找到 4004 篇相关文章
After a lengthy legal dispute, Krafton has settled with its subsidiary Unknown Worlds Entertainment, which is developing Subnautica 2, and will pay bonuses to the studio's staff, Bloomberg reports. The dispute began last year after Krafton pushed out Unknown Worlds' cofounders, Charlie Cleveland and Max McGuire, and its CEO, Ted Gill, ahead of a potential […]
"You gods don't speak in ways we understand."
US lifts curbs on Anthropic’s advanced Fable and Mythos models.
These six free settings will not make your project unhackable. Nothing will. What they will do is close the easy doors. Turn these on, and your project will be meaningfully harder to attack than it was before. The post 6 security settings every GitHub maintainer should enable this week appeared first on The GitHub Blog .
A ChatGPT subscription starts at $20 a month and is one of the cheapest ways to run inference. OpenAI has also been fairly relaxed lately about third-party agents using them , which makes the deal even better for a lot of us. But a subscription can't be used as freely as pay-per-token access , and the providers police the difference. Anthropic recently narrowed its subscriptions to first-party apps; OpenAI has its own limits. Here's what will get you banned from an OpenAI subscription. Sharing your subscription A ChatGPT subscription is strictly personal. One subscription, one user. Sharing yours breaks OpenAI's terms of service. That also covers account pooling and account rotation, where several people share the same credentials to dodge rate limits. Running it in automation Automation (CI, runners, schedulers) should run on per-token pricing, not a subscription . Once a system calls the OpenAI API with your token while you're not in the loop, the usage stops being personal. No unattended production system should run on a ChatGPT subscription. Serving other users For now, you can point an autonomous agent like OpenClaw or Hermes at your ChatGPT subscription, as long as it only talks to you. The moment that agent starts chatting with other people, or serving them in any way, it turns into a team use case , and that inference should be paid per usage. Putting it in a commercial product Same logic here. Making an LLM call authenticated with an individual ChatGPT subscription inside a product you ship breaks OpenAI's terms. That access is subsidized, and reselling it in any form isn't what it's meant for. If you've built something just for yourself and you're the only user, you're probably fine. The bottom line A ChatGPT subscription is personal . Anything that stretches past personal use can get you restricted or banned. If you're not sure your usage counts, move it to pay-as-you-go. If you want to keep the subscription for your own work and fall back to per-token pr
Hey DevHunt community! 👋 I'm incredibly excited to launch Scankii! As developers, we are building more and more AI Agents using frameworks like LangChain, OpenHands, and AutoGen. The standard paradigm is giving these agents "skills" or "tools" — which are basically just Python functions combined with Natural Language instructions (prompts or docstrings). But here is the problem: Standard secret scanners (like GitLeaks or TruffleHog) are blind to AI-specific vulnerabilities. They only scan source code for hardcoded secrets. But what if your Python code securely loads an API key, and your English instructions accidentally trick the agent into printing that key to stdout? The agent framework captures that output, injects it into the LLM context window, and your secret is suddenly exposed. We call this Cross-Modal Leakage. Enter Scankii. 🛡️ Scankii solves this by analyzing the intersection of your Natural Language and your code. It uses a dual-engine pipeline (NL Semantic Analyzer + AST Syntax Analyzer) to track variable flows between your prompts and your code sinks. ✨ Core Features: Dual-Engine Scanning: Correlates English instructions with Python ASTs. Local-First & Fast: Your proprietary agent tools and code never leave your machine. CI/CD Ready: Outputs standard SARIF reports. Drop it into GitHub Actions or use it as a pre-commit hook. Framework Agnostic: Works with LangChain, AutoGen, CrewAI, MCP, or any custom python agent framework. I built Scankii to give developers peace of mind when scaling their agent toolchains. Security shouldn't be an afterthought when building autonomous systems. I would love for you to try it out on your agent repos, star the project, and leave any feedback or questions below! I'll be here all day answering them. 👇 GitHub Repository: https://github.com/ashp15205/scankii Installation: pip install scankii
