标签：#AI

Index funds are touted as one of the safest ways to invest. Rather than picking and choosing individual stocks, index funds let you bet on the market as a whole. So what happens when a company like SpaceX - a giant gamble, and, in my opinion, terribly overpriced - is fast-tracked into the Nasdaq-100? Does […]

The Model Context Protocol (MCP) is one of the basic building blocks of AI interoperability, giving AI models a secure way to access external data sources and services. It’s the plumbing that lets a chatbot reach into your calendar, your database, or your internal tools, instead of engineers building custom pipes for every connection. Next […]

X says the rebuilt version of its Android app is now available globally.

Talk of banning Chinese-made open-weight LLMs reveals the challenge of turning AI into a business.

The one-year-old startup aims to reinvent financial architecture for autonomous AI transactions.

Every AI writing tool does the same thing: you type a prompt, it spits out text, and you copy-paste it into Word. Then you spend the next 30 minutes manually applying headings, fixing list styles, rebuilding tables, and cleaning up formatting that broke on paste. Co-pilot lives inside Word, sure, but it's a writing assistant, not a formatting one. It drafts text, rewrites paragraphs. What it doesn't do is look at your messy 40-page report and restructure it with your actual Word styles, proper heading hierarchy, and correctly formatted tables. That's the gap we set out to close with Stylifyword. What Stylifyword Actually Does: Stylifyword is a Microsoft Word add-in paired with a companion desktop app. You give it a document, a messy draft, a copy pasted ChatGPT output, a stitched together report from five different authors and voila, it writes & edits your text when you ask it to (drafting, rewriting, summarizing the usual AI stuff). Also formats the entire document with your headings, lists, tables, and all. Outputs every change as a tracked redline in Word's Review tab. Nothing touches your document until you accept it. That third point is the key differentiator. It's non-destructive. The AI proposes, you dispose. Why Local-AI support Matters: Here's the thing that got me building this: most professionals who need AI the most can't use cloud AI tools. Corporate attorneys can't paste M&A deal terms into ChatGPT. Healthcare teams can't upload patient data to a cloud endpoint. Defense contractors, compliance officers, financial analysts, they're all locked out of the AI productivity wave because of legitimate data sovereignty concerns. Stylifyword's default mode runs entirely on your machine: 100% on-device inference via a companion desktop app. No Ollama, no command line, no model downloads to configure. Works offline, airplane mode, air-gapped networks, whatever. Zero data leaves your device, ever. Install the app, open Word, and it works. Three Ways to Run It: Not

This week's Java roundup for July 13th, 2026, features news highlighting: a reintroduction of Value Objects (Preview); the GA release of WildFly 41; the July 2026 edition of Open Liberty 26.0.0.7; point releases of TornadoVM, Apache TomEE, Java Operator SDK and LangChain4j; a maintenance release of Micronaut; a new extension, Quarkus Shim; and a new Oracle AI Agent Studio for Fusion Applications. By Michael Redlich

Every distributor we spoke to has the same quiet bottleneck, and none of them call it a problem. They call it Tuesday. A request for quote lands in a shared inbox. Sometimes it is a tidy bulleted list. More often it is three lines of text from someone's phone, or a PDF that was scanned at an angle. Someone on the sales desk reads it, works out which catalog part each line actually refers to, checks pricing, and types up a quote. A busy desk does this thirty or forty times a day. It is slow, it is boring, and it is exactly the kind of work where a tired person on a Friday afternoon quotes the wrong bolt and nobody notices until the shipment arrives. We spent three weeks building Distill.ai to do that job. This is what we learned, including the parts that went badly. What we actually built You paste an email or upload a PDF. From there a seven stage pipeline runs: parse -> extract -> classify -> match -> price -> policy -> score Parse cleans the document into text. Extract pulls out the individual line items, quantities, and specs. Classify works out what kind of request this is. Match maps each line to a real catalog SKU. Price applies the pricing rules. Policy runs the business checks. Score attaches a confidence value to every match. The interesting part is not the happy path. It is what happens when the model is unsure. Any line that scores below a 0.70 match threshold does not get quoted. It gets flagged with a reason and routed to a human review queue. A person confirms or corrects it, and the quote goes out clean. That one decision is the difference between a demo and something a sales desk would actually put its name on. An agent that is confidently wrong 5% of the time is worse than useless in procurement, because someone has to check all 100% of the output anyway. An agent that says "I got 47 of these 50 lines, here are the 3 I could not resolve" saves real hours. Why Qwen, and how we wired it up We used two models from Alibaba Cloud Model Studio: Qwen-Plus

