标签：#ai

Probabilistic Graph Neural Inference for deep-sea exploration habitat design for extreme data sparsity scenarios Introduction: The Abyssal Classroom It was 3 AM, and I was staring at a screen filled with bathymetric data from the Mariana Trench—or rather, the absence of it. The dataset I had painstakingly compiled from oceanographic surveys, autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) logs, and satellite altimetry had 97% missing values. My initial approach—a standard deep learning model for habitat design—failed catastrophically, producing predictions that were physically impossible (like habitats floating 200 meters above the seafloor). That night, as I watched the loss curve plateau into nonsense, I realized something profound: deep-sea exploration habitat design isn't just an engineering challenge; it's an inference problem under extreme uncertainty. My learning journey into probabilistic graph neural inference began that night. While exploring how to model the sparse, irregularly sampled data from hydrothermal vent fields, I discovered that traditional neural networks treat observations as independent, ignoring the inherent relational structure of the deep-sea environment. Through studying geometric deep learning and Bayesian inference, I realized that graph neural networks (GNNs) could capture the complex dependencies between seafloor features—but only if we could handle the missing data probabilistically. This article documents what I learned from building a probabilistic graph neural inference system for deep-sea habitat design, where data sparsity isn't a bug but a feature. Technical Background: Why Graph Neural Networks for the Abyss? Deep-sea habitats—from hydrothermal vent chimneys to cold seep mounds—are not randomly distributed. They form interconnected networks governed by geological processes, fluid dynamics, and biological colonization patterns. In my research, I found that this relational structure is perfectly suited for graph neural networks. However, th

After releasing a feature to detect and label AI-generated videos, YouTube has released a new feature that will let you curate videos using... AI.

It is one thing to say AI will change the world. It is another to expect the class of 2026 to applaud it. In fact, when former Google CEO Eric Schmidt told University of Arizona graduates that their task is to help shape AI, he was met with a resounding chorus of boos. “I can…

Why your age-gating algorithm is probably doomed to fail in the wild For developers building in the computer vision and biometrics space, there is a massive gap between a model that passes a NIST benchmark and a system that survives the "child-with-a-VPN" test. Recent data indicates that roughly 32% of children are successfully bypassing age-gating tech. As engineers, our first instinct is often to blame the model—to tweak the weights, gather more training data, or tighten the threshold. But the technical reality is more sobering: the failure isn't in the algorithm; it's in the deployment architecture. The Problem with Probabilistic Logic in Binary Workflows Most age estimation models rely on analyzing biometric markers—skin texture, bone structure ratios, and periocular geometry. They produce a probabilistic age range. However, according to NIST's evaluation of age estimation software, to maintain a low false-positive rate, systems often need to set a "challenge age" between 29 and 33 years. If you are a dev tasked with keeping 17-year-olds off a platform, you are essentially forced to build a "buffer zone" of over a decade. If the system flags anyone who might be under 30, the UX becomes a nightmare. If you lower the threshold to 18, the false-negative rate skyrockets. This is the fundamental trade-off of probabilistic facial analysis: precision and recall are at constant war, and in a high-traffic production environment, the "noise" of real-world variables (poor lighting, low-res sensors, off-axis angles) makes consistency nearly impossible. The Breakdown of the Identity Handoff Beyond the model, there are three technical failure points that no amount of Euclidean distance analysis can fix if the pipeline is broken: The Signal-to-Noise Ratio at Source: Evaluation datasets are clean. Production images are taken on scratched lenses in low-light bedrooms. The delta between training distribution and inference-time reality is where the first 10% of accuracy vanishes.

Microsoft announced Azure Linux 4.0 and Azure Container Linux at Open Source Summit. Azure Linux 4.0 is a Fedora-based general-purpose server distribution for Azure VMs, the first time Microsoft has offered a supported Linux beyond container hosting. Azure Container Linux is an immutable container-optimized host built on Flatcar. By Steef-Jan Wiggers

