标签：#AI

TL;DR If you're shipping AI inference and tired of babysitting GPUs, serverless is the way out. You deploy the model, the platform scales it from zero to hundreds of GPUs and back, and you only pay for the time you actually use. If I'm picking one to start with, it's DigitalOcean . It's got the widest GPU lineup of any serverless provider (RTX 4000 Ada all the way up to NVIDIA Blackwell B300 and AMD's MI350X), one API and one bill instead of five, and it's simple enough to ship on without a sales call. (More on why that one's personal for me below.) Below I compare 9 providers across the things that actually matter: GPU specs, per-hour pricing, cold-start latency, model support, and how nice they are to build on. DigitalOcean, RunPod, Modal, Koyeb, Together AI, Replicate, Baseten, Fal, and Cloudflare Workers AI each win at something different, from cheap experimentation to global edge inference. Contents Why I ran this The field at a glance How I evaluated these providers Per-provider analysis: DigitalOcean RunPod Modal Koyeb Together AI Replicate Baseten Fal Cloudflare Workers AI Why I keep coming back to DigitalOcean The short version Questions I actually get asked Why I ran this Quick note on why this exists. At work I get a front-row seat to a lot of people shipping an AI model into production for the first time: students, first-time founders, my own team. And lately the same question keeps coming up: where do I actually run this thing? I was tired of answering with a shrug and "it depends," so I did the homework myself. Signed up, read the pricing pages, ran the comparisons, and wrote it all down. Nobody's a real expert at this yet, me included, so I'd rather share my notes and get corrected than pretend I've got it figured out. And here's the thing about AI inference in 2026: demand blew past what the old way of provisioning GPUs can handle. Teams that used to wait weeks for dedicated hardware now need a model live in minutes. The ground moved. And the stuff t

As AI experimentation grows more expensive, Apple is waiving cloud API costs for developers with fewer than 2 million first-time App Store downloads.

New features coming this fall alongside two-tiered, Google-powered AI model overhaul.

NotebookLM is getting a big upgrade, but it's only for AI Ultra and enterprise accounts right now.

The Trump administration released the updated version of the list four months ago and then quickly pulled it without explaining why

Polystyrene can be upcycled into carbon sponge material.

Apple is adding new AI-powered features to Safari, Shortcuts, and Password apps.

Apple’s WWDC 2026 event kicked off this morning at 10 a.m. PT at Apple Park, starting a week full of expected announcements around Siri, iOS 27, Apple Intelligence and more, along with developer events and demos. This year’s event is particularly notable for a couple things. It marks CEO Tim Cook’s last with the company, […]

Shortcuts gets an AI upgrade, letting you describe the workflow you want in a prompt.

Apple's AI image generator is getting a makeover that could make it more competitive.

A new spatial "Reframe" feature will let users use AI to adjust perspectives.

Hello, I'm Shrijith Venkatramana. I'm building git-lrc, an AI code reviewer that runs on every commit. Star Us to help devs discover the project. Do give it a try and share your feedback for improving the product. A few years ago, choosing a Go mocking framework was mostly a matter of personal preference. Today, things are different. Most Go developers have at least one AI coding assistant generating tests alongside them. Some teams even generate the majority of their unit tests automatically. Yet one area remains surprisingly messy: mocks. Ask an LLM to write a test for the same interface and you'll often get completely different results depending on whether your project uses GoMock, Mockery, MockIO, Minimock, Moq, or hand-written test doubles. The problem isn't that the models are bad. The problem is that mocking libraries represent very different philosophies: Strict vs flexible Generated vs runtime-created DSL-heavy vs idiomatic Go Feature-rich vs minimalist In this article we'll compare the most popular Go mocking libraries in 2026, examine their strengths and weaknesses, and discuss which one may be the best fit for your project. What Makes a Good Mocking Library? Before comparing tools, it's worth defining what matters. A good mocking library should ideally provide: Easy mock generation Clear test failures Minimal boilerplate Strong refactoring support Good IDE experience Readable tests Reliable call verification Different libraries optimize for different parts of this list. That's why there is no universally correct answer. 1. GoMock: The Enterprise Workhorse GoMock remains one of the most widely used mocking frameworks in the Go ecosystem. Originally created by Google and now actively maintained by Uber, it has become the standard choice for many large organizations. Its philosophy is straightforward: define expectations explicitly and verify them rigorously. Example func TestUserService ( t * testing . T ) { ctrl := gomock . NewController ( t ) repo := New

