标签：#ai

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.

Travel agency Fora announced a $60 million Series D round led by Forerunner and Tactile Ventures, valuing the company at $1 billion.

Google already baked NotebookLM into Gemini, now it's changing the name to reflect the tighter integration

Google is giving its AI note-taking app a new name. The company announced on Thursday that NotebookLM is becoming Gemini Notebook, but will remain a standalone app even as it integrates more deeply across Gemini and Google Search. Google first revealed Gemini Notebook - then called Project Tailwind - in May 2023 before widely releasing […]

With this new update, Google is expanding AI Mode beyond answering questions and into completing tasks across the apps they use regularly.

Companies coming to market are raising money at fastest pace this century.

You're paying $10 to $20 a month for Copilot. You don't have to. A 2024-era laptop can run a coding model good enough for autocomplete, refactors, and "explain this function" entirely offline. No API key, no telemetry, no per-token bill. Here's the exact 2026 setup I run on a 16GB machine. Why local in 2026 Two years ago, local coding models were a toy. The autocomplete was slow and the suggestions were noise. That changed. qwen2.5-coder and deepseek-coder-v2 are genuinely useful now, and the tooling caught up: Ollama serves them, Continue.dev wires them into your editor, and the whole thing runs on hardware you already own. The pitch is simple: Free. No subscription, no usage caps. Private. Your proprietary code never leaves the machine. This matters if you work on smart contracts or anything under NDA. Offline. Works on a plane, in a basement, behind a corporate firewall. The tradeoff is quality and latency. We'll be honest about both. Pick a model (and match it to your RAM) This is the decision that makes or breaks the experience. Pick a model your machine can actually hold in memory, or it spills to disk and crawls. # Fast, fits anywhere (8GB+) ollama pull qwen2.5-coder:1.5b # ~1.0GB ollama pull qwen2.5-coder:3b # ~1.9GB # The sweet spot for most laptops (16GB) ollama pull qwen2.5-coder:7b # ~4.7GB # Quality tier, needs headroom (32GB+ comfortable) ollama pull deepseek-coder-v2 # ~8.9GB (16b MoE) ollama pull qwen2.5-coder:14b # ~9.0GB ollama pull qwen2.5-coder:32b # ~20GB Rough rule: the model file size is the floor, then add a few GB for context and the OS. A 4.7GB model on a 16GB machine is comfortable. A 20GB model on the same machine is not. Model Size RAM I'd want Use it for qwen2.5-coder:1.5b 1.0GB 8GB Autocomplete, fast iteration qwen2.5-coder:7b 4.7GB 16GB Daily driver: chat, refactors, explain deepseek-coder-v2 8.9GB 32GB Harder reasoning, multi-file context qwen2.5-coder:32b 20GB 64GB Near-cloud quality, if you have the RAM deepseek-coder-v2 is a 16b m

DoorDash is opening a limited beta of dd-cli, a command-line tool that lets developers and AI agents search stores, build carts, and place orders from the terminal, marking another step toward software designed for AI agents instead of just humans.

When people think about data centers, they usually think about servers, GPUs, electricity, and AI. Very few people think about water. That realization is what led me to start building AquaStat . Why AquaStat? Modern data centers consume significant amounts of water for cooling. Depending on the technology, climate, and workload, water usage can vary dramatically from one facility to another. Finding reliable information about that usage, however, is often difficult. Some facilities voluntarily publish sustainability reports. Others release only limited information. In many cases, information is scattered across government documents, environmental reports, local news articles, permits, or community discussions. I wanted to build a platform that could organize this information into something developers, researchers, journalists, and the public could actually use. What AquaStat Is AquaStat is an API-first platform focused on collecting, organizing, and analyzing information related to data center water usage. The long-term vision includes: A developer-friendly REST API OpenAPI documentation API key management A desktop control center A command-line interface Historical tracking Source attribution for collected information Transparent methodologies A modern TypeScript ecosystem Rather than hiding calculations, I want AquaStat to explain where information comes from and how conclusions are reached whenever possible. Technical Goals I'm designing AquaStat around several principles: API First Everything should be accessible through documented APIs before being exposed through a graphical interface. Strong Documentation Documentation should be treated as part of the product, not an afterthought. Reproducible Calculations Whenever AquaStat estimates or derives values, the methodology should be understandable and repeatable. Modern Tooling The project uses a modern TypeScript stack with an emphasis on maintainability, testing, and developer experience. Challenges One of the b

