标签：#lab

Are you worried your AI chatbot is trying to build a bomb or leak personal information about you? There’s a website for that.

Workers at Grand Theft Auto VI developer Rockstar Games have submitted a request for their union, the IWGB Game Workers Union, to be voluntarily recognized, according to a press release. The request follows Rockstar firing more than 30 staffers last year in a move accused of being "union busting." According to the release, IWGB members […]

A new report finds "high-intensity AI adopters” saw headcount increase 10.2%. Among those companies, entry-level headcount rose by 12%, countering the rhetoric that AI kills junior jobs.

"We believe this will be one of the most transformative deals in the space industry."

The all-stock deal values Iridium at $8 billion, and gives Rocket Lab even more firepower to compete against Amazon and SpaceX.

Quando comecei a trabalhar com aplicações descentralizadas há mais de uma década, lembro bem da frustração de pagar US$ 50 em taxas de transação para mover alguns tokens na rede Ethereum durante um pico de congestionamento. Era um problema técnico que ameaçava inviabilizar todo o ecossistema. Hoje, observo com entusiasmo profissional como as soluções de Layer 2 transformaram radicalmente esse cenário, abrindo portas para casos de uso que antes eram economicamente impraticáveis — especialmente aqui no Brasil, onde a tokenização de ativos e os pagamentos em stablecoins crescem em ritmo acelerado. O problema fundamental: o trilema da escalabilidade Para entender por que as soluções de segunda camada são tão importantes, precisamos compreender o trilema da blockchain proposto por Vitalik Buterin. Uma rede precisa equilibrar três pilares: descentralização, segurança e escalabilidade. O Ethereum, em sua arquitetura original, priorizou os dois primeiros, processando apenas cerca de 15 a 30 transações por segundo (TPS) na camada base. Para se ter dimensão, redes de pagamento tradicionais como a Visa processam milhares de transações por segundo. Quando o DeFi explodiu em 2020 e 2021, e novamente com o boom dos NFTs, a rede simplesmente não dava conta da demanda. As taxas de gas dispararam, e usuários comuns foram literalmente expulsos pelo custo. Em meus projetos de consultoria, atendi empresas brasileiras que desistiram de iniciativas Web3 justamente porque os custos operacionais inviabilizavam o modelo de negócio. A pergunta que sempre me faziam era: "Como cobrar R$ 5 de um cliente se a taxa da transação custa R$ 30?". A resposta estava — e está — nas camadas de segunda geração. Como funcionam as soluções de Layer 2 O conceito central das soluções de Layer 2 é elegante: em vez de processar todas as transações diretamente na blockchain principal (Layer 1), executamos a maior parte do processamento "fora da cadeia" e depois enviamos apenas uma prova compacta de volta para o

Erik Steiger discusses the operational pain of legacy PDF generation in regulated banking and manufacturing. He explains how transitioning from resource-heavy engines like Puppeteer and LaTeX to a serverless Rust architecture powered by Typst can drop render latencies below 2ms. He shares how applying Git and Docker concepts to template registries ensures ironclad compliance and rapid debugging. By Erik Steiger

I gave GLM-4.5-Air (106B, open weights) 12 coding tasks through opencode on my RTX 3090. It scored 0% — never edited a single file. Same model, same GPU, same tasks, but driven by a ~150-line LangGraph agent instead: 93% . The model was never the problem. The orchestrator was. Here's the benchmark — including the part nobody else measures, the electricity cost per correct task . Setup RTX 3090 (24 GB) + 128 GB RAM , models via ollama , Q4 quants, temp 0.2 5 recent open models × 2 orchestrators (opencode vs custom LangGraph ReAct with ollama-native tool-calling) 17 graded tasks (12 coding in Python/JS/C++ + 5 general-agent) with hidden unit tests Every run priced in GPU watts via my open-source homelab-monitor Results Model tok/s opencode adh. LangGraph adh. LangGraph coding LangGraph general Qwen3-Coder 30B-A3B 130 92% 100% 100% 100% GLM-4.5-Air 106B 5.7 0% 100% 89% 100% Devstral Small 24B 49 8% 53% 8% 40% Seed-OSS 36B 9.5 0% 7% 0% 20% DeepSeek-R1-Distill 32B 6.7 0% 0% 0% 0% Tool-adherence = % of tasks where the model actually called a tool instead of just printing code in chat. It was the master variable. (GLM's headline "93%" is its blended score across all 17 tasks: 89% coding + 100% general.) Three takeaways The framework can matter more than the model. opencode sends a frontier-shaped system prompt + 12 tools over its OpenAI-compat path; most local models fall back to chatting. Native tool-calling through a lean agent fixes that — GLM went 0% → 93%. (Qwen3-Coder is the exception: it's tuned for agentic tool use and aces opencode out of the box.) Acting ≠ solving. LangGraph made Devstral act (8% → 53% adherence) but not solve (coding stayed 8%). The framework decides whether a model acts; the model decides whether it's right. The wattmeter ranks honestly. Qwen solved tasks at ~0.0005 BGN each; the models that scored zero still burned 10–30× more energy for nothing. On a home rig, the cheapest model is the fast, correct one — and MoE (Qwen activates ~3B of 30B pe

Over 100 companies and government agencies are reportedly authorized to use Mythos 5, including their non-American employees.

