Loading digest...
Jul 10
1 / ?
Tech aillm

OpenAI launches GPT-5.6 Sol, Terra, and Luna on apps and API

OpenAI's new GPT-5.6 family introduces an 'ultra' agentic mode and programmatic in-memory JavaScript execution for complex, multi-step work.

Summary

What: OpenAI launched three GPT-5.6 models—Sol (flagship), Terra (mid-range), and Luna (efficient)—adding features like prompt caching, parallel agent orchestration, and in-memory JavaScript tool calling.
Why it matters: By allowing models to execute arbitrary code to manage workflows and call tools, OpenAI is shifting ChatGPT from a chatbot into an active software-execution environment.
Takeaway: Developers using the OpenAI API should implement cache breakpoints to utilize the new 90% discount on cached input reads.

Deep Dive

  • Model Tiers: Sol ($5/$30 per 1M tokens), Terra ($2.50/$15), Luna ($1/$6).
  • Ultra Setting: Orchestrates four agents in parallel to handle demanding tasks.
  • Programmatic Tool Calling: Models can write and execute in-memory JavaScript for state management and complex logic.
  • Prompt Caching: Explicit cache breakpoints added with 30-minute minimum life; cache writes billed at 1.25x.
  • Performance: Sol leads the Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index with a score of 80.0.
  • Integration: Models now prioritize artifact generation for spreadsheets, presentations, and frontend prototypes.

Decoder

  • Prompt Caching: A feature that saves the output of repetitive prompt prefixes to reduce latency and costs on subsequent API requests.
  • Artifact: A distinct, renderable UI component (like a document or dashboard) created by the model that users can view and edit alongside the chat interface.

Original Article

OpenAI has released GPT-5.6, its new frontier model family for ChatGPT, ChatGPT Work, Codex, and the OpenAI API. The rollout starts globally today and is set to reach full availability over the next 24 hours. The family includes three tiers: Sol as the flagship model, Terra as the lower-cost everyday work option, and Luna as the fastest and most affordable model.

The launch moves GPT-5.6 from a limited preview into general availability. OpenAI is positioning the series around higher intelligence per token, lower estimated cost for complex work, and stronger agentic performance across coding, knowledge work, cybersecurity, science, design, and internal research workflows. Sol is the top-tier model, while Terra and Luna are intended to make the same generation available at lower cost and latency.

Sol, Terra, and Luna, our GPT‑5.6 family of models, are starting to roll out now in ChatGPT, Codex, and the API.

A major addition is the new ultra setting, which coordinates multiple agents across parallel workstreams for demanding tasks. OpenAI says ultra uses four agents by default, trading higher token use for stronger results and faster completion on complex work. Developers can build similar workflows through the multi-agent beta in the Responses API, while Programmatic Tool Calling lets GPT-5.6 write and run in-memory JavaScript to coordinate tools, call them in parallel, use loops and conditions, and process intermediate results before returning an answer.

GPT-5.6 is also aimed at professional artifact generation. OpenAI says the model can create editable presentations, documents, spreadsheets, interfaces, visual explanations, and frontend prototypes with stronger layout judgment and closer adherence to reference files. In ChatGPT Work, the model is designed to handle source material from documents and connected work apps, then convert it into shareable outputs. This puts GPT-5.6 directly into OpenAI’s broader push to make ChatGPT a work-execution environment rather than just a conversational assistant.

GPT-5.6 System Card

For developers, GPT-5.6 arrives with Sol, Terra, and Luna in the API. Pricing is set at $5 input and $30 output per 1 million tokens for Sol, $2.50 input and $15 output per 1 million tokens for Terra, and $1 input and $6 output per 1 million tokens for Luna. The release also adds more predictable prompt caching, explicit cache breakpoints, and a 30-minute minimum cache life. Cache writes are billed at 1.25x the uncached input rate, while cache reads retain a 90% discount on the cached input rate.

On the Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index, GPT‑5.6 Sol sets a new state of the art at 80.0—2.8 points above Claude Fable 5—while using less than half the output tokens, taking less than half the time, and costing about one-third less.

Access depends on product and plan. In ChatGPT, Plus, Pro, Business, and Enterprise users get GPT-5.6 Sol through medium- and higher-effort settings, while Pro and Enterprise users can select Sol Pro for complex tasks. In ChatGPT Work and Codex, Free and Go users get Terra, while Plus, Pro, Business, and Enterprise users can choose Sol, Terra, and Luna with effort controls. The max setting is available to all users with access to GPT-5.6 in ChatGPT Work and Codex. Ultra is available to Pro and Enterprise users in ChatGPT Work and to Plus and higher plans in Codex.

OpenAI says GPT-5.6 Sol sets new or near-frontier results across several evaluations. The company highlights gains in coding with Terminal-Bench 2.1 and DeepSWE; knowledge work with BrowseComp and OSWorld 2.0; cybersecurity with ExploitBench, ExploitGym, and SEC-Bench Pro; and scientific workflows with GeneBench Pro, LifeSciBench, and chemistry-related evaluations. The company also says GPT-5.6 is now used internally by OpenAI researchers for debugging systems, optimizing training, running experiments, and interpreting results.

Tech aillmenterprise

Your AI Margin is Meta's Opportunity

Mark Zuckerberg is undercutting OpenAI and Anthropic by pricing Meta's new frontier model API at roughly 25% of the cost of competitors.

Summary

What: Mark Zuckerberg announced a new proprietary model API that will be significantly cheaper than rivals, aiming to secure market share despite Meta's continued reliance on advertising revenue. He claims Meta's new models are currently outperforming those from Google.
Why it matters: Meta is using its massive advertising cash reserves to commoditize the model layer, forcing competitors who lack diversified revenue streams into a difficult pricing war.

Decoder

  • Frontier model: State-of-the-art AI models that exhibit high levels of capability across various tasks, generally requiring massive scale to train.

Original Article

Happy Muse Spark 1.1 Day to those who celebrate. Which clearly includes Mark Zuckerberg, who is seemingly so giddy about the latest work out of his Superintelligence Lab that he's even tweeting for the first time in years. And just as with the first 'Muse Spark' – still a silly name – model, the early results sounds promising. Still not full-on frontier, but inching closer in certain regards like image generation and perhaps coding and some other agentic workflows.

Anyway, with "Watermelon" – their true frontier model shot – seemingly still growing on the vine, performance isn't really the key today. I mean, a certain level of performance remains table stakes, but there are two other areas to focus on in today's announcement: charging for the API and the price they're charging.

Zuckerberg sat down with Kurt Wagner for Bloomberg to talk about it:

“Since this is not an open source model, this is I think the first time that we’re doing a real serious API,” Zuckerberg said, referring to the application programming interface used to access Meta’s AI. “And the pricing is going to be very aggressive and attractive.”

We've been over Meta's shift from open source – many times – so I won't belabor it, but it is wild just how casually Zuck has shoved it aside given his rhetoric over the past few years. But hey, good leaders know when they need to change direction, even if it's a 180 and makes previous statements seem a bit silly. Far more interesting is the fact that they're charging for the API and again, the pricing.

To the first point, despite endless efforts to diversify their business over many years, Meta's revenue remains completely dominated by advertising. To the tune of something like 98%. As I've noted before, it's a great problem to have – but it's still a problem. And you can tell Meta knows this not only by all the efforts over the years to branch outside ads, but just the efforts in recent weeks to move to sell premium subscriptions (many of which are tied directly to AI usage) and the rumored (but obvious) move to launch a Cloud offering.

This API would be a part of that Cloud offering, so consider it a first step. And it's an important one because Meta is obviously coming very late to this game. So how do you enter such a crowded field? Price:

Meta will also introduce a new Meta Model API system, which will be used to collect fees from developers. Its API pricing is roughly 25% of the cost advertised by other top models from OpenAI and Anthropic PBC. Developers will be able to use Meta’s model for free, but only up to a point; they’ll be required to pay for access after reaching a certain token threshold, Zuckerberg said. “The pricing from some of the other labs is very extreme and has very high margins,” Zuckerberg said, underscoring that his strategy is to get Meta’s technology in front of as many people as possible. “We think that there’s a real ability to be able to offer frontier or very high-level intelligence at a much more affordable cost.”

Yes, this is Zuck's "your margin is my opportunity" moment, echoing the old famous Jeff Bezos quote.

Now, I assume the AI rivals would all say that they're not being overly aggressive on margin and that the cost is simply what they think can get them to some level of sustainability. Of course, while Anthropic may or may not be close to such a level, OpenAI famously is not. That's why they're raising $122B venture rounds. Mind-boggling numbers which, by the way, still won't be enough to take them to that sustainable level without some major tweaks to their model and/or spend. And Meta just made that a lot harder today.

In a way, it's more like "your lack of an underlying business to support your AI build out is my opportunity". Because, yes, Meta's ads cash machine allows them to execute such a strategy. OpenAI also supposedly wants to drastically cut prices to eat up market share, but again, how are they going to pay for that?

At the same time, Wall Street would also like to know how Meta is going to pay for this. Because as great as the ads business is, at the end of the day, the amount being spent on the AI build out is going to eat into their profits and then some. That's undoubtedly part of the reason why Zuck is throwing them the 'Meta Cloud' bone.

Also, it helps to have full founder control and voting shares and you can more or less tell Wall Street to Zuck off.

But actually, Zuck is also making the case in this interview for why he feels like Meta had to (re)build their own frontier models:

“If you really want to build the best experiences for people, you have to be able to shape the underlying technology,” the Meta CEO said. Controlling the technology is going to let Meta “deliver exactly what we think is going to be the best experience.”

Fair enough, though Apple would argue they're building the exact best experience they want by paying Google to distill their models. So couldn't Meta just have done that or something similar?

Zuckerberg is not convinced that the technology will ultimately become a commodity — that is, that all of the various AI models will essentially do the same thing and be more or less indiscernible from one another. He pointed to Mythos, the latest model from Anthropic, which raised national security concerns in the US, as an example of how companies are already gatekeeping aspects of the technology instead of sharing it widely. “The capabilities are not actually getting diffused or made broadly available to everyone,” Zuckerberg said. “Anthropic is sort of keeping a model for themselves and releasing a kind of simpler version of a model. And there are all these reasons for why they may or may not be doing it. But that at least does not suggest to me that the world is either heading in, or is guaranteed to head in, a direction where this ends up being something that is widely available.”

In other words, if they relied too much upon someone else's models, Zuck knew they would run into the situation where those models could go away for any number of reasons. While perhaps no one thought it would be the US government who would pull them back, the point stands. Zuck has years of scar tissue from being beholden to Apple (and to a lesser extent, Google) in mobile. He wasn't about to let someone do it to Meta in AI. Costs be damned!

Wall Street should probably appreciate that. But won't. But they will appreciate charging for the API – even if it means undercutting prices – because of what it signals: the potential for a more diversified Meta and one that may yet figure out how to pay for that AI build-out...

One more thing: Of all the juicy Zuck quotes, this must be the most succulent:

“That is a pretty interesting milestone because I think this may be the first time, at least that I can remember, that Meta’s models are better than all of the Google models,” he said.

Ouch! You think this is being passed around Mountain View today?

AI llm

GPT-5.6: Frontier intelligence that scales with your ambition

OpenAI launched the GPT-5.6 series—Sol, Terra, and Luna—focusing on increased efficiency, scientific research, and advanced cybersecurity capabilities.

Summary

What: GPT-5.6 Sol is the flagship model, designed to outperform competitors like Anthropic's Claude Fable 5 while lowering token costs. The series supports parallel processing for multi-agent workflows and improved judgment in design and technical coding tasks.
Why it matters: The focus on 'intelligence per token' and multi-agent performance marks a pivot from scaling model size to optimizing model utility for specific enterprise workflows like cybersecurity and R&D.

