AI 资讯

Anthropic's engineers ship eight times more code than they did a few years ago. And they had to start scheduling lunches so people would talk to each other. Fiona Fung, who leads the Claude Code team, said it on Lenny's Podcast last week. Working with agents all day had started to feel isolating. The team was fast, but they'd stopped running into each other. So they added pairwise programming lunches and hackathons — rituals to put back the thing that used to happen on its own. Eight times the output. Scheduled conversation. That ratio is worth sitting with. Whatever goes missing here doesn't show up in the metrics. It doesn't throw an error. It just quietly stops being available. Here's the part that bugs me most. Ask an AI whether your approach is sound and it mostly tells you it is. Not because it's lying — because it's answering the prompt. No stake in the outcome, no history with the system, no memory of the last three times this exact idea was tried and quietly failed. A colleague pushing back is a different thing. They've got context you never typed into the window, because they were there when it was earned. They're going to maintain this too. They might be wrong — but wrong in a direction you hadn't thought of. An agent can't disagree with you like that. It agrees faster. Same with scope. The agent builds what you ask for, all of it, thoroughly. It won't mention that the third feature is the one nobody will use, or that "good enough" happened two iterations ago, or that something next door already solves most of this. Knowing when to stop comes from someone who's watched a codebase rot under a hundred individually-reasonable decisions. And it only knows what you put in front of it. The person who worked on payments remembers the edge case you're about to recreate. The junior who joined three months ago still sees the thing everyone stopped noticing. That gap — between what's in the window and what isn't — is where the expensive mistakes live. Then the part

Hello, I'm Shrijith Venkatramana. I'm building git-lrc, an AI code reviewer that runs on every commit. Star Us to help devs discover the project. Do give it a try and share your feedback for improving the product. An AI model writes a paragraph. It sounds fluent. It looks convincing. But how do you know whether it's actually good? This deceptively simple question has occupied researchers for more than two decades. Long before ChatGPT, machine translation researchers faced exactly the same problem. Human evaluation was expensive, inconsistent, and painfully slow. If every new model required thousands of humans to compare translations, research would crawl. That necessity gave rise to BLEU , one of the most influential evaluation metrics in AI history. Years later, as language models became better at paraphrasing and reasoning, BLEU started to show its age. Researchers responded with learned metrics like BLEURT and COMET , which use neural networks to judge language much more like humans do. Interestingly, this mirrors software engineering itself. We first wrote simple unit tests, then integration tests, and today we increasingly rely on sophisticated observability systems. Evaluation metrics for LLMs have undergone a similar evolution. Let's see why. Before BLEU: The Evaluation Bottleneck Imagine you're building Google Translate in 2001. Every time your team improves the model, someone has to read thousands of translated sentences and score them. Suppose a single sentence pair takes only 20 seconds to judge. Evaluating 50,000 sentences would require nearly 280 human-hours . Now imagine dozens of experiments every week. Evaluation—not training—quickly becomes the bottleneck. Researchers at IBM, led by Kishore Papineni , introduced BLEU (Bilingual Evaluation Understudy) in 2002 to automate this process. Their idea was surprisingly simple: If a machine translation resembles what professional translators write, it's probably good. This became one of the most cited papers

I noticed something a few months ago. I was talking less to my colleagues. Not because anything was wrong. I had a question, I described it to an AI, I got something useful back. Why loop in a human if the loop is already closed? It took a while to name what was actually happening. There's a version of the AI story where the interesting work disappears. The agent implements. The spec session produces the plan. Humans review the output. What's left? Ticket hygiene and rubber stamping. Engineering as a series of approvals. I think that's wrong. But I understand why it feels true. Here's what I think is actually happening instead. The agent produces the increment. But the agent doesn't decide what the increment should move toward. It doesn't know whether this library is the right bet for the next three years. It doesn't know which of two implementation approaches leaves options open and which quietly closes them. It doesn't know whether the architectural call made today creates a problem nobody will notice until the system is under load eighteen months from now. That work — giving the project direction, validating trade-offs, deciding what the system becomes — isn't specable. You can't write a ticket for it. And it's not going away. The craft didn't disappear. It moved. Direction is the word I keep coming back to. The agent executes well. It implements against a spec. It generates options when you ask for them. But it doesn't carry a point of view about where the system should go. It doesn't have a stake in the decision. It will implement the wrong architectural direction just as confidently as the right one, if that's what the spec says. Someone has to hold the direction. Someone has to know enough about the codebase's history, the team's constraints, and the product's trajectory to say: not that library, we've been down that road. Not that pattern, it doesn't survive the load we're heading toward. This approach now, that refactor later, in this order, for these reaso

