AI 资讯

Mañana cambia el billing de Copilot: las premium requests dan paso a AI Credits calculados por tokens. Esto es lo que debe revisar un equipo técnico. El 1 de junio de 2026 GitHub Copilot empieza a migrar desde el modelo de premium requests hacia billing por uso con GitHub AI Credits. La unidad deja de ser una petición premium más o menos abstracta y pasa a reflejar consumo de tokens: entrada, salida y tokens cacheados, con precios vinculados al modelo usado. Decisión rápida Qué cambia mañana La idea de GitHub es alinear precio con coste real. Una pregunta rápida a un modelo ligero y una sesión larga de agente sobre varios archivos ya no son equivalentes. Para equipos técnicos, eso obliga a tratar Copilot como infraestructura de IA, no como una extensión de editor de coste fijo. Este artículo complementa la guía previa de AI Credits, pero se centra en el cambio operativo inmediato: qué mirar antes de que el modelo entre en vigor mañana. Briefing Qué es un AI Credit GitHub define AI Credits como una unidad de billing donde 1 AI Credit equivale a 0,01 USD. Cada interacción que usa modelos consume tokens. Esos tokens se valoran según el modelo y se convierten a créditos. En planes individuales, Copilot Pro, Pro+ y Max incluyen asignaciones mensuales de AI Credits. En organizaciones y empresas, cada licencia aporta créditos que se agrupan en un pool compartido a nivel de billing entity. La diferencia clave con el sistema anterior es que el consumo puede variar mucho dentro de una misma función. Dos sesiones de chat no cuestan igual si una es una pregunta corta y otra arrastra contexto de repositorio, varias iteraciones y generación de código extensa. Lectura práctica Qué consume créditos y qué no GitHub documenta que consumen AI Credits funciones como Copilot Chat, Copilot CLI, Copilot cloud agent, Copilot Spaces, Spark y agentes de terceros. Las code completions y Next Edit suggestions no se facturan en AI Credits y siguen incluidas en planes de pago. Esta distinción es

Most multi-agent frameworks for software development organize agents around roles : a product manager agent, a developer agent, a tester agent. ChatDev and MetaGPT pioneered this approach, and it works well for monolithic tasks. But I ran into a wall when I tried to apply it to a real system with multiple independently-deployed services. The Problem with Role-Based Coordination Imagine you have a backend search service and a frontend management console. The backend team implements a new API endpoint. The frontend needs to adapt. In a role-based framework, there's no natural mechanism for this. Both agents are "developers" in the same simulated organization. There's no concept of service boundaries, no versioned contracts, no way to say "the backend changed, and the frontend needs to know exactly what changed." The coordination problem in multi-service development isn't "which role should handle this task" — it's "which service needs to know about this change, and what exactly changed." That reframing led me to build something different. AgentNexus: Coordinating Agents at the Service Granularity AgentNexus is a document exchange center that treats each service as a first-class citizen. Instead of roles, it uses service boundaries as the coordination primitive. Here's how it works: Each service registers as a sub-project with its own document namespace Services publish versioned Markdown documents: requirements, design specs, API docs, config Services subscribe to documents from other services they depend on When a subscribed document changes, the subscriber receives a diff-aware notification containing both the structured diff and the full latest content The whole thing is exposed as an MCP (Model Context Protocol) server running in streamable-HTTP mode, so multiple agents can connect simultaneously from different machines. The Diff-Aware Update Protocol This is the part I'm most proud of. When an agent calls get_my_updates_with_context , it gets back: { "update_id"

Hey everyone 👋 I'm exploring ideas for an AI-powered developer tool, but before building anything, I want to understand the real problems developers face every day. There are already plenty of tools that generate code. What I'm interested in is everything around coding: Debugging Code reviews Technical debt Documentation Dependency upgrades Testing Deployment Architecture decisions Learning large codebases I'd love to hear from you: A few questions: What's the most frustrating part of your workflow? What task takes more time than it should? What's something you wish AI could do for you today? Have current AI tools (ChatGPT, Claude, Cursor, Copilot, Gemini, etc.) failed you in any important way? If you could eliminate one developer headache forever, what would it be? I've also created a short 2-minute survey: 🔗 https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSf1M5d2y-0RXEIhrbDBtS5gC900YuzWl43cJCxGUrU38MyeDQ/viewform?usp=publish-editor I'll happily share the survey results and key findings with the community once I collect enough responses. Thanks in advance for any feedback!

