标签：#an

After a rollercoaster negotiation process with the Trump administration that dragged on for two weeks, Anthropic's Mythos 5 is finally back in action - at least, somewhat, for a select group of organizations, according to a letter from the government to Anthropic that was viewed by The Verge. Fable 5, however - the public-facing Mythos-class […]

After weeks of negotiations, the White House permitted Anthropic to restore access to its most advanced AI model for a select group of US companies and government agencies.

We moved off our first tracer in month eight. The migration took one engineer the better part of a sprint, because the trace data lived in a schema we did not own. Nobody costed that line item on day one. I am writing this so you can. I run reliability for a small team shipping LLM features. When the pager goes off at 2am, I do not care which dashboard is prettiest. I care about two numbers: what this tool costs me per month, and what it costs me to leave. Those two numbers are the whole story, and they are almost never on the comparison page. So here are six Langfuse alternatives. For each I tracked both numbers: the monthly bill on the invoice, and the exit bill that only shows up the day you migrate. I compared Helicone, Arize Phoenix, LangSmith, Braintrust, Laminar, and Future AGI traceAI. They all trace LLM calls (prompts, tokens, retrieval spans, latency). The axis that decides your exit cost is whether the trace format is OpenTelemetry-native or a vendor schema. Get that wrong and the migration bill lands later, with interest. The cost nobody puts on the pricing page Your monthly invoice is the visible cost. The exit cost is the invisible one: re-instrumenting the app, rebuilding integrations, and losing historical traces when the schema does not travel. If your spans are OTel, the exit cost trends toward zero because the data is portable by construction. If they are proprietary, you are paying a deferred bill every month you stay. Sort on that first. Helicone. The gateway-first option. You proxy model calls through it and get logging, cost tracking, and analytics with almost no code change. Apache-2.0, self-hostable, roughly 5,800 GitHub stars as of June 2026. On pure observability ergonomics this is one of the strongest picks, and the proxy model means low setup cost. The thing to watch at scale: a gateway in the request path is one more hop to reason about when latency spikes. Arize Phoenix. The open-source OTel option. Tracing plus evals, self-hostable, a

I kept correcting AI agents in the same ways: "too long," "answer first," "use a diagram," "assume I know the jargon." Each correction improved the current exchange, but the preference was not represented as durable system state. I built /calibrate-comms to make that state explicit. It is an open-source skill inside an Obsidian vault, used by both Claude Code and Codex. The model: nine operational dials The skill does not try to discover a personality type. It calibrates nine choices that directly change how an answer is rendered: Dial Practical question Density Tight sections or full reasoning? Sequence Answer first or chronological build-up? Modality Prose or diagrams for relational content? Abstraction Concrete example or principle first? Tradeoff One recommendation or several options? Detail Main path or edge cases too? Jargon Define terms or assume expertise? Tone Casual, neutral, or formal? Context-giving Should the agent extract missing context or split an overloaded brief? Prior → calibration → directives The workflow has three stages: L1 PRIOR → L2 SAMPLE REACTION → COMPILE → CLAUDE.md hypothesis empirical override shared by both agents Quick mode asks one bespoke forced-choice proxy per axis. Those questions are deliberately labelled as proxies, not validated psychometrics. Deep mode must fetch the exact items from supported open-access instruments before use; if the source cannot be obtained, the skill stays in Quick mode and makes no validation claim. The prior is then challenged through pairwise samples. For sequence, the contrast looks like this: Build-up first: We traced the latency spike to N+1 queries, then found lazy loading in a loop—so the fix is eager loading. Answer first: Fix: eager-load the association. Why: lazy loading in a loop caused N+1 queries and the latency spike. The user's pick is revealed preference. If it contradicts the prior, the sample wins. The compiler is the useful part The final profile is not a score report. A deterministi

I'm building LOOM — a small open-source language that is a machine-checked trust layer for AI-written code. I don't write it by hand anymore: an organism I built grows it, day and night, on my own machine. This is Day 6, and the whole day went to one thing — WebAssembly . Why this was a real test LOOM already runs three ways: an interpreter, and backends that compile checked code to Python and JavaScript. The thesis is "trust survives translation" — effects and provenance, proven once, hold the same on every target. WebAssembly is the strongest test of that: a low-level stack machine with linear memory, nothing like Python or JS. And there was a constraint. This machine's clang has no wasm target, and I install nothing paid or heavy. So I don't compile to wasm through a toolchain — I emit the wasm bytes myself (LEB128, the type / function / memory / global / export / code sections, the i32 stack machine) and run them through node's built-in WebAssembly . Zero dependencies. From fib to a value runtime, in a day Every step was prototyped and proven (wasm output == interpreter output) before it touched the kernel: The integer core — arithmetic, comparison, if , first-order calls and recursion. fib(10) becomes 61 bytes of real WebAssembly and returns 55, identically on the interpreter, Python, Node and wasm. A value runtime — let and integer lists in a real linear-memory heap (a bump pointer + a $cons cell allocator; head / tail are i32.load , empty is i32.eqz ). A list sums and folds by recursion, inside wasm. Sum types — (variant Tag e) becomes a tagged cell [tag-id | payload] ; match loads the tag, compares, binds the payload, branches. You can watch it: the live playground has a Compile → WAT button and WASM · fib / list-sum / match examples. Type a program, see it become real assembly, in your browser. Honest scope: ints, let , integer lists and sum types compile to wasm today. Records, closures and effects are the next frontiers (closures are the hard one — a func

As Anthropic tightens restrictions on access to Claude in China, users keep finding new workarounds, from proxy services to fake identities sourced on Telegram.

