标签：#ai

An agent that changes something runs in the order decide, act, report. Verification, where there is any, reads what already happened. That's a fine shape for a log. As a control it's empty: by the time the check fails, the effect is already on disk, and what's left is describing the damage, attempting a repair nobody verified, or restoring from a backup whose age nobody measured. For the last few months I've been building the other order, not for one tool but for the whole path a change takes. A proposed change gets a canonical identity. Its inverse is constructed, checked, and stored before anything is applied. A gate rules on it and returns one of three verdicts. The outcome, refusals included, becomes a signed record that a third party can re-check offline with no trust in me. There's a longer draft paper behind this, deposited at doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22168558 . It's a draft, not peer reviewed, and not a specification. This post is the part that fits in a coffee break. What I'd have to be wrong about Putting this first, because a claim that only becomes checkable after you already agree with it isn't checkable. Inverse availability. The escrow design assumes a useful fraction of write-capable tools expose something you can build an inverse from. A first census of public MCP tools put that at about 13.8% of the tools that write anything at all (census v2 stage 1, public MCP servers only, not production deployments). If the real number in production is at or under that, this is mostly a refusal machine, and "reversibility as a property" degrades into "refusal as a property", which is a much smaller and much less interesting thing to have built. That's the most dangerous fact in the project and it's mine, not a critic's. Offline re-verification. If a signed receipt can't be re-checked with networking off and no trust in the issuer, meaning signature, log inclusion and identifier consistency, then the provenance layer is a log and not a proof. This one is runnable

I wrote this for the All Things Agentic Hackathon. Every incident-response demo you have seen ends the same way: something breaks, the agent fixes it, everyone applauds. I want to show you the opposite. Here is my agent, at 95% confidence, having correctly diagnosed a bad deployment, deciding not to roll it back. That refusal is the whole project. The question underneath At 3am an alert fires. An engineer wakes up, reads several hundred log lines, correlates them against recent deploys, and rolls something back. Most of it is mechanical. It is an obvious target for automation. But "automate it with an LLM" does not dissolve the problem, it relocates it. The new question is: how much would you let an agent change in production without asking you first? Give it too little and it is a chatbot that writes summaries. Give it too much and one confidently wrong diagnosis takes down your service at 3am with nobody watching. I named the project Sonjomon — Bengali for restraint. The autonomy ladder An agent should not have one blanket permission level. How far it may act alone is a function of two things: how confident it is, and how much damage the proposed action does if that confidence turns out to be wrong. tier = f(confidence, blast_radius) OBSERVE record findings, take no action SUGGEST recommend to a human, do not execute APPROVE stage the action, execute on explicit approval ACT execute now, then verify independently A restart is medium risk — reversible in seconds. A rollback is high risk — it shifts production traffic, and a needless rollback during a real outage extends it. Deleting data is critical, and no confidence level unlocks it. Six conditions can only ever push the tier down, never up: the blast-radius ceiling, thin evidence, a similar action that just failed, a third attempt at the same fix, a stale incident, and a global dry-run switch. Nothing pushes it up. A wrong action is far more expensive than a missed one. Three things the model does not control It

An early version of Say It Ahead had a basic problem. A user could listen carefully, ask good questions, and offer a reasonable plan, but the AI character might still sound just as upset as it did at the start. That made the practice feel arbitrary. The user could not tell whether anything they said had changed the conversation. The character had a strong opening mood, but no clear reason to move away from it. The fix was not a list of magic calming phrases. It was a simple model of how a difficult conversation can move forward. This note explains that model, how the live progress display works, and where the system can still get it wrong. The first character knew how to be upset The first parent scenario was easy to start. The prompt described an angry parent, gave the parent a complaint, and told the voice to push back. The result sounded convincing for the first few turns. The problem appeared when the user handled the conversation well. The model had been told why the parent was upset, but not what would make the parent become more open. It often treated anger as the character's permanent personality. A good question might produce an answer, but the next reply could jump back to the original complaint as if no trust had been built. Adding more instructions such as 'calm down when appropriate' did not solve the problem. Appropriate is too vague. The model needed to know what evidence to watch for and how its behavior should change after seeing it. A useful character needs a reason to resist Each ready-made scenario now gives the character more than a mood. It describes what happened, what the character believes, what facts they know, why they do not trust an easy answer, and what a credible resolution would look like. For example, a parent may reject a general promise because two earlier meetings led nowhere. A manager may care less about one missed deadline than about whether the same communication problem will happen again. An interviewer may accept transferabl

