标签：#ai

I used to think the best AI food logging flow would be simple: Take a photo, let the model identify the meal, confirm it, done. That works surprisingly well for a lot of meals. But while building MetricSync, I learned the awkward product truth: the best input method changes depending on what is in front of the user. A photo is great for a plate. A barcode is better for packaged food. Text is better when the user already knows what they ate or wants to fix one detail quickly. The mistake is treating one input mode like the whole product. Photos feel magical until the meal gets messy Photo logging is the most impressive demo because it removes the blank search box problem. The user does not need to know the exact database name for “rice bowl with chicken and avocado.” They can just show the app what they ate. But meals are messy. A photo might miss the sauce. It might not know if the drink is diet or regular. It might confuse a small serving with a large one. It might identify the food category correctly but still need a portion correction. That does not make photo logging bad. It just means the UX cannot end at “AI guessed something.” The real product is the correction loop. Can the user fix the meal without starting over? Barcode scanning is boring in the best way Barcode scanning is not as exciting as AI, but it is often the right tool. If someone is logging a protein bar, yogurt, cereal, or a packaged drink, asking an image model to infer the nutrition facts is silly. The barcode is more direct. That changed how I thought about the app. AI should not be the star of every interaction. Sometimes AI should get out of the way. The goal is not “use AI everywhere.” The goal is “make logging the thing in front of me take the least effort.” For packaged foods, that means barcode first. For mixed plates, that means photo first. For quick edits, that means text. Text still matters The more AI features you add, the easier it is to forget text input. But text is still the fas

Big update. The PDF hub is fully built out and a whole set of Office conversion tools just shipped. PDF hub complete (18 tools): Merge, split, compress, rotate, reorder, extract pages, remove pages, watermark, page numbers, protect, unlock, extract images, and more. Office ↔ PDF (6 tools): Word to PDF Excel to PDF PowerPoint to PDF PDF to Word PDF to Excel PDF to PowerPoint Office ↔ Office (3 tools, fully browser-side, no file upload): Word to Excel Excel to Word PowerPoint to Word Other recent updates: WordPress plugin updated to include the new PDF tools Chrome extension v1.1.0 updated with PDF support 1.6K pages now indexed on Google across 25 languages That brings the site to 61 free tools across three hubs (Image, PDF, Office), no signup required.

Lets start our discussion from 2010 . Timeperiod 2010 - 2020 we have predictive AI models such as Recommendation systems , customer segmentation etc .. From 2020 the when the generative models were introduced to the world then the landscape was completely changed . We have this generative era till 2022 . Then industry was stepped into a new era called "Augumentation" models like AI Copilot . This was continued from 2022-2024 . Then came AI Agents—one of the most transformative innovations of the modern AI era. Unlike traditional AI systems that primarily generate responses, agents can reason, plan, use tools, and execute tasks autonomously. Today, the industry is rapidly evolving toward Autonomous Systems, where multiple specialized agents collaborate through orchestration frameworks to solve complex real-world problems. The best AI Timeline : Traditional ML ↓ Deep Learning ↓ Transformers (2017) ↓ Foundation Models ↓ LLMs (GPT Era) ↓ Prompt Engineering ↓ Embeddings ↓ Vector Databases ↓ RAG ↓ Function Calling ↓ AI Agents ↓ Agent Frameworks ↓ Multi-Agent Systems ↓ MCP ↓ Agentic AI ↓ Autonomous AI Organizations Just in the span of 6 years we saw a drastic change in the evolution of AI. Can't imagine how this AI is going to be in the next few years. ai #machinelearning #python

Ever felt like your fitness app is just a fancy spreadsheet? You log a high uric acid result from your latest blood test, yet it still suggests a high-protein steak dinner for "gains." In the world of AI Agents , we are moving past static prompts. Today, we’re building a Self-Correcting Health Agent using LangGraph , LangChain , and OpenAI . This agent doesn't just chat; it monitors laboratory biomarkers like cholesterol and uric acid, maintains a long-term memory via SQLite , and dynamically rewrites your lifestyle plan using advanced OpenAI Function Calling . If you've been looking to master autonomous health agents and complex state management, you're in the right place. Let's dive into the future of personalized wellness. The Architecture: State-Driven Personalization Unlike a standard linear chain, a health agent needs to "loop" and "reason." If the agent detects an abnormal lab value, it must trigger a specific logic branch to revise existing plans. Here is how the data flows through our LangGraph system: graph TD A[User Input/Lab Report] --> B{Analyze Biomarkers} B -- Abnormal Found --> C[Tool: Plan Rewriter] B -- All Normal --> D[Tool: Maintenance Plan] C --> E[Update SQLite Memory] D --> E[Update SQLite Memory] E --> F[Output Final Recommendation] F --> G[Wait for Next Input] G -- New Data --> B Prerequisites To follow along, you'll need: LangGraph & LangChain : For orchestration. OpenAI API : For the reasoning engine (GPT-4o recommended). SQLite : To handle persistent state and "memory" of your health journey. Step 1: Defining the Agent State In LangGraph, the State is the source of truth. We need to track the user's current health metrics and their active diet plan. from typing import Annotated , TypedDict , List from langgraph.graph import StateGraph , END import operator class HealthState ( TypedDict ): # We use operator.add to keep a history of logs logs : Annotated [ List [ str ], operator . add ] biomarkers : dict current_diet_plan : str revision_req

