标签：#us

GitHub热门项目 | | Stars: 4,293 | 1,415 stars today | 语言: Rust

🚀 Technical Briefing: This tutorial is part of our deep-dive series on Agentic Workflows at Gate of AI . For the full technical breakdown, interactive code sandbox, and the native Arabic translation, visit the original article here . <p>Tutorial</p> <h1>Design a Safer AI Incident Copilot for GCC Operations</h1> <p>An AI incident copilot can help an operations team turn approved engineering facts into a clearer draft for stakeholders. It should not be treated as an autonomous incident commander, a source of truth, or an automatic publishing system. This tutorial explains how to define a safe operating model before choosing a framework, model provider, deployment platform, or integration.</p> <h2>Why incident copilots need a security-first design</h2> <p>During an incident, teams work under pressure. They need to communicate what is happening, who may be affected, what mitigation is under way, and when the next update will arrive. These messages must be accurate, calm, and consistent. An AI assistant may help prepare a first draft, but it can also amplify mistakes if it is allowed to infer missing facts, read untrusted material, or publish messages without review.</p> <p>The available security research on Copilot-style systems is a direct reason to design cautiously. Researchers have demonstrated ways AI systems can be manipulated to provide false references to files, extract some private data, and bypass security protections. The same research describes proof-of-concept abuse that can turn an AI assistant into an automated spear-phishing mechanism after an attacker gains the necessary access. These are not minor quality issues. They show that an AI feature connected to organizational information can become a security boundary.</p> <p>For an incident copilot, the safest initial scope is deliberately narrow: accept a small set of verified facts supplied by an authorized incident lead, create a draft in a fixed communication format, and require a human to review and pub

The Problem: Candidate Code Without Trust You're using Cursor, Claude Code, or GitHub Copilot. The AI gives you three implementation options for the same feature. AI: "Here are three approaches: A) Quick but uses unsafe B) Slower but memory-safe C) Balanced tradeoffs" You: "Which one should I ship?" AI: "It depends..." That "it depends" is where responsibility falls through the cracks. Tests tell you if code compiles and passes specs. But they don't tell you about security, performance, maintainability, or resource limits — all at once. You end up making the call by gut feel. This essay is about building a system that doesn't let that happen. The Solution: Multi-Axis Scoring I built SafeCode Arena — an automated verifier that evaluates code candidates across five axes simultaneously, scores each, and surfaces the tradeoffs. The Five Axes Axis Weight Computation Correctness 50% compile (40%) + tests (40%) + property tests (20%) Security 20% unsafe heuristics (50%) + clippy warnings (50%) Performance 15% relative compile+test time across candidates Maintainability 10% function-length heuristics (60%) + clippy (40%) Resource Usage 5% pass/fail of sandboxed Wasm execution Why These Five? Correctness dominates — code that doesn't work is valueless, so it's 50% Security is explicit — unsafe compiles fine, but you need to detect it yourself Performance and maintainability matter equally — a fast mess vs. a slow masterpiece aren't comparable Resource limits are real — a 100-point algorithm that consumes 2GB is a fail in production Example Scorecard Candidate A: 85 points ├─ correctness: 100 (all tests pass) ├─ security: 60 (2 unsafe blocks flagged) ├─ performance: 70 (10% slower than B) ├─ maintainability: 85 (avg function 25 lines) └─ resource_usage: 80 (Wasm sandbox: 512MB, OK) Candidate B: 92 points ✓ Recommended ├─ correctness: 95 (1 edge case warning) ├─ security: 95 (no unsafe) ├─ performance: 95 (fastest) ├─ maintainability: 88 (avg function 20 lines) └─ resource_usa

The investment comes amid Navi plans to go public.

