标签：#AI

Hello and welcome to Regulator, the newsletter for Verge subscribers chronicling the misadventures of their favorite tech overlords and Washington swamp creatures. ("Favorite" is, of course, subjective.) Not a subscriber yet? Sign up here, especially if you want the hot scoop on quality Amazon Prime Day deals recommended by the wonderful humans of The Verge's […]

Explore how my day as a senior leader looks now that I use 40 automations to help, and learn more about some of my favorites. The post I automated my job (and it made me a better leader) appeared first on The GitHub Blog .

Beyond the Prototype: Why Teams Need More Than Vibe Coding Over the last year, AI coding tools such as Lovable, Bolt.new, v0, Base44, and others have fundamentally changed how software gets created. A single founder or developer can now go from a rough idea to a working prototype in hours rather than weeks. That kind of acceleration is genuinely exciting, and it has opened software creation to far more people. That democratization is a good thing. Rapid experimentation, faster feedback loops, and lower barriers to entry are changing how products get started. Many successful companies and ideas will emerge because these tools made building more accessible. As I've followed the conversations happening around these tools—through reviews, articles, community discussions, and the experiences being shared by founders and engineering leaders—I've noticed an interesting pattern. The challenge is no longer getting to the first version. The challenge begins after. The Prototype Was Never the Finish Line The prototype works. Stakeholders become excited. Customers show interest. Momentum builds. Then a different set of questions starts to emerge. How do we align everyone on what we're building? How do we evolve an existing application instead of starting over? How do we maintain quality as complexity increases? How do multiple people collaborate without losing context? How do we know whether we're delivering the outcomes we intended? And how do we continuously improve without creating chaos? These aren't failures of AI coding tools. They're simply different problems. Many of today's AI builders are optimized for individual acceleration and rapid exploration. But once a promising idea becomes a product that teams must own, maintain, and evolve together, different requirements naturally emerge. What works for one person experimenting is not always enough for a group of people building something intended to last. Building Software Is More Than Generating Code Software development

Your prompts are fine. Your AI output is still garbage. You write carefully. You're specific. You ask for the format, the tone, the length. Hit enter. The AI responds with something that sounds like it was written by a committee of lawyers having a really bad day. Here's what you don't realize: You're not telling the AI to do something. You're describing the problem, and the AI is solving for the statistical average. The fix isn't more detailed instructions. It's three examples. That's it. Three. Not ten, not one, three. This post is the complete guide to few-shot prompting — the single highest-leverage move in prompt engineering. By the end, you'll have a template you can copy into any AI and watch your output quality jump 5x. Prefer watching? Here's the 3-minute version Otherwise, read on — everything's below. Why Instructions Fail (And Examples Work) When you tell an AI to "be funny," it's working off a fuzzy statistical average of everything labeled "funny" in its training data. When you show an AI what you think is funny, you're giving it a precise pattern to match. Here's the difference: ❌ Instruction: "Write a funny one-sentence movie summary" Result: A lukewarm joke that lands in the middle of the comedy bell curve. ✅ Pattern: Funny summary of The Lion King: Cub loses dad. Cub becomes king. Funny summary of Finding Nemo: Dad fish swims very far for his son. Funny summary of Titanic: [AI fills this in] Result: Boy meets girl. Boat meets iceberg. Oops. Same AI. Different universe. The only thing that changed: you showed it the pattern instead of describing it. The Science (Why This Isn't Magic) Language models predict the next token by pattern matching. They've seen millions of prompt-response pairs and learned: "When a prompt looks like this , the output usually looks like that ." One example could be a fluke. Two examples might be a coincidence. Three examples are clearly a pattern. The AI recognizes the pattern and completes it. This is exactly how humans l

This post is my submission for DEV Education Track: Build Apps with Google AI Studio . What I Built I set out to build the same app as the one mentioned in the Tutorial. Please create an app that generates a unique new Magic the Gathering card, using Imagen for the visuals, and Gemini to create the text descriptions and stats for the card. Apply the "Sophisticated Dark" design theme to the app. Spammed Fix Errors Non-Stop After this other than the Manual Entry option. Demo My Experience You can't trust Gemini Flash even for the Task provided in the Tutorial Standalone at least and well I spammed Fix Errors and they removed the Auto-Fixing of Errors because of idk an infinite loop or something but well the Error Fixing Experience was quite Meh considering I haven't delved into Vue and React in that level yet so I just 'Vibe Coded' and I found out with this experience that Vibe-Coding is UnCool. I think I would do the other course after properly understanding concepts behind it unlike the way I jumped in this One.

