标签：#AI

Anthropic was already navigating one dispute with the government in its standoff with the Pentagon, and then came an order on June 12th to block off foreign access to its most recently released AI models, Fable 5 and Mythos 5. When they launched on June 9th, Anthropic said “Fable 5’s capabilities exceed those of any […]

This is an adapted excerpt from a guide in my AI Knowledge Hub. The full interactive version is linked at the end. Agentic design patterns are named control structures for arranging LLM calls and tools. This post gives you the decision rule for picking one, the exact shape of each pattern, and the cost each adds — so you can match a task to the minimum structure that solves it. Everything here is model-agnostic and grounded in Anthropic's Building Effective Agents and the Claude Agent SDK. Workflow vs. agent: the split that decides everything Anthropic divides all agentic systems into two categories, and the split decides every downstream tradeoff: Category Definition Control lives in Use when Workflow LLMs and tools orchestrated through predefined code paths Your code You can pre-map the decision tree; want accuracy, control, lower cost Agent LLMs dynamically direct their own processes and tool usage , maintaining control over how they accomplish tasks The model Open-ended task where you can't predict the number of steps Every pattern composes one unit: the augmented LLM — an LLM enhanced with retrieval, tools, and memory. It generates its own search queries, selects tools, and decides what to retain. If a single augmented LLM call solves the task, stop — no pattern required. The escalation rule is the whole game: find "the simplest solution possible, and only increasing complexity when needed" — which "might mean not building agentic systems at all." Agentic systems trade latency and cost for better task performance, so only escalate when a specific failure mode forces it. The agent loop: gather → act → verify → repeat For open-ended tasks, every agent runs the same four-beat loop: Gather context — read files, run agentic search ( grep / find / tail to pull relevant slices instead of whole files), or delegate to subagents with isolated context windows. Take action — execute via tools: bash, code generation, file edits, MCP servers. Verify work — check the result b

A connected Gmail grant starts with an OAuth consent screen and ends with a refresh token you have to babysit; a Nylas Agent Account starts and ends with one POST request. Same API surface afterward — same messages endpoints, same webhooks, same calendar — but the provisioning story couldn't be more different, and that difference is what makes these hosted mailboxes such a natural fit for Python automation, agents, and test harnesses. Agent Accounts are in beta, and the official quickstart gets you from nothing to a sending-and-receiving mailbox in under 5 minutes using curl. Here's the whole flow as a Python script. Step 0: prerequisites You need an API key (run nylas init with the CLI, or use the Dashboard) and a domain. The fast path for testing: register a *.nylas.email trial subdomain from the Dashboard — no DNS records, instantly usable. Custom domains need MX and TXT records published at your DNS provider, with automatic verification once they propagate; save that for production. import os import requests BASE = " https://api.us.nylas.com " HEADERS = { " Authorization " : f " Bearer { os . environ [ ' NYLAS_API_KEY ' ] } " , " Content-Type " : " application/json " , } Step 1: provision the account POST /v3/connect/custom with "provider": "nylas" . No refresh token — just an email address on a registered domain: resp = requests . post ( f " { BASE } /v3/connect/custom " , headers = HEADERS , json = { " provider " : " nylas " , " settings " : { " email " : " test@your-application.nylas.email " }, }, ) resp . raise_for_status () grant_id = resp . json ()[ " data " ][ " id " ] print ( f " Agent Account live: { grant_id } " ) Save that grant_id — per the docs, you'll use it in every subsequent call. The mailbox works with every existing endpoint from this moment on. If you want policies or mail rules applied, add a top-level workspace_id to the same request body; the account inherits the workspace's limits, spam settings, and rules. Omit it and the account lands i

