今日已更新 310 条资讯 | 累计 30044 条内容
关于我们

标签:#m

找到 8864 篇相关文章

AI 资讯

Building Local AI Agents in Java with Tools4AI and Ollama: An Insurance Claims Use Case

Tools4AI is a 100% Java agentic AI framework that turns any annotated Java method into an AI-callable action. Ollama runs open models like Llama 3.1 and Phi-4 locally and exposes an OpenAI-compatible API. Point Tools4AI at http://localhost:11434/v1 and you get a fully offline, on-premise AI agent — no data ever leaves your network. In this tutorial we build an insurance claims triage agent that reads a claimant's free-text incident report, routes it to the right business action, extracts structured data, gates high-value payouts behind a human approval, and records a compliance audit trail. Who is this for? Java developers, solution architects, and engineering leaders in regulated industries (insurance, banking, healthcare) who want agentic AI without sending sensitive data to a third-party API . Table of Contents Why local AI agents matter for insurance Insurance runs on personally identifiable information (PII) : names, addresses, policy numbers, medical details, vehicle data, and loss descriptions. Sending that data to a hosted LLM API creates regulatory, contractual, and reputational risk. At the same time, claims teams are drowning in unstructured text — First Notice of Loss (FNOL) reports, adjuster notes, emails, and call transcripts. A local AI agent solves both problems at once: Data never leaves your premises. The model runs on your own hardware via Ollama. Deterministic business logic stays in Java. The LLM decides what to do; your audited, tested Java code decides how . Human-in-the-loop and audit trails are first-class, so you can satisfy compliance reviewers. That combination — private inference plus governed execution — is exactly what Tools4AI + Ollama gives you. What is Tools4AI? Tools4AI ( io.github.vishalmysore:tools4ai on Maven Central) is a lightweight, pure-Java agentic AI framework and ADK. Its core idea is simple and powerful: Annotate a Java class with @Agent and its methods with @Action . Tools4AI scans the classpath, and at runtime it maps

2026-07-29 原文 →
AI 资讯

Run and Compare AI Evaluations with a CLI for Developers and Coding Agents

TL;DR: This walkthrough shows how developers and coding agents can use Quantiles , an open-source AI evaluation platform licensed under Apache 2.0, to quickly run, analyze, and compare AI evaluations locally. We'll use the SimpleQA Verified benchmark as an example throughout this post, letting you follow the commands, inspect the evaluation results, and configure your own model for the same workflow. Running an AI evaluation is rarely as simple as sending prompts to a model. Developers must connect datasets, model APIs, scoring logic, result storage, and comparison tooling before they can answer a basic question: did the system get better? When those pieces are spread across scripts, notebooks, and logs, every rerun becomes harder to reproduce and diagnose. A score alone cannot reveal whether the model changed or whether the dataset, prompt, scorer, or sample set changed with it. Quickstart: Run an example benchmark The Quantiles CLI is called qt on the command line. A simple curl ... | bash command supports macOS and Linux on X86-64 and Arm64 systems. First, use it to install the CLI: curl -fsSL https://cli.quantiles.io/install.sh | bash If you don't want to run code directly sourced from the internet, see the install.sh source code first. Next, let’s run a built-in benchmark from start to finish using a single command. SimpleQA Verified is a 1,000-prompt benchmark created by Google DeepMind and Google Research. It re-curates questions from OpenAI's SimpleQA benchmark to reduce problems such as incorrect labels, topical bias, redundant questions, and ambiguous source evidence. Each example includes a short factual question in problem , its reference answer , topic and answer-type metadata, and supporting URLs. Use the following command to run simpleqa-verified using the built-in Quantiles demo model, which doesn't incur any usage charges: qt run simpleqa-verified Results from the demo model are intended only to demonstrate the evaluation workflow because its output