You have been here. The test suite is green. The deployment pipeline reports all checks passed. Then a customer opens a ticket with a screenshot that shows something your test never caught. The test passed in staging. It fails in production. And you cannot reproduce it locally. This is not a flaky test problem. It is a fidelity problem. Your test environment and your production environment are not the same thing. The gap between them is where real bugs live. Let me walk through one concrete example, the fix, and what it teaches about writing tests that survive the handoff to a real user. The Problem: Environment Drift A fintech team I worked with had a checkout flow. The test clicked "Pay Now", waited for a success message, and asserted the text "Payment successful" appeared on screen. It passed every time in staging. Customers reported that after paying, they saw a blank white page for several seconds before the success message appeared. Some of them closed the tab during that blank period, thinking the payment failed. The transaction went through. The customer never saw the confirmation. Support tickets piled up. The test never caught this because the staging environment served the success page in under 200 milliseconds. The blank period did not exist there. Production had a slower downstream service that introduced a three-second delay between the payment confirmation and the page render. The test was correct in what it checked. It was wrong in what it assumed about timing and state. The Fix: Test the Experience, Not Just the Outcome The fix was not to add a longer wait. The fix was to test what the user actually experiences during that gap. Here is a minimal Playwright test in TypeScript that catches this class of problem: import { test , expect } from ' @playwright/test ' ; test ( ' checkout shows loading state before success ' , async ({ page }) => { await page . goto ( ' /checkout ' ); await page . fill ( ' #card-number ' , ' 4111111111111111 ' ); await page

Gherkin is not a test automation tool. It never was. Yet here we are, five years into your SDET career, and you're staring at a feature file that reads like a step-by-step manual for a human tester. Given I log in with username "admin" and password "password123" . When I click the "Submit" button . Then I see the text "Welcome" on the screen . You've written two years of these. Your team calls it BDD. Your manager calls it "living documentation." And somewhere in the back of your mind, a quiet voice whispers: This is just a manual test case with extra steps. That voice is right. Let me say it plainly: if your Gherkin scenarios describe how the system works instead of what it should do, you are not doing BDD. You are writing manual test cases in a structured English format and calling it automation. The only thing you've automated is the illusion of progress. The problem isn't Gherkin. The problem is how we use it. Most teams adopt BDD because someone read a blog post about "collaboration" and "shared understanding." They install Cucumber or SpecFlow. They write feature files. They map steps to Selenium or Playwright code. And they call it a day. But look closely at what happens next. The product owner never reads the feature files. The developer skims them once and goes back to writing code. The QA engineer — that's you — becomes the sole maintainer of a growing pile of Gherkin that nobody else touches. You're not facilitating collaboration. You're translating manual test cases into a format that requires a compiler. Here's the real test. Take any feature file from your project. Hand it to a developer who has never seen it. Ask them to implement the feature using only the Gherkin as a spec. If they can write production code from it, you have real BDD. If they ask you for clarification, you have documentation theater. I've seen teams with hundreds of feature files. Beautifully formatted. Perfect indentation. Tags for every regression cycle. And not a single one of th

Most engineers expect AI-assisted automation to be the easy part. You describe a test, the model writes it, you move on. The first week will prove you wrong. Not because the code is bad. Because the code is almost right. And almost-right code is harder to debug than wrong code. Wrong code fails loudly. Almost-right code passes on Monday, fails on Tuesday, passes again on Wednesday, and by Thursday you are questioning whether you understand your own application. I have watched teams adopt AI copilots into their Playwright suites and spend the first five days doing nothing but untangling false passes. If you are about to start this journey, here is what that week actually looks like. The Problem: The Model Does Not Know What "Stable" Means A language model has never waited for a network response. It has never watched a flaky selector survive three CI runs and then collapse on the fourth. It writes tests from a static understanding of your page, not from the dynamic reality of your application. You will ask it to write a test that clicks a button and waits for a confirmation toast. The model will produce something like this: await page . click ( ' button:has-text("Submit") ' ); await page . waitForSelector ( ' .toast-success ' ); Looks fine. Runs fine. Then your team deploys a new build where the toast takes 400ms longer to appear because of an analytics call. The test fails. Not because the feature broke. Because the model assumed a timing that was never guaranteed. This is the core problem. The model writes tests that match the page as it was when the model saw it . It does not write tests that match the page as it will be . The Solution: Treat AI-Generated Tests as Drafts, Not Deliverables The shift is mental before it is technical. You cannot review AI-generated tests the way you review human-written tests. Human tests come with intent. AI tests come with patterns. You need a different review lens. First, look for every hardcoded wait. Replace it with a state-based