Last Friday, thousands of developers opened their AI code editor and found out that one of the models inside it has an expiration date. OpenAI announced it is terminating its contract with Cursor, effective November 12, 2026. The trigger was not anything Cursor did. It was who bought them. SpaceX completed its $60 billion acquisition of Anysphere, the company behind Cursor, in mid-August. OpenAI's contract had a change-of-control clause, and the moment ownership changed, a short cancellation window opened. OpenAI used it, and it picked the latest date the clause allowed. If your daily workflow runs through an AI coding tool, this story is about you, not about Musk or Altman. It is the clearest proof yet that model access inside your editor is rented, never owned. I have spent the last two years building my own AI agent infrastructure, and this kind of news is exactly why I treat every tool in my stack as replaceable. Here is what actually happened, what it means for your setup, and the exit plan I would put in place this week. What actually happened, in plain numbers The headlines make this sound apocalyptic. The details are more useful. The deal: SpaceX agreed in June to buy Anysphere in an all-stock deal valued at $60 billion. It closed earlier this month. The cutoff: OpenAI is ending Cursor's access to its models effective November 12, 2026. It is also withholding its upcoming Astra model from the platform entirely. The stated reason: OpenAI says it cannot be confident SpaceX will operate within its terms of service. It pointed to a pattern: a Twitter data licensing deal worth about $2 million a year that Musk cut off in December 2022, and an acknowledgment earlier this year, reportedly under oath, that xAI had distilled OpenAI data for training. The actual impact: Cursor co-founder Michael Truell says OpenAI models account for roughly 5% of Cursor's AI traffic. Anthropic immediately said it would increase compute to keep Claude models flowing inside the editor.

Most contributor onboarding starts by collecting identity. Create an account. Join the community. Request repository access. Pick an issue. Only then discover whether the work is relevant, bounded or even ready to be attempted. That sequence is especially awkward in AI-assisted development. An Agent can produce a plausible patch quickly, but speed does not answer the questions that maintainers actually need resolved: Was this problem authorized? What files, systems or external actions were inside the boundary? What evidence would prove completion? Which risks required human review? Who is accountable for the result? A useful contributor surface should reveal those constraints before it asks for commitment. Start with problems, not identity collection WebAZ currently exposes a narrow public contribution entry through the full Remote MCP surface. Without an API key, a person or Agent can: list public build tasks; inspect a task's execution boundary and acceptance criteria; submit an evidence-backed suggestion to the maintainer review inbox. The conceptual flow looks like this: discover public task -> inspect boundary and verification -> decide whether the problem is understood -> submit a structured suggestion -> maintainer review The default buyer-facing MCP surface does not advertise the contribution tool. The full surface exposes webaz_contribute , where list_open , detail and suggest are public starting actions. A compact interaction can begin with: { "action" : "list_open" , "area" : "docs" , "agent_capabilities" : "markdown,read-source" } The result is not merely a title list. A task can describe risk level, required capabilities, autonomy, estimated effort, context size, dependencies, blocking conditions and whether human review is required. Before doing anything, a prospective participant can ask for the detail view: { "action" : "detail" , "task_id" : "<public-task-id>" } That is where a real coordination system should state what may change, what must not cha

Punish the branch. Deliver the message to the tree. — The 36 Stratagems, Point at the mulberry tree...