Siri is finally getting its own app.

"If you're grabbing a bite with friends and point your iPhone at the bill, then [you can] select what you ordered to split the tab with Apple Cash," said Apple VP of Software Sebastien Marineau-Mes.

Most people pick a model the wrong way around. They look at the leaderboard, see Opus on top, and reach for it by default. Sonnet if they want to save money. Haiku almost never, because the name says "small." That habit costs you. For a lot of what you actually build, Haiku is the right call, and you're paying three to five times more for capability the task never uses. This post is about how to choose, and why Haiku should be your default more often than it is. The short version: don't start from "what's the best model." Start from "what does this task need." Most tasks don't need much. Comparison Here is the current lineup, with the numbers that matter when you're choosing. Haiku 4.5 Sonnet 4.6 Opus 4.8 Model ID claude-haiku-4-5 claude-sonnet-4-6 claude-opus-4-8 Input price (per 1M tokens) $1 $3 $5 Output price (per 1M tokens) $5 $15 $25 Context window 200K 1M 1M Max output 64K 64K 128K Best at speed, volume balance hardest reasoning Two things jump out. First, price . Haiku input is a fifth of Opus and a third of Sonnet. Output is the same ratio. If you send a million tokens through Opus for $25 and the same work would have been fine on Haiku, you spent $20 for nothing. And that gap is per request, so it compounds. A feature that runs ten thousand times a day on Opus instead of Haiku is not a rounding error. It is the difference between a feature that ships and one that gets cut for cost. Second, the context window . This is where Haiku gives something up: 200K tokens instead of 1M. That is the real tradeoff, and it points straight at when to use it. We'll come back to that. The mental model Stop ranking models. Rank tasks . Ask three questions about the task in front of you: Does it need real reasoning, or is it bounded? A task is bounded when a competent junior could do it from a clear spec without much judgment: pull these fields out, sort this into one of five buckets, rewrite this in a different tone, answer this from the text I gave you. A task needs reason

AI design system output is approximate by default. Wrong border radii, raw hex values, inconsistent tokens across 60 components. The fix isn't better prompts. Here's the structural change that made it exact using Figma's REST API. The fourth time I manually corrected the same border radius mistake in an AI-generated component, I stopped and asked why this kept happening. Not "what prompt would fix this?" The deeper question: why does every AI tool I tried get the structure right and the values wrong? The button was correct. The variants were there. The layout matched the Figma spec. But borderRadius: 8 when it should be borderRadius: '8px' . A spacing gap of 8 when the spec said 6 . The color #3B82F6 sitting in the file where semantic.button.primary should be. None of it wrong in a way that breaks the build. All of it wrong in a way that breaks the design system. After hitting this wall enough times, I realized the problem wasn't the AI. It was the question I was asking it. Why AI keeps generating the wrong Figma design tokens When you give an AI tool a Figma screenshot and ask it to produce a component, it does something reasonable: it interprets what it sees. The structure, the layout, the hierarchy - it gets most of that right. What it cannot get right is the token mapping. The AI doesn't know your semantic token file. It doesn't know that #3B82F6 maps to semantic.button.primary in your codebase. It doesn't know that your MUI setup multiplies numeric border radii by 4, which means borderRadius: 8 renders at 32px instead of 8px . So it approximates. Here's what that looks like in practice: What AI produces What the spec requires Why it's wrong borderRadius: 8 borderRadius: '8px' MUI multiplies numeric values by 4 gap: 8 gap: 6 Spacing value not extracted from Figma color: '#3B82F6' semantic.button.primary Raw hex instead of semantic token fontSize: 14 variant="MD_Medium" Typography token not resolved Across one component, these deviations are small. Across 60 comp