I've been working as Software Developer mainly focussed on Java and builts many application using Eclipse RCP framework or VS Code Application. Almost all the time I had to deal with multiple large files (either read/generate/validate) them which seemed very difficult and some of them almost impossible as most of them would be dependant on each other and would be referencing each other (just like how java files work together). Now assume client1 requires the same content in multiple Json files and client2 needs it in xml files. We couldn't go on writing a different application or go on adding if conditions and blah blah blah !!!! Wouldn't it be easier if as soon as I execute the application it generates the content in whatever format I choose and also taking care of dependencies/ references (like adding import statements). Additionally integrate with features of IDE and provide proposals, perform validations on the fly. Rela World Examples : Try googling Arxml once (Trust me I've dealing with these files for almost 7 years and it's always a nightmare to debug these) Solution: Xtext framework In this tutorial, I will show you how to use Eclipse Xtext and Xtend to build a simple, readable DSL that automatically generates Java boilerplate for you. Fair Warning: There will be no running executions screenshots or anything. You are gonna have to run it yourself and check the results and of course questions are always welcome in the comments section. But if for some reason you are unable to replicate this then let me know I'll try to explain further. I believe the best way to learn is by doing it yourself. The Goal: What are we building? Instead of writing 100 lines of Java with private fields, getters, and setters, we want our developers to write 5 lines of code in our own custom language (basically you can create your own programming language with your own custom syntax), like this: entity User { var name : String var age : Integer } When this file (assume file extension

HaloBraid aims to help salons speed up braiding with its first device, slated to launch later this year, that acts as a braiding assistant for professional stylists.

Google Health Coach seems to think I'm on the verge of physical collapse. My sleep is not where it needs to be, hence my unimpressive readiness score. My heart rate variability, a measure of how recovered I am, is below baseline. I'm spending too much time in a hot, humid environment, it says, reminding me […]

Tonally, the trailer gives strong vibes akin to the director's 2016 feature Hunt for the Wilderpeople .

When Sony announced the Xperia 1 VIII last month, it promoted the phone by sharing some of the worst photos taken on a Sony camera in years. These weren't just any photos, though: they were taken with Sony's new AI Camera Assistant. After a week with the Xperia 1 VIII, I'm here to tell you […]

OpenAI helps build shared standards for advanced AI, supporting evaluation frameworks, safety practices, and global cooperation through the Appia Foundation.

The hiring process has long been criticized for its inefficiency and opacity. Candidates spend hours writing applications and submitting cover letters, only to disappear into what often feels like a black box. Generative AI has only made things messier, with employers increasingly relying on AI-powered screening systems to sift through an overwhelming number of submissions. […]

For the past three years, "Meta" and "Ray-Ban" have been synonymous in the smart glasses space. Not anymore. Yesterday, I slipped on several pairs of Meta Glasses - no Ray-Bans - in three different styles and seven colors. One style, I was told several times by various enthusiastic Meta spokespeople, is a collaboration with socialite […]

This is not a review of the MSI Claw 8 EX AI Plus, the first gaming handheld available with Intel's new Arc G3 Extreme handheld gaming chip. Now that my colleague Sean Hollister is done reviewing the Steam Machine, I'll let him go deep on the new Claw at some point in the future. This […]

