今日已更新 380 条资讯 | 累计 41154 条内容
关于我们

标签：#ENSO

找到 2427 篇相关文章

AI 资讯

What If Agent Tasks Were Installable Packages?

Coding agents can now inspect repositories, write tests, configure CI, migrate frameworks, and fix bugs. But the workflows we give them are often surprisingly informal. We copy prompts from old conversations, internal documents, GitHub issues, or random text files. Then we modify those prompts for the current project and hope we did not remove an important instruction. That made me wonder: What if a coding-agent task could be installed, inspected, versioned, and executed like a package? I built Clawx to explore that idea. 🔗 View Clawx on GitHub What is Clawx? Clawx is an open-source package manager for reusable coding-agent tasks. A package is a Markdown file with YAML metadata. The Markdown contains the instructions for the coding agent. The metadata describes information such as: The package name and version Required parameters Environment variables Dependencies Requested tools Supported agent providers A basic workflow looks like this: clawx search gitignore clawx info gitignore-gen clawx run gitignore-gen Before running the task, Clawx lets the user inspect what the package contains and which capabilities it may require. After execution, the run is recorded: clawx history The goal is to make agent workflows easier to discover, review, reuse, and audit. The problem with reusable prompts Saving useful prompts is already a good practice. But a text file containing a prompt usually does not answer questions such as: Which version am I running? Has the content changed? Which tools could the agent use? Which inputs are required? Does another task need to run first? What was executed last time? Can another developer reproduce this workflow? A prompt often contains the task, but not the operational structure around the task. Clawx treats agent instructions as versioned artifacts rather than disposable chat messages. What does a package look like? A simplified Clawx package could look like this: --- name : repo-health-check version : 1.0.0 description : " Analyze a repos

2026-08-04 原文 →
AI 资讯

Mendapi 0.5.5: the one bug we shipped on purpose, now fixed

The 0.5.4 release notes carried an unusual section: Known issue shipped with 0.5.4 . We had spent that whole release fixing the first minute of using the CLI — twelve corrections to help text, exit codes, path handling, and MCP behaviour — and in the middle of it we found one more that did not make the cut. mendapi scan -h did not print help. It ran a scan. Every other subcommand normalized -h to --help before dispatching. scan did not, so the short flag fell through to the scanner, which happily ignored an unrecognized argument and started working. Nobody loses data over this. But it is exactly the kind of thing that makes a first-time user close the terminal, and we had just shipped a release about first impressions. We wrote it down rather than quietly patching over it, because a tool whose entire premise is upstream changes should be visible before they surprise you does not get to hide its own. What 0.5.5 does One change. -h is normalized to --help before any subcommand spawns, so all nine subcommands behave identically: $ npx mendapi@0.5.5 scan -h Usage: mendapi scan --repo <path> --provider <name> --change-id <id> --out <file.json> --json --quiet --include-prereleases The regression gate that covers this now asserts on all nine subcommands, plus a negative control that fails if the assertion ever becomes vacuously true. That second part matters more than the fix: a test that passes because it stopped testing anything is worse than no test. Also in this release The MCP registry entry has been refreshed. com.mendapi/mendapi now carries an icon set and a website URL alongside the package metadata, so clients that render a server picker have something to render. Nothing else changed. scan , fix , deps , review , and pr still run entirely on your machine. No network primitives exist in those files at all, and the build fails if any appear. Install npx mendapi@latest scan Or wire it into an agent: claude mcp add mendapi \ -- npx mendapi mcp Requires Node.js 22.13 o

2026-08-04 原文 →
AI 资讯

OpenAI's Astra Solved 10 Open Math Problems — and the Price Tag Is the Real Story