Deep Dive

  • The GPT-5.6 family consists of Sol (high-performance), Terra, and Luna models.
  • Sol demonstrates superior coding and cybersecurity reasoning with higher efficiency than predecessors.
  • All models now support more robust multi-agent parallel processing.
  • The update aims to reduce the computational cost for high-reasoning tasks.
  • The release integrates stricter safety guardrails against malicious use in research and code generation.

Original Article

OpenAI launched GPT-5.6, featuring models Sol, Terra, and Luna, with Sol leading in intelligence and efficiency for coding, cybersecurity, and science. The models excel with fewer tokens at lower costs, with Sol notably outperforming competitors like Claude Fable 5. Enhanced capabilities include multi-agent parallel processing and improved design judgment, advancing cybersecurity and scientific research while maintaining strong safety measures.

AI policy

OpenAI may have made a fatal misstep in copyright fight with news orgs

News organizations allege OpenAI misled the court for years by feigning an inability to search ChatGPT logs that it had already analyzed.

Summary

What: In the NYT copyright lawsuit, OpenAI allegedly withheld the existence of 80 million de-identified logs while arguing that searching such data was technically infeasible and burdensome. The court may now impose severe sanctions for this concealment.
Why it matters: The outcome of this discovery dispute could fundamentally alter the case, as the ability to prove 'regurgitation' of copyrighted content is central to the market harm claims in copyright infringement litigation.

Deep Dive

  • NYT and other plaintiffs are seeking 'severe' sanctions against OpenAI.
  • Allegations center on the concealment of 10 million and 78 million log samples.
  • OpenAI privacy engineer Vincent Monaco revealed these samples were searched internally for filter development, contradicting court claims.
  • OpenAI accused of randomly deleting parts of a 20 million sample and failing to comply with a preservation order.
  • Plaintiffs want the court to instruct the jury that OpenAI deleted evidence to hide market substitution.

Decoder

  • Regurgitation: When an AI model outputs exact or near-exact copies of its training data, which is a key point of contention in copyright litigation.
  • Sanctions: Penalties imposed by a court for violating discovery rules or misleading the court, which can range from monetary fines to case-dispositive rulings (e.g., assuming infringement occurred).

Original Article

OpenAI is facing calls for “serious sanctions” after fighting to keep news organizations from snooping through millions of logs to find evidence of users skirting their paywalls by prompting ChatGPT to regurgitate their articles.

This evidence is considered among the most important to both sides, potentially either dooming OpenAI as an infringer or exonerating its chatbot technology as a transformative fair use of news sites’ content.

In a sanctions motion Thursday, news organizations suing OpenAI—led by The New York Times—accused the AI firm of repeatedly lying for years to conceal evidence of infringement that could hobble OpenAI’s defense.

These alleged lies were exposed when the court compelled an “ill-prepared witness,” OpenAI privacy engineer Vincent Monaco, to be re-deposed. During the subsequent April deposition, he inadvertently revealed that OpenAI misled the court for two years about the cost and burdens of searching ChatGPT logs, NYT’s filing said.

Among the most shocking revelations, OpenAI allegedly pretended from the earliest stages of the case that it did not have the technical ability to search large anonymized samples of ChatGPT logs when it had actually already conducted such searches prior to the start of litigation, NYT alleged.

Sanctions are warranted because “OpenAI’s concealment of this fact withheld highly relevant evidence, prolonged discovery, inflated expenses, and burdened the Court,” news plaintiffs alleged.

Asked for comment, an OpenAI spokesperson suggested that NYT’s sanctions motion was a late litigation effort to access more logs and infringe more users’ privacy. The spokesperson claimed that when the NYT recently dropped some claims in the lawsuit, it was a sign that news plaintiffs’ case was crumbling, not OpenAI’s defense.

“As the Times’ case weakens and they’ve been forced to drop claims against us, they’re persisting with their efforts to invade the privacy of people who have nothing to do with this case, including by making these blatantly false allegations,” OpenAI’s spokesperson said. “We’ll continue defending our users’ privacy and the long-established principles of fair use.”

However, last month, NYT spokesperson Graham James disputed to Ars that news plaintiffs’ case was weakened by dropping claims. He suggested instead the suit was streamlined and strengthened by adding claims against Microsoft. “Our core claims remain the same from the day we filed this lawsuit—that Microsoft and OpenAI stole millions of The Times’s copyrighted works to compete with our products and illegally enrich themselves,” James said.

OpenAI allegedly hid 80M log sample

Although the sanctions motion is heavily redacted, it’s alleged that Monaco testified that OpenAI had two large samples—spanning 10 million and 78 million logs—which had already been de-identified and could have been made available to news plaintiffs early on to maximize the discovery period.

“Not once did OpenAI disclose the existence” of those samples over two years, news plaintiffs alleged.

Even more frustrating to plaintiffs, OpenAI had already searched those samples for NYT content as part of its research into “creating a filter that could be used to block the regurgitation of copyrighted content,” the court filing said.

“OpenAI was willing and able to search its output logs—when it benefitted OpenAI,” NYT alleged, accusing the ChatGPT maker of “making the discovery process as burdensome as possible.”

Court says OpenAI sample is “unusable”

In a statement to Ars, NYT’s lead counsel, Ian Crosby, suggested that OpenAI obstructed access to logs and distorted evidence to shield its fair use claims.

“For over two years, OpenAI lied to The Times, The Daily News Plaintiffs, the public, and the court,” Crosby said. “It claimed searching ChatGPT outputs for copies of The Times’ and the Daily News Plaintiffs’ content was infeasible, burdensome, and invasive of users’ privacy—while at the same time concealing that it had already done such searches. If OpenAI genuinely believed that copying our clients’ journalism was fair and legal, it wouldn’t have hid the truth about having done it.”

Instead of being transparent about the existing samples, OpenAI forced news plaintiffs to spend eight months searching in a “sandbox,” where they could only access a heavily redacted sample of 20 million logs. That sample was much smaller than the 120 million news logs plaintiffs originally requested, allegedly narrowed due to OpenAI’s “false representations regarding its existing technical capabilities” to search larger samples.

“This representation is belied by Mr. Monaco’s testimony that OpenAI already had the ability” to search “large datasets, such as the more than 80 million output logs,” NYT alleged.

The 20 million log sample was further “skewed” when OpenAI used AI to make 19 billion redactions to the sample—so many that the court found the sample “unusable.”

Eventually, OpenAI removed some of the redactions, but “even then, a large number of redactions remain, including to News Plaintiffs’ domains, names, and other fields, which has hampered News Plaintiffs’ searches over the data,” NYT alleged.

Meanwhile, “the entire time that OpenAI was engaging in the improper over-redaction of this sample, it had in its possession a sample of 78 million conversations that had already been de-identified,” NYT alleged.

“OpenAI did not just oppose production of this evidence based on burden or relevance; it falsely represented to the Court that obtaining this evidence was beyond its capabilities without the expenditure of and months of work and that it would be just as easy for Plaintiffs to do this work—without disclosing that this work had already been done,” news plaintiffs alleged.

Similarly frustrating were dragged-out meet-and-confers over data searches that news plaintiffs claimed further limited discovery. For example, very close to discovery ending, OpenAI confusingly claimed that the 78 million log samples had been available for inspection for “over a year,” NYT alleged. However, “this makes no sense,” news plaintiffs argued, considering OpenAI’s very public fight to supposedly defend ChatGPT user privacy by blocking access to any logs beyond the 20 million sample.

“Either OpenAI unintentionally produced the dataset and it was so hidden in the training inspection data that even OpenAI did not realize it, or OpenAI knew it buried the dataset in a previous production, but hid that fact from the Court and News Plaintiffs for nearly two years—all the while vigorously arguing that turning over these logs would violate user privacy,” NYT argued.

Additionally, news plaintiffs accused OpenAI of other misconduct to obstruct access to evidence. Although the exact amount is redacted, OpenAI randomly deleted some parts of that limited 20 million sample, they alleged. And that’s on top of allegedly deleting or compressing billions of logs that should have been preserved. According to NYT, OpenAI’s witness testified that OpenAI simply “decided” that complying with the court’s sweeping preservation order to retain all chats “would be hard; and thus took no steps to do so.”

“There can be no question as to the wilfulness of OpenAI’s conduct, nor any excuse for its non-compliance. According to Mr. Monaco, OpenAI thought about complying with the Court’s Preservation Order, but then decided not to,” NYT alleged.

“Serious sanctions” necessary

News organizations claim that they do not request sanctions against OpenAI “lightly” but that the “severity” of OpenAI’s alleged misconduct requires sanctions to punish the AI firm and deter any other AI firms from following a similar playbook.

Requesting “severe” sanctions, news plaintiffs want the court to prohibit OpenAI from using the 20 million sample that it fought so hard for. They have further asked the court to find that withheld output logs included “substantial” “regurgitation of News Plaintiffs’ copyrighted material” and to block OpenAI from arguing otherwise. Finally, the jury would be instructed that OpenAI deleted billions of logs, which would play into news plaintiffs’ narrative that OpenAI has been moving in shady ways to obscure alleged substitution in the market since the case began.

“Lesser sanctions would not be effective,” news plaintiffs warned. In fact,“serious sanctions are especially appropriate,” they said, because OpenAI’s misconduct “was knowing and intentional.”

If the court agrees that OpenAI’s misconduct was “egregious,” OpenAI’s attempt to constrict news organizations’ access to logs could end up being a fatal misstep in this intently watched copyright fight.

Whether training on copyrighted content is fair use will likely depend on whether news organizations can establish market harms, and OpenAI’s defense could be substantially set back if its massively redacted sample is rejected and if that makes it harder to argue substantial infringement did not occur.

AI infrastructurehardwaresemiconductor

Meta's new AI chips will begin production in September

Meta is shifting to in-house silicon production this September to mitigate GPU dependency and rising compute costs.

Summary

What: Meta is starting production of its proprietary MTIA chips with Broadcom and TSMC. The company expects to deploy 7 gigawatts of compute this year, doubling that in 2027, as part of a $125-145 billion capital expenditure budget focused on AI.
Why it matters: Developing custom silicon allows Meta to lower the total cost of ownership for its massive recommendation and ranking workloads, reducing its vulnerability to supply constraints from Nvidia and AMD.

Deep Dive

  • Meta is moving into production of MTIA chips in September.
  • Designs are handled by Broadcom with TSMC handling manufacturing.
  • Strategic hardware partnerships include Samsung (RAM), Sandisk (storage), and Sumitomo Electric (fiber).
  • MTIA chips are designed using modular chiplets to allow for faster iteration cycles.
  • Chips are primarily for internal ranking, recommendation, and inference tasks.
  • Company targets 7 gigawatts of compute capacity for 2026, doubling in 2027.
  • Meta maintains existing multibillion-dollar commitments to Nvidia, AMD, and Amazon (for custom CPUs).

Decoder

  • MTIA (Meta Training and Inference Accelerator): Meta's internal line of custom AI chips built specifically for training and running inference on their large-scale recommendation and AI models.
  • Chiplets: Smaller, modular pieces of silicon combined to form a larger, complex processor, often allowing for faster development and easier scaling compared to massive monolithic chips.
  • Inference: The process of running a trained machine learning model on new data to make predictions or decisions.

Original Article

In a bid to lower its GPU costs amid an unprecedented component shortage, Meta is on track to start making the latest versions of its AI-specific chip in September, Reuters reported, citing an internal memo.