Russian government lashes out at Apple's "bizarre" decisions.

FCC refuses to provide messages, has "wasted a year" of court's time, filing says.

Malware authors don't make our job easy. Every time we think we've figured out their tricks, they layer on another obfuscation technique, another anti-debugging check, another sandbox evasion. Over the past few weeks, I've been deep in the trenches with some particularly stubborn samples — the kind that detect your debugger, hide their strings behind XOR encoding, and hollow out legitimate processes to hide their payload. This article walks through my hands-on exploration of these techniques. We'll look at how malware detects analysis tools, how it obfuscates its strings, how it unpacks itself in memory, and most importantly — how we can bypass these defenses to see what the malware is actually trying to do. The tools we'll use: x64dbg/x32dbg for dynamic analysis and patching IDA Pro for static disassembly REMnux (Linux toolkit) for string deobfuscation FLOSS, XORSearch, bbcrack for automated string decoding Scylla & OllyDumpEx for dumping unpacked payloads Process Hacker for memory forensics Problem Statement Modern malware is rarely "what you see is what you get." A single executable might be: Packed — the actual malicious code is compressed/encrypted and only revealed at runtime Anti-debug aware — it checks for debuggers and changes behavior or terminates Sandbox-aware — it detects virtualized environments and refuses to execute its payload String-obfuscated — URLs, registry keys, and IOCs are encoded to evade signature detection Process-injecting — it hollows out a legitimate process (like explorer.exe ) and runs its code there Our goal: peel back these layers and extract the real payload for analysis. Exercise 1: Bypassing Debugger Detection in getdown.exe What I Found The first sample, getdown.exe , refused to show any network activity when run inside a debugger. Outside the debugger, it connected to 1.234.27.146:80 . Classic anti-debugging behavior. The Detection Mechanism Using x64dbg, I searched for intermodular calls and immediately spotted IsDebuggerPrese

The hire marks OpenAI's latest push into India, expanding offices, partnerships and hiring.

Preface Link to the repository containing all examples Back when I was at my first class of Data Structures and Algorithms, I started to solve competitive programming questions in judges like CodeForces, I didn't know why my code was slower if my solution was efficient (at least in theory), my professor explain to the class the reason why our programs were slow, because of I/O is an expensive task for computers. To start working with the examples in this article just clone the repository and play with it as long the article explains how to run the code. git clone https://github.com/MiztonCodes/OptimizeIO.git Why std::cout and std::cin are slow? In C++ by default, both std::cin and std::cout streams are synchronized with standard C scanf and printf streams and at the same time every single call to std::cin flushes the std::cout buffer, because std::cin before reading input, wants to output any pending prompt to the user, which can cause performance issues because reading and writing are expensive tasks due to the need to make calls to the operating system, the solution is to disable all of this synchronizations and manually flushing the output buffer whenever it is needed. Note: For convenience in all examples I'll use #include<bits/stdc++.h> header to simplify the imports, this header includes everything we'll need and this header only works on GCC compiler. What is input and output? When you run your program, it is like an isolated box inside your computer, ready to do some work, the input process involves moving raw data from an external source like a keyboard, a file or even the network to your program (reading) , the output process involves moving data from your program to an external destination like a monitor, the console, a file, the network or even an external device (writing) , for both processes your program does not read or write directly to the input and output sources, because each source has its own way to transfer data, C++ provides a uniform interfac

It's "an exciting advance in efforts to restock the antibiotic arsenal."

We know that ICE wants to deploy eyeglasses with facial recognition that can identify people in real time. Turns out Meta is prototyping the feature with a Pentagon supplier. (Alternate news story.)

The lawsuit was connected to a fatal 2023 crash involving a vehicle using the company's advanced driver assistance system known as Full Self-Driving.

Exposed records from the private group included the personal information of a senior White House intelligence official and an active-duty special operations officer.

AI models have progressed to the point where their capabilities have real political consequences. Dealing with those consequences will require collective action.

Peter Diamandis is the latest tech executive to argue that global surveillance will make the world a better place, following Larry Ellison's comments in 2024.

I've compiled a list of the best fitness tech deals this Amazon Prime Day, including smartwatches, walking pads, and recovery gear. You can thank me later.

It's a stretch to think that the continent can build a top-tier model, but it has an advantage: Donald Trump.

Rock weathering may release or draw down carbon dioxide—it depends on the rock.