标签：#ai

Most web applications contain at least one vulnerability from the OWASP Top 10. A typical security audit takes 2-3 weeks and costs upward of $10,000. An LLM can compress the initial audit down to a few hours because it scans code for patterns rather than specific CVEs. Below are 15 vulnerabilities found while auditing production code with Claude. Each includes the vulnerable code, the fixed version, and a prompt to reproduce the finding. Classification follows OWASP Top 10 (2021). Order reflects frequency of occurrence: most common first. Methodology: how to run an AI security audit The audit consists of three passes. First, a broad scan: the LLM receives the entire project and looks for vulnerability patterns. Second, deep analysis: each identified pattern is verified in context (middleware, ORM, framework). Third, verification: manual review of every finding, because LLMs produce false positives. Prompt for the broad scan: Perform a security audit of this code. For each finding, include: 1. CWE ID and name 2. OWASP Top 10 category 3. Severity (Critical/High/Medium/Low) 4. The vulnerable code snippet 5. Attack vector -- exactly how an attacker would exploit this 6. Fixed code Ignore stylistic comments. Focus on security only. Start with injection attacks, then broken access control, then the rest. This prompt works because it defines the output structure and prioritizes categories. Without explicit instructions, the LLM mixes critical vulnerabilities with remarks about email validation. More on structured AI code review: AI Code Review Checklist . A03:2021 -- Injection 1. SQL Injection via string concatenation The most common finding. Shows up even in projects using an ORM, because developers switch to raw queries for complex filters. Vulnerable code: // API endpoint for user search app . get ( ' /api/users ' , async ( req , res ) => { const { search , sortBy } = req . query ; const query = ` SELECT id, name, email FROM users WHERE name LIKE '% ${ search } %' ORDER

We stopped measuring retrieval quality by how many tokens we could fit into the prompt. When...

I've lost count of how many AI side projects I started and abandoned. The pattern was always the same: a spark of excitement, two weeks of frantic coding, then the slow fade into yet another half-finished repo collecting dust on GitHub. But something changed in the last two months. I shipped three AI-powered MVPs to real users. Not all of them made money, but every single one taught me something about what it actually takes to go from "cool idea" to "working product." Here's what I learned. The brutal truth about AI side projects When I started my first real AI project back in February, I had grand ambitions. I was going to build a content summarizer that would pull articles from any URL, analyze sentiment, and generate Twitter threads. I spent three weeks obsessing over the perfect prompt engineering, containerizing the whole stack with Docker, and setting up a complex pipeline using LangChain and Pinecone. Then I showed it to a friend. "Can I just paste a link?" she asked. I had built an entire orchestration layer, but the input field was buried behind two authentication screens. The project died that weekend. Here's the thing I keep rediscovering: AI side projects fail not because the technology doesn't work, but because we over-engineer before we have users. The three MVPs that actually shipped After that failure, I changed my approach. I decided to ship something—anything—every two weeks. No matter how ugly. No matter how incomplete. The goal was to have a URL someone could visit and use. MVP #1: A dead-simple blog title generator I built this in a single afternoon. The entire frontend was a text box and a button. Backend? A single Node.js endpoint that called OpenAI's API with a prompt like: "Generate 5 catchy blog titles about [topic]." Here's the code that powered it (I've simplified it, but this is the gist): import express from ' express ' ; import OpenAI from ' openai ' ; const app = express (); const openai = new OpenAI ({ apiKey : process . env . OPENAI

We’ve all been there: staring at a stack of printed lab results or a folder full of cryptic report_final_v2_NEW.pdf files, trying to remember if our cholesterol was higher or lower two years ago. For developers, this isn't just a filing problem—it's a data engineering challenge. In the world of healthcare, data is messy, siloed, and often locked in "unstructured" formats. To build a truly personal Electronic Health Record (EHR) system, we need more than just a folder; we need a RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) pipeline that can parse PDFs, map them to the FHIR (Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources) standard, and provide natural language insights. In this guide, we’ll leverage Unstructured.io , Milvus , and DuckDB to turn chaotic medical PDFs into a queryable, structured knowledge base. The Architecture: From Raw Pixels to Structured Insights Before we dive into the code, let’s look at how the data flows from a messy lab report to a structured answer. graph TD A[Unstructured PDF Reports] --> B[Unstructured.io Partitioning] B --> C{Data Split} C -->|Textual Context| D[Milvus Vector DB] C -->|Tabular Data| E[DuckDB Structured Storage] D --> F[LangChain RAG Engine] E --> F G[User Query: Is my glucose trending up?] --> F F --> H[FHIR-Formatted Response] Why this stack? Unstructured.io : The gold standard for handling "ugly" PDFs (tables, headers, and nested lists). Milvus : A high-performance vector database built for scale. DuckDB : Perfect for running complex analytical SQL queries on the extracted "structured" parts of our medical data. FHIR Standard : To ensure our data follows global healthcare interoperability rules. Prerequisites Make sure you have your environment ready: pip install langchain milvus unstructured[pdf] duckdb openai Step 1: Extraction with Unstructured.io Medical PDFs often contain complex tables. Standard PDF parsers usually fail here. We’ll use unstructured to partition the document into logical elements. from unstructured.partition.pdf