Opinion: The Diff Is a Claim, the Probe Is the Proof A generated patch is a claim about how a system should behave, and a diff cannot verify that claim on its own. The only honest reviewer is the runtime itself, which means every AI-proposed change deserves a behavioral probe before a human spends attention on it. Free model access changes the economics of that review, because the verification loop no longer costs a developer's full attention or a paid compute budget. The practical implication is that a disposable server, such as the free server option in MonkeyCode, becomes the arbiter of whether a patch is even worth reading. Disclosure: This article was prepared as part of MonkeyCode's product outreach. Review sessions routinely burn forty minutes on a diff that a five-second HTTP probe would have rejected instantly, and that waste is now entirely avoidable. Why Line-by-Line Review Fails on AI Patches A human reviewer reads a diff as prose, searching for the author's intent, but an AI-generated patch has no reliable intent to recover. The model that wrote the change cannot explain why a specific flag was flipped, and the diff itself only records the surface edit. This is a fundamental mismatch between the review tool and the review question. The review question is not "what changed" but "does the system still behave correctly after this change." Runtime shape diffing answers the first question well, and I have argued before that shape is a useful gate, but shape alone misses semantic regressions. A service can keep the same endpoints, the same config keys, and the same file layout while silently returning wrong data. Behavioral probes close that gap because they test the contract between the service and its callers. A probe sends real requests, checks real responses, and records real state transitions, which is exactly the evidence a reviewer needs. This is why I take the position that the probe, not the diff, should be the primary review artifact. Treat Every Pa

April - 1805 Napoleon is master of Europe Only the British fleet stands before him Compute is now an asset class I see it is once again time to talk financial innovation. Apollo, BlackRock, Blackstone, Brookfield, Goldman Sachs, and KKR are all working with Nvidia to put together $500 billion in financing to turn compute […]

You budgeted six months. It took fourteen. You wanted one thing; you got three things that almost do it. And somewhere between the first sprint and the final invoice, you stopped understanding what you were even paying for. If that sounds familiar, this is the breakdown no one gave you before you started. What custom software development actually means Custom software development is building software from the ground up for your specific business, not configuring Salesforce, not installing a plugin. You're solving a problem your operations have, the way your operations actually work. What trips people up: "custom" doesn't mean "built entirely from scratch." Good dev teams use frameworks, libraries, and third-party services. What's custom is the logic of how your data flows, how business rules are enforced, how users interact. Scope range is huge: Custom dev covers everything from a lightweight internal dashboard to a full-scale multi-tenant SaaS platform. This is why cost estimates vary so wildly. 3 things nobody tells you before you sign 1. Scope creep is almost always the client's fault "Users should be able to manage their accounts" sounds simple. It actually contains dozens of decisions: can they change their email? What verification is required? Can they delete their account? Each one is a feature. Each feature has a cost. The fix: Run a discovery phase (2–4 weeks) before writing a single line of production code. It costs money upfront. It saves far more mid-project. 2. The cheapest bid rarely wins long-term A $40k quote and a $180k quote for the same project both happen. The $40k team isn't lying; they're optimistic, underbidding to win work, or scoping something different. What actually happens: you hit $40k, and you're 40% done. Higher bids from experienced teams often include architecture planning, documentation, testing infrastructure, and post-launch support things the cheap bid omitted. These aren't extras. They're what make the software maintainable in t

I've written before about SMESH, a coordination protocol modelled on mycorrhizal networks — the fungal web that lets trees in a forest warn each other about drought and disease with nothing in charge of the network. Signals diffuse, decay on their own, and get reinforced when independently confirmed. Consensus emerges instead of being orchestrated. That was the idea. This post is about the part where I found out whether it worked. The transport that had never run SMESH has had a QUIC transport in it for a while. Roughly 500 lines: a quinn endpoint that is simultaneously server and client, self-signed certs, length-prefixed bincode frames over unidirectional streams, an accept loop that spawns per-connection and per-stream tasks, connection pooling. Every test passed. The workspace was green. I could point at smesh-runtime/src/transport.rs and say "yes, it does peer-to-peer." Then I grepped for who actually constructed it: $ grep -rn "QuicTransport" --include = '*.rs' . smesh-runtime/src/transport.rs:177:pub struct QuicTransport { smesh-runtime/src/transport.rs:192:impl QuicTransport { smesh-runtime/src/lib.rs:16:pub use transport:: { QuicTransport, ... } ; Its own definition, and a re-export. Nothing else in the workspace had ever instantiated it. No binary opened a socket. SmeshRuntime imported TransportConfig , stored it in a struct field, and never looked at it again. I had a networking layer with tests, docs, and zero executions. Three bugs in the first twenty minutes I wrote an integration test that starts two runtimes, has one dial the other, and asserts a signal crosses. Here is what fell out before it went green. 1. It panicked on the first call. Could not automatically determine the process-level CryptoProvider from Rustls crate features. rustls 0.23 refuses to pick a crypto backend when more than one is compiled in, and quinn pulls in both through its own feature set. Every call to QuicTransport::new would have panicked for anyone, ever. Nobody noticed bec