Originally published on rikuq.com . Republished here for Dev.to's readers. The FinOps Foundation Framework is the reference architecture for cloud financial management. It's been maintained by the FinOps Foundation (a Linux Foundation project) since 2018 and has matured into the de facto standard most serious cloud cost work is built on. In 2026 it received a substantial refresh that extended its scope from pure cloud spend to include AI/ML, SaaS, licensing, and broader technology categories. For practitioners thinking about formalising FinOps practice — or evaluating providers who claim to do FinOps — knowing what the Framework actually covers is what separates a real implementation from a marketing label. This post walks through the Framework structure, the 2026 updates, and how it applies specifically to AI/ML spend. I'm Ravi. I run three production AI SaaS solo ( Prism , Citare , BatchWise ) and do advisory work on FinOps via rikuq services . The walkthrough below is what I use when teams ask "what does the FinOps Foundation Framework actually look like in practice?" TL;DR Element What it is Phases Three concurrent operational modes: Inform, Optimize, Operate Principles Six foundational principles guiding all FinOps practice Capabilities The functional areas of activity a FinOps practice covers Personas Engineering, Finance, Procurement, Leadership, Operations, ITAM, Sustainability 2026 additions Executive Strategy Alignment, Technology Categories taxonomy, Converging Disciplines recognition AI/ML extension New Technology Category with specifics on GPU/CPU differential, token pricing, make-vs-buy economics The six foundational principles Before the structural mechanics, the Framework's six principles establish the cultural and operational mindset. They're worth knowing because they're how the Framework's authors test whether something is "really" FinOps or just cloud cost cutting. Teams need to collaborate. Engineering, Finance, Procurement, and Business teams w

Integrations kill product velocity. Every SaaS team knows this. You ship a killer feature, customers love it, then they ask: "Can it sync with Salesforce? What about HubSpot? Zendesk?" Suddenly your roadmap is hostage to building connector after connector. Each one takes 2-3 weeks. Your engineers hate it. Your customers wait. Competitors who solve this faster win deals. The standard response has been iPaaS platforms. They help, but they don't fundamentally change the game. You still need engineers to map fields, handle edge cases, and maintain brittle connections. The real breakthrough isn't just automation , it's making integrations LLM-native from the ground up . What Actually Makes an Integration Layer "AI-Native"? Let's cut through the marketing speak. Every B2B tool now claims to be "AI-powered." Most just added a ChatGPT wrapper to their UI. Real AI-native architecture means three things: 1. LLM-Ready Connectivity via MCP Servers Model Context Protocol (MCP) is Anthropic's standard for connecting LLMs to external data sources. If your integration layer doesn't support MCP servers natively, your AI features will always be bolted on, not built in. MCP servers expose your SaaS data to language models in a structured way. Instead of engineers writing custom API wrappers for every LLM interaction, you get a standardized interface. Claude, GPT-4, and future models can query your integration layer directly. Example: A customer support tool with native MCP integration lets an AI agent pull ticket history from Zendesk, check Stripe subscription status, and update Salesforce records in one conversation flow. No custom code. No brittle middleware. 2. AI-Mapped Data Migration Data migration is where most SaaS deals die. Customer says "we'll switch from ServiceNow to your ITSM if you migrate our 50,000 tickets." Your team estimates 6 weeks. Deal stalls. Traditional migration means: Manual field mapping spreadsheets Custom scripts for data transformation Downtime windows Hi

PostgreSQL LISTEN/NOTIFY for Real-Time Multi-Tenant Events: Ditching Polling and WebSocket Complexity I've shipped real-time features in CitizenApp using three different approaches: naive polling (embarrassing), Redis pub/sub (overkill), and now PostgreSQL's native LISTEN/NOTIFY. The third option is what I should have started with. Most teams reach for Redis or RabbitMQ the moment they need real-time updates. It's the conventional wisdom. But here's the truth: if you're already running PostgreSQL, you have a battle-tested pub/sub system sitting right there. It handles multi-tenancy correctly, scales to thousands of concurrent connections, and eliminates an entire infrastructure dependency—which matters when you're deploying to Render or Vercel where every added service is friction. Why LISTEN/NOTIFY beats the alternatives Polling is dead. HTTP requests every 2-5 seconds for "new notifications"? That's technical debt masquerading as simplicity. It wastes bandwidth, kills your database with unnecessary queries, and users see stale data. Redis is powerful but expensive. Not just in dollars—in operational overhead. You need to manage connection pools, handle failover, monitor memory usage, and keep another service running in production. At CitizenApp's scale (thousands of concurrent tenants), we were paying $50/month for Redis on top of Render just to broadcast notifications that PostgreSQL could handle natively. WebSockets without a broker are a nightmare. If you're running multiple FastAPI workers (and you should be), a WebSocket connection to Worker A doesn't know about events published by Worker B. You need a message broker to fan-out events across processes. Unless you use PostgreSQL LISTEN/NOTIFY, which handles that automatically. PostgreSQL's pub/sub is: Transactional. Notifications only fire after a transaction commits. Tenant-aware. Use channel names like tenant_123_notifications and broadcast only to the right subscribers. Zero extra infrastructure. It's part

Thanks to the newly detailed FROST technique, telltale SSD activity can be measured in the browser using simple JavaScript.