Provisioning a working email mailbox from Node.js takes less code than the average OAuth callback handler. No consent screen, no token refresh job, no provider SDK — one fetch call returns a grant ID, and from there the mailbox sends, receives, and RSVPs to calendar invites. That's the pitch for Nylas Agent Accounts , hosted email-and-calendar identities you control entirely through the API. They're in beta, and the official quickstart promises a working account in under 5 minutes. The docs show it in curl; here's the same flow in JavaScript. What you need Two things: an API key, and a registered domain for the mailbox to live on. For testing, the zero-DNS path is a *.nylas.email trial subdomain registered from the Dashboard — addresses like test@your-application.nylas.email work immediately. For production you'd register your own domain (the Dashboard generates the MX and TXT records to publish, and verification is automatic once they propagate), but the trial domain is fine for this walkthrough. export NYLAS_API_KEY = "nyk_..." Create the mailbox The endpoint is POST /v3/connect/custom — the same Bring Your Own Auth route used for other providers — with "provider": "nylas" . Unlike OAuth providers, there's no refresh token in the body; just the address: const BASE = " https://api.us.nylas.com " ; const headers = { Authorization : `Bearer ${ process . env . NYLAS_API_KEY } ` , " Content-Type " : " application/json " , }; const res = await fetch ( ` ${ BASE } /v3/connect/custom` , { method : " POST " , headers , body : JSON . stringify ({ provider : " nylas " , settings : { email : " test@your-application.nylas.email " }, }), }); const { data } = await res . json (); const grantId = data . id ; // save this — every later call needs it That grantId is the whole handle. The mailbox behind it is live as soon as the response comes back, and it works with every existing endpoint — messages, drafts, folders, calendars, events, webhooks. One optional field deserves a menti

Anyone who's wired an autonomous agent into email and calendar the traditional way knows the identifier sprawl: an OAuth client ID, a refresh token per user, a Gmail-specific message ID format, a Microsoft Graph calendar ID, and a webhook subscription ID for each — all with different lifetimes, all able to break independently. Half your "integration" code is really identifier bookkeeping. Nylas Agent Accounts collapse all of that into one value. When you create an account (the feature's in beta), the response hands you a grant_id , and that single string is the handle for everything the agent does — mail, calendar, contacts, attachments, and the webhooks reporting on all of them. One ID, the whole surface Every operation addresses the same path family, /v3/grants/{grant_id}/* : POST /v3/grants/{grant_id}/messages/send # send mail GET /v3/grants/{grant_id}/messages # read the inbox GET /v3/grants/{grant_id}/threads/{thread_id} # full conversation GET /v3/grants/{grant_id}/attachments/{id}/download POST /v3/grants/{grant_id}/events # host a meeting POST /v3/grants/{grant_id}/events/{id}/send-rsvp # respond to one GET /v3/grants/{grant_id}/contacts GET /v3/grants/{grant_id}/rule-evaluations # audit trail This isn't an abstraction invented for agents — an Agent Account is literally just another grant, the same primitive used for connected Gmail and Outlook accounts. The supported endpoints reference puts it as "same endpoints, same auth, same payloads." Anything you built for connected accounts works against an agent's grant unchanged. And the resources behind the ID are real: six system folders provisioned automatically ( inbox , sent , drafts , trash , junk , archive ), a primary calendar that speaks standard iCalendar, and outbound messages capped at 40 MB total. Webhooks route by it too The inbound side completes the picture. You subscribe once at the application level, and every notification — message.created , event.updated , message.bounce_detected , and the rest

Week one: a single test mailbox on a trial domain, provisioned by hand from the dashboard. Week twelve: a fleet of agent mailboxes spread across customer domains, each sending real mail with its own quota and reputation. The API calls are the same at both scales — what changes is everything around them: how you provision, how you share configuration, and how you keep one bad sender from pausing the fleet. Here's what the path from one to thousands looks like with Nylas Agent Accounts , which are currently in beta. Provisioning is a loop, not a ceremony There's no OAuth dance to scale around. Creating a mailbox is one POST with "provider": "nylas" — no refresh token, no consent screen — so a fleet provisioner is just iteration: curl --request POST \ --url "https://api.us.nylas.com/v3/connect/custom" \ --header "Authorization: Bearer <NYLAS_API_KEY>" \ --header "Content-Type: application/json" \ --data '{ "provider": "nylas", "workspace_id": "<WORKSPACE_ID>", "settings": { "email": "agent-0042@agents.yourcompany.com" } }' Two scaling-relevant details in that request. First, the domain: one application can manage accounts across any number of registered domains, and the docs explicitly recommend splitting high-volume outbound across multiple domains ( sales-a.yourcompany.com , sales-b.yourcompany.com ) so reputation damage on one doesn't contaminate the rest. Second, the workspace_id : passing it at creation is how each account picks up its configuration, which brings us to the part that makes fleets manageable. Configure workspaces, not grants At fleet scale, per-grant configuration is a non-starter. The model here is indirection: policies and rules attach to workspaces , and every account in a workspace inherits them. One policy object — daily send quota, storage cap, retention windows, spam sensitivity — governs a thousand mailboxes, and updating it updates all of them at once. The recommended carve-up is one workspace per agent archetype: outreach agents get a work

