标签：#ai

Everyone keeps saying AI will replace developers. Meanwhile I was sitting at 3:17 AM staring at a bug...

We may just have gotten an early look at the Google Pixel Watch 5 - and from an unusual source. Randy Pitchford, the creator of the Borderlands game franchise, posted a pair of images of a watch on X, saying that his friend found it underwater while scuba diving near Saint Martin, as reported earlier […]

Pricey Instagram handles were stolen and resold before Meta patched the exploit.

The lawsuit partially revolves around a shooting at Florida State University last year, and ChatGPT's alleged role in the incident.

Nvidia's announcement that it's getting into the consumer laptop chip space with RTX Spark is huge. Apple has proved for years that Arm-based chips can perform incredibly well while also delivering great battery life - at least on the Mac. In the Windows world, performance hasn't fully matched up under Qualcomm chips, mostly in the […]

Google's new "24/7" AI agent, Gemini Spark, can be shockingly good at doing things on your behalf. But I'm not sure it's worth the financial cost and potential privacy tradeoffs. The company gave me access to Spark last week. Google advertises Spark as an AI agent that can take on tasks and work on them […]

Anyone who has downloaded affected Red Hat packages should investigate immediately.

Meta's AI support chatbot helped hackers hijack Instagram accounts, as reported earlier by 404 Media. In a video shared on Telegram, a hacker shows how they could take over an account by asking Meta's chatbot to switch the email associated with someone else's profile and then reset the password. The issue, which Meta says has […]

You’ve built your model, your training code is containerized, and you’re ready to scale up on Google Kubernetes Engine (GKE). You go to provision your nvidia-h100-80gb node pool and... QUOTA_EXCEEDED. It’s one of the most common (and frustrating) roadblocks in modern AI development. High-end accelerators like H100s, A100s, and TPUs are in massive demand, and securing permanent, on-demand quota for them can be difficult. But a lack of on-demand quota doesn't mean you're out of options. GKE provides two powerful, cost-effective strategies for acquiring these scarce resources when you can't get standard, on-demand instances: Spot VMs and the Dynamic Workload Scheduler (DWS) . Let's break down what they are, when to use each, and how to implement them. Strategy 1: Spot VMs Spot VMs are Google Cloud's excess compute capacity sold at a massive discount, up to 90% off the price of standard on-demand VMs. They are perfect for workloads that can be interrupted. The catch is that Spot VMs have no availability guarantee. Google Cloud can "preempt" (i.e., terminate) them at any time if that capacity is needed for on-demand customers. GKE gets a 30-second warning before the node is terminated. Kubernetes uses this window to gracefully shut down your application (giving non-system pods up to 15 seconds to wrap up) before the node vanishes. When to use Spot VMs for accelerators Spot VMs are ideal for workloads that are: Fault-tolerant and stateless: Your application can handle a node vanishing and having its pods rescheduled elsewhere. Batch processing: Jobs that can be easily restarted or have checkpointing built-in. CI/CD pipelines: Running tests or builds that don't need 100% uptime. How to use Spot VMs in GKE You can easily add a Spot VM node pool to your GKE Standard cluster. The key is to use Spot VMs for your workers, not your critical system pods. Create a dedicated Spot VM node pool: When creating a node pool, simply add the --spot flag and apply a taint so standard pods

Altman has an "utter disregard" for human lives, Florida AG says.