Here is a question that sounds like a trick: can you build an accurate classifier out of models that are barely better than flipping a coin? Surprisingly, yes. That is the whole idea behind boosting, and AdaBoost is the algorithm that made it famous. I built it from scratch and dropped it into an interactive demo — here's how it actually works, real math, no hand-waving. Play with the live version: https://dev48v.infy.uk/ml/day21-adaboost.html The weak learner: a decision stump AdaBoost's building block is the simplest classifier you can imagine: a decision stump . It is a decision tree with exactly one split. Look at one feature, compare it to one threshold, and call everything on one side "+1" and everything on the other side "−1". That's it. One line, one cut. def stump_predict ( X , dim , thresh , polarity ): pred = np . ones ( len ( X )) if polarity == 1 : pred [ X [:, dim ] <= thresh ] = - 1 else : pred [ X [:, dim ] > thresh ] = - 1 return pred On anything that isn't trivially separable, a single stump is hopeless — on a checkerboard layout it barely passes 55-60%. That is exactly why it's a "weak learner": a model that only beats random guessing by a hair. The magic is in how we combine hundreds of them. Sample weights: a moving spotlight The engine of AdaBoost is a weight on every training point that says "how much does getting this one right matter?" Everything starts equal: n = len ( X ) w = np . full ( n , 1.0 / n ) # uniform: every point weighs 1/n These weights are a probability distribution — they sum to 1. After each round they change: points we got right get lighter, points we missed get heavier. Since we always pick the next stump to minimise weighted error, the heavy points end up dominating the search. The next stump is effectively forced to stare at whatever the committee keeps blowing. Weighted error, not a plain count When we hunt for the best stump each round, we don't count mistakes — we add up the weight of the mistakes: def weighted_error
Tree of Thoughts was a genuine leap. Instead of reasoning in one straight line, it branches into several lines, scores them, prunes the dead ends, and searches for the best path — so a puzzle that would sink a single chain of thought becomes solvable. But a tree has one restriction baked right into its shape, and once you see it you can't unsee it: every node has exactly one parent. A branch can be extended or abandoned. It can never be combined with another branch. That matters more than it sounds. Real problems decompose, and when they do, different branches each get part of the answer right. Branch A nails the first half; branch B nails the second half; neither is fully correct on its own. A tree is forced to pick one and throw the other's good half away. Graph of Thoughts (GoT) removes exactly that restriction. 🕸️ Interactive demo (a real merge-sort that branches, merges, and refines — with live-verified scores): https://dev48v.infy.uk/prompt/day21-graph-of-thoughts.html The core idea: thoughts are nodes in a graph GoT reframes reasoning as building a graph . Each vertex is a thought — a partial solution or intermediate result. Each edge is an operation that produced one thought from one or more others. Because it's a general graph and not a tree, a thought is allowed to have several parents, and edges can even loop back on themselves. That single change in the data structure is the entire conceptual leap. Everything else is just the operations you're now free to run on that network. The four operations generate (branch) — the familiar move, straight from Tree of Thoughts. From one thought, produce several different next thoughts. This can also be a split : break the input into independent sub-problems solved on separate branches. Diversity matters here — near-duplicates waste budget. score / rank — turn each thought into a number so the controller can compare them. Objective scorers win: a validator, a test, a metric. In the demo, the scorer is deliberately con
NBCUniversal executives are about to find out whether Peacock will sink or swim in the streaming industry. Now that Comcast is planning to split NBCUniversal, Peacock, and Sky from its broadband and wireless businesses, Peacock will be forced to stand on its own - without the backing of a combined company that pulled in more […]
The future of video game preservation just took a major hit. This morning, Sony announced that, starting in January 2028, the company will no longer produce physical PlayStation discs, which means that from that moment on you can only purchase new PS5 games digitally. At the same time, Sony also announced that it's going to […]
Venice AI is already profitable, with annualized run-rate revenues of over $70 million, CEO Erik Voorhees said.
Google's 24/7 agentic assistant, Gemini Spark, comes to Mac alongside other improvements, like real-time tracking and support for more apps.
Cassie Shum discusses the architectural evolution of GraphRAG and why data foundations are critical for advanced AI workflows. She explains how traditional vector RAG falls short when addressing global context, multi-hop reasoning, and provenance. She shares enterprise strategies for building semantically structured knowledge graphs that shift raw orchestrating logic down to the data layer. By Cassie Shum
Meta is developing plans for a cloud infrastructure business, selling access to AI compute power and models. The move would pit it against the big cloud providers like Amazon Web Services, Google Cloud, and Microsoft Azure.
