今日已更新 308 条资讯 | 累计 38585 条内容
关于我们

标签：#open

找到 2692 篇相关文章

AI 资讯

OpenAI unveils GPT-5.6 amid US AI regulatory drama

Less than 24 hours after news broke that OpenAI would stagger its next model release at the request of the Trump administration, that model, GPT-5.6, is here. On Friday, the company unveiled the limited preview of its new GPT 5.6 model suite: Sol, the flagship; Terra, a medium-tier model for "high-volume work"; and Luna, a […]

2026-06-27 原文 →
AI 资讯

Vercel Introduces Eve, an Open-Source Framework for Building AI Agents

Vercel has released Eve, an open-source framework for building, deploying, and operating AI agents in production. The framework uses a filesystem-based project structure to organize agent instructions, tools, skills, subagents, communication channels, and scheduled tasks, enabling developers to define agent behavior while reducing the amount of supporting infrastructure they need to implement. By Daniel Dominguez

2026-06-27 原文 →
AI 资讯

Anthropic’s Mythos mess is only getting worse

It's been two weeks since Anthropic took its Mythos-class models offline after a Friday evening ultimatum from the Trump administration. The company sprang into action immediately, sending a barrage of executives to Washington, DC. But updates have been suspiciously lacking, with no resolution in sight. Anthropic declined to comment multiple times this week about the […]

2026-06-26 原文 →
AI 资讯

Two Hours of Deliberation

Nine jurors. Two hours of deliberation. Twenty-six claims at the original federal complaint's peak. Three surviving claims at trial. Zero claims surviving the verdict. One hundred fifty billion dollars of maximum disgorgement exposure if the verdict had gone the other way. One hundred thirty billion dollars of OpenAI Foundation equity stake under the October 28, 2025 recapitalization. Thirty-eight million dollars of total Musk contributions per his sworn trial testimony. Forty-four million per the legal complaint. Eight years from the January 2, 2016 Sutskever-Musk "less open / Yup" email exchange to the August 2024 federal filing date. Three years of statute-of-limitations runway on the breach-of-charitable-trust claim; two years on the unjust-enrichment claim. The verdict in Musk v. Altman came in this morning at the federal courthouse on Clay Street in Oakland, before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in the Northern District of California. The companion piece, The Calendar Technicality , makes the doctrinal argument that the procedural dismissal is the substantive determination California charitable-trust law would have produced on the merits as well. This piece takes the same conclusion through the numbers. The dollar-and-time math closed the merits door before the doctrinal door even came into view. Two hours, in context Federal-court civil-trial deliberations on complex commercial cases typically run between one and five days. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts' annual judicial-business reports show median civil-jury deliberation in the multi-day range for cases with three or more issues to resolve and dollar exposure above one billion. The two-hour deliberation in Musk v. Altman is roughly one to two standard deviations below the median for cases of this complexity. The brevity is not a function of jury inattention. The trial ran three weeks. Roughly four hours of testimony came from Altman alone on May 12, with cross-examination opening with Musk's lea

2026-06-26 原文 →
AI 资讯

Asking vs Delegating AI Agents 🧐

Most developers use AI like a smarter Stack Overflow . Type a question. Get an answer. Go do the work yourself . That's fine but it's the slow way 😩 There's a faster mode, and most people haven't switched to it yet. Diff: Asking & Delegating When you ask an AI : "How do I write tests for my auth module?" You get a nice explanation. Then you write the tests yourself. You're still doing the work 🥸 When you delegate to an AI agent: "Write tests for /src/auth.py . Cover login, logout, and invalid token cases. Run them. If any fail, fix the code until they pass. Tell me what you changed." The agent opens your files, writes the tests, runs them, reads the failures, fixes the code, and comes back to you with a working test suite. You review the result. You didn't do the work. That's the shift 🙂‍↔️ It sounds small. The time difference is huge . How to write a good delegation Every delegation that works has four parts . Think of it like giving a task to a new team member: Goal: what should it produce? Scope: which files or area of the codebase? Success condition: how do we know it's done correctly? Report back: tell me what you changed and why. Here's what that looks like in practice: Debugging: "Here's the error and the stack trace. Find the root cause, fix it, and explain what was broken." Why this works: You're not asking what the error means. You're handing over the whole problem, find it, fix it, explain it 😎 Refactoring: "Refactor this file. Max two levels of nesting. No single function longer than 30 lines. Update every call site in the codebase." Why this works: The constraints are clear and checkable . The agent knows exactly when it's done 🧐 Database migration: "Write a migration script for this schema change. Make it idempotent. Run it against a local test database and confirm it succeeds." Why this works: You gave it a way to verify its own work before coming back to you 🤔 PR review: "Read this PR diff. Find anything that could fail in production. Write the tests

2026-06-26 原文 →
AI 资讯

Handling React Dialog Flows with async/await

React dialogs often start simple. You add an isOpen state, then a selected item state, then confirm/cancel callbacks, then another dialog after the first one. Eventually, a simple flow can become scattered across multiple components. For example, a user flow like this: Select a user Confirm the action Add the user often becomes multiple pieces of state: const [ isUserSearchOpen , setIsUserSearchOpen ] = useState ( false ); const [ isConfirmOpen , setIsConfirmOpen ] = useState ( false ); const [ selectedUser , setSelectedUser ] = useState < User | null > ( null ); This works, but the actual flow is harder to read. What if dialogs could be handled as async flows? I wanted the code to read closer to the user flow: const user = await openAsync ( UserSearchDialog ); if ( ! user ) return ; const confirmed = await openAsync ( ConfirmDialog , { title : `Add ${ user . name } ?` , }); if ( confirmed ) { await addUser ( user . id ); } The dialog opens, waits for a result, and the caller continues based on that result. This is about orchestration, not UI This is not meant to replace Radix, MUI, Headless UI, shadcn/ui, or custom dialog components. Those libraries solve the dialog UI problem well. The idea here is to manage the flow around dialogs: opening dialogs from anywhere under a provider resolving typed result values handling nested dialogs distinguishing completed vs dismissed supporting dismissal reasons guarding close behavior with shouldClose So the actual dialog UI can still be your own component. I packaged the pattern I turned this idea into a small open-source library called react-dialog-flow . It provides a headless dialog stack, Promise-based openAsync , typed results, nested dialogs, closeTop , closeAll , dismissal reasons, shouldClose , and optional UI primitives. GitHub: https://github.com/CHOKANGYEOL/react-dialog-flow npm: https://www.npmjs.com/package/react-dialog-flow Docs: https://dialog-flow.kangyeol.com/ It is still early, so I am mainly looking for feed

2026-06-26 原文 →
← 上一页 下一页 →