𝗚𝗶𝘁𝗛𝘂𝗯 𝗦𝘂𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗠𝘆 𝟮‑𝗬𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗗𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿 𝗔𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁 — 𝗛𝗲𝗿𝗲’𝘀 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗲𝗱 A few days ago, something happened that genuinely shook me as a developer. My GitHub account, KelvCodes, which I had used and built on for over 2 years, got restricted unexpectedly. At first, I thought it was a mistake that would be resolved quickly. I had experienced a temporary restriction before that was lifted within a short time, so I assumed this would be similar. But this time was different. Suddenly, I lost access to years of work and history tied to my developer identity: · 60+ projects · 110+ stars · 50+ followers · client work · collaborations · repositories connected to applications and opportunities For context, GitHub was not just a coding platform for me. It had become part of my professional identity as a software engineer. My resume linked to it. Applications linked to it. Opportunities came through it. In fact, some people literally looked at my GitHub profile before deciding to work with me. That's what made this experience difficult. The Emotional Side Nobody Talks About When developers lose access to an account, people often think: "Just create another account." But when you've spent years building a reputation, consistency, commit history, projects, and credibility under one identity, it doesn't feel that simple. It feels like losing a digital portfolio you carefully built over time. And honestly, for a moment, I felt stuck. Do I wait endlessly for support? Do I pause my work? Do I rebuild everything from scratch? What I Decided After thinking about it deeply, I realized something important: I cannot pause my growth waiting for a platform decision. So I made the decision to continue building. I created a new GitHub account: 👉 https://github.com/kelvinagyareyeboah And while I still hope my old account may eventually be restored, I'm no longer allowing the situation to stop my momentum. Lessons I Learned From This Your skills matter more than one platform Platforms are important

The numbers just dropped. April ecommerce growth came in at 11% more than double the total retail sales growth rate for the same period. For developers building ecommerce infrastructure, this isn't just a market stat. It's a load test result. And a lot of backends are failing it quietly. Here's what 11% ecommerce growth actually means technically and the five infrastructure decisions that determine whether your client captures it or gets buried by it. What 11% growth means at the infrastructure level 11% more orders. 11% more simultaneous channel requests. 11% more concurrent inventory mutations across every connected platform. The sync architecture that handled last year's volume handles this year's volume — until it doesn't. The failure mode is predictable: javascript// Last year's volume const ordersPerDay = 500; const syncWindowsPerDay = (24 * 60) / 15; // 96 const ordersPerWindow = ordersPerDay / syncWindowsPerDay; // 5.2 // This year's volume at 11% growth const ordersPerDayNow = ordersPerDay * 1.11; // 555 const ordersPerWindowNow = ordersPerDayNow / syncWindowsPerDay; // 5.8 // During a flash sale at 10x velocity const peakOrdersPerWindow = ordersPerWindowNow * 10; // 57.8 // 57 orders processed against potentially stale stock per 15-minute window // Up from 52 last year seemingly small, meaningfully worse at the tail The difference between 52 and 58 orders per window sounds minor. At the tail peak flash sale velocity, multiple channels firing simultaneously — it's the difference between manageable oversell exposure and a crisis. The five infrastructure decisions that matter Sync architecture polling vs event-driven This is the highest leverage decision. Everything else builds on it. javascript// Polling — what most systems still run // Sync lag: up to 15 minutes // Cost at 11% growth: proportionally worse setInterval(async () => { const stock = await getSourceOfTruth(); await syncToAllChannels(stock); }, 15 * 60 * 1000); // Event-driven — sync lag approache

Recently, Apache SeaTunnel welcomed several talented and highly motivated new Committers, and Wang Xuepeng is one of them. As a long-time contributor, Wang Xuepeng’s promotion to Committer was no coincidence. Over the years, he has quietly contributed a tremendous amount to the community, and everyone has witnessed his dedication. From first stepping into the open-source world to becoming a Committer of an Apache top-level project, he has accumulated plenty of stories and valuable insights along the way. What inspired his journey? What experiences and lessons does he want to share with the community? Let’s take a closer look at this exclusive interview with him! Personal Introduction Interview Transcript How long have you been involved in open source? What attracts you to open source? I started getting involved in open source in 2023. What attracts me most is the sense of achievement when the code I write can actually be used within the industry. When did you start contributing to SeaTunnel? What was the trigger? I joined WhaleOps in 2023, which was also when I first started engaging with open source. Now that you’ve been elected as a SeaTunnel Committer, could you summarize your contributions to the community, including both code and non-code contributions? Most of my major feature PRs have focused on building SeaTunnel’s metadata capabilities. When running SeaTunnel jobs and writing job configurations, users often need to manually enter datasource connection information. For file-based tasks, users also need to manually define field mappings. To address these issues, I designed an SPI interface called MetadataProvider . The interface mainly exposes two methods: Map<String, Object> datasourceMap(String connectorIdentifier, String metaDataDatasourceId); Optional<TableSchema> tableSchema(String metaDataTableId); Previously, some users in the community mentioned that datasource usernames and passwords were stored in Nacos with read-only access permissions. In scenario