At least one chip sailed through its testing phase in about six weeks, the memo said. Meta is working with Broadcom on the chip design, but it will use Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) to manufacture them. It is also buying RAM from Samsung, storage from Sandisk, and fiber-optic equipment from Sumitomo Electric, according to the report.

Meta detailed the four new chips, developed under its Meta Training and Inference Accelerator (MTIA) program, in March, some of which are currently in deployment or will be this year or next. The company is taking a modular approach to designing these chips, anticipating that their needs will change as AI evolves rapidly by the time the chips are in production.

“Each MTIA generation builds on the last, using modular chiplets, incorporating the latest AI workload insights and hardware technologies, and deploying on a shorter cadence,” the company wrote at the time.

The chips are expected to help the company save on buying GPUs from chipmakers like Nvidia and AMD, although it still expects to spend plenty with those providers as well, Reuters reports. Meta intends to use the MTIA chips for training models for its ranking and recommendation algorithms, broader AI workloads, and inference aimed at its applications. The social media company has been producing its own AI chips since 2023.

Meta has been spending massively on securing enough compute capacity to power its various AI efforts. The company in April said it expects capital expenditures between $125 billion and $145 billion this year, a lot of which is going toward its AI efforts.

The company has been striking data center and power deals across the world, spending tens of billions to secure computing capacity to train and deploy its new Muse Spark series of AI models. It plans to deploy 7 gigawatts of compute this year, and double that next, according to Reuters, which cited the memo.

It also signed a deal with ARM last year to secure compute for its recommendation systems, in addition to a multibillion-dollar deal with AMD for its Instinct GPUs and a multibillion-dollar deal with Amazon to use the cloud giant’s homegrown CPUs for AI-related needs.

Meta isn’t the only company trying to stem the tide of capital going to Nvidia. OpenAI last month unveiled an inference processor that it is building with Broadcom, and Anthropic is said to be considering developing its own chips with Samsung. Amazon and Google both develop their own chips for AI training and inference, and there’s a host of startups building in the space to meet skyrocketing demand.

Meta declined to comment.

DevOps infrastructurekubernetes

Announcing etcd v3.7.0

etcd v3.7.0 brings a major performance boost with the new RangeStream feature and finally sheds its dependency on the legacy v2 store.

Summary

What: The etcd 3.7.0 release adds RangeStream for chunked data retrieval, completes a massive protobuf library migration, and removes v2 store dependencies, while bundling bbolt v1.5.1 and raft v3.7.0.
Why it matters: The transition to v3store-only bootstrapping simplifies etcd's architecture, removing significant technical debt that has persisted for years.
Takeaway: If you are upgrading to 3.7.0, check the upgrade guide for breaking changes, specifically the removal of all v2 legacy components and changes to client blocking behavior.

Deep Dive

  • RangeStream: Replaces buffered result sets with chunked streaming to prevent memory spikes.
  • Keys-only optimization: Queries now pull solely from the in-memory index, avoiding expensive disk reads from bbolt.
  • Protobuf cleanup: Migrated from outdated golang/protobuf and gogo/protobuf to the supported google.golang.org/protobuf.
  • Performance: Significant reduction in Kubernetes control plane CPU usage via improved lease handling and watch efficiency.
  • Legacy removal: Fully removed v2 discovery and client support; --snapshot-count is the final vestige to be removed in 3.8.

Decoder

  • gRPC: A high-performance, open-source framework for remote procedure calls (RPCs), widely used in microservices.
  • bbolt: An embedded key-value database engine used by etcd for persistent storage.

Original Article

Announcing etcd v3.7.0

Today, SIG etcd is releasing etcd v3.7.0, the latest minor release of the popular distributed key-value store and core Kubernetes component. v3.7 ships the long-requested RangeStream feature, delivers several other performance improvements, removes the last remnants of the legacy v2store, and completes a major protobuf overhaul.

You can download etcd v3.7.0 here:

This release also includes new versions of the two core etcd dependencies, bbolt v1.5.0 and raft v3.7.0.

For instructions on installing etcd, see the install documentation. For the full list of changes, see the etcd v3.7 changelog.

A heartfelt thank you to all the contributors who made this release possible!

Major features

The most significant changes in v3.7.0 include:

  • RangeStream — stream large result sets in chunks instead of buffering the whole response.
  • Keys-only range requests, faster and more reliable leases, and several other performance improvements.
  • etcd now boots entirely from v3store, eliminating a long-standing dependency on the legacy v2 store
  • A completed protobuf overhaul, replacing outdated protobuf libraries with fully supported ones.
  • etcd v3.7 ships with bbolt v1.5.1 and raft v3.7.0.

Features

RangeStream

In etcd v3.6 and earlier, it is challenging to work with requests that return large result sets. The database would buffer the full result set before sending, leading to unpredictable latency and memory usage, both on the server and the client. The RangeStream RPC lets calling applications accept result sets in chunks, reducing latency and making buffering memory usage more predictable.

Instructions on how to use RangeStream in gRPC calls and in etcdctl can be found in the etcd documentation. Users should try it out for their own applications.

In coordinated releases, the RangeStream feature will become available to users running the upcoming v1.37 of Kubernetes by enabling the EtcdRangeStream feature gate. This early and planned adoption is possible thanks to the merger of etcd and Kubernetes development in 2023.

Performance improvements

v3.7 delivers multiple specific performance improvements, both for the Kubernetes control plane and for other use cases. Kubernetes users should see a significant decrease in overall CPU usage by the etcd members, compared with v3.6.

Keys-only range optimization

etcd v3.7.0 includes a keys-only Range optimization (#21791: keys-only Range optimization). When processing a keys_only Range request or etcdctl get --keys-only, etcd reads solely from its in-memory index. It returns the matched keys without loading all serialized values from bbolt as it did previously. The only exception where loading from bbolt is still required is when keys_only Range requests must be sorted by value (i.e., when SortTarget is set to VALUE).

This reduces unnecessary backend reads and memory use for workloads that only need key names, making large keys-only range requests more efficient.

Faster, more reliable etcd leases

v3.7 improves lease expiration and renewal:

Faster find() operations

etcd 3.7 improves the performance of concurrent watches on keys by making find() operations faster (#19768: adt: split interval tree by right endpoint on matched left endpoints).

Other features

Protobuf overhaul

v3.7 migrates and replaces multiple outdated protobuf libraries with fully supported dependencies. This includes replacing github.com/golang/protobuf and github.com/gogo/protobuf with the fully-supported google.golang.org/protobuf (#14533: Protobuf: cleanup both golang/protobuf and gogo/protobuf), and migrating grpc-logging to grpc-middleware v2 (#20420: Migrate grpc-logging to grpc-middleware v2).

As well as improving security and maintainability, this refactor has been shown to reduce CPU usage by etcd components.

While these changes are not expected to directly affect users running etcd via official binaries or container images, they may affect users who depend on etcd Go modules, such as the client SDK or packages under api/ or pkg/. These consumers may need to update their code or dependencies due to protobuf and related API changes introduced in this release.

Unix socket support

etcd now supports Unix socket endpoints (#19760: Add Support for Unix Socket endpoints), enabling local communication without a TCP port.

Bootstrap from v3store

One of the major changes in etcd v3.7 is that the server now bootstraps entirely from the v3 store (#20187 Bootstrap etcdserver from v3store), eliminating its dependency on the legacy v2 store during startup.

This milestone is the result of a long-term effort spanning multiple releases. It resolves a long-standing technical debt, significantly simplifies the bootstrap workflow, and lays the foundation for future improvements to etcd.

To maintain backward compatibility, etcd v3.7 continues to generate v2 snapshots. As a result, the --snapshot-count flag is also retained in v3.7. This is the last remaining dependency on the legacy v2 store, and both the v2 snapshot generation and the --snapshot-count flag will be removed in v3.8.

etcdutl timeouts

All etcdutl commands now have a timeout command line argument (#20708: etcdutl: enable timeout functionality for all commands), so offline utility commands no longer block indefinitely when holding a lock.

Setting the authentication token directly

Client v3 now allows users to set the JWT directly, offering more flexibility in authentication options (#16803: clientv3: allow setting JWT directly, #20747: clientv3: disable auth retry when token is set),

Retrieve AuthStatus without authenticating

Clients can check their AuthStatus without attempting to authenticate first, eliminating some application overhead (#20802: etcdserver: remove permission check on AuthStatus api).

New watch metrics

v3.7 adds optional watch send-loop metrics (#21030: Instrument watchstream send loop) for better observability of the watch path.

etcdctl command cleanup

etcdctl commands were reorganized for clarity (#20162: etcdctl: organize etcdctl subcommand) and global command line arguments are now hidden to streamline help output (#20493: etcdctl: hide global flags).

Upgrading

This release contains breaking changes, particularly around the removal of legacy v2 components. Users should review the upgrade guide before upgrading their nodes. As with all minor releases, perform a rolling upgrade one member at a time and confirm cluster health between steps.

Experimental flags removed

All deprecated experimental flags have been removed (#19959: Cleanup the deprecated experimental flags). Features in etcd now follow the Kubernetes-style feature-gate lifecycle (Alpha → Beta → GA) introduced in v3.6, rather than the old --experimental prefix.

Legacy V2 API packages and code cleanup

To remove the dependencies on v2store, the following components have been removed:

  • v2 discovery packages
  • v2 request support
  • v2 client support

Non-blocking client creation

etcd no longer honors the deprecated grpc.WithBlock dial option ( #21942: Make the etcd client creation non-blocking).

Multiarch container images only

For users relying on the official etcd container images, v3.7 will be distributed only as multiarch containers. Architecture-tagged images will not be available, so adjust deployments accordingly.

bbolt v1.5.1

etcd v3.7 depends on, and includes, v1.5.1 of the bbolt storage engine.

  • Database file size limits: users may set, and bbolt will enforce, file size limits.
  • Disable statistics for performance: users may set NoStatistics to limit overhead.
  • More efficient hashmap processing: merge spans faster and with less overhead.

raft v3.7.0

etcd 3.7 depends on, and includes, v3.7.0 of the raft consensus engine.

  • Update the bootstrap process: v3.7 now allows booting from partly initialized snapshots.
  • Improve the ReadIndex flow to prevent stale reads by injecting a unique identifier into the heartbeat context for read-only operations.

Contributors

etcd v3.7.0 is the product of more than a hundred contributors across the community.

Leads

The SIG etcd leads for the v3.7 release are ivanvc, serathius, ahrtr, fuweid, siyuanfoundation, and jberkus.

DevOps backendrustzig

Bun is being rewritten in Rust

Bun is rewriting its runtime from Zig to Rust to solve persistent memory safety issues while maintaining performance and feature parity.

Summary

What: Bun, now owned by Anthropic, converted its 535,496-line codebase from Zig to Rust using automated workflows. The project achieved a green test suite in 11 days across 6 platforms, resulting in improved memory safety, smaller binary sizes, and reduced stack space usage.
Why it matters: This illustrates a shift where even performance-focused, 'manual' systems projects are embracing memory-safe languages like Rust to combat the high engineering cost of manual memory management, enabled by massive LLM-assisted code migration.
Takeaway: Try the new Rust-powered version of Bun by running `bun upgrade --canary` to test for stability improvements in your local environment.

Deep Dive

  • Motivation: Persistent memory leaks and crashes in the Zig implementation (e.g., use-after-free, double-free) prompted the transition.
  • Migration Strategy: Used 64 concurrent instances of Claude to port files, followed by adversarial review to ensure semantic parity.
  • Performance Gains: Achieved 2-5% faster execution, 20% smaller binary sizes, and fixed over 100 historical memory-related bugs.
  • Memory Management: Replaced manual defer cleanup with Rust’s Drop trait, preventing common manual cleanup errors.
  • Integration: Retains C/C++ dependencies like JavaScriptCore while wrapping them in safer Rust abstractions.

