标签：#m

In 1994, Peter Deutsch published the Fallacies of Distributed Computing — eight assumptions that every developer building distributed systems makes, discovers are wrong, and pays for in production. The network is reliable. Latency is zero. Bandwidth is infinite. Each assumption sounds true. Each leads to system failures that could have been avoided. Thirty years later, we're making the same category of mistakes with generative AI. The trough of disillusionment for AI-assisted development has begun. Byron Cook, VP and Distinguished Scientist at Amazon, founder of AWS's Automated Reasoning Group (300+ scientists, 15+ teams), says it plainly: "Generative AI is sliding into the trough of disillusionment." The headlines are shifting. The "summer of vibe coding" is over. The disillusionment isn't caused by AI being useless. AI-assisted coding delivers real productivity gains. The disillusionment is caused by false assumptions about WHERE the gains come from and WHAT changes when generation gets fast. Teams expected 10x engineering. They got 10x code generation and 1x everything else. The gap between expectation and reality is the trough. This series names the eight assumptions, explains why each one fails, and presents the resolution — not from theory, but from domains that hit the same wall and climbed out. The Eight Fallacies 1. Faster code generation means faster engineering. You made one sub-system 10x faster. Seven others didn't change. The system doesn't get faster — it breaks at the interfaces. The CPU-memory wall tells you exactly what happens and what fixes it. 2. If the output looks correct, it is correct. AI-generated code is optimized for plausibility, not correctness. It compiles, passes tests, and reads well — while violating properties nobody tested. Plausible is not correct. The gap is where production failures live. 3. You can verify AI output with another AI. Guardrails, LLM-as-judge, AI code review — the verifier has the same failure modes as the thing

By Umair Sheikh, founder of Gateplex Autonomous AI agents are shipping fast. LangChain, CrewAI, AutoGen — the frameworks are mature, the tutorials are everywhere, and developers are connecting agents to real systems: databases, payment APIs, email, file storage. And then something goes wrong. Not because the code is buggy. Because the agent did exactly what it was told — and what it was told turned out to be a problem nobody anticipated. I spent nearly a decade in fintech and responsible AI policy watching this pattern repeat. A system behaves perfectly in testing. In production, an edge case triggers behaviour that was technically correct but operationally catastrophic. By the time anyone notices, the action has already executed. The problem is not the agent. The problem is that there is nothing between the agent's decision and the real world. The gap nobody talks about Most agent observability tools log what happened. That is useful for debugging. It does nothing to prevent the next incident. What agents actually need is a governance layer — something that intercepts every action before it executes, checks it against your rules, and either allows it, flags it for review, or blocks it outright. This is what a firewall does for network traffic. Your AI agent deserves the same treatment. What this looks like in practice Here is a simple LangChain agent calling an external tool: from langchain.agents import initialize_agent , Tool from langchain.llms import OpenAI def send_payment ( amount : str ) -> str : # This actually moves money return f " Payment of { amount } sent " tools = [ Tool ( name = " SendPayment " , func = send_payment , description = " Send a payment " )] agent = initialize_agent ( tools , OpenAI (), agent = " zero-shot-react-description " ) agent . run ( " Send $5000 to vendor account " ) This works. It also has no guardrails whatsoever. If the agent misreads the input, hallucinates a vendor, or gets manipulated via prompt injection, the payment goes

If you're interviewing at Amazon this year, you've probably read that you need to "prepare STAR stories." What most guides don't tell you is exactly how Amazon uses STAR differently from every other company — and what interviewers are silently scoring you against while you talk. Here's the complete 2026 breakdown: the cheat sheet, the full question bank, scored example answers, and the four mistakes that get candidates rejected even when their stories are genuinely impressive. Why Amazon STAR Is Different Amazon evaluates every behavioral answer against its 16 Leadership Principles. This isn't just culture marketing — interviewers are trained to map your stories to specific LPs and give them discrete scores. A Bar Raiser isn't just listening; they're running a rubric. The STAR formula at Amazon has specific time allocations that most candidates ignore: Situation (10%): Set the context in 20–30 seconds max Task (10%): What was specifically your responsibility Action (50%): What you did — not your team, not your manager Result (30%): Quantified outcomes only That weighting is the whole game. Most candidates spend 60% of their answer on Situation and Task, then rush through Action and Result — which is exactly backwards from what gets high scores. The "I" Rule: The Single Biggest Reason Candidates Fail Bar Raisers flag one thing more than any other: candidates who say "we" during the Action phase. Weak answer: "We decided to refactor the codebase, and we deployed a caching layer to fix the latency issue." Strong answer: "I identified the bottleneck using distributed tracing. I proposed the Redis caching layer to my tech lead and personally implemented the proof-of-concept over a weekend before bringing it to the team." Amazon hires individuals. If you can't cleanly separate your contribution from the group's work, interviewers have no signal on whether you were the driver or just along for the ride. Every sentence in your Action phase should start with "I." 30 Amazon S