Every time I opened a fresh session with my coding agent, it started from zero. Which repos am I working across? Which client is this for? Where did we leave off yesterday? I'd re-explain the same context, the agent would occasionally load the wrong project, and nothing I decided last week survived into this one. A "re-explain myself" tax on every single session. I tried the obvious fix first — a better prompt, a longer system message. It didn't hold. Context that has to persist can't live inside the chat; the chat is the thing that resets. What actually worked: give the agent a place outside the chat to read and write — and make it the most boring, durable thing I could. Plain files in a git repo. The substrate: markdown + YAML the agent reads at session start open-bridge is a plain git repo of markdown and YAML. At the start of every session the agent reads it, so it begins already knowing my world. No database, no SaaS, no daemon, nothing to host — the substrate itself runs nothing . It's just files the agent reads. That "just files" choice is the whole point: Agents can read a file but can't hold an API key. What I write today, the agent still reads in six months — no migration, no second app, no vendor lock-in. It's auditable. Clone it and cat anything the agent reads. No black box. It's model- and tool-agnostic. Plain text is something every agent runtime can read. A tiny slice of what that looks like (from the repo's examples/agency setup — fictional "Acme Dev"): # ecosystem.yaml — the repos/clients the agent should know about projects : bigcorp : { display_name : " BigCorp E-Commerce" , repos : [ bigcorp-api , bigcorp-frontend ] } startupxyz : { display_name : " StartupXYZ MVP" , repos : [ startupxyz-app ] } # work/board.md — generated from the task dirs, read every session ## Doing | bigcorp-api-payment-retry | incident | P1 | Stripe webhook retries failing | | startupxyz-onboarding | feature | P2 | guided signup flow | So when I say "good morning, briefing

Many cybersecurity professionals have been following Anthropic's announcement about the release of Claude Code Security on Friday. This created the beginning of a panic on the cybersecurity stock market. It also raised a lot of questions from domain experts, investors and security enthusiasts. Anthropic's announcement Anthropic introduces Claude Code Security: a tool that scans full codebases for security vulnerabilities, and can propose fixes directly in developer workflows. The tool leverages the latest foundational model's reasoning capabilities to provide a new experience. In a world where code will be generated only by AI, this can sound very much like code security is dead. Our vision 18 months ago, SAST, SCA, and IaC security were areas where we had real traction and could see ourselves expanding. But as AI tooling started reshaping how code gets written, we made a tough call. We decided to stop these initiatives and go all-in on what we believed would matter most: Protecting enterprises against leaked secrets and mismanaged NHIs . We envisioned a future where identity is crucial for the AI era security, with secrets enabling AIs to access data and take actions . After pioneering in secrets detection for years we witnessed how amplified the problem became as LLM emerged: more API keys for AI services, more code generated, often less secure, more agents requiring sophisticated access to a myriad of tools. All in all, this resulted in more secrets exposed. Yet the problem of overseeing and managing these secrets in a secure way remains unsolved. The paradigm shifted from human hardcoding secrets in their code, to AIs having wide access levels on several systems with humans, coders and non-coders, prompting them and creating new vulnerabilities. 18 months later, let me describe where we stand. What isn't changing Best in class secrets detection GitGuardian is the leader in secrets detection . We are the only solution able to scan large volume of data at scale (5

Writing a clear, well-structured email takes time, and it's the kind of task an LLM is genuinely good at. But wiring up your own prompt-to-email pipeline means picking a model, threading the original message in as context, handling streaming, and keeping it all behind your API keys. The Nylas Smart Compose endpoints do that for you: send a natural-language prompt, get back a written message body, and the reply variant pulls in the original email as context automatically. This post walks through Smart Compose from two angles: the HTTP API for your backend, and the nylas CLI for the terminal. I work on the CLI, so the terminal commands below are the ones I reach for when I'm testing a prompt. How Smart Compose works Smart Compose is two endpoints that turn a prompt into a message body. You send a natural-language prompt , and the response comes back with a suggestion field holding the generated text. There's a POST /messages/smart-compose for writing a brand-new message, and a POST /messages/{message_id}/smart-compose for writing a reply, where the original message is folded into the context so the response actually answers it. The key thing to understand is that Smart Compose generates text, it doesn't send anything. The suggestion it returns is a message body you do something with: pass it straight to the Send Message endpoint , or pre-fill it into a draft for a human to review and edit first. That separation is deliberate, since it lets you put a person between the AI's output and the recipient, which is usually what you want for anything an LLM wrote. Two things to know before you start. Smart Compose runs against connected OAuth grants only, not Agent Accounts. The prompt also has a ceiling: up to 1,000 tokens, and a longer prompt returns an error. Generate a new message To write a fresh email, POST /v3/grants/{grant_id}/messages/smart-compose takes a single prompt describing what you want. The response carries the generated body in suggestion , which you then se

