标签：#ai

Netflix says roughly 300 titles on its platform used generative AI, most of which occurred in post-production. The streaming service revealed the news in its second-quarter earnings report released on Thursday, saying it's "increasingly leveraging these tools to deliver higher quality output more quickly and at a lower cost." It also provided some examples of […]

Elon Musk's xAI files first lawsuit against Grok user accused of making child sex images.

You're out, chatbots.

Hyundai aims to deploy 25,000 Atlas robots starting with US factories in 2028.

CD sales are apparently going up, reportedly thanks to fans realizing they're an affordable way to support their favorite artists. According to a new report from research firm Luminate, 16.3 million CDs were sold in the first half of 2026 in the US, a 16 percent increase year-over-year. The growth in CD sales was driven […]

Creator says he will "very loudly ignore" those arguing for a ban on AI tools.

Across 107 enterprises, AI agents are being given real access to systems and data while the controls meant to contain them lag behind. More than half have already had a confirmed agent security incident or a near-miss; only about a third give every agent its own scoped identity, and most agents still share credentials; and only three in ten isolate their highest-risk agents. The security stack is overwhelmingly borrowed from the model providers and hyperscalers rather than purpose-built for agents, spending remains a thin slice of the security budget, and enterprises are evenly split on whether their defenses are keeping pace with AI-enabled attackers. The result is an agent security gap — autonomous agents proliferating faster than the identity, isolation, and enforcement controls needed to hold them. This wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research examines how enterprises secure their AI agents: what tooling they run, how they manage agent identity and isolation, what has already gone wrong, how much they spend, and whether they believe their defenses are keeping pace with AI-enabled attackers. The central finding is an agent security gap — the distance between the autonomy enterprises are granting their agents and the controls in place to contain them. More than half of organizations (54%) have already experienced a confirmed agent security incident (18%) or a near-miss caught before harm (36%). The structural weakness beneath those numbers is identity: only about a third (32%) give every agent its own scoped, managed identity, while the rest report that some agents share credentials or that agents mostly run on shared API keys and human or service-account credentials. When agents share credentials, a single compromised or over-permissioned agent carries a wide blast radius — and only three in ten enterprises (30%) isolate their highest-risk agents in sandboxes to bound that radius. What makes the gap notable is how comfortable enterprises are inside it. The security sta

One of the best things about the Laravel AI SDK is that it doesn't lock you into a provider. Swap OpenAI for Anthropic, add Gemini as a failover, and your agent code barely changes. That's the entire pitch, and it mostly holds up. Until your agent needs to browse the web. The provider-agnostic promise has a hole in it The SDK ships two provider tools for giving agents access to the web: WebSearch and WebFetch . They're convenient, a couple lines and your agent can search or fetch a page. But they're not really part of the SDK's unified layer, they're implemented natively by whichever AI provider you're using, which means their availability depends entirely on which model you picked. WebSearch works on Anthropic, OpenAI, Gemini, and OpenRouter. WebFetch only works on Anthropic and Gemini. So if you configure a failover chain that includes Groq, DeepSeek, Mistral, or xAI, and one of those becomes the active provider, your agent quietly loses the ability to browse. Not an error, not a warning, just an agent that stops citing sources or stops noticing the page it was supposed to check even changed. That's a rough thing to discover in production. You built a failover chain specifically so a rate limit or outage wouldn't take your feature down, and it turns out one of your fallback providers was silently missing a capability the whole time. Even when it works, it's pretty shallow Set the provider problem aside for a second. Even on a provider where WebSearch and WebFetch are both available, what you get back is raw: search results or fetched page content that the model has to reason over itself. There's no schema. There's no guaranteed citation tracking. If you want your agent to return a structured, sourced answer, that reasoning happens somewhere in the model's own inference, not in a layer you control or can test. For a lot of use cases, that's fine. For anything where the answer needs to be defensible or reproducible, a research assistant, a competitive brief, anythin