You asked your AI to help you plan a trip. It gave you a paragraph about packing layers and booking early. You needed a checklist, a hotel shortlist, a flight window, and a rough daily schedule. What you got was a thoughtful non-answer dressed up as advice. That gap — between what AI tells you and what it could actually do for you — is the gap agentic AI is designed to close. And most people don't know it exists. The Difference Between Answering and Acting Standard AI models are trained to respond. You send a prompt, they generate a reply. The entire interaction lives inside a single text exchange. Agentic AI operates differently. Instead of producing one answer, it takes a goal and breaks it into a sequence of steps — then executes them, one after another, checking its own output along the way. It can look things up, organize information, write to a document, revisit a step if something doesn't look right, and deliver a final result that's actually usable. The travel example makes this concrete. A conversational model tells you to pack a rain jacket. An agentic setup builds you the trip: it pulls destination weather data, generates a packing list specific to your travel dates, identifies hotels in your price range, and drops everything into a structured itinerary. Same goal. Completely different level of output. Author's note: The word "agentic" has been overloaded to the point of meaninglessness in tech marketing. For our purposes here, it means one specific thing — an AI that runs a loop: think, act, observe the result, decide the next action. If it's not doing all four of those things in sequence, it's not really an agent. It's just a chatbot with extra steps. Why This Loop Changes Everything The reason agentic AI feels qualitatively different isn't magic — it's architecture. The core mechanic comes from a framework called ReAct (short for Reasoning and Acting), introduced in a 2023 paper by Yao et al. and now foundational to most production agent systems. The l

Quick answer: The PromptEval Prompt Quality Report scored over 1,000 real prompts across 12 use cases. The average was 52 out of 100, and only 8% reached "good" (75+). The strongest single predictor of a good prompt is whether it defines its output format, worth 27 points on average. In 9 of 10 prompts, the weakest dimension was robustness. This is the PromptEval Prompt Quality Report . Over 1,000 real prompts have been scored on PromptEval , submitted by real users across use cases from customer support to healthcare to code. Each was scored from 0 to 100 on four structural dimensions: clarity, specificity, structure, and robustness. Every figure below comes from that set. No prompt text is stored; the analysis is anonymous and aggregate. Only 8% of the 1,000+ scored prompts reached "good" (75 or higher). Fewer than 1% reached "excellent." Source: PromptEval Prompt Quality Report, 2026 How the scores break down Here is how the scores spread across the set. The bar for "good" is 75, the point where a prompt is clear, specified, and holds up under variation. Score range Share of prompts 0 to 40 (failing) 25% 41 to 60 (below par) 31% 61 to 74 (functional but mediocre) 36% 75 to 84 (good) 8% 85 to 100 (excellent) under 1% Roughly 92% of prompts never reach "good," and almost none reach "excellent." This includes prompts from people who clearly know the tools. The gap is not talent. It is a few missing pieces that repeat. What separates a good prompt from a bad one For each structural element, we compared the average score of prompts that had it against those that did not. These are averages across the set, not a controlled experiment, so read them as correlation. But the gaps were large and consistent. The prompt... Avg with Avg without Point gap Defines the output format 58 31 +27 Has explicit constraints (what not to do) 63 41 +22 Assigns a role or persona 57 42 +15 Includes at least one example 64 51 +13 Prompts that define their output format score 27 points higher