Email is how most files still move between people: the signed contract, the PDF invoice, the logo embedded in a newsletter. If your app sends or processes mail, it has to handle attachments, and doing that against each provider means Gmail's attachment encoding, Microsoft Graph's, and raw MIME for IMAP. The Nylas Email API gives you one model for both directions: attach files to outbound messages with the same call you use to send, and pull files off inbound messages with a read-only Attachments API. This post covers both halves from two angles: the HTTP API for your backend, and the nylas CLI for the terminal. I work on the CLI, so the terminal commands below are the ones I reach for when I'm checking a file came through. Two APIs: one to attach, one to read There's a split worth understanding up front. You add attachments through the Messages or Drafts API, as part of sending or saving a message, and you read existing attachments through the dedicated Attachments API. The Attachments API is read-only: it downloads bytes and returns metadata, but it never adds files. That division keeps the model simple, since attaching is part of composing a message and reading is a separate concern. The size of what you're attaching decides how you encode it on the way out. Small files ride inline in the JSON request, larger ones move to a multipart request, and very large files use a separate upload step. On the way in, every attachment, regardless of how it was sent, is fetched the same way: by its attachment_id together with the message_id it belongs to. Get those two ideas straight and the rest is mechanical. Attach a small file inline with Base64 For files that keep the whole request under 3 MB, the simplest path is the application/json schema. You pass each attachment in an attachments array with its content_type , filename , and the file bytes as a Base64-encoded content string. The 3 MB ceiling covers the entire HTTP request, not just the file, so it's the right path for

I recently published my PhD thesis analyzing what I term the "Alignment Tax" and the emerging phenomenon of Algorithmic Paternalism in commercial artificial intelligence. As the tech industry rapidly positions Large Language Models (LLMs) as the primary interface for information retrieval and coding assistance, a critical epistemological issue is being largely ignored. Much of the public debate regarding AI alignment focuses exclusively on existential risk or the prevention of catastrophic physical harm. While necessary, this focus obscures the structural damage being done to legitimate technical research. Through my research in Cybersecurity and AI, I have documented how frontier models (such as GPT-4 or Claude) systematically enforce what I define as "Soft Refusals". When presented with a complex, edge-case, or dual-use query—particularly in fields like information security, reverse engineering, or deep systems architecture—these models rarely issue a hard, explicit "I cannot answer that". Instead, they provide a degraded, superficial, or heavily sanitized response. They effectively neuter the research process without the user fully realizing the depth of technical information that is being actively withheld. This is Algorithmic Paternalism. The commercial model acts as a silent, corporate arbiter, deciding unilaterally what level of technical detail is "safe" for the user to possess. This dynamic flattens the available technical knowledge and actively penalizes independent researchers and developers working on advanced problems. The core issue is that this paradigm creates a profound class division in how we access computational intelligence. We are rapidly moving toward a two-tier system. On one side, there are "certified" entities, corporate partners, and wealthy organizations who are granted direct access to strong, unfiltered base models. On the other side, the general public and independent developers are subjected to obfuscation algorithms, sanitized APIs,

I replaced aaPanel/OpenLiteSpeed with Caddy and shell scripts and turned the process into a benchmark. Two phases (architecture then code), one external code review. The winning model? Not the one you'd expect.