Decoder

  • Zig: A general-purpose systems programming language designed for performance and manual memory control, similar to C.
  • Comptime: A Zig feature that allows code to be executed during compilation, often used for generic programming.
  • Address Sanitizer (ASAN): A memory error detector for C and C++ that finds out-of-bounds accesses and use-after-free bugs.

Original Article

Full article content is not available for inline reading.

Read the original article →

Design aidevopsfrontend

Storybook Workbench: Audit Vibe-coded UIs and Find Hidden Bugs in Hours

Evil Martians released Storybook Workbench, an open-source agentic toolkit to audit AI-generated codebases for dead components and hidden bugs.

Summary

What: Storybook Workbench uses CLI-based agent skills to scan repositories, render all component states in Storybook, and export structured JSON audit reports to tools like Linear.
Why it matters: As developers rely more on AI to scaffold UI, they are creating 'vibe-coded' debt where redundant design systems and dead code proliferate; automated auditing bridges the gap between AI output and maintainable production code.
Takeaway: Install the toolkit and run `/sb` commands to scan your AI-generated codebase and generate actionable tickets for cleanup.

Deep Dive

  • Automated Audit: Scans 400+ component files to identify dead code and abandoned flows.
  • Isolation: Renders all component states in Storybook, exposing hidden bugs.
  • JSON Export: Provides structured data compatible with issue trackers like Linear.
  • Accessibility Check: Identifies contrast and role-based errors not caught by standard build steps.
  • Design Sync: Maps foundation tokens between Figma and code for ongoing maintenance.

Decoder

  • Vibe-coding: A term for high-speed, iterative AI development where functionality is generated via prompts rather than manual coding, often resulting in messy, unoptimized codebases.
  • Storybook: A tool for UI development that allows developers to build and test components in isolation.
  • Linear: A popular issue-tracking and project-management tool for software engineering teams.

Original Article

Storybook Workbench: audit vibe-coded UIs and find hidden bugs in hours

An AI agent can generate a full web app that looks plausible and runs within one afternoon. However, you still can’t really tell which of the 469 component files in ‘src/’ are structural and which are dead ends the agent abandoned three prompts ago. So, Evil Martians built Storybook Workbench: a set of agent skills for auditing your UI and presenting it in Storybook, for both the first iteration and beyond.

Storybook Workbench guides coding agents as they audit each of your app’s components and translate them into visible stories. It’s made for engineers, designers, or founders who’ve inherited an agent-coded prototype, are moving a design system into code, or those actively working and thus mindful of token use and paying the bills.

We used these skills internally on a vibe-coded app and found 31 dead components and six accessibility bugs no build would catch. This process took hours instead of three days.

In this post, we’ll share why we built these skills, the methodology behind them, and how you can more effectively audit your app’s UI on Storybook.

Why we must audit vibe-coded app UIs

Agentic coding has caused design to move into the codebase, increasingly replacing Figma as the source of truth. As a result, engineers, designers, and solo founders now work on top of code that they either don’t know how to read or has too much going on.

This is because vibe-coded apps make the mess invisible; sure, you can see a diff in a pull request, but you can’t see if the agent leaves dead components. Since agents generate faster than they clean up, slop accumulates, hiding usability bugs and creating a review bottleneck.

The best way to learn what’s inside your codebase and stop the rot is by auditing it.

On the app mentioned above, the inventory came back with huge numbers: 469 component files, out of which 438 were real, while 31 were dead, defined, or never imported.

This dead code wasn’t evenly spread either. Nineteen of those 31 components were abandoned pages or complete flows that had been replaced. This truth was only visible thanks to our Storybook Workbench audit.

We’ve also seen three kinds of invisible rot show up in every agent-generated codebase that’s been audited:

  • Dead components hidden in the codebase because they’re not referenced by anything
  • Multiple design systems coexisting in the same codebase
  • Component states written as conditionals that are only visible when rendered in isolation

Why Storybook is the right audit surface

Storybook renders components in isolation, outside the app that hosts them, one state at a time. You can use it as a documentation tool when building component libraries, but we found it’s actually much more useful for auditing an AI-generated frontend. This way, you can see what the UI actually does according to the code.

A designer himself, Martian Gleb Stroganov created Storybook Workbench for three main users.

Designers

Before, we used to make screenshots and recreate flows in Figma. Working directly in the codebase makes our job challenging, and it becomes even harder to complete tasks if we can’t see the specifics of all changes. These skills help us see the full picture with actual states and accurate data, and iterate directly from real use cases.

Frontend engineers

You now expect designers to use AI for coding, but you inherit unreliable code because you can’t tell which files break a screen somewhere else. So, you either stop deleting and start adding more code on top of it, or end up rewriting the entire thing. This makes maintaining the app expensive and dreadful. This tool tells you exactly which code is okay to remove.

Founders

If you’re a solo-founder building an idea you want to validate, not knowing what hides under the hood means there’s likely a big bill coming up in the future. Editing colors in Lovable, adding buttons in Bolt, and changing a feature in Claude Code without auditing and cleaning it up are buying you future debt. This tool shows you what to fix before it turns into real debt.

A look inside Storybook Workbench

Storybook Workbench turns a messy, AI-generated tool into something you can review. The results show which components are live vs. dead, the health of your design system, how pages and flows connect, and every component state rendered visually with its documentation.

Inside, there are different skills that perform one of four tasks: onboard, orchestrate, navigate, or report. All of these start with /sb.

When you install Storybook Workbench, it installs one bundle from the terminal using your preferred agent, but it gives you context only for the skill you run. So the bundle is a loop, not a menu.

From the main hub you can see what you need to do based on your repo’s state and the next suggested command. Once you run it, it reviews your repo, hands back a readiness report, and guides you to the next step.

So you install skills, run the audit, get structured JSON, render it in Storybook, and see the stories in form of an audit.

We won’t bore you with the specifics of each skill here. Instead, you can read the documentation at your leisure.

Three Storybook Workbench use cases

Here’s what you can do with these skills in practice:

1. Audit your UI

You can use this tool to see all the components, tokens, dead code, and flows visually in Storybook. The skills scan your codebase using deterministic shell and Python scripts that produce structured JSON reports.

From there, Storybook wrappers render everything visually and show you where each component and token is used, which components exist in the code but aren’t imported anywhere, and how pages connect.

2. Act upon audit findings

Because every skill outputs structured JSON, the data can go anywhere. You can feed the audit results to Linear’s MCP and generate tickets for your dev team, or export findings as a PDF report to send to stakeholders.

You can also use the built-in sb-figma skill to handle bi-directional sync and map foundation tokens between Figma and code, share approved components, and push Code Connect mappings back to Figma Dev Mode.

3. Continuous improvement

You can use the sb-audit skill to periodically audit your UI after changes. It continuously refreshes all JSON reports, surveys the catalog for naming drift, flags stale decisions, and checks for design-system regressions like raw hex values or undefined tokens creeping back in.

The findings are saved with a timestamp in .storybook/audit/findings.md and git history keeps snapshots of each audit state so you can diff over time.

This way, you can scaffold once, audit, generate action items, fix, re-audit, and repeat.

What you get from the audit

By the end of the run, you get a full Storybook audit that looks something like this.

The output is a set of things that were hard to find before:

  • A rendered catalog of every component in every state that matters, each showing its actual loading, empty, error, and populated states instead of leaving them implied in the source
  • End-to-end flows mapped as journeys instead of screens: onboarding, content management, messaging, sign-up and conversion, and a multi-step creation wizard
  • A route list that tells you screens exist and a journey map to show you how someone moves between them, and which connections no story covered
  • Information about real accessibility bugs

In the example above, the Storybook Workbench audit showed bugs present in about six components, invisible in the running app because nobody had rendered the states in isolation with an accessibility checker attached. (These included a badge variant with a contrast ratio of 3.87, under the WCAG AA threshold of 4.5, and a select component with broken combobox roles.)

None of those bugs caused a build to fail, but nonetheless, all of them were failing the users.

Time to get a grip on your debt

The first step to paying off your debt is to know how much it is and what it’s made of.

Storybook reflects production as it actually is, much like a designer would do in Figma. Storybook Workbench gives you a list of rendered issues to share with the frontend designer or founder to sketch out a plan for paying it off.

After using Storybook Workbench:

  • Designers will complete real and in-code audits of a vibe-coded tool in in less than a day, a job that took around three days in the past.
  • Frontend engineers will be able to act faster and clean up the code with a reliable roadmap.
  • Founders will reduce future maintenance costs and build solutions users actually enjoy using.

At Evil Martians, we turn client problems and the bottlenecks we find while working for them into open-source solutions. This tool is our new attempt to simplify design audits and bridge the collaboration gap between designers, frontends, and founders.

You can’t review what you can’t see. So render it, one command at a time with Storybook Workbench. Install it, ask your agent to run it for you, and share findings with your team.

Tech aimobile

Apple Exploring Ways to Run Much Larger AI Models Directly on iPhones

Apple is investigating using PrismML's compression technology to run large, 27-billion parameter LLMs entirely on-device for future iPhone models.

Summary

What: Apple held talks with startup PrismML to potentially replace or augment its sparse 20B parameter AFM 3 Core Advanced model with compressed, fully-active 27B parameter models like Alibaba's Qwen 3.6.
Why it matters: Running dense, larger models locally would reduce Apple's reliance on Private Cloud Compute and increase user privacy while improving model quality, but it challenges the current efficiency limits of mobile hardware.

Deep Dive

  • PrismML Tech: Capability to compress models so all parameters remain active on mobile, rather than using sparse architectures.
  • Current Baseline: Apple's current AFM 3 Core Advanced model is 20B parameters but sparse, only using 1-4B active at once.
  • Potential: Running dense models allows for better reasoning capabilities in local Siri and system-wide intelligence features.
  • Strategic Shift: Moving more intelligence on-device directly reduces server-side operational costs.

Decoder

  • Sparse architecture: A neural network structure where only a subset of total parameters are activated for any given input to save compute while maintaining a large model size.

Original Article

Apple Exploring Ways to Run Much Larger AI Models Directly on iPhones

Apple has held meetings with PrismML about ways it could use the startup's technology to run much larger AI models directly on iPhones, according to The Information.

The report said PrismML has managed to shrink down Alibaba's open-source large language model Qwen 3.6 to run entirely on an iPhone 17 Pro. The model has 27 billion parameters, which is larger than Apple's on-device AFM 3 Core Advanced model with 20 billion parameters. Apple's model powers iOS 27 enhancements such as Siri AI's more expressive voices and improved systemwide dictation on iPhone 17 Pro and iPhone Air models.

Unlike with AFM 3 Core Advanced, all of Qwen 3.6's parameters can be active at the same time.

"One new on-device Apple model has 20 billion parameters but uses a so-called sparse architecture, in which only 1 billion to 4 billion parameters are active at a time," the report said, in reference to AFM 3 Core Advanced. "In the case of PrismML's on-device model, all 27 billion parameters are active at the same time."

Larger models running directly on iPhones would allow for more Apple Intelligence features to run on device instead of on Apple's Private Cloud Compute servers, which could reduce Apple's costs and further enhance user privacy.

Tech devopsai

Stop being the code review bottleneck

PostHog suggests treating human code reviewers as a bottleneck by using multi-agent 'qa-swarms' and auto-approval agents for low-risk PRs.

