AI 资讯

You ask an LLM for JSON. You get this: json { "name": "test", "valid": True, "items": [1, 2, markdown Three problems in one response: markdown fences the LLM wasn't supposed to add, True instead of true (Python literal), and the response was cut off mid-array. JSON.parse() throws on all three. A linter tells you what's wrong. But you're left fixing it manually. I kept hitting this wall so often that I built a dedicated repair pipeline: AI JSONMedic . Why existing tools don't cut it JSONLint / JSONFormatter — great for valid-ish JSON with one missing comma. Not built for LLM failure modes: they flag errors but don't repair them. jsonrepair (npm) — solid library, handles many cases. AI JSONMedic actually uses it as a last-resort fallback. But it doesn't tell you what it changed, and doesn't handle all the LLM-specific cases we needed. The 14 failure modes we target Through building this, we catalogued how LLMs specifically break JSON: Markdown fences — ` json wrapping the output Trailing commas — [1, 2, 3,] (the model "runs out" of items but adds one more comma) Python literals — True , False , None instead of true , false , null Single quotes — {'key': 'value'} instead of double quotes Smart quotes — "key" (curly quotes from copy-paste) Unclosed brackets — truncated at max_tokens mid-array or mid-object Unclosed strings — "value without closing Concatenated objects — {"a":1}{"b":2} when streaming produces multiple chunks NDJSON — newline-delimited JSON that needs wrapping Python-style comments — # this is a comment inside JSON JavaScript-style comments — // inline or /* block */ Escaped backslashes — \\n instead of \n Duplicate keys — same key appearing twice (ambiguous — we warn, not silently pick) BOM / encoding issues — UTF-8 BOM at start of response What makes the repair pipeline different Each pass targets one failure mode. The order matters — strip fences first, then normalize quotes, then fix commas, then close truncated structures. Each change is tracked. The

Managing payload cms lexical tables in a content-heavy site means enabling EXPERIMENTAL_TableFeature — but the real trap is the markdown import that strips tables without warning. We lost a whole batch of production blog posts to this exact hole before we found the fix. Here’s why it happens and the step-by-step configuration that keeps your tables intact. The Silent Table Eater: Payload CMS Lexical Tables and Markdown Conversion The default markdown-to-Lexical conversion helper completely ignores your editor’s feature list. So even when you’ve added the table feature to your editor config, every GFM table in imported markdown is silently dropped. Here’s the code that ate our data: import { editorConfigFactory , defaultFeatures } from ' @payloadcms/richtext-lexical ' // ❌ This uses a plain config that doesn’t know about tables const mdConverter = editorConfigFactory . default ({ features : defaultFeatures , }) const lexicalData = mdConverter . parse ( ' # Hello \n\n | A | B | \n |---|---| \n | 1 | 2 | ' ) // result: { root: … } — no table node anywhere The problem: editorConfigFactory.default builds a conversion pipeline from a static feature set, not from your actual editor config. Any experimental or custom feature you’ve wired into the editor simply isn’t there during markdown parsing. Fix It: Wire EXPERIMENTAL_TableFeature Into the Conversion Config Switch to editorConfigFactory.fromFeatures , which actually reads the feature array you provide. Include the table feature alongside the defaults, and the markdown converter will start producing proper Lexical table nodes. import { editorConfigFactory , defaultFeatures , EXPERIMENTAL_TableFeature , } from ' @payloadcms/richtext-lexical ' const mdConverter = editorConfigFactory . fromFeatures ({ features : [... defaultFeatures , EXPERIMENTAL_TableFeature ()], }) Takeaway: You must add EXPERIMENTAL_TableFeature() to both your editor’s features array and to every markdown conversion config. Missing one side silently eat

