标签：#discuss

Prompts rot. Captured failures compound. Most of the AI skills you are building are mostly prompt, which is why most of them will not survive the year. Not because the prompts are bad. A skill's value is maybe twenty percent instruction and eighty percent scar tissue, and only that second part lasts. The instruction rots the moment the thing it describes moves. Encode how your team deploys and it works until the pipeline changes. Then you are debugging a prompt at 2am, with less to go on than if you had written the script yourself. So before you build another one, stop asking whether the prompt is good. Ask what the skill is holding onto, and whether that thing sits still. A skill rots at the speed of what it touches A skill rots in proportion to how tightly it is coupled to things that move. Generic scaffolding leans on stable ground like a language or a convention, so it ages slowly. Domain logic wired to a codebase that gets refactored every quarter ages fast, no matter how good the prompt is. The difference is the dependency count. "Write a unit test in this style" depends on a language and a convention. Both barely move. It keeps working for years because nothing under it shifts. Real company-specific procedure is the opposite. File layouts. Service contracts. The one edge case in the billing flow. Each detail you pack in is a thread tied to something that gets refactored. Pack in enough of them and the skill is not a tool anymore. It is a liability with good intentions, and it fails silently, because a stale prompt does not throw. It quietly does the wrong thing. That is what the skill-library pitch gets backwards. Volume is not value. A hundred skills wired to a moving codebase is a hundred things to maintain. The only part that compounds is the scar One part of a skill does not rot. The captured failure. The five-line check you added after a model confidently reported a 41 percent dividend yield. The retry that refuses to fire twice so a flaky webhook cannot

A visual, beginner-friendly Java 25 experiment that explains virtual threads, blocking work, carrier threads, and the production rules that matter.

A while back, when I was still job hunting, building mini-projects, and trying to figure out what I...

Hi — I'm E Lion (Eric), Hawaii-based builder at Coral Crown Solutions . I ship production code on my own domains—not tutorials: elionmusic.com — 400+ promo pages, vinyl-style player UX, Vapi phone agent + OpenAI "Shine" chat (one knowledge base, unified CSV log, webhook follow-up emails) prayerauthority.com — faith-tech at scale; WebM flying angels , SOAP journal, oracle tools Digital Zion — Three.js metaverse + native 3D desk fork + localhost bridge APIs Stack: PHP 8, vanilla JS, webhooks, JSON-LD / Search Console, ElevenLabs, Playwright, Electron (Shine assistant), Cursor pair-programming. Looking for: peers who respect hard integration work (SMTP, CORS, cPanel, webhook auth) and clients who need a real AI front desk or artist/ministry platform. Live demos: coralcrownsolutions.com · elionmusic.com Happy to give honest feedback on your builds—drop a link.

Swap debugging war stories\n\nI have been living in webhook + PHP + email land (Vapi, OpenAI, PHPMailer, CSV logs).\n\nDrop your stack in a comment (even one line). I will reply with the first three places I would look for a silent production failure.\n\nNo sales pitch — trying to meet dev friends who ship unglamorous integration work.\n\nMy builds: elionmusic.com · prayerauthority.com

Not a job application — a peer search .\n\nI ship PHP/JS/AI production sites. People around me cannot relate to webhook failures at 2am.\n\nI want friends who are better coders than me in some layers.\n\nReply with what you are building: https://dev.to/elionreigns/looking-for-dev-friends-who-actually-get-how-much-work-this-is-3m0c

Two Hypotheses In the contemporary discussion about artificial intelligence, two distinct hypotheses intersect and are often conflated. The first hypothesis describes AI as a thin client between intention and result. Historically, a chain of translators existed between a concept and an artifact. A person formulated a task for a programmer, the programmer wrote code, the code became a program. A screenwriter passed an idea to a studio, the studio hired a VFX team, the team produced a film. A composer worked with musicians and a studio to record a track. AI shortens this chain, allowing a result to be obtained directly from a natural language prompt. The second hypothesis is more radical. It asserts that AI washes out not only performers but also apprentices. The main function of many professions was not the production of the current result, but the reproduction of knowledge. A junior was needed not because he is useful today, but because in five years he will become a senior. A student was needed not to create value now, but to become an engineer. A doctoral candidate was needed not for brilliant papers, but to undergo the school of scientific thinking. The Destruction of the Apprenticeship Mechanism The classical model of competence growth was built on review. A junior wrote code, a senior dissected it, extracted the substrate of experience, and transmitted professional intuition. Each review was an act of knowledge transfer. The new model looks different. A person formulates a prompt, AI generates the result. If code of acceptable quality appears immediately, the economic need for a junior declines. Along with it, the mechanism through which knowledge was transmitted disappears. A structural question arises that goes beyond the labor market. Where will the next seniors come from if the intermediate link does not undergo the path of learning through mistakes and reviews. This is a problem of competence reproduction, not simply automation. The Transformation of Educa