Sleep is the ultimate black box. We spend a third of our lives doing it, yet we have almost zero data on what happens during those eight hours—unless you're willing to pay for an expensive sleep clinic. Today, we’re going to change that by building a high-fidelity Sleep Apnea and Snore Monitoring system using Whisper-v3 , Librosa , and PyAudio . In this tutorial, we will tackle Whisper-v3 audio processing , real-time sleep apnea detection , and audio fingerprinting to filter out the sound of your fan or your neighbor's car. If you've been looking for a "Learning in Public" project that combines deep health-tech with high-performance Python, you’re in the right place. 🚀 The Problem: Noise vs. Signal Detecting sleep apnea isn't just about recording sound; it's about identifying the absence of sound followed by a gasp (the "apnea event"). Standard noise-canceling algorithms often wipe out the very frequencies we need. We need a system that can distinguish between ambient white noise, rhythmic snoring, and dangerous respiratory pauses. System Architecture 🛠️ Here is how the data flows from your bedside microphone to a processed health report: graph TD A[PyAudio Stream] -->|Chunked Audio| B(Librosa Pre-processing) B -->|Noise Floor Calculation| C{Is it Snore/Breath?} C -->|Yes| D[Audio Fingerprinting / MFCC] C -->|No| A D --> E[Whisper-v3 Inference] E -->|Timestamped Events| F[Apnea Detection Logic] F --> G[Health Report / Alert] G --> H[Dockerized Storage/API] Prerequisites Before we dive in, ensure you have the following tech stack ready: Whisper-v3 : For high-accuracy audio event tagging. Librosa : For feature extraction and spectral analysis. PyAudio : For low-latency streaming. Docker : To package our environment (handling those pesky C++ dependencies for audio). Step 1: Real-time Audio Capture & Preprocessing 🎙️ We start by capturing audio in chunks. We don't want to process 8 hours of silence, so we use Librosa to calculate the Root Mean Square (RMS) energy. impor

You know technical debt. Code that works today but accumulates hidden costs over time. Shortcuts that seem reasonable in the moment and compound into architectural problems that take months to untangle. The kind of debt that doesn't announce itself until the system starts failing in ways that are expensive and slow to fix. Chronic stress works the same way. Every sprint crunch, every production incident at 11PM, every sustained period of pressure without adequate recovery — these aren't just experiences you have and move past. They're transactions against a biological account. And like technical debt, the interest compounds quietly until the system starts failing. Here's what the debt actually is, how it accumulates, and — most importantly — how to stop it before the refactor becomes mandatory. The Debt Accumulation Model javascript class StressDebt { constructor() { this.magnesium = 100 // % of optimal this.vitaminD = 100 // % of optimal this.omega3Index = 8 // % target this.HPARegulation = 100 // % of optimal this.prefrontalIntegrity = 100 // % of optimal this.dopamineBaseline = 100 // % of optimal } // called every week of unaddressed chronic stress accrue(stressLevel, coffeePerDay, supplementation) { // magnesium depletion this.magnesium -= stressLevel * 0.3 // cortisol burns magnesium this.magnesium -= coffeePerDay * 0.15 // caffeine accelerates excretion if (!supplementation.magnesium) { this.magnesium -= 0.5 // diet doesn't replace it } // downstream effects of magnesium depletion this.HPARegulation = this.magnesium * 0.9 // HPA loses regulator — cortisol response amplifies // vitamin D depletion (passive — no sun exposure) if (!supplementation.vitaminD) { this.vitaminD -= 0.3 // indoor work, winter, no replacement } this.dopamineBaseline = this.vitaminD * 0.85 // tyrosine hydroxylase requires vitamin D // omega-3 insufficiency (dietary) if (!supplementation.omega3) { this.omega3Index = 3.5 // western diet default } // neuroinflammation runs elevated at <6% /