When you wire up a payload cms live preview , you’re not just plumbing a URL—you’re building a contract between the admin panel and your Next.js App Router. The goal is keystrokes-ago fidelity: editors click Preview, land on your front end, and see exactly what’s in the draft, even when the public site is cached to the hilt. Our implementation at techpotions settled on one preview route, one shared secret, and one shared URL builder. Here’s every decision that made it work. One /next/preview route for the entire site The admin panel’s preview button doesn’t need to know about your page structure. It calls a single /next/preview route with a secret query param and a slug search param that points to the document being previewed. // app/(payload)/next/preview/route.ts import { draftMode } from ' next/headers ' import { redirect } from ' next/navigation ' export async function GET ( request : Request ) { const { searchParams } = new URL ( request . url ) const secret = searchParams . get ( ' secret ' ) const slug = searchParams . get ( ' slug ' ) if ( secret !== process . env . PREVIEW_SECRET ) { return new Response ( ' Invalid token ' , { status : 401 }) } const draft = await draftMode () draft . enable () redirect ( slug ?? ' / ' ) } That’s the entire route. No collection-specific logic, no second-guessing which page type is involved. The redirect lands on the actual page, which reads draftMode().isEnabled and fetches accordingly. This is the pattern the Payload CMS preview documentation expects: a function that resolves to a string with additional URL parameters pointing to your app. The preview-URL builder lives in one shared lib Here’s where most implementations drift apart. The admin config, the preview route, and each page component all need to agree on how a preview URL is constructed. Store that logic in one place—a single getPreviewUrl utility imported everywhere—or you’ll be chasing 404s in production when someone renames a collection slug. // lib/getPreviewU

This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology. China’s AI models have Trump’s AI world at war with itself Last weekend, several current and former advisers to President Donald Trump on AI publicly lobbed insults at the country’s leading…

GitLab has introduced a new approach to Green DevOps, demonstrating how software engineering teams can measure the carbon emissions generated by their CI/CD pipelines. By Craig Risi

It’s a lot : According to information obtained by The Tech , MIT is spending over $3 million on more than 500 AI surveillance cameras in academic buildings, residence halls, and outdoor areas along Memorial Drive. Installation of the new cameras, along with the wiring and infrastructure that will support them, began November 2025 and will likely continue until September 2026. Technical specifications for the cameras suggest that they will be capable of collecting real-time face and object classification data, including detection of motion, loitering, crowds, face masks, and camera tampering. Individuals can also be automatically classified on the basis of clothing color, gender, and age, up to a distance of 35 feet (11 meters) from the camera. According to a statement from MIT spokesperson Kimberly Allen, any collected data is “retained up to 30 days,” unless an exception is granted...

Sony, the only major music label that has yet to sign a deal with Udio, has sued the AI music generator again.

The conversation about AI often centers on algorithms, computing power, or huge investments in new semiconductor fabrication plants and hyperscale data centers. But beneath each of these advances is another layer of innovation that makes them possible: advanced materials. Every new generation of AI technology demands more processing power, more memory, greater energy efficiency, and…

Last month, more than a hundred Stanford students left their own graduation to protest Google’s military contracts and deals with ICE. Two organizers, Amanda Campos and Eva Jones, tell us why.

Recently submitted my abstract and the submission number is 32xxx. With still a day to go, I just wonder where are we heading. Hope these conferences at least start making the reviews and names public for the withdrawn/rejected papers. So that people atleast take that accountability submitted by /u/Fantastic-Nerve-4056 [link] [留言]

Bhavuk Jain discusses translating foundational AI into scalable mobile products. He shares the engineering challenges behind AI Wallpapers and Circle to Search, detailing how to implement robust runtime guardrails, fine-tuning, and seamless OS integration. For engineering leaders, he explains balancing UX constraints with model latency and infrastructure cost to deliver safe, reliable AI. By Bhavuk Jain

How does AI make you feel? Are you excited to “vibe-code” your smart home? Or anxious about all the added pollution and billions of gallons of water used by data centers? Dig a little deeper and you’ll start to question the actual value of the GPUs that underpin all the leaps and promises of generative […]

Yelp has launched Training Orchestrator. This new internal framework replaces individual team Spark training scripts. Now, it uses a configuration-driven, DAG-based execution model. By Claudio Masolo