2026-07-29 原文 →
AI 资讯

We Open-Sourced Both Halves of Our Security Stack — Detection and Deliberation

We Open-Sourced Both Halves of Our Security Stack — Detection and Deliberation AEGIS catches the threat. ENLIL decides what it means. Both are free, and we want to know if they actually help you. We've written before about each of these projects separately — AEGIS's post-quantum forensic logging and why ENLIL runs 9 LLMs in parallel instead of one . This post is about why they're actually one system, and why we're not gatekeeping either half of it. Two different jobs AEGIS is an intrusion detection/prevention system. It watches traffic, correlates signals across nine layers (from crypto-level filtering to adaptive moving-target defense), and decides — fast, locally, without calling out to anything — whether something is an attack. It's deliberately narrow: detection and containment, nothing else. No counterattacks, no active reconnaissance, one process, deployable on a standard VPS. ENLIL does the opposite job. It's slow by design — it convenes a council of independent LLMs, lets them reason in isolation (no model sees another's answer until synthesis), and produces a signed Decree: the majority view, the dissents, and a final verdict. It's built for the decisions where being fast and wrong is worse than being slow and right. Neither one replaces the other. AEGIS shouldn't spend 30 seconds deliberating about whether a SYN flood is a SYN flood. ENLIL shouldn't be making split-second network decisions. But there's an obvious seam between them: what happens when AEGIS catches something that isn't a simple yes/no — a pattern that's ambiguous, or severe enough that you want more than one model's opinion before you act on it? The Bridge That seam is a small connector: when AEGIS's detector layer flags something at high or critical severity, it fires a signed event at ENLIL's API. ENLIL convenes a tier of the council sized to the severity — a lighter tier for routine escalations, the full council (including the most expensive model) only for the things that deserve it. The

2026-07-29 原文 →
AI 资讯

Foreman 101: agentic coding as Kubernetes resources

Foreman is an agentic coder that runs as Kubernetes resources. You describe work as a Workload, it decomposes into tasks, agents running on your nodes pick them up, and a branch comes out the other end with something deterministic standing between that branch and your main. This is the walkthrough. Four objects to understand, an install, an agent, a verifier, and a real run. Every command and every output below is from a working cluster. The four objects Foreman is deliberately small. Almost everything you do is one of these. Agent is a worker definition: which model it talks to, which tools it may call, and what budget it gets. An Agent has a role , and the two that matter here are coder and verifier . Workload is the unit of work you actually author. It carries an intent, a repository, and which agents to use. AgenticTask is what a Workload decomposes into. You rarely write one by hand; you read them to see what is happening. FleetNode is a node that has advertised itself as able to run tasks. The scheduler matches a task's required capabilities against these. The shape of a run is: you apply a Workload, the controller synthesizes AgenticTasks, the scheduler routes each to a FleetNode whose agent can serve it, the agent runs the model in a loop with tools, and the result lands as a branch plus a verdict. The idea underneath it Worth stating plainly, because it shapes every design decision: the model is not trusted, and specifically its claim to have succeeded is not trusted. A coder agent finishes by calling a tool that says "I am done, verdict GO." Foreman treats that as a request, not a result. If the model says GO and produced no diff, the run is recorded as NO-GO. If the verifier's checks do not pass, the work does not land, no matter how confident the summary was. That is the difference between an agent that writes code and a system you can leave running. Everything else in this post is plumbing around that idea. Install Foreman ships as a Helm chart that dep

2026-07-29 原文 →
AI 资讯

Building an MCP Server on 31 Million Rows of Financial Data

This is the architecture of Shibui Finance , an MCP server that gives Claude direct SQL access to 64 years of US stock market data. About 10,000 symbols, 31 million daily price records, quarterly financials back to 1990, 56 pre-computed technical indicators, and 6.4 million SEC filing records. Free to use. Stack: Python, PostgreSQL, dbt, DuckDB, FastMCP, Caddy. Runs on a single VPS. Data pipeline Three stages: ingest into PostgreSQL, transform with dbt, export to DuckDB. Data APIs / SEC EDGAR / FRED | Python ETL (Polars, ADBC) | PostgreSQL clean_* schemas (~50 raw tables) | dbt (27 models) staging -> integration schema (17 analytical tables) | DuckDB export (daily, ~14 GB file) | FastMCP server (read-only, streamable-http) | Caddy (TLS) -> mcp.shibui.finance Multiple sources feed the pipeline: commercial data APIs for prices, fundamentals, valuations, and estimates. SEC EDGAR for filing metadata and insider transactions (bulk historical + a 5-minute Atom feed for near-real-time). FRED for FX rates to normalize non-USD fundamentals. Public registries for ticker classification. The ETL is a Python CLI organized by data source. Each module has its own fetcher, loader, and CLI. A single all command runs everything in fixed sequence. You can't refresh 10,000 tickers daily without hitting rate limits, so the ETL rotates: each run refreshes the stalest 5% of tickers. Full universe cycles in about 20 runs. Recent prices always refresh on every run. Every table write is a single transaction. DROP + CREATE inside a transaction, rollback on failure. The database never serves partial data, and dbt always sees complete tables even when ingest jobs overlap. The dbt layer 27 models in two tiers. The process layer handles standardization: enriching symbols with security types and exchange mappings, linking SEC amendment filings to their originals, repairing filer date typos. The integration layer produces the 17 tables that Claude actually queries. This is where raw normalized tabl

2026-07-29 原文 →