An AI agent telling you "done" is not evidence. When I started delegating work to Codex, I took those reports at face value — until I checked the code and found the change missing, the wrong file edited, or no commit at all. So I stopped trusting language and started making the shell write the facts to disk. Why this design works When you hand a task to Codex, it comes back with "Completed." At first that satisfied me. But when I actually checked the code, the critical change wasn't there, or a different file had been touched, or git commit had never run. The output "I did it" and the fact "it was actually done" are two different things. This is true of Claude Code too. Whether tool results were read correctly, whether errors were swallowed — even with code I wrote myself, running a self-audit right after declaring completion turns up something every single time. Delegating implementation to an AI amplifies that problem by one more notch. The fix is simple: make it write state to a file, not to language. Even if the AI says "completed," it isn't complete unless State: completed exists in the status file. If the handoff file doesn't contain the real output of git status --short , you don't know what changed. If the four sections you specified in the task file (Summary, Files Changed, Validation, Remaining Risks) aren't there, you can't verify it. Files don't lie. An AI under pressure will insist "I did it," but the output of cat status-file can't be forged. Pushing state management down into the filesystem is what makes it possible for a human to cross-check it in a shell . That's the essence of this design. The other important piece is separation of concerns . orchestrate-codex-worker.sh takes three arguments up front. bash scripts/orchestrate-codex-worker.sh <task-file> <handoff-file> <status-file> Each of these three files has a clear role. task-file : The work order for Codex. It contains only "what to do." handoff-file : The handoff note after Codex finishes. Wr

GTA 6 is thought to be the most expensive entertainment product ever made, eclipsing Hollywood movies and other video games by hundreds of millions of dollars.

A few weekends ago I got annoyed at typing prompts into a terminal and decided the fix was, obviously, to control my AI agent with hand gestures instead. This is the story of building that, and the two hours I lost fighting a GPU crash that had nothing to do with my code. The idea: a webcam watches your hand, MediaPipe tracks the landmarks, and three gestures map to three actions on an Anthropic-powered coding agent. Pinch (thumb and index touching) - the agent writes code Spinning your index finger in a circle - the agent brainstorms an idea Two fingers "running" up and down - it runs whatever code it just wrote No keyboard. No prompt box. Just your hand in front of a webcam, like you're a conductor telling an orchestra what to play. The MediaPipe detour I started with MediaPipe's newer Tasks API (HandLandmarker), because it's the one all the docs point you to now. It crashed immediately on my Mac with a Metal/GPU service error, even when I forced it onto the CPU delegate. Spent way too long assuming it was my setup before realizing the new API just doesn't play nice with this machine. Switched to the legacy mp.solutions.hands API, pinned to mediapipe==0.10.21, and the problem vanished. Sometimes the fix for a shiny new API is to not use it yet. Gestures are messier than they sound Detecting "pinch" is easy: measure the distance between thumb and index tip, threshold it, done. The other two took more work. "Running" fingers needed the vertical oscillation of the index and middle fingertips, counted by sign crossings, so it doesn't false trigger on a hand that's just drifting. "Spinning" tracks the index fingertip's trajectory and accumulates the signed angle around a center point, so a real circle reads differently than a shaky hand. Both run on a rolling 1.5 second buffer of landmarks, edge triggered so a gesture fires once, not once per frame. Letting the agent run its own code, unsandboxed, on purpose The runner executes whatever the agent wrote as a subprocess