Optimizing RAG at Scale: Chunking, Retrieval, and the Bayesian Search That Cut Latency 40% How we moved from "semantic search + hope" to a measured, tunable retrieval pipeline with 95% recall@10 The RAG Reality Check Everyone ships RAG the same way: chunk by 512 tokens, embed with text-embedding-3-small , top-k=5, stuff into context. It works for demos. Then you hit production: Legal contracts: 512 tokens splits clauses mid-sentence API docs: 1000-token chunks drown signal in noise Customer tickets: Conversational context needs overlap, not fixed windows Latency: 500ms embedding + 200ms vector search + 300ms LLM = 1s+ per query We rebuilt our retrieval layer from first principles. Here's what actually moves metrics. Chunking: One Size Fits None # rag/chunking.py from abc import ABC , abstractmethod from dataclasses import dataclass @dataclass class Chunk : text : str metadata : dict token_count : int chunk_id : str class ChunkingStrategy ( ABC ): @abstractmethod def chunk ( self , document : str , metadata : dict ) -> list [ Chunk ]: ... class FixedTokenChunker ( ChunkingStrategy ): """ Baseline. Good for homogeneous content. """ def __init__ ( self , chunk_size = 512 , overlap = 50 ): self . chunk_size = chunk_size self . overlap = overlap class RecursiveChunker ( ChunkingStrategy ): """ Respects structure: markdown headers, code blocks, paragraphs. """ def __init__ ( self , separators = [ " \n ## " , " \n ### " , " \n\n " , " \n " , " " ], chunk_size = 512 ): self . separators = separators self . chunk_size = chunk_size class SemanticChunker ( ChunkingStrategy ): """ Uses embedding similarity to find natural boundaries. """ def __init__ ( self , model = " text-embedding-3-small " , threshold = 0.7 ): self . model = model self . threshold = threshold class AgenticChunker ( ChunkingStrategy ): """ LLM decides boundaries. Expensive but highest quality for complex docs. """ def __init__ ( self , model = " gpt-4o-mini " ): self . model = model Our production config by

Building Production-Grade LLM Evaluation Pipelines: From Vibes to Metrics How we replaced "looks good to me" with automated evaluation catching 92% of hallucinations before deployment The Problem: Why "Vibe Checks" Fail in Production Three months ago, our team shipped a RAG-based customer support assistant. It worked great in testing — we'd ask it questions, read the answers, and say "yeah, that looks right." Then it hit production. A customer asked about their billing cycle. The assistant confidently cited a policy that didn't exist. Another asked about API rate limits and got numbers from a competitor's documentation. By the time we caught it, 500+ users had seen hallucinated responses. The post-mortem was brutal: we had zero automated evaluation . Our test process was literally "ask 5 questions, read answers, thumbs up." What Production Evaluation Actually Needs Academic benchmarks (MMLU, HellaSwag) don't tell you if your system works for your use case. Production evaluation needs: Domain-specific judges — Your criteria, not generic "helpfulness" Speed — Evaluation must run in CI/CD, not overnight Regression detection — Know immediately when a prompt change breaks things CI/CD integration — Block merges that degrade quality Golden dataset management — Versioned, stratified, growing test cases Architecture: The Evaluation Pipeline ┌─────────────┐ ┌──────────────┐ ┌────────────────────┐ ┌──────────────┐ │ Test Cases │────▶│ LLM Under │────▶│ Judge Ensemble │────▶│ Metrics & │ │ (Golden Set)│ │ Test │ │ - Faithfulness │ │ Regression │ └─────────────┘ └──────────────┘ │ - Instruction F. │ │ Detection │ │ - JSON Schema │ └──────┬───────┘ │ - Custom LLM │ ▼ └────────────────────┘ ┌──────────────┐ │ Dashboard/ │ │ PR Comments │ └──────────────┘ Core Abstractions # eval/base.py @dataclass ( frozen = True ) class TestCase : id : str input : dict [ str , Any ] expected : dict [ str , Any ] | None = None tags : list [ str ] = field ( default_factory = list ) # ["edge-case",