The debut episode, moderated by Founders Fund chief marketing officer Mike Solana, included a star-studded cast of current tech luminaries.

Every AI agent ships with the same bottleneck: it can only reason over what it can reach. MCP servers dissolve that boundary. They expose tools, resources, and prompts to any compliant client over a JSON-RPC wire format so lean you can implement it in an afternoon. Yet most developers grab a framework, copy a template, and ship something they can barely debug. Forge starts differently. You will build an MCP server from the bare protocol up, understand every byte on the wire, and gain the mental model that makes every future server trivial. The Idea (60 Seconds) MCP is a JSON-RPC 2.0 protocol. A client sends a request. Your server returns a response. Three request types power the core loop: initialize , handshake. Client and server exchange capabilities. tools/list , discovery. Server returns every tool it offers, each with a JSON Schema describing its inputs. tools/call , execution. Client names a tool and passes arguments. Server runs the handler and returns structured content. Transport is either stdio (JSON-RPC over stdin/stdout) or HTTP (Streamable HTTP). Stdio is the simplest place to start: read a line from stdin, parse it, dispatch, write a line to stdout. That is the entire architecture. Everything else is error handling, schema validation, and ergonomics. Why This Matters MCP servers are the new APIs. Where REST gave machines endpoints, MCP gives agents tools with typed inputs and structured outputs. Every integration layer from IDE assistants to autonomous workflows converges on this protocol. The standard is young. The primitives are stable. The surface area is small enough to hold in your head all at once. Knowing the wire format gives you three advantages frameworks obscure: Debugging , when a tool call fails, you can read the raw JSON-RPC message and pinpoint the fault in seconds. Portability , any language, any runtime, any transport. Write a server in Bash if you want. The protocol is the contract. Evolution , MCP will add capabilities. Understanding

Valve now says that the delayed Steam Machine PC and Steam Frame VR headset are set to launch sometime this summer. In a Thursday blog post detailing its Verified programs for both pieces of hardware, Valve concludes by saying that "We're excited for players to try your titles on the new Steam hardware once they […]

Anthropic has been growing at a breakneck pace. The company announced that annualized revenue crossed $47 billion in May, up dramatically from roughly $9 billion at the end of 2025. That trajectory faces a real test, though.

The Airbnb CEO said last year it hasn't struck an LLM partnership because existing products weren't quite ready.

Robot demonstrations can distort public perceptions of robotic capabilities.

A few weeks back I had an agent reconciling a vendor list. It ran clean. No error, no crash, output...

India's largest food delivery platform processes over 1.5 million orders every single day. One missed...

I Read Your AI Agent Logs So You Don't Have To: A $149 Service That Beats Another Dashboard What if the cheapest fix for your broken AI agent is a stranger reading 40 hours of traces for $149? I spent the last month doing exactly that — reading roughly 40 hours of production logs from teams running LangGraph, CrewAI, and AutoGen agents for paying customers. Not building observability dashboards. Not comparing LangSmith vs Langfuse. Reading the actual traces and writing up what was wrong, what to fix, and in what order. Three observations from those 40 hours: The dashboard was never the problem. Every team already had LangSmith or Helicone or a homegrown equivalent logging every LLM call. None of them were reading the logs. The "fix" was almost always one of seven patterns. I kept seeing the same shapes — stuck retry loops, idempotency gaps, tool-call argument drift, etc. — dressed up in different framework jargon. The teams that asked for "another tool" were the ones least likely to use it. They had 14 tools. The teams that paid for an hour of my time were the ones who said "I don't have time to look at this myself." That second group is who I'm now building a $149 service for. Here's why I think it works, what the deliverable looks like, and where the limits are. Why a $149 fixed-fee reading and not an hourly rate I tested three pricing models against the same deliverable: a written diagnostic of an agent's last 7 days of traces, prioritized fixes with code-level examples, and a 30-minute async follow-up. Model Conversion Avg revenue / inquiry Notes $200/hr (estimated 3hr) 2/40 inquiries $15 (lost 38 to sticker shock) Freelance default, fails on cold traffic $1,500 flat project 0/40 inquiries $0 Above the "I'll just keep it broken" threshold for most small teams $149 fixed diagnostic 11/40 inquiries $41 Below "another contractor" threshold, above "free advice" The $149 number is the inversion point — low enough that a stressed eng lead can expense it without a meet

