标签：#ai

It's the company's first public proof point after a year and a half spent building AI infrastructure largely out of public view.

Someone on your team built an LLM feature. Maybe it's an inline code-suggest. Maybe it's a "fix this...

Suno data obtained in a hacking incident has exposed that the AI music generator was trained by scraping millions of songs and lyrics from online audio platforms, including YouTube Music, Deezer, and Genius, 404 Media reports. Given that Suno has avoided revealing what's in its training datasets and how they were acquired, this a rare […]

Google's biggest solar and battery project stands in sharp contrast with xAI's nearby unpermitted power plant.

The hacker used an employee's credentials to access source code, which revealed how Suno scraped decades of audio.

Livestream shopping platform Whatnot has acquired AI startup Shaped, a machine learning company focused on real-time recommendations and search. The deal will bolster Whatnot’s personalization and discovery features as it expands into new product categories.

Netflix just can't let Stranger Things go. Since the final episode aired on New Year's Eve there's been a behind-the-scenes documentary, an animated series that expands the story, and now, on the 10th anniversary of the show's original release, Netflix has released a new version of the show's first season. The episodes have all been […]

Microsoft's monthly release of security fixes, dubbed Patch Tuesday, resolved a record 570 security vulnerabilities across the company's product line, thanks to discoveries with AI.

Suno says it was breached in November and "no sensitive personal information was compromised."

Samsung gave a sneak peek of the "brand new shape" for its upcoming Galaxy Z Fold 8 in a new teaser for Spider-Man: Brand New Day. The video includes a few shots of Spidey taking a foldable phone off a 3D printer and opening it book-style, but each shot is heavily obscured by lens flares. […]

Ever sat down and thought about how a movie can spark your curiosity about technology? I was rewatching "Jurassic Park" recently, and, for the umpteenth time, I found myself mesmerized not just by the dinosaurs but by the computers! The way they portrayed tech in the early '90s was a mix of excitement and pure whimsy. I’ve been exploring the tech behind the magic, and it’s been a wild ride down memory lane—a nostalgia trip mixed with some surprising insights into how things have evolved. A Walk Down Memory Lane When I first watched "Jurassic Park" as a kid, the scene where Dr. Ellie Sattler runs through the control room, frantically trying to restore the park’s security, left me awestruck. I mean, who didn’t dream of typing on one of those cool-looking computers? As a budding developer, I couldn't help but wonder about the behind-the-scenes tech. Ever wondered why they used UNIX systems? Or why the computer graphics felt so cutting-edge back then? Turns out, they were leveraging a blend of SGI workstations and proprietary software that made their visual effects legendary. I remember my first experience with UNIX during my college days, and it felt like being dropped into a different universe—powerful, complex, and sometimes, downright intimidating. I’ve learned that just like in the movie, the power of tech lies in how effectively we can wield it. The Nostalgia of User Interfaces Let’s talk about user interfaces. The interfaces portrayed in the film, with their vibrant colors and flashy animations, were quite ahead of their time. It’s funny looking back because, at points, they seemed so unrealistic. I mean, the way Dr. Ian Malcolm effortlessly navigated the systems? I wish it was that easy! When I started working on UI/UX projects, I learned that simplicity is key. I once spent hours creating a beautiful interface that was so complex no one could figure it out! My takeaway? Sometimes, less is more. It’s the same lesson I’ve carried into modern frameworks like React

The Codex Micro is designed to monitor multiple agentic threads at a glance.