Every Agent Account you create lands in a workspace — the only question is whether you picked it or the platform did: curl --request POST \ --url "https://api.us.nylas.com/v3/connect/custom" \ --header "Authorization: Bearer <NYLAS_API_KEY>" \ --header "Content-Type: application/json" \ --data '{ "provider": "nylas", "workspace_id": "<WORKSPACE_ID>", "settings": { "email": "test@your-application.nylas.email" } }' That top-level workspace_id is optional, and what happens when you omit it is one of the more under-read parts of the Nylas Agent Accounts docs (the feature's in beta, so read with that in mind). Workspaces aren't cosmetic grouping — they're the carrier for every policy limit and mail rule that governs your agents. Getting placement wrong means an agent running with the wrong send quota, the wrong spam settings, or no inbound filtering at all. The placement algorithm When a new account is created, placement resolves in this order: Explicit workspace_id on the request — the account goes exactly where you said. The target workspace must belong to the same application; ownership is validated and mismatches are rejected. Auto-grouping by domain — if a workspace has auto_group enabled and its domain matches the new account's email domain, the account joins it automatically. The default workspace — everything else lands here. That third bucket is the interesting one. What the default workspace actually is Every application gets exactly one default workspace, created and managed by the platform. You can't delete it, and you can only update two of its fields: policy_id and rule_ids . Everything else is managed for you. It's easy to read "default" as "throwaway," but it's better understood as your safety net. Any account you forget to place explicitly — a quick test from the CLI, a provisioning script missing the workspace parameter — inherits whatever the default workspace carries. Which leads to a practical recommendation: attach a conservative baseline policy and

Anthropic is being sued over Claude Max usage limits

Built Vidilearn — an AI-first CLI for extracting YouTube transcripts, subtitles, chapters, articles, and structured metadata locally with zero API keys. Supports MCP servers, AI agents, RAG pipelines, Codex CLI, Gemini CLI & more. GitHub: https://github.com/Alfo-Tech-Lab/vidilearn

Meta announced Monday that it's rolling out a wave of new AI features on Facebook, the latest sign of the company's effort to catch up in the AI race and keep users more engaged on the platform.

TechCrunch has followed SpaceX's start, struggles, and successes from the early days. And we're here for what happens next too. This package of SpaceX IPO coverage includes who stands to win (and maybe some who won't), pre-IPO deals, and what's tucked inside its S-1 registration document.

A federal judge decided to dismiss an xAI lawsuit against OpenAI with prejudice.

At Washington's request, Anthropic suddenly took its newest and most powerful AI models offline over the weekend. The American company said it had little choice after the White House demanded it block access for all foreign nationals, including its own employees. Abroad, the incident offered a sobering reminder that the US not only dominates frontier […]

Don't worry, there's yet another chatbot you can ask for restaurant recommendations.

For months, Big Tech's Washington lobbyists have chased after the holy grail of pro-AI legislation: preemption. This would be a comprehensive federal law, passed in Congress and signed by the president, applying one set of AI rules across the entire country and overriding the legally messy state-by-state approach to regulation. For months, lobbyists have run […]

Last week, Xbox boss Asha Sharma sent a memo warning of an Xbox "reset" ahead of expected layoffs, and today, Kotaku reported that Xbox plans to shut down Compulsion Games, the studio behind South of Midnight. Since taking over in February, Sharma has made some big decisions, including cutting the price of Xbox Game Pass […]