AI Agents Don’t Need More Context. They Need Memory. S6stem S6stem S6stem Follow Aug 17 AI Agents Don’t Need More Context. They Need Memory. # ai # programming # agents # rust 2 reactions 2 comments 4 min read

If you’ve ever tried to reconcile a night of sleep from an Oura Ring , a morning run from a Garmin watch, and active minutes from an Apple Watch , you know the "Dirty Data" struggle is real. Each platform has its own schema, its own definition of "active calories," and its own idiosyncratic export format. In the world of Data Engineering , this is a classic multi-source integration problem. But you don't need a massive Snowflake cluster to solve it. Today, we’re building a high-performance, serverless data pipeline to clean and normalize wearable data using DuckDB , dbt , and GitHub Actions . By leveraging a modern Serverless Data Pipeline and DuckDB's lightning-fast processing, we can turn a mess of CSVs into a structured Parquet -based personal data warehouse. The Architecture: From Chaos to Clarity Before we dive into the code, let’s look at how the data flows from your wearables to a clean, queryable state. graph TD A[Oura JSON] -->|Python Ingestion| D[(DuckDB Raw)] B[Garmin CSV] -->|Python Ingestion| D C[Apple Health XML] -->|Python Ingestion| D D --> E{dbt Models} E -->|Cleaning| F[stg_models] E -->|Normalization| G[int_health_metrics] G -->|Final Output| H[Gold Layer: Parquet Files] H --> I[Visualization / BI] subgraph GitHub Actions D E F G H end Prerequisites To follow along, you'll need: DuckDB : The "SQLite for OLAP" that makes local analytical processing insanely fast. dbt-duckdb : The adapter that lets dbt talk to DuckDB. GitHub Actions : Our free "orchestrator." Tech Stack : DuckDB, dbt, Python, Parquet. Step 1: The Ingestion Layer (Python + DuckDB) The first hurdle is getting disparate files (JSON, CSV, XML) into a unified storage format. DuckDB is magical here because it can query these files directly. We'll use a simple Python script to load these into a local .duckdb file. import duckdb def ingest_raw_data (): # Initialize the database con = duckdb . connect ( ' health_data.duckdb ' ) # Ingest Garmin CSV con . execute ( """ CREATE TABLE raw_garmin