Aseon Labs, which came out of Y Combinator's 2026 spring cohort, has raised $10 million from Crane Venture Partners and others.

Slack has outlined how its AI serving infrastructure evolved through four distinct phases, moving from a self-managed Amazon SageMaker deployment to a multi-cloud architecture spanning AWS Bedrock and Google Cloud Vertex AI. By Matt Foster

The AI arms race between China and the US has researchers on both sides worried about a “Chernobyl moment.”

AI coding tools are incredible. But I noticed something — they ship code fast, skip the rules, and nobody catches it until it's already in production. That's exactly what GuardDuo is built to fix. The Problem We're in the age of vibe-coding. You describe what you want, the AI builds it, it works — and you ship it. But "works" and "correct" are two very different things. Imagine asking an AI to build a login form. It works perfectly. But under the hood it has hardcoded API keys, no input validation, missing aria-labels , and it's using fetch directly instead of your project's apiClient wrapper. Your Issue said none of that was allowed. Nobody caught it. That's the vibe-coding trap — and it's happening on every team using AI-assisted development right now. What is GuardDuo GuardDuo is a GitLab Duo Agent skill that acts as your AI guardian. Instead of just reviewing code in isolation, it cross-references your code changes against the actual intent of the linked GitLab Issue — using the Orbit Knowledge Graph , which is essentially the brain that knows your project's rules, requirements, and success criteria. In plain terms: GuardDuo reads what the Issue asked for , reads what the code actually does , and tells you exactly where they don't match. It audits across three dimensions: 🔐 Security — hardcoded secrets, SQL injection, missing input validation ♿ Accessibility — missing alt text, aria-labels , poor color contrast 📐 Standards — deviations from your project's established patterns and conventions And when it finds a problem, it doesn't just flag it — it fixes it. How It Works Just open GitLab Duo Chat or GitLab Agent Platform(on your choice of IDE) -> choose the agent as GuardDuo and type: Audit issue #[issue no.] — GuardDuo pulls the Issue context from Orbit, analyzes the code, and returns a structured report Fix issue #[issue no.] — GuardDuo generates a corrected implementation that satisfies all requirements Or paste any code snippet directly and ask it to audit o

UK-based staff at the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), the nonprofit that supports Wikipedia, are pushing forward with their unionization drive. On Wednesday, the staff sent a letter to WMF management requesting the organization voluntarily recognize the union. "The WMF has undergone a period of significant change in recent months, escalating workers' concerns over transparency, trust, and […]

When you work with AI long enough, you start to notice it makes the same kind of mistake over and over. "You're coming on too strong, dial it back." It shrinks and goes meek. "Stop being meek." It comes on strong again. Each time you point something out, it apologizes sincerely. The next round, the same type of problem comes back from a different angle. After a while you realize you're babysitting the AI instead of working with it. This isn't because the AI is bad. It's a design quirk: today's AI is tuned to satisfy the user. The quirk won't go away. But if you change how you work with it, you can still get work done together. This piece is about that — five patterns of the quirk, and an operating mode that gets ahead of them instead of correcting them in flight. Five quirks in a single evening One evening I was running a strategy discussion past an AI, and in one back-and-forth I caught five distinct behaviors worth noting. Laid out, they look like this. Helpful-looking runaway. I asked it to push back harder. It immediately started using strong words ("you're avoiding responsibility," "this is the wrong call as a founder") to perform consultant-energy. The reasoning stayed thin. Only the tone got louder. Over-retraction on pushback. I said "your reasoning is thin." It launched into long self-criticism and threw the next decision back at me. Trusting its own research without checking. I asked it to use a secondary research feature (where the AI looks things up and summarizes). The summary came back. The AI claimed it had "verified the primary source" without ever opening it. Forced specificity. I was talking at a strategic, abstract level. It quietly mapped my words onto a specific real-world deal and jumped to "this is highly transferable." Punting the decision back. I asked it to decide. It laid out three options and said "which would you like?" The phrase "let me confirm three points" started showing up. Red flag. Each one of these looks, on the surface, like th

Employees had previously raised concerns about the initiative, which involves collecting workers’ keystroke data to train AI models.