You have built an AI agent harness. It calls tools, routes requests, and returns results. Your team trusts its telemetry to tell you which tool was selected and why. That trust is a liability. An agent's own logs are self-reported. They tell you what the agent thinks it did, not what actually happened. A hallucinated tool name, a misrouted parameter, a silent fallback to a different function — none of these surface in the agent's own trace. You need an external witness. Here is how to build one. The Problem: Self-Reported Truth Is Not Truth Most teams validate agent behavior by reading the agent's own output. They check the tool_calls field in the response, match it against an expected schema, and call it done. This works until it doesn't. Consider a common failure mode: the agent decides to call search_knowledge_base but the LLM formats the tool name as searchKnowledgeBase . The routing layer silently normalizes it, the call succeeds, and the agent logs search_knowledge_base . Your test passes. The actual execution path was different from what you verified. Another pattern: the agent selects the correct tool but passes a parameter that the tool silently coerces. A date string gets parsed into a different timezone. A user ID gets truncated. The tool returns a result, the agent logs success, and your test never catches the drift. The root cause is the same. You are testing the agent's intent , not its execution . Intent is cheap to fake. Execution leaves fingerprints. The Solution: An External Observer You need a layer that sits between the agent and the tools it calls. This observer records every invocation — tool name, parameters, response, latency — without the agent knowing it is being watched. The observer does not trust the agent's logs. It trusts what it sees on the wire. Here is the architecture at a high level: Intercept every outbound call from the agent to a tool. Record the raw request before any normalization or routing. Compare the recorded call against

How I Built a Full-Stack Quality Skill for AI Coding Agents AI coding agents are getting very good at writing code. But I kept running into the same problem: They can move fast, but without strong project rules they can also create messy architecture, duplicate utilities, inconsistent APIs, weak security checks, and frontend components that slowly drift away from the design system. So I built Full-Stack Quality Skill . It is a reusable AI coding skill for full-stack audits, architecture guidance, long-term project memory, and CI quality gates. Repo: https://github.com/lablnet/full-stack-quality-skill Website: https://skills.lablnet.com Why I Built It When I use AI agents like Cursor, Codex, Claude Code, Antigravity, or similar tools, I do not only want them to "write code". I want them to think like a careful senior engineer: Is the database normalized correctly? Are backend layers clean? Is business logic leaking into controllers? Are frontend components consistent? Are Vue components using composables? Are React components using hooks correctly? Are HTTP methods and status codes right? Is GraphQL safe from N+1 problems? Are security and privacy risks checked? Are tests missing for critical paths? Is documentation still matching the code? That is a lot to remember every time. So instead of repeating the same instructions in prompts, I turned them into a reusable skill. What It Covers The skill includes audit areas for: Database Backend Frontend Mobile HTTP APIs GraphQL Security Privacy Accessibility i18n Analytics Background jobs Infrastructure Testing Performance Observability Delivery / CI Multi-tenancy Payments Notifications Data import/export API compatibility Developer experience AI/LLM safety It also includes examples for common stacks: Node.js / TypeScript Python Django Laravel Java / Spring C# / ASP.NET Core Go Ruby on Rails React Next.js Vue Angular SvelteKit Flutter React Native Kotlin / Android Swift / iOS SQL GraphQL Read-Only Audits by Default One impo

When people think about delays in Building Management System (BMS) projects, they usually blame installation issues, communication failures, or commissioning problems. In reality, many delays begin much earlier. They start during engineering. Before a single controller is installed, engineering teams spend significant time reviewing I/O lists, selecting controllers, designing panels, preparing wiring documentation, planning network architecture, and coordinating procurement. These activities are essential, but they are also repetitive, manual, and prone to errors. As modern buildings become larger and more connected, traditional engineering workflows are struggling to keep up. The Hidden Cost of Manual Engineering A typical BMS project may contain hundreds or even thousands of points: Temperature sensors Humidity sensors Pressure transmitters VFD controls Damper controls Pump status points AHU controls Chiller interfaces Each point must be reviewed, categorized, mapped, documented, and connected to the correct controller. While this process is necessary, it creates a bottleneck that often goes unnoticed. A small mistake in controller sizing or wiring documentation can trigger a chain of revisions, procurement changes, and commissioning delays. The result is a project schedule that slowly expands before installation even begins. Why Traditional Workflows Don't Scale The challenge isn't engineering knowledge. The challenge is repetition. Engineering teams repeatedly perform similar tasks across projects: Reviewing I/O schedules Selecting controllers Allocating points Generating documentation Creating wiring drawings Verifying network configurations As project complexity increases, the amount of repetitive work increases as well. This leads to: Longer engineering cycles Increased project costs More documentation reviews Greater risk of human error The Shift Toward Engineering Automation Many industries have already embraced automation in design and manufacturing. Build