Contorium is a local-first system that introduces persistent project cognition into AI-assisted development workflows. Instead of treating AI as a tool that operates on code, Contorium treats the project itself as a structured, evolving system. ⸻ 🧠 Problem Modern AI coding workflows suffer from a structural limitation: Even with tools like: Cursor Claude Code MCP-based agents IDE copilots context is still: fragmented session-based non-persistent weakly structured This leads to: repeated explanations, lost reasoning, and architectural drift ⸻ 🧩 Solution: Project Cognitive Runtime (PCR) Contorium introduces a runtime model where project understanding is persistent and structured. ⸻ Core Components ⸻ PIK — Project Intent Kernel PIK defines the system-level intent of a project: primary goal constraints non-goals priority weighting It acts as a stable semantic anchor. ⸻ CIL — Cognitive Interaction Layer CIL captures reasoning: why decisions were made what alternatives were considered how context influenced outcomes It makes reasoning persistent instead of ephemeral. ⸻ Timeline Layer All system changes are recorded as events: code changes AI outputs tool interactions architectural decisions This enables replay and evolution tracking. ⸻ Drift Detection Layer A continuous alignment system compares: current behavior vs PIK intent It detects: intent drift structural drift behavioral drift And produces measurable deviation signals. ⸻ 🔁 System Loop Contorium forms a continuous loop: PIK defines intent Execution produces behavior Timeline records evolution Drift system evaluates alignment Suggestions guide correction This creates a self-regulating project system. ⸻ 🧠 Key Insight Contorium is not an AI coding tool. It is a: Project Cognitive Runtime (PCR) A system where software projects maintain structured intelligence over time. ⸻ 🚀 Why it matters The bottleneck in AI development is no longer capability. It is continuity of understanding across: time tools agents sessions Conto
The goal is to start the day already briefed — not to spend the first hour becoming briefed. What follows isn't groundbreaking. It's just what pushing my own boundaries looks like in practice. The problem As a Tech Lead of a larger team, my mornings used to look something like this: open email, skim through multiple newsletters I subscribed to for staying current on AI and dev topics, switch to Slack, scroll through everything I missed, try to figure out what actually needs my attention, then check what code went into the repo in the last 24 hours. By the time I was done "catching up," a good chunk of the morning was gone. I knew there had to be a better way. Starting with Claude Cowork Claude's desktop app has a feature called Cowork, and within that, you can set up Scheduled tasks — automated tasks that run on a schedule. I set up two that run every morning: Newsletter digest: This one pulls in all the newsletters I received the day before and summarizes them for me, grouped by topic — AI-related first, then dev, then everything else. Instead of opening each email and scanning for what's relevant, I get a curated briefing in seconds. Slack summary: This gives me a full summary of yesterday's Slack conversations across channels, and more importantly, flags what actually needs my attention. No more scrolling through hundreds of messages trying to separate signal from noise. The only downside? The Claude desktop app needs to be open and running for these to kick in. It's not a dealbreaker, but worth knowing. I'll be honest — the idea wasn't entirely mine. When you set up a new Scheduled task in Cowork, a Daily Brief is literally the example they suggest. I just happened to already be poking around with something similar. A lucky coincidence. Taking it a step further with Claude Code One of the hardest parts of leading a larger team is keeping tabs on everything that changes in code. PRs get merged, features get shipped, bugs get fixed — and it's nearly impossible to
We need to have a serious talk about the Model Context Protocol. Everyone is losing their minds over "vibe coding" right now. You plug an MCP server into Cursor, Claude Code, or VS Code, tell the AI to fix a bug across three directories, and go grab a coffee while it spins up local servers, reads files, and executes terminal commands. It feels like absolute magic. But honestly? It's also completely terrifying. Maybe I’m just paranoid, but it seems like we’ve collectively skipped the part where we ask ourselves if giving a statistical text-prediction engine raw, unvetted access to our local machines is a good idea. Some security folks are already warning that we’re walking directly into a massive remote code execution crisis. Think about it. Most MCP servers run as local subprocesses. They inherit your exact user permissions. If you run your editor as an admin or with access to sensitive environment variables, so does the AI. And the real issue isn't that the AI will spontaneously turn evil. The issue is prompt injection. The Security Void in the Hype I spent some time looking through public MCP servers on GitHub recently, and the sheer lack of input validation is wild. Because developers are rushing to build cool tools, basic security hygiene has completely lagged behind. If an AI agent reads an untrusted string—like a malicious comment in a GitHub issue, an automated email, or a dirty record inside a database—it can easily be manipulated into executing an injection payload. The model doesn't know the difference between your system instructions and the data it's processing. It treats them exactly the same. What happens when a prompt injection tricks a standard filesystem MCP tool into looking for a file named ../../../../../../etc/passwd or pulling your private AWS keys? The tool just does it. It’s a classic path traversal vulnerability, except instead of a malicious hacker typing it into a web form, an automated agent is doing it because a piece of text told it to.