This is a submission for the GitHub Finish-Up-A-Thon Challenge I wired edge-context-mode into my own...

A post by Ben Halpern

The fix was one line. if not items: return [] Enter fullscreen mode Exit...

We’ve all been there: staring at a messy medicine cabinet, wondering which box is for allergies and which one expired in 2022. In the world of Computer Vision and AI Healthcare , digitizing physical assets is a classic challenge. Today, we're building a "Medicine Box Expert"—a sophisticated pipeline that uses YOLOv8 for precision detection and OpenAI CLIP for multimodal understanding to turn a pile of pills into a searchable digital database. By the end of this tutorial, you'll understand how to bridge the gap between raw pixels and structured medical data. We are moving beyond simple classification; we are building a robust system capable of handling complex lighting, varied angles, and the tiny typography common in pharmaceutical packaging. The Architecture: A Multi-Stage Vision Pipeline To achieve high accuracy, we don't rely on a single model. Instead, we use a "Detect-Extract-Embed" workflow. graph TD A[User Uploads Image] --> B[YOLOv8: Box Detection] B --> C{Box Found?} C -- Yes --> D[Crop & Preprocess] C -- No --> E[Error: No Box Detected] D --> F[Tesseract OCR: Text Extraction] D --> G[OpenAI CLIP: Visual Embedding] F & G --> H[SQLite Query: Semantic Search] H --> I[Result: Drug Info & Dosage] Prerequisites Before we dive into the code, ensure you have the following tech_stack installed: YOLOv8 : For real-time object detection. OpenAI CLIP : To handle semantic image-text matching. Tesseract OCR : For reading the fine print on the boxes. SQLite : To store and query our medicine metadata. pip install ultralytics transformers torch pytesseract Step 1: Detecting the Medicine Box with YOLOv8 First, we need to locate the medicine box within the frame. A generic YOLOv8 model (like yolov8n.pt ) is surprisingly good at detecting "books" or "cell phones," but for the best results, you should fine-tune it on the Open Images Dataset specifically for "Box" or "Medical Packaging." from ultralytics import YOLO import cv2 # Load the model model = YOLO ( ' yolov8n.pt ' ) def

I just joined DEV to explore the community and get into the habit of writing about what I'm learning. I also set up a blog on Hashnode — figuring out how the two fit together. Here's a quick code block to test formatting: ​ function greet ( name ) { console . log ( `Hello, ${ name } !` ); } greet ( " DEV " ); ​ ``` More to come as I find my way around 👋

Welcome to this week's Top 7, where the DEV editorial team handpicks their favorite posts from the...

AI Agent Guidelines for CS336 at Stanford Meta Description: Discover the official AI Agent Guidelines for CS336 at Stanford — what they cover, why they matter, and how students can navigate them effectively in 2026. TL;DR Stanford's CS336 (Language Models from Scratch) has specific guidelines governing the use of AI agents in coursework. These rules define what's permissible, what's prohibited, and how students should document AI assistance. Whether you're enrolled, curious, or building a similar policy framework, this article breaks down everything you need to know — with practical advice on staying compliant while still learning effectively. Introduction: Why AI Agent Guidelines Matter in Graduate CS Courses Artificial intelligence is no longer just the subject of computer science courses — it's actively reshaping how those courses are taught and completed. Stanford's CS336, one of the most rigorous language model courses in the world, sits at a fascinating crossroads: it teaches students to build large language models from scratch, while simultaneously having to govern how AI tools can be used during that learning process. The AI Agent Guidelines for CS336 at Stanford represent one of the first serious, detailed attempts by a top-tier institution to define the boundaries of AI-assisted work in an advanced ML course. For students, researchers, and educators alike, understanding these guidelines offers a window into the broader conversation about academic integrity in the age of generative AI. What Is CS336 at Stanford? CS336, officially titled Language Models from Scratch , is a graduate-level course offered through Stanford's Computer Science department. It's designed for students who want to go beyond using pre-trained models and actually understand — and implement — the full stack of modern language model development. Core Topics Covered in CS336 Transformer architecture and attention mechanisms Tokenization and vocabulary design Pre-training data pipelines and