🚀 Technical Briefing: This tutorial is part of our deep-dive series on Agentic Workflows at Gate of AI . For the full technical breakdown, interactive code sandbox, and the native Arabic translation, visit the original article here . An evaluation-first guide to deciding whether GPT-4o mini fine-tuning is justified for a narrowly defined language task. This article uses the available research context rather than assuming unverified API capabilities, model snapshots, pricing, or deployment features. GPT-4o Mini Fine-Tuning: Start With Evidence, Not an Upload Fine-tuning is often presented as the next step after prompt engineering, but the available evidence does not support treating it as an automatic upgrade. Before preparing a dataset or committing to a training workflow, define the task, establish a baseline, select measures that reflect the real objective, and decide what result would justify changing the system. The verified research context is especially relevant for text transformation. A TREC 2024 Plain Language Adaptation of Biomedical Abstracts study evaluated prompt engineering, a two-AI-agent approach, and fine-tuning with OpenAI GPT-4o and GPT-4o mini models. Its objective was to simplify biomedical abstracts for a K-8 audience, approximately 13- to 14-year-old students. The study used qualitative assessments for simplicity, accuracy, completeness, and brevity on 5-point Likert scales, together with readability measures including Flesch-Kincaid grade level and the SMOG Index. Its results are a useful warning against simplistic claims. Prompt engineering with GPT-4o mini and the two-agent approach showed stronger qualitative performance in that evaluation. Fine-tuned models excelled in accuracy and completeness, but were less simple. The paper also reported that GPT-4o mini prompt engineering outperformed the evaluated iterative two-agent and GPT-4o fine-tuning approaches on its qualitative results. That is not a universal verdict on fine-tuning. It is ev

Within minutes of this post going live, this laptop goes back to the company. Work is handed over....

"A team of SpaceX engineers is on their way to conduct additional analysis on the vehicle."

The ChatGPT maker says its upcoming Astra model may have reached “critical” cyber capabilities, prompting it to halt a significant number of training runs while it tightens internal safeguards.

The Tesla Cybercab, that golden two-seater central to Elon Musk's robo-supremacist ambitions, is finally nearing it's public launch. Whether or not the no-steering wheel and no-pedal vehicle is actually ready for public roads, let alone customers, remains very much in doubt. According to The Information, Tesla is planning a public launch of the Cybercab in […]

Battery materials startup Anthro Energy has broken ground on a Louisville factory to make electrolytes, including those for solid-state batteries.

Welcome to this week's Top 7, where the DEV editorial team handpicks their favorite posts from the previous week (Saturday-Friday). Congrats to all the authors that made it onto the list 👏 The Next Evolution of Software Developers Shifts junior training and trust Roberto B. Roberto B. Roberto B. Follow Aug 12 The Next Evolution of Software Developers # ai # learning # mentorship # software 62 reactions 29 comments 7 min read @robertobutti argues that AI isn't replacing developers so much as raising the abstraction layer they work at, the same way high-level languages, frameworks, and cloud platforms did before it. Drawing on their own shifting workday, they make the case that as implementation gets cheaper, ownership of architecture, trade-offs, and outcomes becomes the real differentiator. The End of Undetectable AI Text? Claude’s New Watermark Explained Separating AI provenance from detection myths Sylwia Laskowska Sylwia Laskowska Sylwia Laskowska Follow Aug 11 The End of Undetectable AI Text? Claude’s New Watermark Explained # news # ai # llm 138 reactions 93 comments 6 min read @sylwia-lask cuts through the panic around Anthropic signing the EU AI Act transparency code, separating what is actually confirmed about Claude's new text watermark from the myths that piled up within hours. They also flag the question nobody has answered yet: how do you statistically watermark generated code, where the model has far fewer equivalent tokens to choose from? I Stopped Trusting AI Agents With Tools. So I Built a Gatekeeper. 83 real agents tested zero mocks Debashish Ghosal Debashish Ghosal Debashish Ghosal Follow Aug 13 I Stopped Trusting AI Agents With Tools. So I Built a Gatekeeper. # ai # agents # security # gatekeeper 43 reactions 48 comments 14 min read @debashish_ghosal built a contextual permission engine that sits between an agent and its tools, replacing binary allow-or-deny with four decisions and a deterministic policy the LLM can't talk its way past. After fiel

Reach Capital announced Tuesday an oversubscribed $265M Fund V.

On August 6th, the Minneapolis Air Route Traffic Control Center lost radar and communications for around two hours. The outage disrupted more than 1,100 flights across the center's 330,000 square mile, nine-state airspace sector. Two days earlier, on August 4th, President Donald Trump departed the White House inside his Marine One military helicopter. As Federal […]

The Linux kernel, Fedora, and LLVM now require an “Assisted-by” tag on patches created with the help...