You have explained your tech stack to your coding agent four times this month. You mentioned your preferred approach to a problem in January, and your agent has no idea it ever happened. You corrected a decision last week and the old version is still surfacing. You set up context at the start of every session because there is nowhere for it to go at the end. This is not a model problem, as GPT-4, Claude, and Gemini all have the same limitations. The model is stateless. They all have inbuilt memory, and still every session starts from zero unless you have the infrastructure to persist what matters and surface it at the right moment. That sophisticated memory infrastructure is what most developers do not have. VEKTOR Slipstream v1.6.3 is a local-first memory SDK for AI agents. This release adds the layer most memory systems skip: not just storing what you tell it, but managing what should still be there months later: curation. What you actually get Before the architecture: What changes for you as a developer embedding this SDK. Every AI memory system forces decisions you didn’t realise you were making. Where does your agent’s context actually lives, is it on your machine or on someone else’s server? Are you paying per token every time your agent understands a memory, or does that happen locally? When you connect your GitHub, your calendar, your files — where does all that data go, and who can see it? Most memory systems answer all four questions for you, quietly, in their terms of service. VEKTOR’s answer to all four is the same: your machine, your data, your rules. Memory lives in a single SQLite file you own. Embeddings run locally on CPU — no API calls, no per-token cost, no data leaving the process. MCP connectors spawn as local stdio processes; nothing is routed through an external service. There is no telemetry, no cloud sync, no account required. If you want to understand exactly what your agent knows about you, you open the database with any SQLite browser and

Anyone who works with Ruby on Rails knows that, despite the framework being incredible for productivity, there are some classic workflow deficiencies that haunt almost every project. You are focused on writing code, but suddenly you need to open an external tool like Postman to test a route. Then, you run a complex script to generate a static database diagram. And at the end of the day, you still need to manually update the API documentation, which will inevitably become outdated in the next sprint. This constant context switching and manual maintenance generates enormous friction. To cover these deficiencies, I developed three gems that bring these tools inside your application. They are so practical that they quickly become indispensable in any Rails project. Meet each one of them: 1. rails-api-docs : The End of Outdated Documentation The deficiency: API documentation always starts with good intentions, but as the system evolves—new routes, parameters, and response fields—it quickly stops representing reality. Keeping this updated manually is repetitive and frustrating work. The solution: The rails-api-docs gem solves this by leveraging what Rails already knows. It inspects your routes, controllers (via AST analysis using Prism), and the ActiveRecord schema to automatically generate the first draft of your documentation. Everything is saved in a single YAML file ( config/rails-api-docs.yml ), which serves as the single source of truth. Why it is indispensable: Append-only strategy: When adding new routes and running the generator, the gem only appends what's new. Your descriptions, custom examples, and tags are never modified or deleted, making the documentation a living document. Zero development friction: You edit the YAML in one window and view the updated documentation in the browser at localhost:3000/rails/api-docs instantly, with no build step required. For production, it exports a single static HTML file without any external dependencies. 2. rails-http-lab

LLM Cost Attribution with OTel, Next.js for AI Agents, LLM Security Testing Today's Highlights This week, we delve into practical strategies for managing LLM costs in production using OpenTelemetry and explore Next.js 16.2's new tooling for building AI agent frontends. We also examine an experiment on LLMs' ability to exploit application vulnerabilities, emphasizing security in applied AI. Per-project LLM cost attribution with OTel spans: the wiring (Dev.to Top) Source: https://dev.to/jasmine_park_dev/per-project-llm-cost-attribution-with-otel-spans-the-wiring-3897 This article details a practical approach to attributing Large Language Model (LLM) costs to specific teams or projects within an organization. Facing a common problem of LLM bills appearing as a single line item, the author describes how to implement granular cost tracking using OpenTelemetry (OTel) spans. The core idea involves instrumenting the LLM gateway to tag every request span with relevant metadata like team.id and llm.model_name . This allows for detailed reporting and chargebacks, enabling organizations to understand and manage their LLM expenditure effectively. The implementation focuses on "the wiring" behind this system, leveraging OTel for observability. By attaching custom attributes to spans, teams can aggregate usage data by project, department, or even specific application features. This moves beyond opaque cloud invoices to actionable insights, a crucial step for companies scaling their AI adoption and seeking to optimize resource allocation and financial accountability for generative AI services. The article provides a blueprint for integrating this mechanism into existing LLM infrastructure. Comment: Setting up OTel spans for LLM cost attribution is a game-changer for production environments, finally giving us visibility into who's spending what on which models. This technique is essential for scaling LLM applications sustainably. Next.js 16.2: Deeper Tooling for AI Agents (InfoQ) So