A SaaS team adds “Pay with crypto” to checkout. The first test looks fine: create a wallet address, show a QR code, receive USDT, mark the order as paid. Then production starts. One customer sends the right amount on the wrong network. Another pays after the invoice expires. A third sends 99.80 USDT instead of 100 USDT. Support sees a transaction hash but cannot find the order. Finance sees funds received but cannot match them to an invoice. The backend receives the same webhook twice and unlocks the product twice. That is the moment crypto payment integration stops being a QR-code feature and becomes a payment infrastructure problem. This is the first Dev.to post from Cryptoway . We build crypto payment infrastructure for online businesses, and here we will share practical notes about crypto payment API design, invoices, payment webhooks, stablecoin payments, checkout flows, reconciliation and payment status handling. What is a crypto payment gateway? A crypto payment gateway is the layer between a business event and a blockchain transaction. The business event can be: a SaaS subscription invoice; an e-commerce order; a digital product purchase; a marketplace deposit; a service payment link; an internal billing event. The blockchain transaction is the customer sending BTC, ETH, USDT, USDC or another supported digital asset. The gateway connects the two. It creates a payment request, shows the customer what to pay, monitors the blockchain, updates the payment status and notifies your backend when something changes. In other words: a crypto payment gateway is not the blockchain itself. It is the operational layer that makes blockchain-based payments usable inside real products. Crypto Payment Gateway vs Wallet Address A wallet address is enough for a manual payment. It is not enough for a product that needs order tracking, support visibility and finance reconciliation. Area Wallet address only Crypto payment gateway Order matching Manual matching by amount, address o

Skills Are a Mess. Let's Fix That. Here's the problem: you write a skill for zeroclaw. It works locally. You push it. Someone else tries to install it. Nothing works. The error says "missing dependency" but doesn't say which one. Or it installs but the audit fails silently. Or the test harness just... doesn't run. Sound familiar? I've been watching the zeroclaw skills ecosystem grow. More people are authoring skills. More people are hitting the same walls. The v0.7.6 release is about tearing those walls down. What Actually Breaks Let's get specific. Three failure modes I see every week: 1. Install hell zeroclaw skills install my-skill # → Error: Failed to resolve dependency graph # → (no other output) You're left guessing. Is it a peer dependency conflict? A missing Python version? A circular reference in the skill manifest? The loader gives you nothing. 2. Audit blindness zeroclaw skills audit ./my-skill # → Audit complete. 0 issues found. # → (skill crashes immediately on first use) The audit passed. But it didn't check for the actual runtime errors — missing environment variables, incompatible tool signatures, malformed output schemas. It checked the manifest format. That's it. 3. Test harness that doesn't test zeroclaw skills test ./my-skill # → Running 3 test cases... # → All passed. # → (skill still hallucinates in production) The test harness runs your skill against mock data. But the mock data doesn't match real tool outputs. Your skill passes locally, fails in the wild. Why This Happens The current architecture treats skills as static packages. You define metadata in a skill.json , point to some functions, and assume it works. But skills are dynamic. They call tools. They depend on runtime state. They interact with the sandbox. The loader doesn't validate the runtime contract. The audit doesn't simulate execution. The test harness doesn't fuzz inputs. So you get false positives everywhere. "Works on my machine" becomes "works in my specific environment with

Most scraper demos lie by accident. They show the happy path: one URL, one clean page, one neat JSON object. Then the first real user tries a marketplace search page, a login wall, a JavaScript shell, a rate-limited product page, or a site that serves different HTML to every fetch path. The response still comes back as JSON, so everyone relaxes. That is the trap. A JSON response is not the same thing as a useful extraction. The failure mode agents hate AI agents do not just need scraped text. They need to know what happened. Bad extraction output looks like this: { "title" : "Example product" , "price" : "$29.99" , "availability" : "in stock" } That looks fine until you inspect the source and discover the page was a login prompt, a bot challenge, or a thin JavaScript shell. The extractor filled the schema because the schema was requested. Helpful. Like a smoke alarm that hums a little song while the kitchen burns. Better extraction output separates the data from the confidence and the failure class: { "status" : "failed" , "failure_type" : "login_required" , "confidence" : 0.94 , "extracted" : null , "evidence" : { "final_url_type" : "restricted_page" , "visible_content" : "login prompt" , "structured_data_found" : false }, "next_step" : "Use an authorised source, public item URL, feed, API, or sample HTML." } That is less flashy. It is also much more useful. The useful contract is not “scrape anything” “Scrape anything” is usually a warning label wearing lipstick. For agent workflows, the better contract is: Return structured data when the page provides enough evidence. Return a specific honest failure when it does not. Preserve enough metadata for the caller to decide what to do next. Never invent fields just because a prompt asked nicely. This matters for ecommerce, lead enrichment, price monitoring, competitor tracking, procurement, and internal research agents. If the agent cannot tell the difference between “product unavailable”, “page blocked”, “login require