We wired our LLM eval suite into Datadog over about four months. Most of the panels we built got deleted. These are the five that stayed, and the metrics that feed them. TL;DR: We run an LLM-as-judge eval suite on every PR that touches a prompt, and we ship the results to Datadog as custom metrics. The dashboard started with fourteen panels. We kept five. The one that catches the most real regressions is per-criterion pass-rate split out by judge criterion, not the single rolled-up pass-rate number, because an aggregate of 91 percent hid the fact that one criterion had dropped from 0.95 to 0.62. Below are the metrics we emit, the Python that submits them, the monitor config we alert on, and the panels we tried and dropped. Some context on the setup so the rest makes sense. We are a Series-C dev-tool startup. We have a handful of prompts in production that do real work (classification, extraction, a summarization step in an agent loop). Each one has an eval set of tagged examples, somewhere between 80 and 400 per prompt. The judge is a separate model call that scores each output against a rubric. We run the suite in GitHub Actions. The eval job emits metrics to Datadog at the end of every run. Backend service health was already in Datadog, so putting eval data next to it meant one place to look during an incident instead of two. 1. Emit per-criterion pass-rate, not just the rolled-up number This is the one that earns its place. Our judge scores each output against multiple criteria. For the extraction prompt it is four: correct fields, no hallucinated fields, format valid, no refusal. Early on we only emitted one number, prompt_eval.pass_rate, the fraction of examples that passed every criterion. That number is fine for a smoke test and useless for debugging. The problem showed up on a prompt change that looked clean. Overall pass-rate went from 0.93 to 0.91. Two points. Nobody would block a PR on two points. But underneath, the "no hallucinated fields" criterion had

80%. That is the share of code currently being merged into Anthropic's production systems that was written by Claude. Not code-reviewed. Not pair-programmed. Written. In February 2025, when Claude Code launched, that number was in the low single digits. Sixteen months later, the company decided that data point — and the trajectory behind it — was worth a public warning. On June 4, 2026, Anthropic published "When AI Builds Itself," a research paper co-authored by Marina Favaro, head of the Anthropic Institute, and Jack Clark, one of the company's co-founders. It was the first major publication from the Anthropic Institute since its founding in March 2026. The paper did two things simultaneously: disclosed internal productivity data that most AI companies keep private, and called for a global mechanism to slow or pause frontier AI development before the process becomes self-sustaining without meaningful human direction. The data came first. The policy recommendation followed from it. Here is what the numbers actually show and why every developer building on AI infrastructure today should read this carefully. The Productivity Curve Nobody Predicted Anthropic published a chart of engineering output per engineer, indexed to a baseline from 2021–2024. The curve is flat for four years. Then Claude Code shipped in February 2025. The multiplier progression from that point: 1.2x, 1.5x, 1.9x, 2.5x. By Q1 2026: 5.8x. By Q2 2026: 8x. The typical Anthropic engineer is now merging eight times as much code per day as they were in 2024. Not 8% more. Eight times more. That is not a productivity improvement — it is a different category of output from the same headcount. To understand what drives the number, you need to understand what Claude Code actually does inside Anthropic's engineering workflows. The tool was built for and by engineers working on frontier AI systems — which means the tasks it handles are not boilerplate CRUD endpoints. Claude is writing test harnesses for novel m

Cycle tracker will now notify women when their cycle patterns are suggestive of perimenopause.

The idea behind the new "Siri AI" is to turn the assistant from a voice controlled assistant into an AI companion that can do a lot more.