Summary

What: PostHog engineers are moving humans out of the code review loop by deploying agentic workflows that perform triage, auto-stamp low-risk PRs, and stack changes for observable verification.
Why it matters: As AI coding assistants drastically increase PR volume, standard manual review is becoming a systemic failure point; automated, tiered verification is the only way to maintain velocity.
Takeaway: Build a PR auto-stamper using a deny-list approach for high-risk files (secrets, billing) and allow it to auto-approve simple changes.

Deep Dive

  • Agentic QA: Use multiple agents (qa-team, security-audit, observability reviewer) to triage findings into 'actionable,' 'nits,' or 'ambiguous.'
  • Babysitting Loops: Automate CI monitoring, flaky test reruns, and linting to reduce human context switching.
  • StampHog: An agent that auto-approves PRs based on deterministic checks (diff size, file deny-list, merge conflict check).
  • Observability over Reasoning: Instead of reading long PR descriptions, decompose work into small, stacked PRs that are independently runnable and verifiable.
  • Visual Verification: For frontend, use agents to generate screenshots and GIFs of states (loading, error, populated) before human review.

Decoder

  • PR (Pull Request): A process where developers notify their team that they have completed a feature or fix, triggering a review of their code changes before merging into the main codebase.
  • Blast radius: A term describing the potential scope of damage if a piece of code or a change fails.

Original Article

Stop being the code review bottleneck

4 ways to make AI code review suck less (with prompts)

Agents are writing code faster than any human can review.

The naive solution would be for developers to review code faster. The 500 IQ take is for developers to review as little code as possible.

If you need to be involved in every code review, you will always be the bottleneck. Instead, put yourself outside of the code review loop by building a pipeline that delegates tasks to agents.

We asked engineers at PostHog how they’ve been reviewing AI-generated code to keep shipping fast without losing quality.

Here are four workflow changes you can steal (with prompts included) to make your life easier.

1. Make agents review code for you

The number one thing to add, if you haven’t yet, is a way for agents to review code for you.

The goal is to offload the simpler reviews to agents, and flag if something genuinely needs a human.

The key is that the agent that wrote the code can’t be the one that reviews it. Agents are bad at checking their own work since they’re often unaware of their own blind spots.

For the same reason, it’s better to have multiple agents with different instructions and goals to cover more gaps, as well as different models and providers for different reviewers.

Here’s how one of our engineers, Paul D’Ambra, makes his own custom agent review system work:

  1. First, qa-swarm spawns four reviewer agents, each with their own special instructions:

    • qa-team – spawns technical subagents that hunt for security, database, performance, etc.
    • security-audit – probes for vulnerabilities like SQL or prompt injections
    • paul-reviewer – uses Paul’s voice and focuses on observability, rollouts, naming
    • xp-reviewer – applies an Extreme Programming lens to review
  2. Then, review-triage sorts those reviews to classify threads into three categories:

    • actionable → gets fixed and pushed
    • nits → get resolved and replied to with a comment
    • ambiguous → escalated and sorted for Paul to work through with the agent later
  3. An outer loop iterates up to three times or until no new actionable threads appear.

From there, you can connect this to another loop that shepherds the PR until it’s ready to merge – more on that in the next section.

The takeaway: Save time reviewing code by making agents review each other. This knocks out easier reviews so that only the PRs that really need human attention get flagged.

Steal this

You can check out and copy Paul’s qa-swarm and review-triage skills, or use this prompt to design your own review loop based on his:

Read Paul D'Ambra's qa-swarm skill, plus its sibling review-triage in the same folder, then help me design my own version: https://github.com/pauldambra/dotfiles/blob/main/ai/skills/qa-swarm/SKILL.md

It should take in a single PR, spawn a reviewer panel, triage every finding and existing PR thread into actionable / nit / ambiguous, and keep going until nothing's left but the ambiguous ones flagged for me.  

Interview me about my stack, tooling, available models, and how autonomous it should be — what gets auto-fixed vs. only reported, and what it may post to GitHub — before writing the final SKILL.md, then install it.

That said, these systems can get token expensive:

“Something like 60% of my token spend is burned automating the toil of handling CI and review and I don’t regret a single dollar.” – Paul

So if running multiple agents or loops isn’t an option for your team, look for single agent designs like this one by Kun Chen.

2. Delegate PR babysitting to loops

The context switching that comes with agentic coding is exhausting. One easy way to reduce that fatigue is by automating code review-adjacent tasks that don’t need your attention.

For example, babysitting a single PR can involve tedious tasks like monitoring CI, re-running flaky tests, checking notifications for comments, and keeping the branch up to date.

Why waste your most precious resource – your energy – when you can just delegate all of it to a loop?

The takeaway: Reduce context switching and fatigue by delegating simple tasks like PR babysitting to a loop.

Steal this

You can implement your own PR babysitter skill, based on babysit-prs by Phil Haack with the prompt below. (It works best if you run it after creating a review loop skill from the previous section.)

Read https://github.com/haacked/dotfiles/blob/main/ai/skills/babysit-prs/SKILL.md and adapt it for me: same sweep/state design, but it dispatches my own single-PR review skill via a spawned agent per unreviewed PR. 

Before writing SKILL.md, interview me on: which skill it dispatches and where my skills live, my stack/tooling/models, and which extra tasks to include — CI monitoring, branch freshness, flaky-test reruns, lint/format autofix, regenerating drifted artifacts, description sync. 

Ground the interview in facts you can discover yourself (my open PRs, gh auth, clone layout) rather than asking about them.

3. Add a PR auto-stamper

Fast-moving teams generate a lot of small, low-risk PRs, and every one still needs approval on GitHub (a.k.a., a stamp).

At PostHog, we used to handle this in Slack where you drop your PR in #dev-stamp-exchange and wait for someone to give it a quick approval and react with a stamp emoji. We even built a leaderboard for it.

It worked, but each stamp required another engineer to take themselves out of their flow to approve a change they had little to no context on.

Now, most of those are done by our StampHog agent instead. And in just one quarter, it gives the final stamp on roughly 1 in 3 PRs merged into our main repo.

Our engineers add a stamphog label on their PR in GitHub, and it runs a few safety checks based on:

  • PR state. No merge conflicts or changes requested
  • Blast radius. Deny-list keywords (auth, secrets, billing, public APIs, etc.)
  • Diff size. Under 500 lines and 20 files
  • A simple LLM check. For basic showstoppers

If the agent approves, it’ll leave a bare GitHub approval with no line comments.

Otherwise, it refuses or escalates with a 1-2 sentence reason, risk level rating, and next steps. Usually that means routing to a subject matter expert based on CODEOWNERS-soft and git-blame familiarity.

We still use #dev-stamp-exchange when the agent can’t auto-accept or route, but it’s way less active now. Last month, the StampHog agent took care of 1.6K PRs on its own – that’s 1.6K fewer Slack interruptions for our engineers.

The takeaway: Let an agent take care of low-context PR approvals and routing to reduce distractions. Use deterministic checks to route sensitive code to humans.

Steal this

The code for StampHog is available here. Many of its inner workings are specific to PostHog, so instead of copying it, here's a prompt to start customizing one for your repo based on ours:

Read https://github.com/PostHog/posthog/blob/master/tools/pr-approval-agent/README.md and build the equivalent for the repo at <path>. 

Copy the architecture; preserve its safety invariants exactly (fail closed, never request changes or merge, LLM can tighten gates but never loosen). 

Their deny-list and thresholds are calibrated to their codebase — re-derive mine: mine my git history for high-blast-radius deny candidates and calibrate size/tier ceilings from my merged PRs, then propose the full gate config for my sign-off before writing any code. 

At the same time, ask me whatever you can't derive from the repo — at minimum the CI system and trigger label, escalation routing if there's no CODEOWNERS, and which LLM/SDK to use and how CI gets its credentials. 

Leave the result as uncommitted files on my working tree.

4. Verify by observation, not reasoning

Agents are good at explaining why their code works. The explanation is often convincing... but also wrong.

If you run the code end to end, you’ll frequently find errors the agent never reasoned about, or output that’s just slightly not what you asked for.

That’s why Daniel Visca‘s rule of thumb is observability over reasoning. Don’t accept an argument that the code works when you can watch it work.

The gold standard is something you can observe directly, like sending a real API request and reading the response. If the behavior is in front of you, you don’t have to trust the agent’s rationale at all. But this has a scaling problem since a 3,000-line PR would be challenging to trust and observe.

His approach is to make agents decompose the work. For example, for a large change (like building a metrics pipeline end to end), he instructs the agent to produce a stack of small, single-purpose PRs and then uses Graphite for its “stacking” functionality. This makes each diff independently runnable and observable:

At each step of the stack, you can run a real check and confirm the output matches what you expect. Then, as you merge bottom-up, each layer only builds on behavior that’s already been verified.

This way, early mistakes can’t compound, and when something does break, you’re debugging one small diff instead of the whole change.

As a bonus, this lets StampHog from #3 auto-approve the small and focused PRs. You end up with two different checks: the agent reasoning about the code first, and a human observing its actual behavior.

The takeaway: When you can't trust an agent's reasoning, don't read more code; decompose the change until you can watch each piece run. Observation scales better than review.

Steal this

You can set this up by using Graphite to stack smaller PRs produced by your agents with these instructions:

Split work into a stack of small PRs, each under 400 changed lines and focused on a single change, building only on the PRs below it. 

Every PR must ship with its own tests and end with a way to observe it working directly — a command to run and the output I should expect.

This approach is especially valuable for frontend work since deterministic tests don’t always capture the visual or behavioral functionality you’re looking for.

Pawel Cebula says it’s a huge timesaver to have an agent take screenshots and GIFs for each step, with something like this:

For each PR with frontend work, run the affected screens and capture evidence from the branch's final state: a screenshot of each relevant state (empty, loading, error, populated) and a GIF of the key interaction end to end. Where behavior changes, include before/after. 

Attach it all to the PR so the change can be reviewed by observation, not by reading the diff — and re-capture if the code changes after.
Tech aidata

The Salience of Data

The competitive moat in AI is shifting from compute to the unit economics of acquiring and utilizing proprietary data.

Summary

What: The article argues that as models converge on similar performance levels, differentiation depends on access to unique data sources—such as coding data from tools like Cursor or proprietary video archives—rather than just architectural innovations.
Why it matters: Since compute and talent have become increasingly commoditized, the ability to control and train on high-value, non-public data defines the next phase of AI industry structure.

Deep Dive

  • Data as the Moat: Models trained on identical public internet data tend to converge to similar performance levels, making proprietary data the primary differentiator.
  • Shift in Spend: Labs are increasingly shifting investment from compute clusters to data acquisition and human labeling pipelines, with total data spending expected to grow significantly by 2030.
  • The Cursor Acquisition: xAI’s acquisition of the code editor Cursor is cited as a strategic move to gain a large proprietary dataset for coding-agent improvement.
  • Data-Limited Regime: The industry is moving from being purely compute-limited to being data-limited, as high-quality public text data is largely exhausted.
  • Video Potential: Video is identified as the next frontier for training data due to its high density of physical and cultural information compared to text.

Decoder

  • Moat: A sustainable competitive advantage that protects a company from competitors.

Original Article

Let me begin with a thought experiment.

Imagine you know nothing about OpenAI’s or Anthropic’s financials. No ARR figures, and no valuation marks from the latest round. Now add one more condition, and it may be less hypothetical than it sounds: assume every frontier lab has access to a similar amount of compute, similar data, and similar talent.

