . For deeper patterns on each stack, see the Chat Completions API , OpenAI Responses API (OpenAI direct only), and Vercel AI SDK posts. Prerequisites OpenRouter account API key Credits or billing enabled as needed Node.js version 26 Install packages for the path you use: @openrouter/sdk ( npm i @openrouter/sdk ) openai ( npm i openai ) ai and @openrouter/ai-sdk-provider ( npm i ai @openrouter/ai-sdk-provider ) Configuration Read credentials from the environment in production. Variable Purpose OPENROUTER_API_KEY Bearer token from OpenRouter settings OPENROUTER_MODEL Default model slug, for example openai/gpt-5.5 OPENROUTER_SITE_URL Optional site URL sent as HTTP-Referer for rankings on openrouter.ai OPENROUTER_SITE_TITLE Optional app name sent as X-OpenRouter-Title Model IDs use the provider/model format, for example openai/gpt-5.5 , anthropic/claude-opus-4.8 , or google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite . Browse the full catalog at openrouter.ai/models . The examples below use openai/gpt-5.5 , matching the model in the other LLM posts in this series. Override it with OPENROUTER_MODEL when you want a different model. @openrouter/sdk OpenRouter's official TypeScript SDK is type-safe and generated from the OpenAPI spec. Client setup import { OpenRouter } from ' @openrouter/sdk ' ; const client = new OpenRouter ({ apiKey : process . env . OPENROUTER_API_KEY , httpReferer : process . env . OPENROUTER_SITE_URL , appTitle : process . env . OPENROUTER_SITE_TITLE , }); Basic integration const response = await client . chat . send ({ chatReques

A new feature in the Amazon Shopping app allows users to generate designs with Alexa, then print them on products like T-shirts, hoodies, and tumblers.

Apple's WWDC nears: Here's what you can look forward to.

In multi-turn agent loops, the full context re-sends on every API call. A tool result added at turn 3 gets billed again at turns 4, 5, 6, 7... forever. Most of it is never read again. Standard observability tools tell you the total token count. They never tell you what's in there or how much of it is waste . That's what ContextLens fixes. What it does ContextLens is a diagnostic profiler for LLM agent context windows. It: Decomposes the context window into regions: system prompt, tool schemas, tool results, retrieved chunks, user messages, assistant messages Tracks which blocks get re-billed across turns using SHA-256 content hashing Runs 5 waste detectors and ranks findings by dollar cost Prints a concrete one-line fix for each finding Renders an interactive D3 treemap report as a self-contained HTML file No API key required. Works offline on saved traces. The five detectors Detector What it finds Duplicate Same block re-sent verbatim across multiple turns Near-Duplicate >85% Jaccard similarity between distinct blocks Stale Tool Result Tool output never referenced by a later assistant message Unused Tool Schema Tool defined every turn but never called Redundant Retrieval Retrieved chunk with <15% overlap with model output ---Run the built-in demo (simulates a 30-turn agent loop, no API key needed): python -c "import contextlens; contextlens.demo()" python examples/demo.py Live capture — Anthropic import anthropic import contextlens as cl client = anthropic.Anthropic() with cl.capture_anthropic(client, model="claude-3-5-sonnet-20241022") as collector: for turn in range(20): client.messages.create( model="claude-3-5-sonnet-20241022", max_tokens=1024, system="You are a helpful assistant.", messages=build_messages(turn), ) report = cl.analyze_trace(collector.build_trace()) print(f"Recoverable waste: {report.recoverable_tokens:,} tokens (${report.recoverable_cost_usd:.4f})") Live capture — OpenAI import openai import contextlens as cl client = openai.OpenAI() with cl.ca