Every once in a while an AI announcement lands that isn't about a chat UI or a new benchmark, but about the actual substance of what these systems can now do. OpenAI's announcement of ten new results in mathematics and theoretical computer science — produced by an internal version of Astra, their next major model — is one of those moments. Here's what happened, why it matters beyond the math community, and where the honest caveats are. The results The ten problems span high-dimensional geometry, coding theory, arithmetic circuit complexity, group theory, operator algebras, quantum complexity, lattice cryptography, and extremal combinatorics. Highlights include: Non-sofic groups — a construction establishing their existence, addressing a central open question in group theory. Connes's rigidity conjecture — a disproof of a longstanding conjecture about von Neumann algebras. Quantum parallel repetition — an exponential parallel repetition theorem for general two-player quantum games. Multicolor Ramsey numbers — a superexponential lower bound, resolving Erdős problem 183. Closest vector problem — polynomial-factor hardness of approximation, a foundational lattice question tied to post-quantum cryptography. Each argument was prepared into a manuscript by humans working with the model, then formalized by the model into a Lean certificate (the proofs are public on GitHub). OpenAI also released the model's narration of its own thinking process for each solution. The price tag that reframes everything The most striking number in the announcement isn't the math — it's the cost. The total tokens needed to find these solutions would cost roughly $2,000 at Sol API rates . Think about that for a second. Two thousand dollars of compute to resolve open problems that mathematicians have worked on for decades. Some of these (like non-sofic groups) have been open for over a decade of intense effort. We're not talking about a moonshot lab budget — we're talking about the price of a mid

2026-08-04 原文 →
AI 资讯

I Built an Open-Source AI Agent That Actually Controls Your Computer

AI agents are everywhere in 2026. Most of them can answer questions, generate code, or automate simple workflows. But once you ask them to interact with a real computer—browsers, desktop applications, terminals, files, and external services—things quickly become unreliable. That was the motivation behind HeyAgent . The Problem Most autonomous agents fail for one of three reasons: They declare success before the task is actually finished. They lose context during long, multi-step workflows. They aren't designed to work with a real desktop environment. I wanted to build an agent that behaves more like a real assistant instead of just another LLM wrapper. What HeyAgent Does HeyAgent is an open-source autonomous AI agent for computer control and workflow automation. It can: 🖥️ Control desktop applications 🌐 Work inside browsers 📂 Read and manage files 💻 Execute terminal commands 🔗 Connect with external services 📱 Be controlled through CLI, Desktop UI, or Telegram 🧠 Plan and execute multi-step workflows ✅ Verify results before marking tasks as completed Instead of blindly executing prompts, the agent plans, executes, validates the outcome, and only then reports success. Reducing False Task Completion One of the biggest problems I noticed in existing AI agents is false task completion. Many agents click a button, assume everything worked, and immediately report success. In reality, something may have failed several steps earlier. HeyAgent performs additional verification after critical actions to reduce false positives and improve reliability during long-running workflows. Built with AWS Support HeyAgent has been significantly accelerated thanks to the support of AWS. AWS has provided the project with cloud infrastructure, GPU computing resources, and access to modern AI services that made rapid experimentation possible throughout development. From running GPU workloads to evaluating different LLMs and AI models, AWS has been an important part of the engineering process.