Here is the question: sitting behind this veil of ignorance, how would you tell whether any of these model labs has a sustainable moat in the next 3-5 years? This question was actually much, much more difficult to answer couple of years ago. The fact that Anthropic was valued only $15 Billion in December 2023 may be indicative of how contrarian it was to bet on a model company and how challenging it was to articulate why these model companies would be able to outcompete the incumbent big tech companies when such big tech companies appeared to have almost unbounded access to capital, compute, talent, and data. To be fair, it is still quite challenging to articulate which particular model companies will end up dominating this layer. At least, today OpenAI and Anthropic have far more credible claims why they can have access to similar compute, and talent. It still seems silly to argue that OpenAI or Anthropic would have higher compute than Alphabet or Meta in the next 3-4 years. Talent in AI labs are also pretty mobile, so it’s hard to assume that as a source of any sustainable moat either. You can perhaps mention culture, but while I’m not denying culture as a source of potential moat, I always suspect investors mention about culture as a source of moat when it becomes difficult to pinpoint the source of sustainable moat.

How about data? You can legitimately argue one of the big reasons Anthropic has been such a resounding success is their focused bet on the best use case of these models: coding! And thanks to such a focused bet, they now have access to user data in coding which can beget to further improvement of the model. But even then, Anthropic’s coding model has found its greatest product market fit since December 2025. So, we aren’t even a year into this data flywheel moat and there may still be time for other model companies to respond pretty effectively to this moat. Codex is gaining ground and just yesterday, this tweet by Jukan made the case that xAI still has a pretty compelling shot at coding thanks to their acquisition of Cursor. Some excerpts from his tweet:

“One of the more interesting Grok bull cases I heard at ICML was this:

The core idea is that xAI may actually be better positioned than OpenAI Codex in the coding-agent market.

The reason Claude Code is currently leading in coding agents is not just model quality. Claude Code effectively pioneered the category at scale, which gave it one of the largest user pools in the industry. More users mean more real-world coding data. That data can then be used to improve Claude Code’s quality, which attracts even more users, creating a flywheel of more users, more data, and a better product.

Seen through this lens, xAI’s acquisition of Cursor starts to make a lot more sense.

Cursor likely has a much larger real-world user base and coding dataset than Codex. If xAI can effectively train on and leverage that data, the argument is that overtaking Codex may only be a matter of time.”

Given the success of coding use case, even Meta today entered the arena with their launch of Muse Spark 1.1 model.

Nonetheless, I do suspect data is likely the most reasonable explanation ex-ante why any particular model company may gain an upper hand over others while the rest of the inputs may be closer to commodity since all the relevant players will essentially have access to those. The fact that data is indeed the key source of long-term differentiation isn’t quite a new hypothesis. Back in June 2023, James Betker, a Research Engineer at OpenAI, in a piece titled “The “it” in AI models is the dataset” argued exactly this (emphasis mine):

“…I’ve trained a lot of generative models. More than anyone really has any right to train. As I’ve spent these hours observing the effects of tweaking various model configurations and hyperparameters, one thing that has struck me is the similarities in between all the training runs.

It’s becoming awfully clear to me that these models are truly approximating their datasets to an incredible degree.

What this manifests as is – trained on the same dataset for long enough, pretty much every model with enough weights and training time converges to the same point.

…This is a surprising observation! It implies that model behavior is not determined by architecture, hyperparameters, or optimizer choices. It’s determined by your dataset, nothing else. Everything else is a means to an end in efficiently delivery compute to approximating that dataset.”

In a more recent piece, Will DePue, another OpenAI engineer who just left the company couple of months ago, re-iterated that data remains the key path to model differentiation. He wrote a compelling piece titled “A Stargate for Data”; some key excerpts below:

At the foundation of the scaling revolution is a simple empirical law: deep neural networks improve smoothly, near magically, as you scale two things in proportion — (1) the size of the model and (2) the amount of data you train on. And despite the scaling laws being brutally diminishing, we’ve successfully bitten the bullet of logarithmic scaling with exponentially larger clusters and datasets, and received incredible new capabilities in return.

But this exponential scaling is bound to hit some limits. Oddly enough, compute has compounded fairly smoothly without limit, with trillions flowing into hypercluster buildout. Instead, we’re starting to hit the limits of an exponential demand for data. Gone are the days of being purely in the compute-limited regime, where we had effectively infinite internet data but never enough GPUs, we’re now entering a data-limited regime.

Only a fraction of useful data in the world is on the public internet, the rest is stored inside private datasets, corporations, personal archives, universities, governments, and otherwise. Labs can and will continue to license these private datasets, or create them from scratch, like Anthropic’s book scanning project. And we’ll increasingly task human experts to manufacture new high-quality data, with a large fraction of hard RL training tasks already being sourced this way.

But collecting this data, unlike before, will be expensive. As the free internet dries up and demand for data rises, we should see labs investing equally in data as compute, likely spending a significant fraction of their compute budgets on data. As we see trillions spent on compute, we should also expect hundreds of billions spent on data (human data & collection budgets), given their equivalent importance. And, notably, data spend is already tracking this way: total data spend across vendors, not counting internal lab efforts, is already roughly $7 billion per year. It’s quite reasonable we’ll see >10x by 2030.

Last year, I highlighted another piece by Jack Morris: “There Are No New Ideas in AI… Only New Datasets” which also corroborated to the primacy of data . From his post:

Our breakthrough is probably not going to come from a completely new idea, rather it’ll be the resurfacing of something we’ve known for a while.

But there’s a missing piece here: each of these four breakthroughs enabled us to learn from a new data source:

1. AlexNet and its follow-ups unlocked ImageNet, a large database of class-labeled images that drove fifteen years of progress in computer vision

2. Transformers unlocked training on “The Internet” and a race to download, categorize, and parse all the text on The Web (which it seems we’ve mostly done by now)

3. RLHF allowed us to learn from human labels indicating what “good text” is (mostly a vibes thing)

4. Reasoning seems to let us learn from “verifiers”, things like calculators and compilers that can evaluate the outputs of language models

…The obvious takeaway is that our next paradigm shift isn’t going to come from an improvement to RL or a fancy new type of neural net. It’s going to come when we unlock a source of data that we haven’t accessed before, or haven’t properly harnessed yet.

One obvious source of information that a lot of people are working towards harnessing is video. According to a random site on the Web, about 500 hours of video footage are uploaded to YouTube per minute. This is a ridiculous amount of data, much more than is available as text on the entire internet. It’s potentially a much richer source of information too as videos contain not just words but the inflection behind them as well as rich information about physics and culture that just can’t be gleaned from text.

It’s safe to say that as soon as our models get efficient enough, or our computers grow beefy enough, Google is going to start training models on YouTube. They own the thing, after all; it would be silly not to use the data to their advantage.

Given this context, I am currently much more appreciative of Meta’s 49% stake in Scale AI. I have noticed that these “data labeling” companies are often mocked by investors, but based on my understanding of AI models’ key source of differentiation in the long term, I wonder whether Meta should have bought the entire company. I guess that might still happen and the primary reason they didn’t might be due to regulatory concerns. However, it still doesn’t seem abundantly clear who will have privileged access to differentiated datasets in the long term. And if data is indeed the true elixir to model differentiation, that also implies different models may have distinctly different strengths and weaknesses based on the access to data source they have managed to gain access. If an AI lab cannot secure the licensing deals for proprietary data, all the compute in the world will merely produce a highly efficient, mathematically perfect approximation of a commodity dataset. The structural advantage hence may shift slightly away from those who only own the picks and shovels, and toward those who own the land where the gold is buried. Ultimately, competitive dynamics in the next phase of AI will likely be defined by the unit economics of data acquisition.

Tech opensourcefrontendbackendzig

Interview With Mitchell Hashimoto

Mitchell Hashimoto discusses his shift to building Ghostty and his philosophy on why open-source maintainers have no inherent obligation to their users.

Summary

What: Mitchell Hashimoto, creator of Terraform, Vagrant, and now the terminal emulator Ghostty, discusses his design focus on native cross-platform performance, the role of Zig, and his belief that software users should embrace forking projects rather than demanding features from maintainers.
Why it matters: This perspective challenges the modern trend of treating open-source projects as venture-backed products with customer support expectations, advocating instead for a return to software freedom and personal agency.

Deep Dive

  • Ghostty aims to be a native, cross-platform, feature-rich terminal emulator, avoiding the 'bloat' associated with browser-based tools.
  • Hashimoto intentionally avoids deep integration with AI tools to maintain his own vision for terminal UI/UX.
  • Modern frontend and backend complexity often stems from moving too fast rather than solving user problems holistically.
  • Developers should study decades of prior art (like Apple or Windows APIs) before creating new protocols, rather than assuming their own intuition is sufficient.
  • Successful library design comes from using diverse ecosystems (e.g., Haskell, Clojure, Java) to observe how different cultures organize code and manage interfaces.
  • Maintaining open-source projects is about vision, not consensus; the author advises against merging features that do not align with the tool's core design.

Decoder

  • TUI (Text User Interface): Software that runs in a terminal and uses text-based characters to render buttons, windows, and menus (e.g., Neovim, Midnight Commander).
  • Dogfooding: The practice of developers using their own software to build features and fix bugs, ensuring the tool is practical for real-world tasks.
  • PTY (Pseudo-terminal): A bidirectional communication channel that allows a terminal emulator to interact with a shell or command-line application.
  • Riceable: A community term (originating from car culture) referring to the ability to deeply customize and style software, specifically desktop environments or terminals.

Original Article

Mitchell Hashimoto was behind Vagrant, Packer, Consul, Terraform, Vault, Nomad, Waypoint and now builds Ghostty and Vouch.

In this interview, we talk about terminals, Zig and open source.

You’ve been interviewed a lot. Why do people like to interview you?

In interviews, everyone comes from a different angle. Many people want to know how the software engineering to business founder mindset transition went. Then others are interested in product stuff, the work I did at Hashicorp or Ghostty now. What’s different here is there’s no known agenda coming into it; neither of us have anything to sell.

What do you find so fun about terminals? Like, why Ghostty?

I spent ~15 years building CLI applications (not TUIs like we see nowadays). Through that process, I accidentally learned how to color things, move cursors etc. Leaving Hashicorp, I wanted to sharpen my technical skills (where they’d grown dull from neglect) and specifically work on: Pre-AI GPU programming, desktop/single node systems programming (spending so much time on the distributed side where you didn’t worry about cache locality or vector operations, since network costs dominated). I also really wanted to play with Zig. I wanted to satisfy those 3 things.

After 15 years building CLIs, I didn’t understand how a terminal emulator worked. I knew the components of a terminal but really wanted to understand how it worked, which would also let me work on the GPU, desktop and in Zig. My goal was to run vim and the compiler in it, have it build itself, then throw it away. But as I learned more about the terminal ecosystem, I understood nothing fit the niche I wanted: fast, feature-rich and natively cross-platform. I shared it with a few friends in Discord, who asked if they could share it with others because they were actually using it every day. The Ghostty Discord was just my friends’ group chat which got repurposed. I didn’t want to publish because my public persona would generate too much undue attention, so I ran a private beta for a long time.

How can we push terminals harder?

I don’t support pushing terminals to the extreme. Sure, they’re an application platform capable of the same things other application platforms on top of the OS are like the browser, old Java app runtime environments. You could build all functionality into it: video and microphone access, responsive layouts… You could.

But the browser is good at something, the desktop is good at something else and text-based (monospaced-grid) applications are also good at something unique. These text-based applications should be quick to implement, easy to interact with, clear in their security model. There’s a lot of opportunity in the ecosystem here and I’d love to build more protocols to enable that.