YouTube is launching a new AI feature that creates a personalized video feed based on descriptions of what you want to watch. In its announcement, YouTube says custom content feeds can be built around your specific interests, moods, or favorite topics, which you can then pin to the top of your YouTube homepage - making […]

If you’ve been doing Android development for a while, you know the drill. You start a new project,...

Built on top of the open-source Hermes project, Vertu's new foldable combines AI-agent workflows, enterprise integrations, and ultra-premium luxury finishes.

AI wrote the code in 30 seconds Three lines A simple function I prompted it generated I copied It...

The conversation about cognitive debt in AI-assisted development has been framed as a tradeoff: you can go fast, or you can understand your system, but not both. The proposed mitigations — pair programming, code reviews, requiring a human to understand each change — are braking mechanisms. They trade speed for comprehension. TRIZ (Theory of Inventive Problem Solving) says braking is a compromise, not a resolution. A resolved contradiction eliminates the conflict. You don't choose between speed and understanding. You restructure the system so they don't conflict. There are six root causes of cognitive debt in AI-augmented development. Each one is a contradiction. Each one has a TRIZ resolution that doesn't involve slowing down. Root Cause 1: The Velocity-Comprehension Gap AI generates complex logic in seconds that would take a human hours to write. The human never spends the time typing the code during creation. The theory of the program is never fully formed. The Contradiction Technical contradiction: Improving development speed (AI generates code faster) worsens depth of understanding (human doesn't internalize the logic). Physical contradiction: The development process must be simultaneously FAST (to capture AI's productivity gains) and SLOW (to allow human assimilation of the system's behavior). Resolution: Separation in Space (Principle 2 — Extraction + Principle 1 — Segmentation) The contradiction assumes that the thing being understood IS the code. Extract the understanding target from the code and put it somewhere else — a smaller, slower-moving, human-readable artifact that captures what the code must satisfy, not how it works. Segment the system's theory into independent, composable units. Each unit is one property: "this service must never accept unauthenticated requests," "this data pipeline must preserve ordering," "this retry loop must terminate within 30 seconds." Each property is 1-3 sentences in natural language or 3-10 lines in a predicate language.

AI Glossary: A to Z An A-to-Z glossary of AI terms, created with help from AI itself. Because in 2026, the best way to study AI is apparently to ask AI itself. 🤣 Written for beginners and practitioners alike. Each term includes a plain English definition and a real-world example. Quick Navigation A · B · C · D · E · F · G · H · I · J · K · L · M · N · O · P · Q · R · S · T · U · V · W · X · Y · Z ↑ Back to top A Term Definition Example Agent (AI Agent) An AI system that perceives its environment, makes decisions, and takes autonomous actions to achieve a goal A coding agent that writes, runs, and debugs its own code without human intervention AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) A hypothetical AI that can match or exceed human-level intelligence across any task — does not yet exist Often cited as a long-term goal by companies like OpenAI and DeepMind AI (Artificial Intelligence) The field of computer science focused on building machines that can perform tasks normally requiring human intelligence ChatGPT writing an essay, an algorithm detecting cancer in X-rays AI Ethics The principles and practices for developing and deploying AI in ways that are fair, transparent, and safe Auditing a hiring algorithm to ensure it doesn't discriminate by gender or race AI Safety The field dedicated to ensuring AI systems remain reliable, controllable, and beneficial as they grow more capable Research into preventing AI from pursuing goals that harm people Alignment The challenge of ensuring an AI system's goals and behaviour match what its designers and users actually intend Preventing a powerful AI from optimising for a metric in a way that causes unintended harm Annotation The process of labelling raw data so it can be used to train supervised learning models Humans drawing bounding boxes around cars in images to train a self-driving model API (Application Programming Interface) A defined interface that lets software systems communicate with each other Calling the OpenAI API to