Disclosure: I maintain Lynkr , an open-source router whose design decisions this post explains. The failure modes described are patterns widely reported across router issue trackers and local-LLM forums — the examples are representative reconstructions, not captured transcripts. The problem is real either way; ask anyone who's routed a coding agent to a 7B model. Everyone who gets their first LLM router working does the same thing within the hour: point the expensive coding agent at a free local model and watch the bill drop to zero. Then the agent tries to edit a file. The graveyard of downgraded sessions If you browse the issue tracker of any Claude Code router — or r/LocalLLaMA on any given week — you'll find the same story in a hundred variations. The routing works perfectly. The session dies anyway. The killers, in rough order of frequency: 1. Malformed tool arguments. The agent decides to call Edit , and the model produces arguments that are almost JSON: { "file_path" : "src/auth.js" , "old_string" : "if (token) {" , "new_string" : "if (token && !expired) {" One missing brace. The harness rejects the call, the model retries, produces a different malformation, and you're three turns deep into fixing nothing. Frontier models emit structurally valid tool calls with boring reliability; sub-10B models do it most of the time — and "most of the time," at 30 tool calls per session, means every session breaks. 2. Stale string matching. Edit -style tools require the old_string to match the file exactly. Small models paraphrase from memory instead of quoting — they'll "remember" the line as if (token) { when the file says if (accessToken) { . The edit fails, the model re-reads the file, burns 2,000 tokens, tries again with a different paraphrase. This is the single most reported failure, because it looks like the router's fault and is actually a capability cliff. 3. Hallucinated context. Ask a small model to run tests and it may confidently call Bash with npm test -- --g

A lot of AI memory systems start with the same temptation: "Just save the useful thing." That sounds harmless until the knowledge base becomes a junk drawer. Half the notes are too specific, a few are duplicates, some are obsolete, and nobody knows which ones the agent should trust. In ai-assistant-dot-files , the memory system is deliberately slower. It uses a promotion lifecycle: Capture -> Candidate -> Audit -> Approve -> Index -> Retrieve -> Expire That lifecycle is documented in docs/runbooks/memory-engineering.md , and the important word is not "capture." It is "candidate." Nothing writes directly to memory The framework has a durable memory layer: Knowledge Items in shared/knowledge/ , ADRs in docs/adrs/ , the domain dictionary, team topology, a feature archive, and a registry at shared/memory-registry.json . But a lesson from a delivery does not jump straight into shared/knowledge/ . It first becomes a Candidate Record. That record has required fields: Source Type Evidence Tags Expiration condition Then memory-engineer audits it: Is it reusable? Is it already covered? Is it too speculative? Does it belong as a Knowledge Item, or should it become a rule change, prompt edit, or ADR instead? Only after that does a human approve the destination. The design is intentionally similar to code review. Durable memory changes future behavior, so they deserve a paper trail. Rejection is a feature One of my favorite parts of the memory runbook is that it has explicit rejection rules. Do not promote a memory when it is: a one-off already covered too speculative That makes "zero candidates promoted this cycle" a healthy result, not a failure. This is where memory engineering starts to look less like note-taking and more like gardening. The point is not to preserve every leaf. The point is to keep the soil useful. Expiration matters The lifecycle also includes expiration. A Knowledge Item can become stale when the underlying code, agent, or pattern changes. It can be supers

We deployed a coding agent that hit 94% on the industry benchmark. It failed in production on the first real edge case because the benchmark measured single-turn success and our actual work was multi-turn refinement. The model could not update its beliefs correctly when new evidence arrived, something no single-turn eval would catch. This is not a hypothetical. I have watched agents shine in demo and disintegrate on the messy input that production actually serves. The gap between what we measure and what ships is real, and it is where reliability lives or dies. The benchmark misses the point FutureBench evaluates agents by asking them to predict events that occurred after their training cutoff. This removes the possibility of correct answers coming from memorized training data rather than genuine reasoning. The design matters because it tests whether an agent can reason, not whether it can recall. BayesBench showed that standard LLM evaluations score only final-turn answers in single-turn format, leaving multi-turn belief updating entirely unexamined. Across seven models, scaling improves latent inference and evidence accumulation but LLMs do not match rational Bayesian updating. In production, your agent runs many turns. The benchmark that stops at turn one is not measuring the thing that actually breaks. KINA identified three systematic flaws in knowledge benchmarks: scaling-driven designs that ignore disciplinary representativeness, flat-payment annotation that permits lazy consensus among annotators, and unaudited ranking instability under bounded test budgets. The top model reached 53.17% on an 899-item benchmark across 261 disciplines. That is not saturation. That is headroom. The demo lied I worked with a team that deployed an agentic document processing system. The demo on ten handpicked cases was flawless. The first week of production, it hit an input format the training data never saw, and the system failed silently. No error was raised. The output looked