Elon Musk is publicly reframing xAI’s massive Anthropic compute deal as short-term and cancellable, despite SpaceX’s own S-1 filing describing payments through May 2029.

Activision has officially announced Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4 and says the game will launch on October 23rd, 2026. Modern Warfare 4, which is developed by Infinity Ward, will be available on PS5, Xbox Series X / S, PC - and it will also be the first Call of Duty title to launch on […]

This is Lowpass by Janko Roettgers, a newsletter on the ever-evolving intersection of tech and entertainment, syndicated just for The Verge subscribers once a week. Roughly 10 years ago, someone told me that Roku was making "cheap hardware to sell to Walmart customers in flyover states." The remark was meant to be an insult, belittling […]

submitted by /u/boostlibs [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/jkmonger [link] [留言]

After several months of testing, Waymo is finally ready to invite non-employee passengers into its newest vehicle, the Zeekr RT minivan, which has been rebranded as Ojai. Waymo says it will begin offering "select riders" access in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Phoenix, before "gradually" expanding to more riders and cities. Trips will be free […]

The pale-blue Ojai vehicles will start picking up members of the public in California and Arizona today.

Fosi Audio announced a new sound card today with a unique feature designed to give FPS players an advantage. The C3 Gaming Sound Card, which sits outside your PC or laptop and connects with a USB-C cable, includes the company's StepSense "audio enhancement technology" powered by a model that was "trained on extensive FPS audio […]

Apple's long-awaited Siri overhaul, expected to arrive in iOS 27, might look a lot like ChatGPT with a splash of Liquid Glass. Renders from Bloomberg offer a preview of iOS 27, including the new app and chat interface for Siri. The renders are "based on information viewed by Bloomberg and people with knowledge of [Apple's] […]

submitted by /u/mark-engineer [link] [留言]

Spent the last few months building a deeper context layer over arxiv. Each paper gets a Tomesphere page with a TLDR + key findings (LLM-curated), OpenReview reviews where the venue is public, linked GitHub repos, HuggingFace models, conference videos, the citation graph in both directions, and a SPECTER2-based semantic neighbor graph. Same panel renders inline on arxiv via a Chrome extension (MV3 side panel API), or you can browse directly at tomesphere.com. 3M arxiv papers indexed. Caveats: reviewer scores only cover venues that publish openly on OpenReview (NeurIPS, ICLR, ICML, TMLR, COLM). Blind-review venues like CVPR, AAAI, ECCV are out of scope until contributors fill them in. GitHub, Hugging Face, and conference video matches are best-effort. Free, no signup. Site: tomesphere.com Chrome: chromewebstore.google.com/detail/tomesphere/nopoigoclhjcopjppnehidnkljmabllk Would love feedback, especially: which paper did you check first, and what's missing that you'd actually use? submitted by /u/RegretAgreeable4859 [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/fagnerbrack [link] [留言]

The Nintendo Switch 2 can be enjoyed right out of the box, but it’s even better with the right accessories. Some of these add-ons are more crucial than others, especially if you’re deciding what to buy early on. For example, a case and a screen protector can keep your console safe from scuffs, scratches, and […]

Savings of up to $410 on TechCrunch Disrupt 2026 tickets end tomorrow, May 29, 11:59 p.m. PT. Register now to save and join 10,000+ tech leaders on October 13-15 in San Francisco.

Visa said that over 1,000 employees has been using Replit for prototyping and development

Intel isn't giving up on gaming handhelds: meet the new Arc G-Series chips for portable PC gaming.

GitHub热门项目 | A meta-skill that designs domain-specific agent teams, defines specialized agents, and generates the skills they use. | Stars: 3,710 | 68 stars today | 语言: HTML