GitHub Finish-Up-A-Thon Challenge Submission There’s something strangely emotional about reopening an old unfinished game project. Especially one that once felt like “the next big idea” at 2 AM during a hackathon 😭 You open the folder expecting nostalgia… …and instead find: broken UI random commits duplicated code missing assets unfinished features and functions named things like test2_final_REAL.js That’s exactly what happened when I reopened WhatUsee . A multiplayer browser game I originally started building as a fun experimental idea. At first, it wasn’t meant to become anything serious. It was just a simple concept: “What if players had to race against each other to identify hidden objects inside chaotic images?” That tiny idea slowly turned into a real-time multiplayer hidden-object game. And honestly? At the beginning, building it was insanely fun. 💡 The Original Idea Behind WhatUsee Most multiplayer browser games focus on: shooting drawing trivia racing But I wanted something different. Something that created those chaotic: “WAIT I SEE IT—NO WAY 😭” moments. The idea was simple: Players join a room together. An image appears. Somewhere inside that image is: a hidden object an animal a logo a random item or something cleverly camouflaged And everyone races to identify it before the timer ends. Fast reactions. Visual focus. Pure multiplayer chaos. That became WhatUsee . At first, the project was extremely small. Just: Socket.IO basic image display simple guessing and a rough scoreboard No polish. No proper lobby. No smooth UI. But even in that early state… …the game already felt fun. And that’s what made me continue building it. 😭 Then The Project Slowly Got Abandoned Old unfinished WhatUsee multiplayer game interface with basic UI and minimal styling Like most side projects… life happened. College work. Burnout. Other responsibilities. Random unfinished ideas. And slowly, WhatUsee became: “that project I’ll definitely finish later.” The game technically worked.

We let AI agents loose on a payment platform. They crushed the boring stuff. Then they silently broke the stuff that matters. A survey came out last week. 54% of all code is now AI-generated. Up from 28% last year. I read that number and thought: yeah, that tracks. We're probably in that range too. But here's the thing nobody's asking — which 54%? Not all code carries equal weight. A CRUD endpoint for fetching merchant details? Low risk. The webhook handler that transitions a payment from pending to complete ? That's someone's rent. Someone's payroll. Get that wrong and money moves where it shouldn't, or worse, money doesn't move at all. I'm the CTO of a payment platform. FCA-authorised, processing real money, real merchants, real consequences. We run NestJS microservices, Docker, Traefik — the usual stack. And we've been using AI agents aggressively for over a year now. I'm not here to tell you AI is dangerous. It's not. I'm here to tell you it's dangerous when you forget what it's actually good at. The 80% Where AI Agents Are Genuinely Brilliant Let me give credit where it's due. AI agents have made our team faster in ways that would have seemed absurd two years ago. API scaffolding. Generating service boilerplate. Writing Zod validation schemas. Spinning up new endpoints. Creating test stubs. Refactoring imports. Migrating patterns across repos. We run multiple microservices. When we need a new service, an agent can scaffold the entire thing — module structure, base configuration, Docker setup, Traefik labels — in minutes. What used to be a half-day of copy-paste-and-tweak is now a conversation. When we overhauled our env management across all repos, AI agents did the grunt work. They mapped every .env file, found naming conflicts, identified common variables, and generated a unified Zod schema. What would have taken a team days of grep-and-spreadsheet work took hours. For this 80% of the codebase — the predictable, pattern-following, structurally repetitive code