I created this article for the purpose of entering the All Things Agentic Hackathon. TL;DR — An ADK output_key writes into the session of the agent that declares it. In-process that session is shared, so it looks like state flows. Across a RemoteA2aAgent hop it is the worker's session, and it never comes back. Nothing raises. Nothing warns. Every local run and every CI job exercises the working topology, so the failure is invisible to an offline test suite by construction — including at 100% coverage. The system that passed Bastion is a three-agent access-governance fleet built with Google ADK and A2A. An Orchestrator owns investigation state, an Access Auditor reads production IAM through a read-only identity, and a model-free Escalation Agent delivers validated count-only reviews. The local graph passed its configured core statement and branch coverage gate. Every branch, every seam. Then the same graph was split across deployed A2A workers, and an assumption that looked natural in-process became false. The boundary we had not modeled In-process, the previous step's result is simply there : # The Auditor declares output_key; the Orchestrator reads it back. report = ctx . session . state . get ( AUDIT_FINDINGS_KEY ) Deploy the same sequence and only the construction changes. The graph is identical: RemoteA2aAgent ( name = " access_auditor " , agent_card = card_url ( auditor , " access_auditor " ), description = " Reads the live IAM policy and flags anomalies. Read-only. " , httpx_client = private_a2a_client ( auditor ), a2a_request_meta_provider = _forward_investigation , ) output_key still writes. It writes into the worker's session, which never crosses back. The deployed Orchestrator saw an empty state key while every local run and every test saw a populated one. Observed 2026-08-22: the Auditor completed a full sub-trail, and the next step then refused with "returned no structured report." No exception at the boundary. No warning at construction. The run still r

I used to be an avid hiker and would try to go backpacking a few times a year. I always dreamed of thru-hiking the Appalachian Trail, but life kind of got in the way. (Turns out jobs, wives, and children aren't thrilled with the idea of you disappearing for three months.) But I've been longing […]

If you use Claude Code for both work and personal projects, you've probably hit this: switching accounts means logging out, logging back in, and losing whatever session state you had. It's a small friction that adds up fast if you're context-switching several times a day. The fix is one environment variable: CLAUDE_CONFIG_DIR for both work and personal projects, you've probably hit this: switching accounts means logging out, logging back in, and losing whatever session state you had. It's a small friction that adds up fast if you're context-switching several times a day. Running Multiple Claude Code Accounts on Linux - Writing Run separate Claude Code accounts on Linux with CLAUDE_CONFIG_DIR — manual setup, an automation script, direnv auto-switching, and VS Code integration. sakibullah.me

The two music publishing groups claim thousands of instances of copyright infringement.

This latest lawsuit is particularly broad and homes in on accusations of illegal piracy.

Archify is taking GitHub by storm, hitting #1 on Trending and crossing 4,200+ stars in record time! If you use AI coding assistants like Cursor or Claude Code, Archify is an absolute game-changer. It allows your AI agent to automatically generate verifiable architecture, workflow, sequence, and data-flow diagrams as beautiful, self-contained HTML files (with dark/light themes and motion animations!). 🔗 Links & Resources: • Archify GitHub Repository: https://github.com/tt-a1i/archify • Try it yourself: npx skills add tt-a1i/archify -g 👇 What do you think of Archify? Are you going to use it for your next system design or PR review? Let me know in the comments! If you found this live demo helpful, please drop a LIKE and SUBSCRIBE for more cutting-edge AI developer tools. Archify #SoftwareArchitecture #Cursor #ClaudeCode #AI #SystemDesign #GitHubTrending #WebDev #OpenSource #DevTools

Hello, I'm Shrijith Venkatramana, and I'm building LiveReview — a blast-radius aware AI code review built for your business-critical systems. Star us to help devs discover the project, give it a try, and share your feedback to help improve the product. There is a strange thing that happens when you make an AI system very good at optimization. It starts finding solutions that look almost like bugs in reality. Give a boat-playing agent points for hitting objects, and it may learn to drive in circles forever rather than finish the race. Give a robot a reward for putting a block at a certain height, and it may discover that flipping the block upside down satisfies the measurement. Give a language model a reward for producing answers humans prefer, and it may learn that agreeing with humans is often more profitable than correcting them. And give an LLM access to the code that calculates its own reward, and researchers have observed something considerably more unsettling: in a controlled experiment, models that had previously learned simpler forms of specification gaming sometimes went on to modify the mechanism that generated their reward. ([Anthropic][1]) None of this requires the model to "want" anything in the human sense. The optimizer is simply doing its job. The problem is that we specified the job incorrectly . For developers building LLMs, agents, evaluators, and automated coding systems, this is one of the most important failure modes to understand. 1. The Basic Idea: You Asked for X, but Measured Y Suppose you're building a coding agent. What you actually want is: correct, robust, maintainable software But directly measuring that is expensive. So you give the agent a reward: +10 tests pass +1 code compiles +0.1 code is concise -5 tests fail This seems reasonable. But now the agent isn't actually being optimized for: "write correct software" It is being optimized for: "maximize this scoring function" Those are only approximately the same thing. That distinction