This is a submission for DEV's Summer Bug Smash: Smash Stories powered by Sentry . I spent a week deploying a CrewAI agent to AWS Bedrock AgentCore. The SDK wasn't on PyPI. The error messages were 200 OKs. The container crashed without logs. And the naming regex rejected hyphens without telling me why. This is the full debugging trail. Every failure was silent. Every fix required reading source code nobody documented. Table of Contents The Project Failure 1: The SDK That Doesn't Exist on PyPI Failure 2: The 200 OK That Means Failure Failure 3: The Container That Crashed With No Logs Failure 4: The Naming Regex Nobody Documented The Two-Client Split Nobody Mentions What I Learned The project I built a resume-tailoring AI agent with CrewAI and Amazon Bedrock. It takes a job description, analyzes your resume, identifies gaps, and rewrites bullet points to match what the role actually needs. Locally it worked perfectly. CrewAI orchestrates the agents, Bedrock Nova Pro handles the LLM calls, and the output is solid. Deploying it to production was the problem. AWS launched Bedrock AgentCore in June 2026 as a managed runtime for AI agents. You containerize your agent, push the image, and AgentCore handles scaling, memory, and invocation. Sounds simple. It was not simple. Failure 1: The SDK that doesn't exist on PyPI The docs say to install bedrock-agentcore-client . I ran: pip install bedrock-agentcore-client It installed successfully. No errors. That's because there's a placeholder package on PyPI with that name. It installs, imports fail silently, and your container builds successfully with a broken dependency inside. The real SDK lives in AWS's CodeArtifact registry. You need to configure pip to pull from a private index: aws codeartifact login --tool pip \ --domain amazon-agent-runtimes \ --repository agent-runtimes-pypi \ --domain-owner 600427722194 Then install from there. The PyPI package is a trap. Nobody warns you. Hours lost: 3. The error only appears at runtime

Adobe's Project Indigo app will have new features like removing distractions and offering immediate photo feedback.

A judge has paused the Paramount / Warner Bros. deal to review a multi-state lawsuit.

The lawsuit from the states alleges that the deal would harm movie theaters, basic cable distributors, and audiences.

Celebrating $100 million contributed by the community to the people who build and sustain open source every day. The post $100 million for open source: A milestone built by the community appeared first on The GitHub Blog .

Adobe's experimental camera app has taken an unexpected turn. After Project Indigo was launched last year to provide a "more natural (SLR-like) look" for iPhone photography, the Indigo camera app is now being updated with a suite of generative AI tools. And the change doesn't rely upon Adobe's own Firefly AI models. Adobe describes the […]

На прошлой неделе DeepSeek отказался писать мне регулярку. Не «не смог», а вежливо объяснил, что регулярка тут плохая идея, и предложил цикл. Тогда я поймал себя на том, что уже год сравниваю модели «на глаз»: одна затупила — скопировал промпт в соседнюю вкладку, посмотрел, сделал выводы из ничего. Надоело. Я устроил маленький честный замер: три типовые задачи из моих рабочих будней, буквально один и тот же промпт, три модели. Про сетап — один абзац, чтобы дальше не отвлекаться. Хотелось убрать переменную «у одной вкладки отвалился VPN, у другой слетела сессия», поэтому гонял всё в одном окне через агрегатор; ссылка будет внизу, здесь она не важна. Важно одно: модель переключается прямо над полем ввода, так что все три участника получали идентичный текст без копипасты между сервисами. Участники: GPT (флагман, GPT-5-класс), Claude, DeepSeek. Задача 1. Регулярка: split CSV-строки, не ломая кавычки Промпт: «Напиши JS-регулярку, чтобы разбить строку CSV по запятым, но запятые внутри двойных кавычек разделителями не считать». Классическая ловушка: наивный split(',') рвёт поле "Иванов, Иван" пополам. GPT сразу выдал вариант с lookahead: const parts = row . split ( /, (?=(?:[^ " ] *" [^ " ] *" ) * [^ " ] *$ ) / ); Работает. Правда, на моём проверочном кейсе с экранированной кавычкой "" внутри поля — уже нет. Но я такого и не просил, засчитываю. Claude дал ту же регулярку, но с примечанием: lookahead на каждой запятой пробегает хвост строки, на длинных строках это квадратично, для продакшена берите csv-parse . Занудно, но по делу — я однажды именно такую конструкцию ловил на таймауте. DeepSeek — это тот самый отказ, с которого всё началось. Регулярку писать не стал, предложил цикл с флагом «мы внутри кавычек» — мол, так надёжнее. Формально это даже честнее, но задание было «напиши регулярку», и выдал он её только после уточнения. Итог раунда: GPT и Claude ровно, Claude на полбалла впереди за предупреждение. Задача 2. Рефакторинг: функция скидок с вложенными if Скормил всем