PixToCode is a new Figma plugin that turns the frames you've already designed into production-ready code with AI — React, Angular, Vue, or HTML, all Tailwind-first. Just published on the Figma Community: figma.com/community/plugin/1641790551381890223/pixtocode What it does Select one or more frames in Figma, pick a framework, click Generate. About 10 seconds later you have clean code that uses the exact colors, spacing, typography, and layout from your file — not generic Tailwind utility soup. Highlights: 4 frameworks — React (TypeScript), Angular (standalone + Signals), Vue 3, or semantic HTML5. All Tailwind-first. UI library presets — shadcn/ui, Material UI, Chakra, Ant Design on React, Angular Material on Angular. Output uses the real components , not generic divs. Refine with plain English — type "make the button rounded" or "use green for the active tab" and the AI rewrites the component in place. Multi-frame batch — select up to 5 frames, get them all in one pass. Variants → typed props — a Figma Component Set with Primary / Secondary / Disabled becomes one typed prop-driven component, not three duplicate files. Live browser preview — see the generated component rendered in a sandboxed tab before pasting it into your project. Cloud history — every generation saved to your account, synced across devices. How it works Get a free license key at pixtocode.com (5 free generations, no credit card). Install the plugin from the Figma Community. Paste the key into the plugin's license field. Select a frame, choose a framework, click Generate. Copy the code straight into your project. That's the whole flow. Pricing Free — 5 generations on signup Pro — $20/month for 100 generations Power — $39/month for 250 generations Team — $99/month, 5 seats, 600 shared generations (scales to 10 seats) All paid plans have a 7-day refund guarantee. Tips for best results Frames with auto-layout , named layers , and consistent design tokens produce the cleanest output. For huge dashboard

Whisper is remarkably robust. But "robust" doesn't mean "immune to noise." If you've ever run a meeting recording through Whisper and gotten back garbage — or worse, confidently wrong text — the problem is usually the audio, not the model. Here's the thing: different noise types fail differently. Electrical hum causes Whisper to hallucinate syllables. Echo makes it drop words entirely. Static makes it confuse phonemes. Knowing which noise you have tells you exactly which fix to apply. This post covers: ✅ How each noise type (hum, hiss, echo, wind, static) degrades Whisper output ✅ A Python preprocessing pipeline that detects and removes noise before transcription ✅ How to call the StemSplit Denoise API for cloud GPU noise removal (no local setup) ✅ Measured WER improvements you can reproduce The Noise → Transcription Failure Map Noise Type What It Sounds Like How It Breaks Whisper Hum (50/60 Hz) Constant low-frequency "buzz" Inserts phantom syllables, lowers confidence Hiss High-frequency "shhh" Loses sibilants, confuses "s/sh/f" sounds Echo / Room reverb Words "bounce" and overlap Drops end-of-sentence words, merges phrases Wind Burst plosives, low-frequency rumble Transcribes as "[inaudible]", breaks sentence segmentation Static / crackling Random pops and snaps Breaks word boundaries, causes mid-word cuts These aren't hypothetical. They're reproducible failure modes. Let me show you how to handle each one. Prerequisites pip install openai-whisper requests python-dotenv soundfile numpy librosa You'll need: A StemSplit API key from stemsplit.io/developers (free 5-minute tier, no credit card) ffmpeg installed ( brew install ffmpeg / sudo apt install ffmpeg ) The Preprocessing Pipeline Here's the full pipeline before we break it down: Audio file → [Noise detection] → [Denoise via StemSplit API] → [Post-process: normalize, trim silence] → Whisper → Transcript Step 1: Detect What Kind of Noise You Have Before throwing everything at a denoiser, it helps to know what you