Building AI Agents That Don't Hallucinate: Structured Workflows, Guardrails, and Per-Step Evaluation How we replaced fragile prompt chains with typed schemas, validation gates, and evaluation at every step — 94% task success vs 60% baseline The Prompt Chain Trap January 2024. We built a "research agent" — 12 prompts chained together: Decompose question → 2. Search planning → 3. Execute searches → 4. Extract facts → 5. Synthesize → 6. Fact-check → 7. Format → ... It worked 60% of the time. The other 40%: Step 3 returned malformed JSON → Step 4 crashed Step 5 hallucinated citations → Step 6 missed it Step 7 output wrong format → Downstream consumer failed No visibility into which step failed Debugging meant reading 12 LLM calls' worth of logs. Adding a step broke three others. The Shift: Agents as Typed Workflows We moved from prompt chains to structured workflows with: Pydantic schemas for every step input/output Guardrails that validate and auto-retry Explicit state machine (not implicit chaining) Evaluation harness per step (not just end-to-end) ┌─────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐ │ Decompose │──▶│ Search │──▶│ Extract │──▶│ Synthesize │ │ Question │ │ Planning │ │ Facts │ │ Answer │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ In: Query │ │ In: Plan │ │ In: Results │ │ In: Facts │ │ Out: SubQ[] │ │ Out: Steps │ │ Out: Fact[] │ │ Out: Answer │ └──────┬──────┘ └──────┬──────┘ └──────┬──────┘ └──────┬──────┘ │ │ │ │ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ [Schema] [Schema] [Schema] [Schema] [Guardrail] [Guardrail] [Guardrail] [Guardrail] [Eval: 0.9] [Eval: 0.85] [Eval: 0.9] [Eval: 0.95] Core Abstractions # agent_eval/schemas.py from pydantic import BaseModel , Field from typing import Literal , Any class DecomposeInput ( BaseModel ): user_query : str context : dict = Field ( default_factory = dict ) class DecomposeOutput ( BaseModel ): sub_questions : list [ str ] = Field ( min_length = 1 , max_length = 5 ) requires_tools : bool reasoning : str class PlanInput ( BaseModel ): sub_questions : list [

After spending countless hours designing, coding, debugging, and improving every little detail, I'm excited to share my personal portfolio with the developer community! 🌐 Live Website : https://didulagamage.pages.dev/ I'd Love Your Feedback ❤️ If you have a few minutes, I'd really appreciate it if you could visit my portfolio and share your thoughts. Your feedback helps me become a better developer. Thanks for reading! 🚀

Two posts ago I said I'd shipped code I never read. It's easy to write that as a general observation about the industry. It's less comfortable to go open your own repo and count. So I did. Here's what I found, and what I've actually done about it. The repo It's a desktop app I built for my own company. Roughly fourteen thousand lines of Python, a Tkinter UI, invoicing and documents and reports, the kind of internal tool nobody else will ever see. I had never written Python before I started it. I built it anyway, with a lot of AI help, learning as I went. That combination - no prior experience, heavy AI assistance, a real deadline because the business actually needed the thing - is basically a diff debt factory. I wasn't cutting corners on purpose. I just didn't have the knowledge to evaluate half of what I was merging, and it worked, so I moved on. What I actually found The clearest example took me months to notice. Five different parts of the app generate PDFs. Quotes, proformas, reports, petitions, heat treatment certificates. Every one of them was failing, in different ways, at different times, and I kept fixing them individually. Different error, different module, different patch. The actual cause was one thing: LibreOffice wasn't installed on the machine. Every one of those modules quietly depended on it to do the document conversion. Not one of them said so anywhere. I'd merged that dependency five separate times without ever registering that I'd taken it on. That's diff debt in its purest form. The code wasn't messy. It wasn't badly written. It just made an assumption I'd never read, and I paid interest on it five times over before I understood the principal. There were smaller ones too. A path handling bug that only showed up because my Windows username has a Turkish character in it - the code assumed ASCII and nobody, including me, had thought about it. Two Python versions installed side by side, quietly fighting. A stray quotation mark in my system PATH th