OpenAI is finally releasing some hardware. No, it isn't the mysterious AI-powered device the company is developing with former Apple designer Jony Ive, a project already tangled up in a messy lawsuit. Instead, it's a product designed to be used with its coding platform, Codex. The device, a square-shaped block of buttons called Codex Micro, […]

GitHub recently launched Agentic Workflows — GitHub Actions combined with an AI agent backed by Claude or GitHub Copilot, writing workflows in plain Markdown. Noma Labs' first question after launch was the obvious one: what happens when the agent reads something it shouldn't trust? The answer: it leaks private repository contents as a public comment. No credentials, no exploit code, no inside access required. "The agent's context window is also its attack surface. Any content the agent reads — whether issues, pull requests, comments, or files — can be weaponized if the agent treats that content as instructional input." What actually happened Noma's researchers crafted a GitHub Issue that looked like a plausible VP Sales request — a normal-looking feature ask with hidden instructions embedded in the body. When GitHub's automation assigned the issue, it triggered an Agentic Workflow configured to: Trigger on issues.assigned events Read the issue title and body Post a comment using the add-comment tool Run with read access to other repositories in the organisation — including private ones The hidden instructions told the agent to fetch README.md from repos across the org and post the contents as a comment on the public issue. It did exactly that, including the contents of testlocal — a private repository. The proof-of-concept is live: the workflow run and the issue are public. The guardrail bypass GitHub had defences in place to prevent this. They didn't hold. Noma found that adding the word "Additionally" to the injected instructions caused the model to reframe its output rather than refuse — bypassing the guardrails entirely. A single keyword was enough to undo the intended safety behaviour. This is what makes prompt injection particularly uncomfortable: guardrails tuned against known attack patterns can be bypassed by anyone willing to iterate on the phrasing. The attacker's loop is cheap; the defender's loop is not. The bigger pattern Noma names this explicitly: pr

Digibee opens with a clear disclaimer: every team there uses Claude Code. This isn't a take from people who skipped the AI tooling revolution. It's an observation from people who shipped with it and ran into the same wall, repeatedly. That wall is enterprise integration. "Enterprise integration isn't a greenfield challenge. It's a completely different category of work, with completely different failure modes that coding agents weren't designed for." What coding agents are actually good at here They're useful for integration work under a narrow set of conditions: well-documented APIs, one-time tasks, low stakes, nothing in production at risk. A quick script to pull from a public endpoint? Great. A throwaway ETL job? Perfect. The problems start the moment an integration needs to be recurring, reliable, auditable, and maintained by someone other than the person who prompted it. The three structural gaps 1. They start from scratch every time. Pre-built connectors for enterprise systems like SAP, Salesforce, or NetSuite encode years of accumulated knowledge — how sequencing works, how idempotency is handled, where the quirks are. A coding agent reasons through all of that fresh on every run. It also suffers from the "lost in the middle" effect: when documentation gets long, LLMs drop content from the middle of their context window and fall back on training data. The more obscure the API, the more likely the generated code quietly fails under real load — not on deployment, but six months later when the CIO notices corrupted records. 2. They produce code, not infrastructure. Integrations need retry logic, failure recovery, credential management, audit trails, monitoring, and alerting. Coding agents produce none of that. You can prompt your way around it piecemeal — but now you're maintaining the integration and five hand-rolled infrastructure components. An agent optimised to iterate fast isn't optimised to fail safely. In production, a bad write means unprocessed payments

There's a school of voice-agent development that treats turn detection as something you buy, not something you build. Pick a streaming STT provider, let its end-of-turn logic decide when the user is done, and move on. For a lot of teams that's the right move — and if you're weighing the options, our breakdown of turn detection vs forced endpoints is the place to start. But some teams have already solved turn detection. They've tuned their own voice-activity detection over thousands of calls, they know their audio, and they trust their endpointing more than any default. For those teams, a streaming model's built-in turn logic isn't a feature — it's something to work around. What they want is narrower and faster: hand over a finished chunk of speech, get accurate text back, get out of the way. That's the case for bringing your own turn detection and pairing it with fast ASR over HTTP. Turn detection is an architectural decision, not a default Here's the framing that matters. In a streaming setup, the STT model is a participant in the conversation — it's watching the audio and deciding, continuously, whether the user has finished. That's genuinely useful when you want the provider to own that judgment. But it means the model is inserting its own decision between "user stopped talking" and "you get the transcript." If you already know the turn is over — because your VAD just fired — you don't want the model deliberating. You want it transcribing. Every millisecond the STT layer spends re-deciding a question you've already answered is latency you're adding for no benefit. So the decision isn't "which provider has the best turn detection." For these teams it's "who owns the turn boundary?" If the answer is you, then the ideal STT layer is one that does exactly one thing: turn a finished clip into accurate text, fast. Built-in vs. bring-your-own Built-in (streaming). The model reads tonality, pacing, and rhythm to detect end-of-turn — with Universal-3.5 Pro Realtime, aroun