The RL Flywheel That Actually Works Here's what's breaking: You've got a reinforcement learning setup that trains, validates, deploys, and then... nothing. No feedback loop. No automatic retraining. No safety gates. Just a model that gets stale the moment it hits production. Sound familiar? I've been building RL systems for a decade. The pattern is always the same: great training pipeline, terrible deployment loop. You spend weeks getting 95% validation accuracy, push to prod, and three days later the distribution shifts. Your agent starts making garbage decisions. You scramble to retrain. Rinse. Repeat. This sucks. I know. The Real Problem The issue isn't training. It's the feedback loop . Most RL systems have: Training pipeline — works fine Validation — mostly works Deployment — fire and forget Observation — maybe some metrics Strategy update — manual, if ever Step 4 and 5 are broken. You're flying blind after deployment. The Flywheel Architecture Here's what a real RL flywheel looks like: Train → Simulate → Validate → Gate → Deploy → Observe → Analyze → Train Every arrow is automated. Every gate is a hard check. Every observation feeds back into training strategy. Let me show you the actual implementation. The Training Loop class RLFlywheel : def __init__ ( self ): self . model = Model () self . buffer = ReplayBuffer ( 1_000_000 ) self . safety_gate = SafetyGate () self . observer = OnlineObserver () def train_epoch ( self , episodes = 1000 ): for ep in range ( episodes ): states , actions , rewards = self . simulate_episode () self . buffer . store ( states , actions , rewards ) batch = self . buffer . sample ( 256 ) loss = self . model . update ( batch ) # Validate against known failure modes validation_score = self . safety_gate . validate ( self . model ) return loss , validation_score Notice the validation happens during training, not after. That's the first gate. The Safety Gate class SafetyGate : def __init__ ( self , thresholds ): self . thresholds = thre

Several users on social media reported having their Instagram accounts hacked over the weekend. Meta's own support chatbot was blamed for allowing hackers to hijack accounts.

Last week I wrote about why healthcare benefit data is still trapped in PDFs . The response told me something: people in this space know the problem is real. But extraction is only half the story. The harder question is: when an AI system pulls a copay amount from a carrier document, can you prove where that number came from? Not "the AI said so." Not a confidence score with no backing. Can you point to a specific page, a specific table cell, a specific paragraph in the source PDF and say: this value came from here? That is field-level provenance. And in healthcare, it is no longer optional. The Regulatory Floor Just Rose In January 2026, two state laws went into effect that changed the baseline for AI-generated content in healthcare. California SB 942 requires AI systems to disclose when content is AI-generated and to maintain audit trails. Texas HB 149 mandates transparency about AI decision-making processes in regulated industries, with healthcare squarely in scope. These are not theoretical. They are enforceable. And they are just the beginning. CMS transparency mandates tighten every year. Gartner declared digital provenance an enterprise baseline for 2026. The industry is not moving toward provenance. It has arrived. The Problem with Self-Reported Citations Most AI extraction systems today work like this: a language model reads a document, extracts values, and reports where it found them. The model does the extraction AND the citation. It is grading its own homework. This seems fine until you look closer. A language model that hallucinates a copay amount will also hallucinate the page number it came from. The citation and the extraction fail together, silently, in the same direction. In a coverage dispute that ends up in a regulatory proceeding, "the AI told us it found this on page 3" is not evidence. It is hearsay from a statistical model. What Deposition-Grade Provenance Looks Like Field-level provenance means every extracted value carries metadata from an

The company says it needs "significant" water resources to cool its data centers, and that access to abundant, affordable water is a challenge.

After using Claude Code, Codex, and Pi Agent for months, I wondered: how many AI agents are on my machine? I built a scanner. Here's what it found: Framework Active Archived Claude Code 192 191 Codex CLI 37 0 Pi Agent 8 sub-agents 12 scripts MCP Servers 8 - Total 448+ The Waste Duplicate calls : Same prompt → 3 agents (8-18% waste) Overqualified models : Simple tasks on expensive models (15-25% waste) Cache fragmentation : No shared prompt cache (12-20% waste) Zombie agents : Archived still indexed (2-8% waste) → 30-50% of AI API spend is wasted. The Fix AMA — Agent Management Agent bash pip install ama-core && ama scan && ama start Scans all agents across frameworks Smart routing (simple task → cheap model) Lifecycle management Local dashboard at localhost:8765 Free calculator: ama-agent-store.vercel.app/calculator MIT licensed. Feedback welcome!