Series Final. The four mechanisms covered across this series — knowledge graph, Auto Review, Self-Healing, Recurrence Prevention — plus the non-engineer-PR application that sits on top of them, all hang off a single conviction: AI isn't something to trust; it's something to design. The 'I don't trust AI to fill in the blanks for me' framing this lives inside isn't doubt about generation quality, but the clear-eyed acceptance that AI has no idea what context wasn't handed to it, and that 'ideal behavior with no spec given' is a fantasy. The starting point goes back to 2025, when I was trying to figure out how to make AI actually understand a large codebase — and ran into walls on both context window scaling (lost in the middle, attention dilution) and learning-based approaches (machine unlearning, destructive interference). GraphRAG + MCP became the way out: hand AI only the facts it needs, when it needs them, so it doesn't have to infer. From code-graph (which I burned two months on and threw away) to the current product-graph (cpg). This piece is the philosophy and the trial-and-error behind the whole series: harnesses confine where hallucinations are allowed to happen, design is translating principles into your own use cases, and Coverage 90% as a solo target breaks the implementation.

A blunt playbook for devs who don’t want to turn into autocomplete zombies. The first time an AI wrote code for me, I felt like I had unlocked cheat codes for real life. I typed a half-baked function name, hit enter, and suddenly I had a block of code that looked legit. It was magical. The second time, though? It suggested something so catastrophic basically the programming equivalent of pulling the fire alarm that I realized: this thing is less “mentor” and more “overconfident intern who thinks they know pointers but actually just broke prod.” That’s where most of us are right now. AI is everywhere: in our IDEs, our docs, even sneaking into PR reviews. Some days it feels like rocket fuel; other days it feels like an autocomplete with a drinking problem. The tricky part isn’t whether AI is “good” or “bad.” The tricky part is how we, as developers, use it without becoming lazy, dependent, or worse complacent. Because here’s the uncomfortable truth: AI won’t replace you, but bad AI habits absolutely will. TLDR : This article is a survival guide for developers in the AI era. We’ll break down why AI feels both magical and mid, the five switches that make AI actually useful, when to trust and when to verify, how to use AI as a research assistant (not a code monkey), the dangers of autocomplete brain, and a playbook for building a healthy workflow. Why AI feels both magical and mid Every dev I know has had that moment with AI. The first time it autocompleted a function and nailed it, you probably thought: “Wow… this thing just saved me half an hour.” It’s the same dopamine hit as discovering ctrl+r in bash or realizing you can pipe grep into less . Pure wizardry. But the honeymoon ends quickly. The same tool that wrote a clean utility function also happily hallucinates imports that don’t exist, invents APIs, and will confidently explain things that are flat-out wrong. It’s like pair programming with someone who sounds senior but has never actually shipped code. The magic-

Notes from building a memory layer that forgets on purpose. Most "memory-enabled" agents don't remember anything. They re-read. Every turn, the whole conversation gets pasted back into the prompt, and we call that memory because the model can answer questions about earlier turns. It's a good trick. I used it for months. It also falls apart the moment real people start using the thing, and it falls apart in three separate ways. The first is the one everyone notices: it's expensive and noisy. You re-send every prior turn on every request. The single line you actually care about - "I'm allergic to peanuts" - is buried under a thousand lines of small talk, and you pay for all of it, every time. The second is quieter and worse. Transcript-stuffing has no idea what stale means. If someone told your agent "I'm vegetarian" in March and "I eat fish now" in May, you've just handed the model both facts with equal weight. Now it has to guess which one is current. Sometimes it guesses wrong, and there's nothing in the system that even thinks that's a problem. The third one is the reason I stopped treating this as a side quest. When you finally add summarization to control the cost from problem one, the summarizer is free to drop whatever it wants to save tokens. Including the allergy. I spent years around fintech, where the wrong record surviving (or the right one quietly vanishing) is how people get hurt, so this landed hard: forgetting an allergy to save 40 tokens isn't a cost bug. It's a safety bug wearing a cost bug's clothes. So the question I actually wanted to answer wasn't "how do I make my agent remember more." It was: how do I build something where acting on a fact the user already retracted and silently dropping a fact that must survive are impossible by construction, not just unlikely if the prompt is good that day. Everyone has already solved one third of this The encouraging part is that you don't have to invent much. The discouraging part is that every existing sy

A story about an AI alert model that cut false alarms from 60% to 7% — and what happened when...