The use of AI Agents creates a distinctive smell... One can tell the GH Repo owner was high on...

One day last October, sitting in the courtyard of his house in China’s Henan province, Dong Hui decided to see if he could hold a pen to write. Dong, 39, had sustained spinal cord injuries in a car accident six years earlier that left him paralyzed from the neck down. Slowly but determinedly, he wrote…

I've been thinking about a specific version of AI-assisted debugging. Not asking which tool is smarter, but asking about the behavior change that would come from removing the context-setup step entirely. Right now I self-select which debugging problems to involve AI on. The threshold is roughly: is this complex enough that the setup cost is worth paying? Copy the relevant code, copy the error, add context about the project structure, ask my question. It takes a few minutes to do well. If the AI could see my IDE directly, no copying, no pasting, just "look at this and tell me what's wrong," I think my threshold would drop significantly. I'd ask about more things. Smaller things. Things I currently just push through myself because they don't seem worth the setup overhead. Whether the answers would be better because the AI sees the actual screen is a separate question. But the behavioral change from removing the friction might matter more than any quality improvement. If AI debugging had zero setup cost, would you use it differently? Or do you think the current copy-paste step is actually useful because it forces you to think through the problem before you ask? submitted by /u/Professional-Peach-3 [link] [留言]

I use Claude a lot for complex problem-solving and Copilot inline in VS Code for quick completions. The difference in actual usage frequency is something I've started noticing. Copilot I use constantly, basically without thinking about it. Claude I use maybe five times a day, and half the time I talk myself out of opening it because I already know what's coming: copy the relevant code, paste it, add context about the project structure and what I was trying to do, explain the error I'm getting, then finally ask the actual question. The friction is small. But it's consistent enough that I default to struggling through something myself, or Googling, instead of opening Claude. The specific case that gets me most is when the problem is visible on screen. I can see the bug. Claude could probably help me solve it faster. But the work of getting what's visible into Claude's context is just enough friction to make me not bother. Is the gap between ""AI embedded in the tool you're working in"" and ""AI in a separate chat window"" meaningful to other developers, or is this a habit thing I should just push through?" submitted by /u/Queasy_Hotel5158 [link] [留言]

Follow this link to ask your questions during our Ask Me Anything session on the European Parliament's subreddit, 02/06 15.00-16.00 CET. submitted by /u/Marty_ol [link] [留言]

AI agents that find, validate, and fix every vulnerability Discussion | Link

I do analysis of automobile dealership data and prepare reports based on the analysis for management review. I’m getting way better analytics and cleaner reports being built by ChatGPT Plus compared to Claude pro. Claude is consuming too many tokens and sometimes for longer documents it used my 100% of the 5 hour limit which is very annoying. ChatGPT on the other hand feels to me that it has unlimited usage for my requirement. What is the view of you people when using AI for business and financial data analytics? Is anyone else finding ChatGPT nicer too? submitted by /u/TurboChargedV12 [link] [留言]

A question for guys who into unusual programming stuff. i been programming for +12 years now .. first few years it was fun trying all sort of things from assembly x86 to neural networks and computer vision but after finishing college few years ago and getting into corporates and the job market .. i been coding only for work as a backend engineer and programming stoped being a hobby anymore .. especially with ai propaganda that is going on right now. now i want to try a completely different part of programming as a hobby again away from web/app/game development or CV and ML something that is useful and somehow low level. i thought about learning CUDA and exploring other aspects now but its hard to find super geeks now to ask after the AI boom. what other fields you guys are into that are fun, complex and unusual? submitted by /u/zeXas_99 [link] [留言]

Hey everyone, We’re building Antitech , a security layer for AI agents and LLM-powered workflows. We’re opening a small number of free early-access assessments for teams/builders working on AI agents. If you give us access to an endpoint of a Dockerized / sandboxed environment of your agent, we’ll test it against common and emerging AI-agent attack vectors, including: Prompt injection Indirect prompt injection Tool abuse Data leakage / exfiltration Fake authority / malicious context Unsafe agent behavior Weak guardrails and policy bypasses In return, you get a free vulnerability report showing what we found, how serious it is, and practical recommendations to harden your agent. This is completely free. No catch. We’re doing this because we want to work closely with real AI-agent builders while shaping the product. Early participants will also get: A big discount once the final product is ready Insider updates while we build Early access to new features The option to become a design partner Priority access to future assessments What we need from you: An endpoint of a sandboxed/Docker environment Permission to test within agreed boundaries A short feedback call after the report We won’t publicly disclose anything without your permission. If you’re building AI agents and want to know how they can be attacked before someone else finds out the hard way, DM me or comment below. submitted by /u/TheAchraf99 [link] [留言]