"It runs on my own GPU, so it's basically free." I believed that until I put a meter on it. So I ran a controlled benchmark on one box — an openSUSE machine with a single RTX 3090 — driving three local models through ollama under an identical fixed workload (256-token generations in a loop for ~4 minutes each), while my open-source dashboard priced every run by the real GPU energy it burned : power sampled from nvidia-smi every 10 s, integrated over each run's exact window, multiplied by my actual day/night tariff. One number per model, in euros per million output tokens. Here's the part that made me re-run it. The tiny gemma3:1b came out at €0.118 / 1M tokens — about 5× cheaper than a hosted Flash-class API (~€0.55). But gemma3:27b 's electricity alone was €0.706 / 1M — more expensive per token than just paying the cloud, and that's before a single cent of the GPU's purchase price. "Local" didn't make it cheaper; it made it cost more and I own the depreciation. The mechanism is one line: each token costs watts ÷ throughput , and a big dense model is both slow and thirsty. A newer mid-size architecture ( gemma4:26b ) bought a lot of that back, landing at €0.272 . The full guide is methodology-first and reproducible end to end — minting an ingest key, the stdlib-only client, the exact ollama loop that reads eval_count / eval_duration for real tokens-per-second, reading each run back priced, and the honest caveats (this is marginal GPU energy only — not capex, idle, or cooling — and the absolute numbers round to fractions of a cent; the shape is the finding). Read the full guide on Medium → https://medium.com/@arsen.apostolov/how-much-does-it-actually-cost-to-run-a-local-llm-per-million-tokens-measured-4a90a7f31a48

Originally published at woitzik.dev I assumed my homelab repo was clean. No one had ever flagged anything in review (there is no one else reviewing it), CI was green, and I generally try to use Vault and ExternalSecrets for anything sensitive. Then I ran a full-history gitleaks detect against it. It found 12 distinct secrets committed in plaintext — including the OIDC private key that signs SSO tokens for half the cluster. This is the scanning setup I put in place afterward, the baseline strategy that let me adopt secret scanning without getting blocked by my own history on every commit, and the remediation plan for the leaks themselves. View the complete homelab infrastructure source on GitHub 🐙 What Gitleaks Found gitleaks detect --no-banner -v Twelve real findings, plus one already-hashed password (lower severity but still shouldn't be hand-committed) and one false positive in ROADMAP.md (documentation text that happened to match a generic API key pattern). The real findings, by severity: File Secret Why It Matters kubernetes/apps/authelia/configmap.yml OIDC issuer private key Signs SSO tokens for ArgoCD, Vault, Grafana — highest blast radius kubernetes/apps/garage/config.yml RPC secret + admin token Storage backend for Velero/Loki/CNPG backups kubernetes/apps/garage/secrets.yml Admin token (duplicate) Same secret committed twice in two files terraform/stacks/network/local_backend.hcl Garage S3 access key This is the Terraform state backend's own credential kubernetes/system/postgres/cnpg-backup-secret.yml Garage S3 secret key Used for WAL archiving kubernetes/apps/paperless/secrets.yml Postgres password + AI API token kubernetes/apps/cloudflared/secrets.yml Cloudflare Tunnel token kubernetes/apps/headscale/config.yml OIDC client secret Must match Authelia's client config kubernetes/system/monitoring/loki.yml Minio/S3 password kubernetes/apps/mikrodash/secrets.yml Dashboard password Lowest priority — internal tool only None of these were exposed by a public repo

In Shenzhen, workers at IO-AI Tech control humanoid robots using a VR rig reminiscent of Ready Player One.

How I replaced Google Photos, Google Drive, and Google Home with a self-hosted Raspberry Pi 5 setup - and what the full technical stack looks like. There's a quiet moment every tech-literate person eventually hits. You open your cloud storage dashboard, see the number creeping up, and think: I'm paying a subscription fee, every month, forever, just to store my own photos and files on someone else's computer. That was me, but with a bit of added weight. It's not just my data I'm responsible for. Over the years, I've quietly become the unofficial digital curator for my entire family . The person everyone sends photos to after a birthday party. The one who backs up the wedding videos. The one who scans and stores the important documents, passports, contracts, and sentimental things so they don't get lost. My parents, siblings, extended family: if something matters and it's digital, there's a good chance it eventually lands with me. That's a responsibility I take seriously. And for a long time, Google was my answer - until the storage bill started quietly creeping past 2TB, and I started thinking more carefully about what it actually means to hand all of that data over to "big tech" . So I built my own home server. A tiny, almost silent box sitting in my house that now handles everything Google Drive and Google Photos did, plus more, for a one-time hardware cost of £340. This is the story of how I did it, why I did it, and exactly how you can too. Why I Did It The cost was the trigger, but it wasn't the only reason. When you use Google Photos, Google Drive, or any cloud storage service, your files live on their servers. You're trusting a corporation to keep them safe, not snoop through them, not change their pricing, and not shut down the product one day. Google has a long history of killing beloved products. Google Photos itself famously ended its unlimited free tier in 2021. As well as this, recent AI trends and auto opt-in data processing had me thinking there had to