I spend a lot of time preaching architecture and constraints, so it is always nice when a side project gives me receipts. Adding this new feature to DumbQuestion.ai was a good reminder that a well-structured first version lets you spend your next iteration on value, not repair. Below, you will find a few relatively simple challenges and how thoughtful, upfront design made the changes effortless. To vibe or not to vibe ... Many developers jump right in and just rip out an app, ship fast, let the coding agent sort it out, come back and deal with it later. To be fair, that absolutely can get you to first release faster. But even on a solo project, a little proper SDLC discipline pays back later when you want to extend the product without turning every feature into a rescue mission, which is a theme that already runs through how I have been building DumbQuestion.ai. Extend this to the enterprise and you turn a little upfront effort into potential huge savings on token spend Roasting starup pitches (for sport) ... The core idea for Startup Roast was simple enough: take a startup pitch, roast it, and add a reality-check section so the output is not just mockery for mockery’s sake. To illustrate (and avoid just vaguely describing the feature) I picked a random but highly upvoted pitch from Product Hunt: Vida . Vida, which pitches itself as an “AI clone” that learns how you work, remembers what matters, and becomes a “second you,” with early use cases like Reply Rescue, Prompt Rescue, Resume Rescue, Workspace Cleanup, and Daily Wrap. This is a pretty common target use case of agentic AI making it a solid candidate. If you want to skip ahead, here's an example roast for Vida. Combining a preliminary web "market search" into the content yielded a result that was not just sarcastic, but informed. The roast hit the obvious AI-clone positioning, questioned whether the product was really a clone versus a macro suite, and then turned the market context into a sharper Reality Check

Meta's new AI detector has rate limits for some reason.

The new image-generating model has numerous use cases, including advertising, decorating and creator-based opportunities.

Even though Netflix is the world's most popular paid streaming service, the company has been struggling to keep viewers watching its series after their first seasons. Beef - the streamer's anthology about people locked in feuds - lost 70 percent of its viewership when it returned earlier this year. There seems to be some confusion […]

Two weeks ago one of my outdoor cats bit me. She's fine — healthy, pregnant, and deeply offended that I picked her up, but she needed flea medicine and I needed to confirm the pregnancy. (If anyone wants a kitten, I know a grumpy lady who has some.) My pinky swelled up, and typing went from "mildly error-prone" to "not happening." So I dictated this post. If you've ever looked at raw voice transcription, you know what that produces: one giant unpunctuated block with half the words wrong. My transcript literally claims "AI needed to put flea medicine on her." It was me. That's the kind of thing the AI is cleaning up. The ideas are mine. The argument is mine. The punctuation and clarification belongs to the machine, because the machine is better at punctuation than a transcript is. By the rules of the current discourse, you're now supposed to stop reading. That's the game, right? "Not reading this if it's AI-generated." "It has em dashes — slop." Let's deal with the em dash first, since it's apparently forensic evidence now. You can type one. Shift-Option-hyphen on a Mac. Windows-Shift-hypen on Windows. Writers were littering pages with them for a century before the first transformer shipped. Its little brother the en dash is everywhere too, and nobody has ever accused an en dash of being a robot. The em dash gets singled out for exactly one reason: it's a fast, cheap way to judge a piece of writing without engaging with a single idea in it. Zero effort, instant superiority. Remember that phrase — zero effort. It's coming back. Because real AI slop absolutely exists. Someone fires off one prompt, ships whatever falls out, never reads it, then farms for stars and upvotes. That's slop — not because a model was involved, but because no human was. Effort is the variable. The tool never was. Here's what the other end of the spectrum looks like. Hundreds of hours on a single project. I decide the architecture, the language, how it compiles, how it deploys. I fork the output