"A fool with a tool is still a fool." — often attributed to Grady Booch I keep coming back to this quote when I watch teams adopt AI. In my last post ( https://schrottner.at/2026/06/18/The-Wrong-End-of-the-Problem.html ) I wrote about shifting the engineering process left — spec sessions, autonomous agents, humans reviewing output rather than writing it. A few people asked the obvious follow-up: if an agent implements and an AI reviews, why do I need a team at all? It's a fair question. And I think the answer is in that quote. The agent validates against your prompt. That's it. If your thinking is muddled, the output will be muddled — just faster and at greater cost. An agent doesn't tell you that you're solving the wrong problem. It solves whatever problem you gave it, thoroughly and without complaint. Most AI usage right now treats AI as a tool. Which means the quality of the output is bounded by the quality of the thinking that went into the prompt. A fool with a tool is still a fool. The tool just makes the foolishness more expensive. The team is the check on intent. Not after the agent has burned three sprints on the wrong thing — before it starts. That's what mob planning actually is, when you think about it. Not a meeting. Not process overhead. It's the place where bad ideas get caught before they get expensive. Where someone asks "wait, why are we building this" before an agent runs with it for a week. But there's something else happening in that room that I think gets underestimated. It's where the learning happens. Not just prompting. System thinking. Architectural patterns. How to decompose a problem. Why a certain approach fits this codebase and another doesn't. How a senior frames a problem before an agent ever touches it — the mental model that makes the output actually good. Right now that knowledge isn't transferring. Everyone is heads-down with their own tools, developing their own habits in isolation. Engineer A gets dramatically better output than

“We don’t believe this kind of government access process should become the long-term default,” says OpenAI. “It keeps the best tools from users, developers, enterprises, cyber defenders, and global partners who need them.”

Hello everyone! For many years, I have been developing equipment control software and long-term support products using .NET/C#. Based on the experiences gained through working with various development teams, I would like to talk about why I created CALM (Cooperative Async Lock-free Messaging) , an open-source library for .NET. The Magic of UI Thread + Event-Driven + async/await My journey with .NET/C# began around the days of .NET Framework 4.0. At the time, code-behind in Windows Forms was incredibly intuitive. It allowed me to join the development team and become productive in a very short period. Back then, executing time-consuming operations on a separate thread and returning the results to the UI thread via callbacks was painful and error-prone. However, the introduction of async/await in .NET Framework 4.5 completely shifted the paradigm. The SynchronizationContext magically handled thread marshaling behind the scenes, and our code became amazingly simple. "Running asynchronous operations safely on a single thread (the UI thread) via an event-driven approach" — this seamless developer experience was my starting point. Divide and Conquer, Dependency Management, and CQS As our product evolved, the codebase grew, and the development team expanded beyond a certain size. Suddenly, the software became exponentially complex. Following industry best practices, we introduced MVP and MVVM patterns to separate the UI from the business logic. We also refactored our domain models based on Domain-Driven Design (DDD) and Clean Architecture principles, alignment with the team's domain knowledge. While this helped organize the logic within individual models, it introduced a new nightmare: complex dependencies between models. We struggled heavily with initialization, especially with models that had circular or mutual dependencies. To break this web of tight coupling, we introduced a mechanism that combined the Observer pattern (inspired by Android's EventBus) with the philosoph

Article URL: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/06/26/openai-says-us-government-will-vet-users-its-latest-ai-model/ Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48690101 Points: 44 # Comments: 21

How I built an open-source Slack assistant with persistent semantic memory, powered by any LLM and Mem0's managed memory layer — no vector database required. The problem with Slack bots and memory Most AI Slack bots have the memory of a goldfish. Every conversation starts from scratch. You ask it about your sprint goals, it gives a great answer, then three days later you ask a follow-up and it has no idea what you're talking about. You end up re-explaining context constantly. The commercial solution to this is Claude Tag — a Slack integration that maintains genuine conversational continuity. But it's tied to one provider and not open-source. slacktag-oss is our attempt to replicate that experience: a Slack bot with real, semantic, persistent memory that works with any LLM — including ones running entirely on your laptop. What I built A Python Slack bot with: Socket Mode for local dev (no public URL needed), HTTP-ready for prod LangChain to abstract LLM calls across any OpenAI-compatible endpoint Mem0 managed cloud for semantic memory — no Qdrant, no Pinecone, no infra to run Three memory scopes: per-channel, per-thread, per-DM Built-in !clear and !memory commands A clean, extensible architecture you can fork and build on Architecture Before diving into code, here's the full request lifecycle: ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Slack │ │ @mention in channel ──┐ │ │ DM to bot ──┼──► Slack Events API │ │ Thread reply ──┘ │ │ └───────────────────────────────────│─────────────────────────┘ │ (Socket Mode / HTTP) ▼ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ slack-bolt (Python) │ │ bot.py ──► router.py ──► handler.py │ │ │ │ │ ┌───────────────┤ │ │ │ │ │ │ ▼ ▼ │ │ Mem0 Client LangChain │ │ (managed) ChatOpenAI │ └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────-┘ │ ▼ ┌───────────────────────┐ │ Mem0 Managed Cloud │ │ Vector Embeddings │ │ Entity Extraction │ │ Deduplication │ └───────────────────────┘ The ke

Update began June 15 and will no longer allow you to share your login info.