Last Tuesday I was deep in a session with an AI assistant, rewriting a caching layer that had been quietly leaking memory in production. We tried Redis first. It worked. Then I looked at the actual data volume (about 50MB, tops) and killed the idea, because spinning up a whole service to cache 50MB felt absurd. We landed on sqlite instead. Good call, I still think. Two days later a teammate opened the branch, saw cache_sqlite.py sitting next to a deleted cache_memory.py , and asked why we weren't just using Redis like the rest of our stack. I didn't have a good answer ready. The reasoning had lived entirely inside a chat session that was long gone by then. I remembered making the decision. I could not reconstruct it convincingly, and "trust me, we talked about it" is not a great answer to give a teammate, or future me, three months from now. That's the part most tooling misses with AI-assisted coding. The code survives. The diff survives. A wave of AI memory tools is racing to store more of what the code does , and a few (Selvedge, presence) are starting to chase the why too, which tells me the pain is real. But almost all of them are MCP servers you have to wire into a specific agent, with a database sitting beside your repo. What I wanted was dumber and more portable: the reasoning, and the approaches I tried and threw out, written in plain text I can read, next to the code, no matter which editor or agent produced it. Because that reasoning lives in a chat window, and chat windows end. You switch from Claude Code to Cursor, or you just close the laptop, and it's gone. The facts stay. The judgment behind them evaporates. This didn't feel like a hard problem, so I built a small thing called Alpheon to fix it for myself, the simplest possible version: one Python file, no server, no database , works off git so it doesn't care what editor or agent you use. Facts vs. reasoning Here's the distinction that clicked for me. A fact is "cache.py was modified, cache_sqlite.py

Most remote job listings are ghosts — already filled, never opened, or posted just to farm résumés. As a developer, that annoyed me enough to solve it with code instead of complaining about it on X . So I built Remoty.work , which grades every listing A–F on how likely it is to be real . Here's how the detection actually works under the hood. The problem, from an engineering angle Job boards are an endless scrape loop. Board A scrapes Board B, which scraped Board C. The same dead listing propagates across a dozen sites, and none of them verify anything. There's no signal for "is this real," so the noise compounds until every board looks identical. I didn't want to build board number thirteen in that loop. I wanted a layer on top that answers one question every listing should have to: is anyone actually going to read my application? The architecture Everything runs on a single VPS — Postgres, scrapers, and the scoring jobs, supervised on a schedule. Deliberately boring. High level: Ingestion: scheduled scrapers pull from source boards and company ATS feeds into Postgres. Each raw listing is deduplicated by a fingerprint (title + company + normalized URL) so the same job reposted across five boards collapses into one row with a repost_count . Scoring engine: every listing gets a ghost-risk score from a handful of signals, then mapped to an A–F grade so it's human-readable, not a black-box number. The "rant" signal: I cross-reference what people say about companies in places like r/recruitinghell and hiring threads. That's where the truth about a company's hiring leaks out, and it turns out to be a strong predictor. Agents: I use DeepSeek to classify and summarize the messy text job descriptions, company chatter. DeepSeek because running this over thousands of listings every night on GPT-4-class models would have killed the unit economics before I had a single user. One infra detail I didn't expect to spend a weekend on: the frontend is on Cloudflare's edge, but the ed

Google is adding personalized AI avatars to Vids that let users create videos starring a digital version of themselves, alongside Gemini Omni-powered tools for generating and editing videos from prompts and reference images.

There are, conservatively, nine thousand tools for running AI agents across your projects. This is number nine thousand and one. I know. Stay a second anyway. Eighteen years of backend work, most of it PHP, most of it through agencies — which is a polite way of saying I've spent my career as a line item in someone else's staffing spreadsheet. Several projects at once, different clients, different timezones, "resource" being the official word for what I am on a good invoicing day. So when AI agents got good enough to do real work, I didn't wonder whether one could write code. I wondered how I'd wrangle a whole fleet of them across projects — which, I eventually noticed, is me trying to become the manager of a little spreadsheet of resources, after eighteen years of being one. The snake found its tail. I built it anyway. Docket, then: a control plane for running OpenClaw agents across projects, made with heavy AI assistance on purpose — the point was to close my own gaps, not to prove I could type from memory. It started as a Bash CLI; it's now a tested Python package. On GitHub, beta, link at the bottom. This is me thinking out loud in public, not selling you anything. And somewhere in that rewrite, the doubt everyone expected me to have — is Bash the right language? — died, and a worse one took its place. That worse one is what this piece is actually about. Let me get there honestly. What I aimed for, not what I mastered I want to say this before the vocabulary makes me sound like I know more than I do. I did not sit down understanding context isolation, or git worktrees per agent, or anti-corruption layers. I sat down wanting clean, stable, maintainable, tested code — and I steered an AI toward that shape until it held together. The shape is real. My grip on every part of it is not the same. What the shape does, plainly: OpenClaw is a local-first agent daemon, great at running one agent. Run a fleet and you hit problems it doesn't solve. Docket runs pods — a Lead t

Roblox's new "Build" feature lets users generate basic games using a single text prompt.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul might have just signed a moratorium on new AI data centers in the state, but she's not against using the technology herself. During an interview with Bloomberg's Odd Lots podcast, Hochul said that her team is using "AI to analyze every single rule, regulation, [and] policy" to check for outdated […]