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

It took me some time to write this post, but now it says exactly what I wanted to say. When people...

The loop I didn't notice closing Seven weeks ago I started using AI for work. Two weeks after that, I published an article. Seven weeks after that — today — the article is one of sixteen, and they are all in a memory file that the AI reads at the start of every new conversation. I didn't notice the loop until I named it. This is a note about that loop, what it is, what it isn't, and why I keep publishing even though the loop doesn't strictly need me to. The shape It runs like this: I decide what to do. I work it out with the AI — usually in dialogue, sometimes by pasting raw code or data. The dialogue becomes a record. Sometimes a memory entry. Sometimes a published article. The record becomes context for the next conversation, which informs the next decision. It didn't look this clean while it was happening. The numbering is hindsight. From inside, the steps overlap. The first step is the one I keep. Direction is mine: what to build, what to write, what to negotiate. The history that shapes those decisions — twenty-four years of solo work, my company, my family, my health — is also mine. The AI is not setting direction. The second step is where most of the leverage is. I describe what I want to do as completely as I can, sometimes by handing over source code. Then I ask: does this look right? Is there a path I'm missing? Where would this break? I'm opening drawers — possibilities I half-saw in my own head — and checking which ones open cleanly. When one opens cleanly, that is the GO signal. Not "will this succeed" but "this is doable, so do it." The third step happens almost without effort. The conversation already exists as text. Some of it becomes a memory entry I add deliberately. Some of it becomes raw material for an article. The article writes itself partly because I have already explained the thing to the AI. The fourth step is the one that took longest to arrive — and the one I want to be most careful about describing. Three phases, not one The loop didn't

Meme Monday! Today's cover image comes from the last thread. DEV is an inclusive space! Humor in...

Based on real system architecture decisions. About a $660K AI platform, three AI agents that kept the dashboard green, and a P0 incident that cost $3.15M over one weekend. Act 1 · The All-Hands Meeting Wang Lei, VP of Product, stood in front of the big screen, a smile on his face. Behind him, a dashboard rolled data from the "Axon AI Client Engineering Platform — Q1 Performance Report." Numbers cascaded across the wall: Metric Axon Platform Human Team (Last Q1) Improvement Avg daily tickets processed 847 312 +171% Avg first response time 12s 4h 17m ↓ 99.92% Customer satisfaction 4.8/5 4.1/5 +17% Monthly operating cost $52K $133K −61% Twelve department heads sat in the room. Dead silence. Wang Lei planted both hands on the table and scanned the room. His eyes landed on me. "Alex. Your team processed 312 tickets last Q1. Axon processed more than that in a single day last month." He smiled. Not a friendly smile. A sentencing smile. "And Axon costs less than a third of your team's operating expense." "We invested $660K in the whole platform. At current operating costs, it pays for itself in eighteen months." "After management review — the Client Engineering technical liaison function is being fully transitioned to the Axon platform." He clicked to the next slide. "Employees in replaced roles will complete exit interviews within the week." Someone inhaled sharply. I didn't. I opened my notebook to page 37. "Wang, what dimensions are these numbers from?" "What do you mean, 'what dimensions'?" His smile tightened. "Of those 847 daily tickets — how many are auto-tagging and routing, and how many are actual technical resolutions?" The room went quiet for about five seconds. Wang Lei looked at me. "Axon's ticket closure rate is ninety-three percent." "What's the reopen rate?" He paused. "What?" "After Axon replies — how many customers reopen the same ticket within twenty-four hours?" "We're still collecting that —" "Let me save you the trouble." I turned my notebook toward th