NousResearch Agent, Open-Source Notebook LM, & Local Multimodal OCR for Consumer GPUs Today's Highlights Today's highlights feature new open-source tools empowering local AI inference and deployment, including an adaptive agent from NousResearch, a self-hostable AI-powered notebook, and a lightweight multimodal OCR solution. These practical GitHub trending projects enable developers to build and run advanced AI applications directly on consumer hardware. NousResearch Unveils Hermes Agent for Adaptive Local AI (GitHub Trending) Source: https://github.com/NousResearch/hermes-agent NousResearch, a prominent contributor to the open-weight LLM ecosystem with models like the Hermes series, has unveiled hermes-agent , a new GitHub trending project described as "The agent that grows with you." This initiative represents a significant step towards practical, adaptive AI agents designed for local execution. While specific architectural details are awaiting a deeper dive into the repository, the "grows with you" philosophy strongly implies advanced capabilities for personalized learning, continuous adaptation, and long-term memory integration—features crucial for self-hosted AI applications. Such an agent is highly relevant for developers focused on local inference, as it provides an open-source framework to build sophisticated agentic workflows, potentially integrating seamlessly with local LLM runtimes such as llama.cpp or vLLM . This allows users to leverage powerful open-weight models directly on their consumer GPUs, enhancing privacy and reducing reliance on cloud services. The project's emergence from NousResearch solidifies its potential as a robust foundation for next-generation local AI applications. Comment: A NousResearch agent is exciting; it implies strong open-source model compatibility and local deployment. I'm keen to see its learning mechanisms and integration potential with local LLM runtimes. PaddlePaddle's Lightweight OCR Toolkit Bridges Images to Local LLM

With just two weeks to go, StrictlyVC Los Angeles is quickly approaching. On Thursday, June 18, at The Aerospace Corporation Campus in El Segundo, investors, founders, and tech leaders will gather for an evening of conversation exploring some of the most consequential shifts taking place across venture capital, defense technology, artificial intelligence, and advanced industry. Secure your spot here. […]

The Framing Problem When industry analysts discuss "AI CAD," they are frequently conflating two fundamentally different computational paradigms: generative mesh synthesis and parametric feature modeling. This conflation has produced a decade of inflated expectations, underwhelming demos, and a persistent belief that real AI CAD is still "coming." It is not coming. For a specific and technically meaningful definition of AI CAD, it has arrived. Mesh Generation vs. Parametric Modeling: Why the Distinction Is Everything Contemporary generative 3D tools including neural radiance field reconstructions, diffusion-based mesh generators, and implicit surface networks produce geometry as an unstructured point cloud or polygon mesh. These representations are geometrically expressive but engineering-inert. They carry no feature history, no constraint graph, no dimensional intent. A mesh cannot be toleranced. A mesh cannot propagate a design change. A mesh cannot be submitted to a manufacturer without full reconstruction from scratch. Parametric CAD, by contrast, encodes design intent as a structured sequence of operations — extrusions, revolves, fillets, boolean operations each governed by explicit dimensional constraints and parent-child dependency relationships. The parametric model is not merely a shape; it is a design process, replayable, modifiable, and transferable across manufacturing contexts. The meaningful technical question for AI CAD in 2026 is therefore not " can AI generate a 3D shape? " that has been demonstrable since 2019. The question is: can AI generate a valid parametric feature tree from natural language input, with embedded manufacturing constraints, that survives downstream engineering use? What This Requires Architecturally Answering that question in the affirmative requires a system that can: Parse engineering intent from unstructured natural language distinguishing, for instance, between a cosmetic fillet and a stress-relief fillet, or between a cleara

Estonian government benchmark shows how dozens of models combat Russia's "strategic narratives."