Across 107 enterprises, AI infrastructure spending is accelerating well ahead of the ability to see or steer its economics. Most organizations run their AI on a familiar base of hyperscalers and model-provider APIs, yet the next dollar is aimed at specialized compute almost none of them use today; a majority intend to switch or add providers within the year, many within a quarter. Buying decisions turn on integration and total cost of ownership rather than headline token price — which is fortunate, because most enterprises cannot yet see their unit economics clearly: GPUs sit at half utilization or less, and fewer than half rigorously track what their compute actually costs. The result is a compute gap — heavy, fast-moving investment running ahead of the visibility needed to control it. This wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research examines enterprise AI infrastructure and compute: where organizations are in their deployment journey, what they run AI on today, how satisfied they are, what would make them switch, where they plan to evaluate their investments, and — most revealingly — how well they can measure and control the economics of the compute underneath it all. The central finding is a compute gap — the distance between how aggressively enterprises are investing in AI infrastructure and how little of its economics they can see. Only about one in five (21%) run AI in production at scale, yet spending intentions are outrunning that maturity: the single largest planned area enterprises plan to evaluate over the next year is AI-specialized clouds (45%), a layer almost none of these enterprises use today. Meanwhile the compute already in place runs cold — 83% report GPU utilization of 50% or less — and fewer than half (44%) can rigorously track what their AI compute costs. Enterprises are buying more infrastructure faster than they can account for what they already own. Enterprises are not settled on their infrastructure vendors, either: A clear majority (64%) plan to sw

When the enemy occupies favorable terrain, don't attack head-on. Let them think they're safe, let...

Across 101 enterprises, the infrastructure that feeds AI agents their business context is being built faster than it can be trusted. Retrieval-augmented generation is already the default context source, and provider-native retrieval has quietly overtaken the dedicated vector databases that define the category — yet a majority of enterprises have already watched their agents produce confident, wrong answers traced to missing or inconsistent context. A governed semantic layer is emerging as the fix, but most are still building it; the field is converging on hybrid retrieval; and even as provider-native tools lead in practice, a plurality say they intend to keep best-of-breed. The result is a context gap — agents that sound authoritative running on a foundation their owners do not yet fully trust. This wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research examines the enterprise RAG and context layer: what feeds AI agents their business context, which retrieval systems enterprises run, how they buy and measure them, where the architecture is heading, and — most revealingly — how often that context is already failing them. The central finding is a context gap — the distance between how confidently enterprise agents answer and how reliable the context beneath them actually is. A majority of enterprises (57%) report that in the past six months their AI agents produced confident but wrong answers they traced to missing or inconsistent business context, and more than half of those said it happened more than once. This is not a fringe failure: retrieval is the primary context source for 38% of enterprises, more than any other approach, so when retrieval is thin or inconsistent, the errors it produces are wearing the agent’s authority. The infrastructure to fix it is being built — 58% already run or are building a governed semantic layer — but for most it is not yet in production. Underneath, the market is consolidating in a direction that surprises. Provider-native retrieval — OpenAI’s file se

Roblox is about to let people make games with AI right inside its mobile app, which could make a platform that's already filled with content of questionable quality feel even more overloaded. The company has embraced AI with open arms, including a preview of an ambitious take on AI world models similar to Google's Project […]

Across 157 enterprises, organizations are granting AI agents more autonomy while trusting the evaluations meant to gate that autonomy less. Half have already shipped an agent that passed their internal evaluations and then failed a customer in production; only one in twenty fully trusts automated evaluation today; and the most-cited weakness is that evaluations do not align with real-world outcomes. Yet two-thirds already allow, or are actively engineering toward, deploying agent changes to production on automated evaluation alone — with no human in the loop. The result is an evaluation gap — the distance between how much autonomy enterprises are handing their agents and how far they trust the tests that are supposed to catch the failures. This wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research examines how technical leaders measure agent performance: which reliability and evaluation platforms they use, how they select and trust them, what breaks in production, and how far they are willing to let agents run without a human in the loop. The central finding is an evaluation gap — the distance between the autonomy enterprises are granting their agents and the trust they place in the evaluations meant to govern it. Half of organizations (50%) have, in the past year, deployed an agent or LLM feature that passed their internal evaluations and then caused a customer-facing failure, and a quarter have seen it happen more than once. Trust in the tests themselves is thin: only 5% say they fully trust automated evaluation today, and the single most-cited limitation is that evaluations align poorly with real-world outcomes (29%). Enterprises are discovering that a passing eval is not the same as a working agent. What makes the gap consequential is the direction of travel. Two-thirds of organizations (66%) already permit fully automated, zero-human-in-the-loop deployment for low-risk agents (34%) or are actively engineering their pipelines to allow it within twelve months (33%). At the same tim

You can now make playlists, design flyers and compile shopping lists using AI in Search.