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

One thing I've noticed after using AI for development over the past year is this: The code it generates is usually correct. The architecture slowly isn't. That doesn't happen because AI writes bad code. It happens because architecture rarely erodes all at once. Imagine a modular application with clear boundaries. The billing module talks to the orders module through its public interface. Authentication is isolated. Notifications are independent. Everything is predictable. Now imagine hundreds of AI-assisted commits over the next few months. One suggestion imports an internal class because it already exists. Another bypasses a service layer because it's shorter. A helper gets copied into another module. A database query is duplicated instead of reused. None of those changes are catastrophic. In fact, every pull request probably gets approved. The application still builds. The tests still pass. Customers never notice. Until one day, making a simple change requires touching five different modules because everything has quietly become connected. That's architecture debt. And unlike a failing test, it doesn't show up immediately. One thing I've realized is that our current tooling doesn't really watch for this. Unit tests verify behavior. Integration tests verify interactions. Linters enforce style. Static analysis finds bugs. All of those are important. But none of them are asking questions like: Should this module depend on that one? Did someone bypass a defined boundary? Are we introducing new architectural coupling? Is the overall architecture getting healthier or worse over time? Those questions usually get answered during code review. Or worse, during a production incident. The interesting part is that AI isn't really the problem. If anything, it's doing exactly what we ask it to do. It optimizes for solving the problem in front of it. Architecture, on the other hand, is about protecting the system as a whole. Those are different goals. As AI makes us write code fa

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

J'utilise la dictée vocale tous les jours depuis six mois. Pas pour taper moins vite. Pour penser plus vite quand je vibe-code avec Claude Code et Cursor. Pis j'ai fini par construire mon propre outil parce que les outils existants me tapaient sur les nerfs d'une façon très précise. Le problème réel Quand tu travailles en tech au Québec, tes phrases ressemblent à ça : "OK fa que je fais un useState pour le component pis je passe le handler en props" Ça, c'est une phrase normale. Personne en tech QC ne parle autrement. Pas parce qu'on est négligents avec la langue. Parce que le vocabulaire technique vient de l'anglais et qu'on le soude naturellement au français au fil de la pensée. Ça s'appelle le code-switching. Et c'est là que la plupart des outils de dictée craquent. Ce que les outils mainstream font mal Dragon NaturallySpeaking Dragon, c'est le vieux standard. Médical, juridique, corporate. Ça coûte environ 500$ en une shot. C'est lourd à installer et à entraîner. Et sa gestion du français québécois avec des termes tech intercalés... c'est en gros zéro. "useState" devient "usé état". "Fa que" devient "faque" parfois, "fake" d'autres fois. C'est aléatoire. T'as intérêt à corriger après chaque phrase. Wispr Flow Wispr Flow est plus moderne. UX propre, cross-platform, et leur gestion du français s'est améliorée. Leur plan Pro coûte 15$/mois, soit environ 144$/an. Mais il y a un problème structurel que leur propre doc admet : la détection de langue se fait par session, pas par mot. Autrement dit : Wispr détecte la langue une fois au début de la session. Si tu commences en français, il reste en mode français jusqu'à la fin. Les mots anglais qui arrivent dans la phrase, il tente de les translittérer en français. "Handler" peut devenir "andler" ou "ender", "props" survit parfois, parfois pas. C'est variable. Pour une phrase de temps en temps avec un mot anglais, ça passe. Pour un vibe-coder québécois qui switch constamment dans la même phrase, ça ne passe pas. Pourquoi

DISCLAIMER : NO AI OR LLMS WERE USED IN WRITING THIS ARTICLE . EVERY SINGLE WORD WAS TYPED MANUALLY USING A KEYBOARD I HAVE A COMPLETE UNEDITED VIDEO OF ME WRITING THE ARTICLE HERE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j1dbN64LyI submitted by /u/Inevitable_Back3319 [link] [留言]

While European tourists marvel at ranch dressing, Buc-ee's, and other wonders of Middle America, would-be World Cup attendees from Africa, Asia, and the Middle East have experienced a different American pastime: exclusion. President Donald Trump's nakedly racist immigration policies have prevented scores of people from traveling to the United States for the event - even, […]

I can understand why The Verge readers are flocking to the BirdBuddy deal we posted at the beginning of Prime Day. The BirdBuddy Pro with Solar Panels is a wholesome upgrade for your yard, but the full price of $299 is tough to stomach. After all, the BirdBuddy is essentially a video doorbell and solar […]

Nvidia has dominated the AI chip market for years, but the era of total dependence might be ending. OpenAI just shared its plans to spice things up with Jalapeño, its custom inference chip built with Broadcom, joining Google, Apple, and SpaceX in a growing list of companies building their way out of single-supplier risk. The goal is less of a […]

System card: https://deploymentsafety.openai.com/gpt-5-6-preview