Google Vertex AI is Google Cloud's managed ML platform with experiment tracking, training jobs, pipelines, a model registry, and endpoints, but it locks you into GCP-specific APIs and per-use billing. ClearML is an open-source MLOps platform that covers the same ground on any Docker host or Kubernetes cluster, capturing training metrics automatically with no code changes and keeping every byte of data on infrastructure you control. This guide deploys ClearML Server with Docker Compose and Traefik, registers an agent, runs an experiment, builds a pipeline, runs a hyperparameter sweep, and deploys a Triton-served model. By the end, you'll have a self-hosted Vertex AI replacement covering the full ML lifecycle. Vertex AI → ClearML Mapping GCP Vertex AI ClearML Equivalent Purpose Vertex AI Workbench ClearML Web UI Browser-based monitoring and configuration Vertex AI Experiments ClearML Experiment Manager Automatic hyperparameter/metric/artifact tracking Vertex AI Training Job ClearML Agent + Tasks Any machine becomes a remote worker via queues Vertex AI Pipelines ClearML Pipelines Python-native DAGs, no separate compile step Vertex AI Model Registry ClearML Model Repository Versioned models with full lineage Vertex AI Endpoints ClearML Serving (Triton) Self-hosted inference with canary/A-B support Cloud Monitoring/Logging ClearML Scalars/Plots Built-in metrics and hardware dashboards Prerequisite: Ubuntu host with Docker + Compose, DNS A records for app.clearml.example.com , api.clearml.example.com , files.clearml.example.com . NVIDIA Container Toolkit if you'll run GPU agents. Deploy the ClearML Server 1. Raise Elasticsearch's virtual memory limit and restart Docker: $ echo "vm.max_map_count=524288" | sudo tee /etc/sysctl.d/99-clearml.conf $ sudo sysctl --system $ sudo systemctl restart docker 2. Create persistent data directories with the correct ownership: $ sudo mkdir -p /opt/clearml/ { data/elastic_7,data/mongo_4/db,data/mongo_4/configdb,data/redis,data/fileserver,

Starting on August 3rd, Netflix's streaming library will include video content from dozens of digital media brands including BuzzFeed, Condé Nast, Hearst Magazines, People Inc, and Tastemade. As reported earlier by TechCrunch, the deal includes a mix of licensed past videos and new ongoing series that would have typically been published on YouTube or other […]

Have you ever wondered how vector databases like Pinecone, Milvus, Qdrant, or pgvector search through billions of high-dimensional documents in milliseconds? Under the hood, they map semantic concepts into dense numerical vectors, calculate multidimensional cosine similarity angles, and traverse proximity graphs to locate nearest neighbors without scanning the entire database. To help you visualize how vector databases and embeddings actually operate, I built a retro-vector arcade game: 🛰️ Vector Strike: Database Defender Play in Fullscreen Mode (if the embed sizing is tight) 🛠️ Choose Your Database Optimizations Your mission as a Vector Database (VDB) administrator is to configure your query settings and index structures to defend your index nodes: 📏 Similarity Threshold (τ): Tweak the match threshold slider. High thresholds require near-identical semantic matches but protect your index, whereas lower thresholds act like a splash-damage laser but risk matching incorrect clusters. 🪐 Embedding Dimensions (2D $\rightarrow$ 8D $\rightarrow$ 32D): Higher dimensions isolate categories and guarantee precise hits. Lowering dimensions collapses the projection space, causing spatial overlap that results in false deflections and friendly-fire query failures. ⚡ Proximity Indexing (Flat Scan $\rightarrow$ HNSW Graph): Flat Scan: Runs a brute-force linear search over all targets. It causes computation latency spikes as more query objects arrive. HNSW (Hierarchical Navigable Small World): Dynamically builds proximity links between adjacent node targets. The turret traverses vectors along the nearest-neighbor graph, snap-locking onto targets with zero lookup latency. 🧬 Playable ML Concepts Explained Here is how the arcade mechanics map to production vector databases: 1. 🔀 Multidimensional Projections (Dimension collapse) In-Game: You can toggle between 2D, 8D, and 32D space. In 32D space, the categories are cleanly separated. In 2D space, the database collapses, and you'll find sp

Joshua Achiam spent nearly nine years at OpenAI researching AI safety and made a memorable appearance in the Musk v. Altman trial.

The Log Is the Agent AI Engineer World's Fair Coverage Ishaan Sehgal Ishaan Sehgal Ishaan Sehgal Follow for Daily Context Jun 30 The Log Is the Agent # aie # agents # ai 48 reactions 89 comments 5 min read

The new AI model is also powering effects in Stories and image generation in WhatsApp.