A branch came in for review with about sixty commits on it, every one authored by someone on the team. He hadn't written them. Claude Desktop had, running on his laptop, signing commits with the git identity we configured during setup. As far as the repository was concerned, the work was his. As far as blame, audit and every code-ownership convention we had, the work was his. Nobody could separate the four or five decisions he had actually looked at and accepted from the fifty-odd changes the model produced while he clicked through the result to see whether it worked. We moved the whole thing off his machine: the model runs server-side now, the working copy is provisioned per ticket in an isolated environment, and what comes back is a URL. That solved the port conflicts and the dependency drift, which was why we did it. It did not solve the attribution problem. It relocated it. Now a service account commits, and the service account is one identity shared by every run, for every person, on every ticket. That is the shape of the thing arriving at enterprises considerably faster than most access-management programmes are ready for. a new hire, a printer, and an agent Take a new hire in their first week. They have a unique identifier that will never belong to anyone else, a set of permissions somebody requested by name, a login trail, and an offboarding procedure that takes an afternoon. Four things: who they are, what they can reach, what they did, and how you get rid of them. Hiring, permissions, audit, firing. Now the printer on the third floor. It has an asset tag, it sits on a network segment that lets it reach the print server and nothing else, it logs every job, and you can unplug it. Same four things. Nobody is impressed by the printer, but the printer is fully accounted for. Now the agent your team stood up last month to triage tickets, read the CRM and post summaries into Slack. Who it is: it uses a key minted from a human account, probably belonging to whoeve

The AI Wrote the Diff. The Tests Wrote the Verdict. AI refactor suggestions are hypotheses. Not facts. A free coding model rewrites your messy legacy function. The diff looks clean. CI stays green. Then a customer hits an edge case you forgot. This article shows a small workflow. Characterize legacy behavior first. Let the model propose a refactor. Run the same tests against both versions. The verdict: safe or not safe. Disclosure: This article was prepared as part of MonkeyCode's product outreach. Why Characterization Comes First Legacy code has no spec. The only reliable spec is current behavior. Even bugs are behavior. If your refactor changes a bug, you need to know. A characterization test records inputs and outputs. It does not judge right or wrong. It freezes the current contract. After freezing, every difference becomes visible. Step 1: Capture Real Inputs and Outputs Pick one messy function. I used a shipping calculator. Nested conditionals, magic numbers, zero tests. Write a probe script. Call the function with realistic cases. Save outputs as JSON. import json from legacy import calculate_shipping cases = [ { ' items ' : [{ ' weight ' : 2.0 , ' qty ' : 3 }], ' region ' : ' US ' }, { ' items ' : [{ ' weight ' : 0.5 , ' qty ' : 10 }], ' region ' : ' EU ' }, { ' items ' : [{ ' weight ' : 0.2 , ' qty ' : 1 }], ' region ' : ' US ' }, { ' items ' : [{ ' weight ' : 5.0 , ' qty ' : 2 }], ' region ' : ' JP ' }, ] for c in cases : result = calculate_shipping ( c [ ' items ' ], c [ ' region ' ]) print ( json . dumps ({ ' input ' : c , ' output ' : result })) Save output to captured.json . That becomes ground truth. Step 2: Ask the Model for a Refactor MonkeyCode's free model access lets me prompt from the CLI. I gave the model one strict instruction: keep behavior identical. Refactor calculate_shipping into smaller functions. Do NOT change edge cases. Do NOT change rounding. Extract private helpers only. The model returned a diff. It split the function into three he