Welcome to Day 4! Today is all about clean architecture, dependency isolation, and modern Python tooling. You will learn how to structure your files, control execution flows, use modern tools like uv to manage virtual environments at lightning speed, and organize a codebase like a professional software engineer. 🚀 1. Modules & Packages 📦 Module: A single .py file containing variables, functions, or classes you want to reuse. Package: A directory of modules. __init__.py : Runs automatically when a package is imported, allowing you to expose a clean top-level API and hide internal folder nesting. Absolute Import: Imports specifying the full path from the project root ( from app.core import analyze ). Preferred by PEP 8 . Relative Import: Imports relative to the current file using dots ( from .utils import clean ). Single dot . is current folder; double dot .. is parent folder. A. Core Modules & Packages 🌱 Easy Starter Example Creating a basic module and importing it: # file: calculator.py (Our module) def add ( a , b ): return a + b # file: main.py (Importing our module) import calculator print ( calculator . add ( 5 , 3 )) # Output: 8 🏛️ Real-World Example: Database Package API Exposing internal package functions cleanly using __init__.py : # Project Layout: database/ ├── __init__.py ├── auth.py (defines login_user()) └── query.py (defines fetch_data()) # database/__init__.py # Expose functions relative to this folder so users don't need deep imports from .auth import login_user from .query import fetch_data # main.py # Clean absolute package import for the end-user from database import login_user , fetch_data login_user ( " admin " , " password123 " ) B. Built-In vs. Third-Party Modules Built-In: Included with Python out-of-the-box (e.g., os , sys , json ). Third-Party: Built by the community and installed from PyPI (e.g., requests , rich ). 🌱 Easy Starter Example import math # Built-in math operations print ( math . sqrt ( 25 )) # Output: 5.0 # import requests # Th

You may have heard that OpenAI released its first piece of hardware this week. You may not have heard about the ChatGPT basketball.

Exposing your data over MCP is the easy part. Designing a tool an agent uses well is the hard part. An agent can only use a tool it can read, so the work is shaping the tool for how the model calls it, not just for the human looking at the result. These are the techniques behind @bonnard/mcp-charts and the visualize tool. Discovery-first, so the agent stops guessing An agent that guesses your schema writes wrong queries. So the first tool the agent meets is a discovery tool. It calls visualize_read_me to load the chart options, the tool schema, and worked examples before it ever calls visualize , and an explore_schema tool to learn your tables and columns before it writes SQL. The agent reads, then acts. A small set of purpose-built tools The temptation is one tool per metric, or a single tool that takes arbitrary SQL and hopes. Both fail: too many tools blow the agent's attention budget; one firehose tool gives it no guardrails. Bonnard ships a small set, discover, query, visualize, each with a narrow, obvious job. The agent picks the right one because there are few of them and each does one thing. // a small, purpose-built set, not one tool per metric server . registerTool ( " explore_schema " , { /* list tables + columns */ }, listSchema ); addCharts ( server , { runSql }); // registers visualize_read_me + visualize Compact, honest responses A tool that returns 10,000 raw rows poisons the context window and the agent's next decision. Bonnard's responses are sized for a model to read: Row caps with a completeness flag. Results are capped and tagged partial or complete , so the agent knows whether it is looking at everything. Partial-result warnings. When results are capped, the response says so and tells the agent not to sum or average the visible rows, use a measure instead. Summaries over dumps. The chart comes back with a compact text summary the model can reason over, not just an image it cannot read. Errors that guide the next action A bare "error: invalid co

Most teams connecting AI agents to their data warehouse start with text-to-SQL. The agent generates SQL from natural language, runs it against the warehouse, and returns results. It works until it doesn't: hallucinated JOINs, inconsistent aggregations, no access control, no audit trail. There's a better approach. Define your business metrics in a semantic layer, expose them via MCP (Model Context Protocol), and let any AI agent query governed definitions instead of raw tables. Then add one tool so the agent can chart the result in Claude or ChatGPT. This tutorial shows how to set it up in under 30 minutes. Why does text-to-SQL break in production? The agent sees column names but not business logic. It doesn't know that your company excludes refunds from revenue. It doesn't know that status = 'completed' means something different in orders than in subscriptions . It doesn't know that marketing and finance defined "active user" differently three years ago and never reconciled. So the agent writes plausible SQL and returns plausible numbers. Ask the same question twice with different phrasing and you get different answers. Ask two different agents and you get two different numbers. Neither matches the number your finance team reports. Beyond consistency, there's no row-level security. No multi-tenancy. No audit trail showing which agent queried what, when, and for whom. In production, with real customers, that's a non-starter. Text-to-SQL gives you speed. It doesn't give you trust. What is the semantic layer approach? Instead of letting agents write arbitrary SQL, define your metrics once in YAML: cubes, measures, dimensions, access rules. Then expose those definitions via MCP so agents query governed metrics, not raw tables. The difference: every agent gets the same answer because the metric definition is fixed. total_revenue isn't a column the agent interprets. It's a pre-defined calculation with agreed-upon filters and aggregations. When your finance team updates th

Drawing on more than a decade spent helping build some of the world's most influential AI systems, including research that later informed the development of ChatGPT, Andrew Dai explains why he believes visual AI is one of the next major frontiers in artificial intelligence.

The startup, founded in 2021, lets enterprise customers use smartphones to scan and spot vehicle damage.