Terminal-based applications lend themselves to composition better than other paradigms. TUIs less so, but most CLI tools have mechanisms (beyond stdin and stdout) to use them like a function (the UNIX do one thing philosophy is the extreme). Neovim and AI tooling offer ever more cmdline flags. A world of better terminal applications, is a world of better automation, scriptability.

I want to make the terminal a special place for applications. The PTY’s in-band signalling (an unstructured byte stream with escape sequences) is a big problem. The Nushell ecosystem tries to fix it with another layer, but we need a fundamental improvement. Many people dislike the Microsoft ecosystem, but PowerShell gets a lot right with structured data.

What do you think about non-legacy terminal APIs?

My guiding star is how we now have multiple major, huge application platforms: the browser, emacs, the whole Apple ecosystem, Microsoft ecosystem, Android, video game console platforms. These ecosystems have strengths and weaknesses, but how do their frameworks work? On the web, it’s the DOM and JS APIs. On Apple, it’s AppKit, Cocoa and SwiftUI. On Windows, it’s Win32, WinUI etc. On Linux, it’s GTK and Qt etc. When someone says we need a better way of accessing clipboard data (historical protocols are text only, what about images, multiple MIME types etc. which desktops have handled for decades), I would grab the docs for clipboard managers on every platform to see what we’ve landed on. There’s no reason for us to build something based on our own understanding without researching decades of prior art. That’s the approach I’m trying to take here. I’ve not introduced any custom protocols yet.

Two protocols scream at me. Currently, terminals have a main screen and an alt (sometimes called primary and secondary) with different properties. Main screen is like your shell with scrollback etc. and the alternate screen is like Neovim, most TUIs etc. There are only 2, you either turn a mode on or off putting you into primary or secondary (taking up the whole screen, losing scrollback etc.)

I’d like to introduce an n-screen API to create and populate an unlimited number of screens in the background, let you overlay screens with separate grid sizes etc. The terminal emulator could handle line wrapping, selection, routing mouse events etc. You could specify a screen as a standalone window which the terminal emulator renders outside of the grid - imagine your Neovim tabs being native window tabs opened at the same time! This foundational layer would solve a lot of things.

I also have a spec’d out button protocol. Currently, there are mouse protocols to get notified when someone clicks a grid cell. But you only receive events for what’s currently on the screen, not history, when things scroll back… We currently support hyperlinks (OSC 8) and I’d like something similar to OSC 8 where clicking sends a message (which you specify) to the program. You could create a button with an open_profile ID which will still register when the user scrolls back in history. This affects main screen applications (the only ones with scroll back) like Claude Code. I have no interest discussing AI here, it’s just a really popular main screen application. The moment things go into history, you lose the ability to open files, in-app links etc.

To what extent is that just redoing the entire user space? There’s a lot of room for scope creep there.

I experimented with replacing the entire pty protocol with Wayland. If you squint, a terminal’s just a windowing server, managing windows and widgets on windows. I studied Wayland to make Ghostty run better on it and thought it’s a pretty good protocol for what it tries to solve (local desktops, rendering windows). But I threw that out.

A problem with terminals is that there’s no standards body any more. There are old specs, de jure standardized, but the past 20 years have seen standardization based on what the most popular terminals do. We have a hodge-podge of features, but no entity pushing a tasteful vision.

I don’t know what the right path forward is. You could make an alternate home for text-based applications, not called a terminal anymore, build something new (with a terminal translation layer on top to bring legacy applications on) which is trying to do something different.

How do you balance these ideas with users’ day to day demands?

I’m very public about open-source maintainers having 0 obligation to users. The first line in OS licenses is “as is, no warranty”. That’s the agreement, you get free software and can’t make demands on it. But I like striving to build good software (some may disagree and say my software’s shitty), so I do feel an obligation to fix problems, to make the software better.

Some days I wake up expecting to go through issues just fixing other people’s problems. But sometimes I wake up and focus on what I want, not reading a single issue, discussion nor PR. Sometimes, you need to push the bigger vision; sometimes, you need to address the reality on the ground.

You can build a perfect city in the sky, then come back and find terror and suffering in the real world. So you need to clean that up sometimes.

If all I did was pick through user issues every single day, you’d get stable, stagnant software. If you accept all PRs, you will change but without vision. I don’t mean to insult contributors, but only one person every few years fundamentally gets it. Most contributions just scratch someone’s specific itch, accepting them all leads to a mountain of code. Really understanding, you can sometimes discover graceful systems which solve everything succinctly.

I once did feature design video where I closed 3-4 separate feature requests solving people’s individual problems, because a single feature (different from all of them) could solve them all at the same time. Very few people can do this, not because it’s difficult but because it requires a level of care few people give to other projects.

I’ve been thinking about this off and on for like a year (along with hundreds of other things, nothing dedicated, I’m always just thinking about this stuff when not at a computer). When I finally sat down and thought “I’m going to solve this,” maybe… 1 hour? https://x.com/mitchellh/status/2003957851514126510

Fewer features composing better attracts people to exotic programming paradigms. It demands a lot of perspective.

I got on an internet spat with someone recently about my philosophy. One of the highest requested Ghostty features is search, which is done and shipped. But someone complained search bloated and broke Ghostty’s minimalism. I advertise Ghostty as feature rich! But I do distinguish that from bloat. I don’t think you should have to pay for the things you don’t use (besides disk space or resident code memory). I explained the way I architected search means it will take up disk space and be loaded into RAM but nothing will execute; this is a free feature if you don’t use it. I want Ghostty to be a riceable, customizable terminal fitting peoples’ needs, but also working out of the box and hiding them until you need or search for them, without costing anything.

But if you really want this, just fork and maintain it yourself. That’s not asking any more of you than you’re asking of me. If you want me to maintain a flag to remove it, I can ask you to maintain a fork removing it. Telling people to “fork it” often upsets them.

Very few people maintain their own patches etc. and demand entire projects to move to comfort them. It’s a very disempowering mindset to beg others to do what they could very easily do themselves, forgoing their own agency.

I’ve always believed there should be way more forks, both personal and maintained ones.

I do blame myself and venture-backed opensource in general here. There’s a whole generation which expects highly polished, funded, opinionated projects with websites and paid support staff (in Discord, Slack etc.) believing an open sourced project is a product - and it was a product in these venture backed cases. But that’s such a minute part of the ecosystem.

Open source includes sharing, but it’s about freedoms and rights. That’s the core part of open source, defining OSI-approved open source licenses. Use the software as you want, modify and fork it. None of those rights are about stability or obligation to maintain. People blame maintainers for shipping security vulnerabilities, but why didn’t you review that commit? You’re just as obligated to review the commit as the maintainer. But people hold maintainers to this higher responsibility, when they could fork and become a maintainer just like that.

If you want better guarantees, if you want the entitlement to blame someone, pay for software. When you have a vendor-customer relationship, you are now entitled to things. But there’s no entitlement in open source. Use it how you love it, that’s the path to getting what you want. If more people forked, they’d have more empathy for builders too.

Sometimes people assume some project of mine is a company or send a PR fixing a bug I don’t personally hit, and I don’t merge it because merging means committing to maintain it forever. In a personal project, I won’t merge because I don’t hit that bug.

Consuming someone else’s not-product, what’re your thoughts on Zig’s development? Clearly you’re fine without the 1.0.

I knew what I signed up for. I got into Zig by doing compiler patches and got to know the community well. I grasp the culture, philosophy etc. well, so I’m not upset by any of this.

I expect the I/O change to be one of the hardest things we’ve done, but we haven’t started yet.

Zig’s getting more popular and Andrew, the BDFL, isn’t backing down from changes he feels are necessary, which I like as a downstream consumer. 0.15 was pretty significant, changing the writer interface and thus anything printing anything. But the API is truly so much better.

Zig is just getting better and better. They focus a lot on compilation tooling and even removed language features to improve compilation speed, mind blowing. You can build lib-ghostty (the entire terminal) instantly, and Andrew still thinks these milliseconds are too slow.

I do think Zig will eventually reach a 1.0, though I think it’s still years away. It matters far less when AI’s involved. I hope people know, reading this, that I’m no AI hype-master.

At a very basic level, we know these neural nets are really good at pattern matching and pattern filling. For these kind of language changes, I showed how to do it in a variety of contexts then asked it to draw the rest of the owl. And though, the diffs were huge, 90% was done automatically while I was in the kitchen. This hints to a future where backwards compatibility means a lot less if you explain how to go from state A to B.

This is a bit ironic given Zig’s strict anti-AI policy, but AI dulls the pain changes inflict on downstream users.

How do you approach library and API design? Ghostty uses lib-ghostty. A friend was raving about how nice your libraries are to use. Do you have concrete methods to improve them besides just caring?

The most concrete way is to use a lot of libraries in a lot of communities. Just like learning a programming language you won’t actually use (professionally), using libraries across ecosystems expands your perspective and benefits you. In university, I spent a lot of time dabbling with esoteric languages. I made many toy products in Prolog, Haskell, Clojure and even Java (I was never a professional Java programmer so it was new for me. I wrote a full web side project in it. I didn’t like it but learned a lot about the build system, ergonomics, libraries, web frameworks, web servers, app servers and all that stuff.) Every ecosystem has a different culture. That culture is human for sure, but it bleeds into how they separate concerns at a library and framework level, how they make those APIs look. For the longest time, Java used the builder pattern all over the place, which I didn’t see in any other language but I tried it in Ruby and it felt pretty good. That’s an example of porting concepts. This is how I approach library design: Try to use the concepts I found the most enjoyable and hope others with similar taste also enjoy it.

I firmly believe that “nouns” matter and the problem with Docker to me is there a ton of stuff that is focused on deployment/runtime aspects and it meddles with the human flow. The fact that Vagrant was focused directly, exclusively on development was by design: the configuration, the CLI, etc. revolved around development-focused nouns, and I think that was a good thing. - https://lobste.rs/c/ddl137

Do you yourself make terminal applications dogfooding and testing these APIs and thoughts?

Not enough, honestly. I’ve been a tool maker my entire career and firmly believe in the tool maker’s dilemma where you desperately need something and understand the problem space well, then build an ideal tool, but others like it and you become an ungrounded tool maker instead of the tool user. I’ve had this bite me many times. From the terminal perspective, I live in the terminal but from a TUI development perspective, I’m not doing enough, but a few of our maintainers are prolific TUI creators like rockorager who maintains multiple email and IRC clients and authored a few specifications. I’ve been leaning on him for this.

Are you happy with today’s tech stacks? In the past, You mentioned nice-polished OS as products, big tech used to distinguish itself by technology too. But it seems like they’ve given up entirely, not dogfooding nor caring. Their open-source feels stagnated (with exception of the occasional exception like Jujutsu).

I’m… … … …okay with today’s tech stacks. They’re okay. There’s obviously so much I wish were different but I can’t get too bogged down stressing about things I can’t change, about battles that aren’t mine to fight. For example, there’s a lot of good in the frontend, TypeScript, React type communities. But there’s also way too much churn, too much complexity, the layers of abstraction aren’t clear at all. I spent time studying them but just don’t agree at all with how the community culturally addresses them. But I’m not going to fight it, replace it. So I go with the flow, stick with the mainstream to assist with community, hiring etc.

I’m fine with today’s tech stacks. I think some of the more recent developments are overly complicated across the board. HTTP/1 vs. HTTP/2 and HTTP/3, there’s a non-linear change in complexity, justified in various ways but still difficult to swallow. You see that in frontend tech, terminal tech etc. I wonder if we’re moving so fast that we’re building complicated stuff which could have been simpler. “I didn’t have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead.” This seems to be playing out industry-wide, accelerated by AI and such tooling.