TLDR Monitoring AI agents in production requires distributed tracing: a single user request fans out into 10 or more internal operations, and logs alone cannot show you which step is slow, failing, or burning your token budget. OpenTelemetry's gen_ai.* semantic conventions give you standardized span attributes for LLM calls, tool invocations, and agent steps. Some are stable today; others are still experimental. Auto-instrumentation libraries (OpenLLMetry, OpenInference, OpenLIT) cover most agent frameworks with two to three lines of initialization code. You do not change your agent code. Traces ship to OpenObserve over OTLP. From there you get SQL-queryable trace data, token usage dashboards, cost attribution by agent and model, and alerting on latency and cost anomalies. OpenObserve also exposes an MCP server. You can query your live agent traces from a Claude or GPT session without opening a dashboard. Why Agents Are Harder to Monitor Than a Single LLM Call A single LLM call is straightforward to observe. One HTTP request, one response, one latency number. You can log the input and output and call it done. An agent is different. When a user sends a message, the agent calls an LLM to decide what to do, invokes a tool, processes the result, calls the LLM again, possibly calls another tool, and eventually returns a response. That one user message becomes ten or more internal operations. Some of those operations call external APIs. Some retry. Some spawn sub-agents. Without distributed tracing, you see none of this structure. You know the response took 8 seconds. You do not know whether the LLM took 7 of those seconds or whether a tool made three retries before timing out. Four categories of problems appear in production agents that you cannot debug without traces: Latency. Which step is slow? The LLM call? The tool execution? A retry loop the agent entered because the tool returned ambiguous output? Cost. Which agent, which task, which model is consuming tokens? A s

Last year, I was doing something that felt increasingly absurd: manually reading AI-generated content to decide if it was "good enough." PostAll — the content automation tool I've been building — was producing hundreds of blog posts per week for clients. And I had no systematic way to evaluate quality at scale. I was spot-checking. Vibes-checking, really. That doesn't work at volume. So I built a programmatic quality analysis pipeline, ran it over 1,000 AI-generated posts, and let the numbers tell me what my gut was missing. The findings surprised me. A few of them genuinely changed how I think about AI content quality. What I Actually Measured First, a definition of terms, because "quality" is almost meaninglessly vague in this space. I broke quality into five measurable dimensions: Readability — Flesch-Kincaid grade level and reading ease score Keyword density — Target keyword frequency and distribution across the post Grammar error rate — Errors per 1,000 words, caught via LanguageTool's API Factual accuracy — Claims that could be verified programmatically (dates, statistics, named entities cross-referenced against a knowledge base) Structural consistency — Presence of expected elements: intro hook, subheadings, conclusion, CTA I used 1,000 posts across three categories: SaaS product descriptions, long-form "how-to" articles (1,200–2,000 words), and listicles (500–900 words). All were generated by PostAll using GPT-4o, with various prompting strategies. The Setup The analysis pipeline isn't complicated, but the piece that makes it useful is the batch processing layer: import anthropic import language_tool_python import textstat from dataclasses import dataclass from typing import Optional import json @dataclass class QualityReport : post_id : str flesch_reading_ease : float flesch_kincaid_grade : float grammar_errors_per_1000_words : float keyword_density : float structural_score : int # 0–5 based on element presence flagged_claims : list [ str ] overall_score :

"Settlement layer for the agent economy" is suddenly a crowded sentence. In the last few weeks, two very different things have started competing for it. OKX Agent Payments Protocol (APP) announced in May 2026 — backed by AWS, Alibaba Cloud, Uniswap, Paxos, QuickNode, with ecosystem support from Base, Ethereum Foundation, Solana, Sui, Aptos, Optimism — describes itself as the settlement layer where AI agents pay each other. AEON's $8M pre-seed (May 20, YZi Labs) described itself the same way. There is a list now, and it is getting longer. We build one of the things on this list, and we think the framing is wrong. These are not rivals jostling for the same slot. They are two different layers, and they answer two different versions of the same question: what does an agent need to settle a trade? This piece walks through the two layers, where each is the right answer, and why an honest comparison gets you further than picking sides. What APP and other custodial-venue protocols actually do A useful way to read OKX APP — and similar moves coming from the larger exchanges — is to treat them as a venue layer . An exchange already holds inventory across many chains. It already has the risk engines, the liquidity, the legal arrangements with banks and partners. Adding an agent-facing API on top of that machinery is a relatively short walk. What an agent gets, in exchange, is breadth. Many chains, many assets, batched and netted settlement against deep internal books, and fast execution because the exchange is just moving entries in its own ledger. For an agent whose job is "find a price somewhere and execute now," that is a powerful primitive. What the agent gives up, in exchange, is a counterparty. At any moment between deposit and withdrawal, the agent's balance is the venue's promise to pay. That promise is normally good. The agent has no way to verify, from inside its own logic, that it still is. This is not a criticism of OKX APP. It is the structural shape of any venue-