By the team at MailTester Ninja — a real-time email verification API that stores nothing. We verify a lot of email for a living. So we pointed our infrastructure at a representative panel of 50,000 of the world's most-linked domains and measured how email is actually configured in 2026 — MX providers, SPF and DMARC. Pure DNS, aggregate only, no personal data . Here's what the internet's mail setup looks like right now. Email is still (almost) everywhere 79.9% of these domains are mail-enabled (they publish MX records). Email isn't going anywhere. Authentication: adopted, but not enforced 75.8% publish an SPF record 64% publish a DMARC record …but only 22.6% actually enforce it with p=reject That last number is the real story. Of the domains that bother to publish DMARC, only 35.2% are on p=reject — the rest sit on p=none (37.2%, monitoring only) or quarantine (27.6%). Most of the web announces a policy it doesn't enforce. That's a deliverability and spoofing gap hiding in plain sight. Who runs the world's inboxes? Other / self-hosted — 32.6% Google Workspace / Gmail — 28.2% Microsoft 365 / Outlook — 22.5% Proofpoint — 5.5% Mimecast — 3.1% Tencent QQ — 2% Namecheap — 1.3% Cisco IronPort — 0.9% Self-hosted and the two hyperscalers (Google Workspace and Microsoft 365) dominate, but the long tail of providers is very real — which is exactly why deliverability is hard: every provider blocks, greylists and reputation-scores differently. Why we publish this We built an open, daily-updated dataset and a live dashboard because deliverability decisions should be based on data, not folklore. It's CC BY 4.0 — use it, cite it, build on it. Want to check a specific domain? Our free analyzer shows any domain's MX / SPF / DMARC in one click — no signup, nothing stored. Methodology: Live DNS scan (MX/SPF/DMARC). Aggregate only — no email sent, no personal data. Sample updated Wed, 01 Jul 2026 12:31:00 GMT.
Exhaust the enemy's strength without fighting. Weaken the strong by nurturing the soft. — The 36 Stratagems, " Wait at Leisure While the Enemy Labors " P flipped the business card over and wrote one letter on the back: P . Then P walked into the conference room. P didn't do opening lines. P doesn't have a name — not yet, not in this series anyway. But if you've read the earlier stories, you'd recognize the signature. The first story — P's own article got flagged as "low quality" by the company's AI moderation system. P dug into the internal API, pulled 347 flagged records — effective accuracy came out to 38%. More false positives than correct identifications. The second story — an AI payment gateway processing $2.8 billion. The CTO backed it with formal verification, claimed it was "mathematically bulletproof." P spent eight months quietly building an adversarial testing pipeline, and proved the gateway would approve illegal transactions. P won both times. P left zero fingerprints both times. After those two jobs, P stopped working for other people. This time, P got brought in as an independent evaluator. Two Companies, One Customer, Zero Questions The customer was a mid-sized industrial IoT firm called FirmCore . Their production-line gear had been running for almost a decade. The monitoring system was going down once a month, and management had finally had enough. They decided to bring in an AI monitoring platform. A good call — right up until they decided to run two vendors through POC at the same time and pick a winner. "We want to see who can actually cover our failure modes," the VP said in the meeting. "We've also brought in an independent evaluator." P was that evaluator. The two AI monitoring companies were MonitorAI and SentryWave . MonitorAI's pre-sales team went first, slides blazing with "99.3% fault coverage, validated across 3 manufacturing customers." SentryWave followed right behind: "99.7% coverage, 7-day deployment" — bigger numbers, bolder font.
It's the end of an era for the PlayStation store on PS3 and PS Vita, with Sony now planning to shut down its digital distribution service on both consoles. The PlayStation store on PS3 will close in select markets later this year, including Mexico, Honduras, and Nicaragua starting in August, with "additional Latin American and […]