2026-08-03 原文 →
AI 资讯

What 102 Portable Power Stations Tell Us About Buying One in 2026

If you've ever tried to buy a portable power station, you know the problem: every brand claims to be the best, the spec sheets are a wall of numbers, and the forums are full of confident but contradictory advice. "What size do I actually need?" is the most-asked question and the least-clearly-answered. So I did the boring thing. I built a structured database of 102 portable power stations from 24 brands — capacity, output, chemistry, cycle life, solar input, weight, price — and started running the numbers. A few findings were genuinely surprising. 1. Prices quietly collapsed The median portable power station now sits at $0.61 per watt-hour . The cheapest in the dataset is $0.39/Wh (the GRECELL T1000). A few years ago, ~$1/Wh was normal and anything under $0.70 felt like a deal. The practical takeaway: if you're paying much more than ~$0.70/Wh in 2026, you're mostly paying a brand premium. That premium sometimes buys you a better app, ecosystem, or support — but it's worth knowing you're paying it. 2. LiFePO4 basically won 94% of the models I track now use LiFePO4 (lithium iron phosphate) instead of the older lithium-ion (NMC) chemistry. This matters more than any marketing bullet point: LiFePO4: ~3,000–4,000+ charge cycles Older Li-ion (NMC): ~500 cycles At daily use — say you cycle it every day in a van or for backup — that's roughly 8 years vs 18 months before the battery is meaningfully degraded. If a listing still uses NMC to hit a lower price, that "deal" can cost you far more over its life. 3. The fridge myth costs people hundreds of dollars This is the single most common sizing mistake. People size a giant, expensive battery to run a fridge because they do the math like this: Fridge nameplate (150W) × 24 hours = 3,600 Wh/day But a fridge's compressor only runs about 40% of the time . Its real average draw is closer to 60W, so: 150W × 40% × 24h ≈ 1,440 Wh/day In runtime terms: a 1,000Wh power station runs a full-size fridge for about 14 hours , not the ~6 hour

2026-08-03 原文 →
AI 资讯

I Built a Language Where AI Calls Are Sandboxed by Default

I Built a Language Where AI Calls Are Sandboxed by Default The 30-line Python problem Last month I needed a script that reads server logs, classifies errors with an LLM, summarizes them, and writes a report. In Python, it looked like this: Import the SDK Initialize the client Handle the API response Parse JSON Add asyncio.gather() because sequential calls took 8 seconds Write a custom sandbox because I don't trust LLMs with exec and file writes Package it in Docker because requirements.txt always breaks on the server 80 lines later , it worked. But it felt wrong. I wasn't building logic — I was plumbing. So I asked myself: What if AI operations were language primitives, not library calls? Meet Pipe Pipe is a small runtime (~10 MB, single binary, zero dependencies) that treats summarize , translate , classify , and ask as first-class citizens — on the same level as + , sort , or len . Try it Browser Playground (WASM, no install): pipe-lang.com Source: github.com/MachuraHarry/pipe Docs: pipe-lang.com/docs

2026-08-03 原文 →
AI 资讯

Beyond Single-Agent Loops: How We Built Multi-Agent Orchestration in Octo

A few weeks ago Boris Cherny, who leads development on Claude Code, mentioned during a talk at Acquired Unplugged that he doesn't really write prompts for Claude anymore. Instead he writes loops that keep prompting Claude until the work is actually done. The clip went viral on X, racked up nearly 700k views in under 24 hours, and Loop Engineering became the latest term making the rounds in AI development circles. The core idea is straightforward enough. Rather than obsessively tuning a single prompt to get a perfect output on the first try, you build an iterative system around the model: give it a clear goal, feed it the right context, give it tools to work with, evaluate what it produces, and define conditions for when it can stop. Wire those pieces together and the agent stops being a one-shot call and becomes something that iterates, self-corrects, and keeps working until the output actually meets your bar. The efficiency gains over prompt-tuning are real, and that is why the concept resonated so quickly. What struck us as we built and shipped the loop system for our own platform Octo is that almost all of the current conversation around Loop Engineering stays at the single-agent level. You have one model, one cleverly designed loop, one sandbox, and the agent grinds away iteratively until its output passes whatever checks you have set up. That solves a real problem: how one person works faster with AI. But real work, especially inside an organization, rarely fits cleanly inside a single agent loop. A product feature going from idea to shipped code needs someone defining requirements, someone designing the approach, someone writing the implementation, someone verifying quality, someone feeding back results. Those are not different iterations of the same loop. They are interconnected loops that need to pass context and outputs between each other. When loops need to share state, trigger each other, and respect organizational boundaries, single-agent loop design sto

2026-08-03 原文 →
← 上一页 下一页 →