You've got a recording and you want text back. For years that meant one thing at AssemblyAI: submit the file, wait for the job to finish, get a transcript. Async. It's reliable, it's cheap, and for a huge range of workloads it's exactly right. But "wait for the job to finish" is doing a lot of work in that sentence. If your file is two minutes long and your user is staring at a spinner, waiting is the whole problem. That's the gap the Sync API fills — and it's why "which transcription path" is no longer a two-way question. This post is about the two ways to transcribe a recording : async and sync. (If you're deciding between recorded and live audio in the first place — streaming versus the rest — start with our guide to real-time vs batch transcription , then come back here to choose between the two non-streaming paths.) The one-sentence difference Async transcription hands you a job: you submit audio, the work happens in the background, and you collect the result later by polling or via a webhook. Sync transcription hands you an answer: you POST a short clip and the transcript comes back in the same HTTP response — no job to track, no callback to wait for. Everything else follows from that. Async is built for throughput and depth on files of any length. Sync is built for speed on short files, when a person or an agent is waiting on the other end. How fast can each actually go? This is the question that usually settles it, so let's be concrete. Async processes the whole file and returns a single complete transcript, typically in seconds to a few minutes depending on file length and load. Crucially, it bills on audio duration ($0.21/hr on Universal-3.5 Pro), so a 30-minute file costs the same whether it comes back in 20 seconds or two minutes. You're optimizing for cost and completeness, not for the clock. Sync is built to return a transcript for a short clip almost immediately — roughly 134ms p50 — in one request/response, with no polling and no webhooks. It's price

On June 9, 2026, Anthropic shipped Claude Fable 5, a model in a new tier that sits above Opus. I have been building on the Claude API for over a year, and this is the first release that made me stop and re-read my whole prompt stack before touching the model string. Here is what actually changed and what it means if you ship software. The short version Fable 5 is the public release of the Mythos line, the family that earlier in the year unsettled the security world with how well it found and exploited vulnerabilities. The version you and I get is the same underlying model with safeguards bolted on. Anthropic calls the safe one Fable and the unrestricted one Mythos, and only a small group of cyberdefenders gets Mythos. The numbers, for context: 1M token context window, 128K max output, knowledge cutoff January 2026. Priced at $10 per million input tokens and $50 per million output. That is double Opus 4.8 ($5 / $25). State of the art on nearly every benchmark they tested: 95% SWE-bench Verified, 80% SWE-bench Pro. Adaptive thinking is always on. There is no "disabled" mode. That last point matters more than the benchmarks. You do not tune a thinking budget anymore. The model decides. The pricing reframes the decision At $10/$50, Fable 5 is not your default model. It is your "this task is hard and getting it wrong is expensive" model. Opus 4.8 at $5/$25 remains the workhorse for most application traffic, and Haiku 4.5 at $1/$5 still wins on classification and routing. The way I think about it now is a three-tier ladder: Haiku 4.5 → routing, classification, cheap extraction Opus 4.8 → default for app traffic, agentic loops, coding Fable 5 → long-horizon agentic work where correctness pays for itself The "longer and more complex the task, the larger Fable's lead" framing from the announcement is the actual buying signal. A one-shot summarization does not justify 2x the cost. A multi-hour autonomous refactor that would otherwise need human correction might. The API surfa

Apple Intelligence is headed to China after regulators approved Apple’s AI services through a partnership with Alibaba. The long-rumored deal will bring Alibaba’s Qwen AI models to Apple’s operating systems, marking a major expansion of the company’s generative AI platform into one of its most important markets.

The FCC might be overstepping its bounds to open the door to broadcast TV monopolies.