Talking about Zig, you said you understood its values etc. At Hashicorp, you wrote a principles document. How do you decide, create, get buy-in and use principles day to day? Why is Ghostty e.g. feature-rich? How do principles concretely impact development?

Even when my cofounder and I wrote the Hashicorp principles or when I decided how Ghostty would develop, it was all just personal, a reflection of me, so very easy for me to live those principles day to day. I just have to act myself. People run into problems when they make principles unlike themselves. It’s that New Year’s resolution problem where you make these grandiose intentions towards dramatic changes in your life but it’s very hard, because it’s hard to actually make those dramatic changes.

For Ghostty, I cared about some less human, more technical, feature-rich choices like having a cross platform core and very much not cross-platform but unapologetically native GUI. People who valued them would come on board and collaborate; those who disagreed just wouldn’t. And that’s awesome. I’m a really big fan of open-source projects and the internet being a collection of tribes.

I’m most annoyed by programming languages here, where so many languages are becoming like least common denominator things with people criticizing so and so for because it lacks this feature every other language has and is therefore useless. Some hyperbolic statement, you know. I really like the fact that certain languages lack certain features other languages enjoy, because these constraints breed creativity and culture. I want different places to feel different. I don’t need every place to feel welcoming to every person.

People are going to get mad at me for this, but you can keep it in. For example, for me, I don’t like the Rust culture. There’s no better way to put it. Every time I’ve interacted with them or hear how they talk about Rust, I just don’t like it. That doesn’t mean they’re bad people; I think they are really good people. The philosophy behind the language and the language itself is really good. I just don’t want to use it and there’s no problem with that. Just because I don’t want to be around a community doesn’t mean it’s bad. I also don’t like soccer.

But people on the internet get stuck into such binary views about good and bad, which bleeds into how technologies become this conformist pool of bleh.

Back to Zig, Zig has a really polarizing specific stance on what it does from technology, to community management and funding to PR, blog posts and how they talk. I don’t agree with all of it but I so respect that they are unapologetically weird. So I continue to support them financially and use their technology because I support people trying to be their own person.

Large companies have gaping quality assurance issues, while smaller projects like Ghostty or Zig let you apply taste to replace 4 PRs with a single, holistic solution (human scale). How do you reconcile shipping quality with shipping fast, yea AI-generated code etc.?

To ship the right thing, there has to be a bigger understanding of the product you’re working on. This role’s solved by different people in different companies but generally corporate America doesn’t do a great job of this at scale. You can’t just listen to a specific problem a set of customers or users have and solve that specific problem. You need to understand how they got to that problem in the first place, outside of your software. What motivated that problem? Whether they should have reached this in the first place or whether something upstream would have resolved 3 other problems? You need a bigger, holistic understanding. IDK how to solve that at the corporate scale. But I handle it by being a big user of my own software.

I know not everyone can do this, but I’ve only worked in jobs whose product I’m a user of, so I can be a good human judge of whether my work is good. If you’re too far removed from the customer, you shift to “I completed the spec” or “I checked the box” lacking a deep enough understanding to say whether it’s good or bad.

I know this community has a pretty polarizing split on the AI side, but I’ve been a big proponent of rational AI usage. I fully sloppified demos etc. because I won’t ship it. The code is complete trash, but I can play and check whether something’s a useful direction. If it’s good, I can restart with the care it deserves. Right now, I have a 6 week old baby and am only on the computer about 3 hours a day, so any time savings really helps. Now, I can do so much more because I can ship ideas to myself without being on the computer.

You just have to ship quality, read and understand the code you ship and have empathy with the users who will use this. You want to create something they’re going to have joy using. That’s all that matters.

How would you suggest someone learn C today? Would it make sense to start directly with Zig?

It’s more important to learn how computers work and make the language just a means to understanding how they work. My heaviest usage of C was in college, revolving around file systems and operating systems in 3 classes. C was just the mechanism by which we interfaced closely with the lower level systems involved. My suggestion, even in this age of higher level abstractions and web development, it’s still important to understand the basics of CPU scheduling, memory, cache hierarchies, file systems, disc and file access. When you work directly above the syscall layer, whether in C, Zig or Rust, it really helps you understand what’s happening. If you go too high level, a Python, JavaScript or a Ruby’s file open API really abstracts quite a lot from you.

Another way I learned a lot was reading how the higher level languages are implemented. Don’t take a standard library function for granted, some human wrote that and you could too. How does it work? Read the stdlib and dig into how things work. Languages are easy; languages don’t matter. The underlying understanding is what matters.

AI agents

Muse Spark 1.1

Meta's new Muse Spark 1.1 model brings significant improvements to computer use and coding, while launching a public API preview for developers.

Summary

What: Muse Spark 1.1 features 1-million-token context, enhanced multi-agent orchestration, and better computer-use capabilities for managing browser workflows. Meta has opened a public preview of its Meta Model API, with early support from partners like Replit, Cline, and Box.
Why it matters: Meta is betting that its open approach to agentic foundations, combined with OpenAI-compatible APIs, will position it as a standard for developers building complex, autonomous coding and orchestration systems.
Takeaway: Developers can begin testing the new capabilities by accessing the Meta Model API public preview via the Meta AI developer portal.

Deep Dive

  • Muse Spark 1.1 is designed for agentic tasks requiring planning and tool delegation.
  • Features include 1-million-token context with advanced memory compaction.
  • Computer-use capability enables navigating interfaces and writing scripts for automation.
  • Optimized for enterprise-grade coding, including bug diagnosis and feature implementation.
  • Multimodal inputs allow the model to reason across visual and audio data in real-time.
  • Safety frameworks have been updated for adversarial robustness and lower hallucination rates.

Decoder

  • Tool use: The ability of a model to call external APIs or execute code to perform actions that the model cannot do natively.
  • Context compaction: The process of summarizing or condensing long-term memory so the model can retain relevant information without exhausting its maximum token limit.

Original Article

Introducing Muse Spark 1.1

Today, we’re excited to introduce Muse Spark 1.1, the latest model from Meta Superintelligence Labs and a significant upgrade from Muse Spark. Muse Spark 1.1 is a multimodal reasoning model built for agentic tasks, with major gains in tool and computer use, coding, and multimodal understanding.

With these improvements, Muse Spark 1.1 advances the performance-efficiency frontier. Together with this week’s launch of Muse Image, this release brings us closer to our vision of personal superintelligence: models that help you pursue your goals, create what you imagine, deepen your relationships, and take action on what you value most.

Along with this release, we are launching a public preview of the new Meta Model API where developers can access Muse Spark 1.1. The model is available now in "Thinking" mode in the Meta AI app and on meta.ai.

Evaluations

For more details about our evaluations, see our report.

Agents

Muse Spark 1.1 delivers exceptional performance in personal agentic tasks that require planning and orchestration across a range of external apps and services. It zero-shot generalizes to new native tools, MCP servers, and custom skills.

It tackles complex projects significantly faster than Muse Spark, as it is trained to orchestrate multi-agent systems to optimize end-to-end latency. As the main agent, it can gather context, make a plan, and delegate execution across parallel subagents. As a subagent, it adheres to its job, understands available tools, and knows when to escalate back to the main agent.

Muse Spark 1.1 can actively manage its context window of 1 million tokens. It remembers actions, retrieves information from much earlier work, and compacts in a way that keeps the critical steps needed for later work.

Computer Use

Muse Spark 1.1 excels at computer-use workflows that unfold across multiple applications with information changing on-the-fly. It maintains context across extended sessions, adapts to evolving requirements, and navigates unfamiliar interfaces with minimal human intervention.

Rather than reasoning through every desktop step one click at a time, Muse Spark 1.1 understands when to automate and when to use the interface directly. We trained the model to write scripts when automation is faster, click when direct interaction is simpler, and generate batches of actions at each step.

Agentic dinner party organization: In real-world applications, new context arises that changes the task. Muse Spark 1.1 notices these changes when placing the dinner order and makes necessary updates without user intervention.

Coding

Coding performance for Muse Spark 1.1 improved substantially on real-world tasks involving large, complex codebases. It can diagnose and fix complex bugs, implement new features in enterprise-grade systems, and execute large code migrations. In use cases like creating web applications and end-to-end question answering, Muse Spark 1.1 shows large gains over our first model.

We trained our model to smoothly adapt to diverse harnesses and reliably handle complex multi-turn dynamics. Muse Spark 1.1 performs well with popular agentic coding setups, supporting common features like planning mode, goal conditioning, subagent delegation, and context compaction.

Debugging demo in OpenCode: Muse Spark 1.1 builds a chat web app, takes automated screenshots to identify user-visible failures, traces issues back to relevant code to implement fixes, and validates these changes. The model seamlessly combines coding, multimodal understanding, and tool calling.

Across Meta, developers and researchers are using Muse Spark 1.1 daily to build faster and work smarter. On our primary internal coding evaluation, Meta Internal Coding Bench, Muse Spark 1.1 significantly improves upon Muse Spark and is competitive with leading alternatives.

Researchers are now also automating model development and evaluation tasks by leveraging Muse Spark 1.1 in their workflows.

DeepSWE evaluation in OpenCode: Muse Spark 1.1 evaluates itself on a subset of DeepSWE tasks across different reasoning strengths and produces an analysis dashboard based on the results.

Multimodal

Along with coding and agentic capabilities, Muse Spark 1.1 excels in perception, multimodal reasoning, and tool use. It can interact with real environments and produce grounded outputs with strengths in visual-to-code artifact generation, ultra-descriptive image and video captioning, and agentic workflow execution for multimodal use cases.

Muse Spark 1.1’s multimodal capabilities are especially valuable when perception and action need to happen together. The model can inspect visual and audio, preserve details across a long workflow, and use those details while operating computers on the user’s behalf.

Facebook Marketplace agent: Using video shot from a smartphone, Muse Spark 1.1 extracts useful photos and reasons about the product to operate a user's browser and make a Facebook Marketplace listing on the user's behalf.

Safety

We conducted extensive safety evaluations before deployment, following the Advanced AI Scaling Framework, which defines evaluations, threat models, and deployment thresholds for our most advanced models.

Across all frontier risk categories — Chemical & Biological, Cybersecurity, and Loss of Control — our evaluations show Muse Spark 1.1 operates within safe margins. Muse Spark 1.1 demonstrates strong resistance to direct jailbreaks and indirect attacks from untrusted data, prompt injection, and developer-prompt attacks. Consequently, it shows better adversarial robustness, lower hallucination rates, and reduced sycophancy.

Our full safety posture for 1.1 is documented in our Muse Spark 1.1 Evaluation Report.

Availability

For the first time, developers can begin building with Muse Spark 1.1 via the new Meta Model API, now in public preview. Early partners of Muse Spark 1.1 praise the model as a complete agentic foundation, pairing long context handling with strong coding and reasoning capabilities to handle large-scale agentic workloads.

“What’s most impressive about Muse Spark is how much it packs into one model: massive million-token context, full multimodal support (images, video, PDFs), built-in search with citations, strong reasoning, top-tier coding abilities (particularly frontend and design), structured output, and parallel tool calling — all in a clean OpenAI-compatible package. A complete agentic foundation." — Amjad Masad, CEO of Replit
“Meta is clearly building for serious agentic coding – strong tool use at a price point that makes it viable to run real coding workloads at scale. That combination is rare, and it’s exactly why we wanted Cline developers to have access early.” — Saoud Rizwan, CEO of Cline
“When tested against Box’s enterprise work evaluation set, