今日已更新 241 条资讯 | 累计 29003 条内容
关于我们

AI 资讯

AI人工智能最新资讯、模型发布、研究进展

15320
篇文章

共 15320 篇 · 第 536/766 页

The Verge AI

Echo Isle is a pint-sized adventure inspired by classic Zelda

Echo Isle is heavily inspired by The Legend of Zelda, and it's not afraid to show it: The retro graphics bear a striking resemblance to Link's Awakening, the main character wears a blue tunic and wields a sword, and he navigates dungeons to collect items and keys to fight bosses and gather magical MacGuffins. But […]

Jay Peters 2026-06-13 20:00 👁 9 查看原文 →
The Verge AI

The future of Hollywood isn’t feeding prompts into vanilla gen AI models

For all the noise that's been made about how generative AI is poised to revolutionize the filmmaking industry, there haven't really been any projects created with the technology that felt like the sort of entertainment people would pay to see. Most AI firms' video models are still only capable of churning out short bursts of […]

Charles Pulliam-Moore 2026-06-13 19:00 👁 9 查看原文 →
Reddit r/programming

Analysis of how code duplication changed in recent years (no clear trend)

My methodology and data set didn't show any trend, but it demonstrated a more important issue: how wrongly this kind of research can be done and how misinterpreted the conclusions can be. The reason for making this research was an attempt to verify the claim that AI-assisted development increases code duplication. I analyzed 14 well-maintained open-source projects between 2021-2026, excluding new ones developed only with AI. For duplication detection, I compared semantic similarity using https://github.com/rafal-qa/slopo (I'm the author), not exact copies. This data can't prove or deny the claim, no trend is visible. Not only because 14 projects is too little, but also because there is a large variance between projects. The main advantage of this research is that it highlights the pitfalls in the analysis and conclusions and shows how easy it is to create "evidence" to support any claim. submitted by /u/rafal-kochanowski [link] [留言]

/u/rafal-kochanowski 2026-06-13 18:28 👁 4 查看原文 →
Dev.to

AI should do the implementation. You should own the decisions.

The default for AI-assisted development is one of two failure modes. Either you're babysitting the agent line by line — approving each diff, re-explaining context it dropped three messages ago — or you've handed it the wheel and you're hoping the PR that lands at the end resembles what you asked for. Son of Anton is neither. It's a delivery orchestrator built on a single claim: there are exactly three moments where a developer's judgment is irreplaceable. The orchestrator owns everything in between. The three gates Every project moves through three human decision points. Nothing important happens without you signing off. Gate 01 — Approve the WHAT ( /soa plan ) A grill-me session forces the AI to surface its assumptions, constraints, and scope decisions back to you before a single ticket exists. You say yes or you refine. It does not proceed until you have. Gate 02 — Approve the HOW ( /soa decompose ) The approved plan becomes a ticket stack — ordered, dependency-aware, sized for review. Architectural judgment stays with you. Ticket authorship goes to the agent. Gate 03 — Approve DONE ( /soa closeout ) An adversarial subagent reviews every ticket before its PR opens. When the phase is complete, you decide whether to accept. Closeout squash-merges the stack onto main. Nothing merges without you. Between the gates, you are not needed That's the whole point. Once you've approved the plan and the tickets, the orchestrator runs the loop:

Cesar 2026-06-13 17:59 👁 7 查看原文 →
Dev.to

🚀 Build a Production-Ready E-Commerce Application with React & Modern Frontend Technologies - 2026

Want to learn how modern e-commerce applications are built in real-world companies? In this comprehensive project-based series, we'll build a complete online store from scratch using React and industry-standard tools used by professional frontend developers. Here is a link to a playlist freely uploaded in Youtube: Youtube playlist 🎯 What You'll Build ✅ Advanced Product Listing Page ✅ Search, Filtering, Sorting & Pagination ✅ Product Details & Related Products ✅ Shopping Cart with Persistent State ✅ Secure Stripe Payment Integration ✅ Responsive Mobile-First UI ✅ Dynamic Loading & Error States ✅ Reusable Component Architecture ✅ API Integration & Server State Management ✅ Modern Animations & Interactive Effects ✅ Hero Sliders & Product Carousels ✅ Performance Optimization Techniques ✅ Production-Ready Folder Structure 🛠️ Technologies You'll Learn ⚛️ React 🐻 Zustand for Global State Management 🔄 React Query (TanStack Query) for Server State & Caching 📡 Axios for API Communication 💳 Stripe for Payment Processing 🎨 Chakra UI for Accessible UI Components 🧭 React Router for Client-Side Routing 🎠 Swiper.js for Modern Sliders ✨ Tilt Parallax for Interactive Animations 🟨 JavaScript 💡 Why Build This Project? Most tutorials teach you isolated concepts. This series focuses on building a complete real-world application while applying best practices used in professional development teams. You'll learn: Scalable frontend architecture State management patterns Efficient data fetching strategies Payment gateway integration Component reusability Performance optimization Responsive design principles Production-ready coding practices By the end of this series, you'll have a portfolio-worthy project that demonstrates the skills companies expect from modern React developers. Whether you're a beginner building your first serious project or an experienced developer looking to strengthen your React fundamentals, this series will help you gain practical experience by building something real.

codeek 2026-06-13 17:58 👁 5 查看原文 →
Dev.to

I Reach for Cursor 90% of the Time — Here's the 10% Where Claude Code Wins

Most of the "Cursor vs Claude Code" takes I read are framed wrong. It's not a cage match. They're not competing for the same job — they're good at different jobs, and once that clicked for me, both got more useful. After months of leaning on both for actual day-to-day work (not demos, not toy repos), I've settled into a pretty stable split: Cursor handles about 90% of my coding, and Claude Code handles the 10% that actually moves the needle. Here's where I draw the line, and the rule of thumb that decides it. The 90%: why Cursor owns my day Most coding isn't dramatic. It's small, local, iterative work: tweak this function, rename that, fix the bug in the file I'm already staring at, ask "what does this block do" without breaking focus. That's exactly Cursor's home turf. It lives inside the editor, so I never leave my flow. Inline edits, fast completions, quick questions about the code in front of me — all without context-switching. When the work is local and I want to stay in the loop keystroke by keystroke, an in-editor copilot is the right tool. It keeps me fast and in context, which is most of what a normal coding day actually is. The 10%: where I close the editor and open Claude Code Then there's the other kind of task — the one where I don't want to babysit every edit. Claude Code is terminal-native and agentic. Instead of sitting beside me suggesting the next line, it works more like something I hand a well-described task to and let run across the whole project. That changes what it's good for: Codebase-wide refactors that touch a dozen files at once "Understand this whole repo and do X" type tasks, where the work depends on grasping how everything connects Jobs I want to delegate and step away from , rather than steer line by line The mental model that finally made it stick for me: Cursor is a copilot sitting next to you. Claude Code is more like handing a ticket to a capable teammate and checking the result. Different relationship, different jobs. How I actu

PromptMaster 2026-06-13 17:54 👁 15 查看原文 →
Dev.to

IaC, FdI, IaF: three ways a codebase becomes infrastructure

Published June 17, 2026 by gyorgy Infrastructure used to be something you wrote separately from your application. Lately that boundary has been dissolving, and the vocabulary has not kept up. Three distinct ideas are getting blurred together, partly because they all start from the same place: your code already implies what infrastructure it needs, so why state it twice. They diverge sharply on what they do about that. Here is the short version, then the longer one. The short version Infrastructure as Code (IaC). You describe the infrastructure explicitly, in its own files. The tool turns those files into real resources. Total control, total verbosity, and your infrastructure definition lives apart from your application code. Framework-defined Infrastructure (FdI). The framework infers the infrastructure from your application code, and a managed platform provisions it for you. Almost no configuration, no drift between app and infra, but the inference only covers what the framework exposes, and the resulting infrastructure runs on the platform's rails. Infrastructure as Framework (IaF). The framework reads your applications and generates infrastructure code that you own, deployed into your own cloud accounts. The framework does the inferring, you keep the output and the account. Who writes the infra Who owns the output Where it runs Scope IaC You, by hand You Any cloud Anything you can express FdI The framework The platform The platform What the framework exposes IaF The framework You Your cloud accounts What the framework covers The rest of this is just those three rows, explained. Infrastructure as Code IaC is the established answer. You write declarations, in HCL or a general-purpose language, that spell out the resources you want: this VPC, this load balancer, this database, these IAM bindings. A tool like Terraform or Pulumi reads the declarations and reconciles your cloud to match. The strength is that nothing is hidden. Every resource is something you chose and

gyorgy 2026-06-13 17:53 👁 12 查看原文 →
Dev.to

AI-Native Data Engineering: From ETL Pipelines to Agentic Data Serving

TL;DR Traditional decoupled ETL pipelines (like the "Modern Data Stack") are too brittle and complex to handle the unpredictable, heavily nested data generated by AI and LLM features. Agentic data serving solves this by focusing on dynamic query routing and semantic discovery, letting AI agents discover and query data autonomously using schema-resilient tools and codified business logic. You can build an agentic data stack by pairing S3 storage with DuckDB's native JSON handling and schema-agnostic Parquet reading ( union_by_name=true ), eliminating failure-prone parsing steps. The open Model Context Protocol (MCP) replaces custom, hacky LangChain tools by providing a standard interface for agents to discover schemas and execute queries securely. The open Model Context Protocol (MCP) and DuckDB's embeddable architecture make it practical to connect agents directly to your data with minimal infrastructure overhead and elastic, consumption-based compute. For years, broken ETL jobs powered my pager and my morning coffee. I am a staff engineer, and like many of you, I have spent a ridiculous amount of my career babysitting data pipelines. It is a thankless job that often feels like patching holes in a sinking ship. You are not alone in this. A Forbes survey shows data teams notoriously spend up to 80% of their time just moving and cleaning data instead of doing the interesting work of analysis. And the financial magnitude of this bottleneck is staggering: the ETL market is projected to reach $20.1 billion by 2032 at a 13% CAGR. This proves that massive industry capital is flowing into solving these pipeline bottlenecks, but throwing more money at the same old architecture was not going to save my mornings. This constant firefighting was frustrating, but manageable. Then came the new mandate: build the data backbone for our next-gen AI and LLM-based product features. The unpredictability of the queries and the sheer complexity of the data, nested JSON everywhere, were th

Aditya Somani 2026-06-13 17:52 👁 13 查看原文 →
Dev.to

My AI System Logged 35,669 LLM Calls. It Still Couldn’t Tell Me What They Cost.

CORE had telemetry. That was the comforting part. Every LLM exchange was being logged. Prompt tokens. Completion tokens. Duration. Cognitive role. Model snapshot. Timestamp. Privacy level. Enough information to reconstruct what the system had asked, which model had answered, and how the autonomous loop had used the result. Then I asked the obvious question: What did the last month of LLM work cost? The database had no answer. Not a bad answer. Not an approximate answer. No answer. The cost_estimate column existed. It was even part of the log model. But across 35,669 recorded LLM calls, it was populated exactly zero times. Every row was NULL. That is the kind of bug that looks small until you understand what kind of system CORE is trying to become. CORE is not just a wrapper around LLM calls. It is a governance runtime for AI-assisted software development. The point is not that an AI writes code. The point is that every AI-produced change must be traceable, authorized, constrained, audited, and defensible. So when cost attribution was missing, this was not just a FinOps bug. It was a governance blind spot. The System Could Explain the Work, But Not the Bill The strange thing was that most of the telemetry was already there. CORE knew which cognitive role made the call. It knew whether the call came from an architect, coder, reviewer, coherence analyst, or some other internal role. It knew which model handled the request. It knew the token counts. It knew when the call happened. That meant I could ask questions like: Which cognitive roles are consuming the most tokens? Which models are being used by which part of the system? Which workflows are driving LLM activity? How much autonomous reasoning happened during a given period? But I could not ask: Which cognitive role costs the most? Did routing this role to a stronger model actually change the cost profile? Did a model swap increase operational cost? Is local inference replacing paid inference in the places where it

Dariusz Newecki 2026-06-13 17:45 👁 10 查看原文 →
Dev.to

Shipping an Android podcast player with on-device Whisper — 6 lessons from a Czech indie launch

After a year of nights and weekends, I shipped Lucidcast — an Android podcast player I built because every mainstream app I tried was missing the same three things. The app went live on Google Play this week. This post is for indie devs thinking about shipping their own Android project — six lessons I learned the expensive way. What Lucidcast does (90-second context) A podcast player with on-device AI: Whisper transcribes downloaded episodes locally (audio never leaves the phone) AI episode summaries via Gemini, with a live progress ring "Podcast" wake-word voice commands that work on the lock screen and in Android Auto Smart Pause auto-pauses on loud noises or when someone talks to you Plus the usual: chapters, transcripts, value tags (Podcasting 2.0), 22 languages, Android Auto, live radio, no accounts, no ads. Free includes the full podcast player. Pro one-time unlocks the audio intelligence engine. AI Pack subscription enables Whisper + summaries. Made in EU by a one-person Czech indie team (Prismatic s.r.o.). Play Store | Landing OK, lessons. 1. On-device Whisper is harder than it looks (NDK 29 patch needed) I wanted local transcription so audio doesn't leave the device. whisper_ggml is the only Flutter binding I found that works end-to-end. Catch: it needs Android NDK 29.0.13113456 while most other plugins are still on 27. Setting ndkVersion = "29..." in android/app/build.gradle.kts works for new builds, but the plugin's auto-detected version was sometimes off — needed a small patch script ( flutter/tool/patch_whisper_ggml.sh ) to enforce it during CI. Battery cost is real: I gate transcription to charging-only mode by default with a configurable battery threshold (10-80 %, default 50 %). When the user toggles "transcribe downloaded episodes," I queue the work but only execute when the phone is plugged in. Users on r/podcasts would otherwise notice a 5-10 % overnight battery drain. 2. Sharing the microphone is a contract nobody documents Smart Pause uses noise

Falki 2026-06-13 17:45 👁 10 查看原文 →
HackerNews

Show HN: Paca – Lightweight Jira alternative for human-AI collaboration

I built Paca out of pure passion—a free and lightweight Jira alternative written in Go where humans and AI agents work together as equal teammates to plan sprints and assign tasks to each other. It is fully customizable with custom views, fields, and a WASM-based plugin architecture. My team uses it daily for our own development, so it will be continuously maintained and completely free forever

pikann22 2026-06-13 17:44 👁 2 查看原文 →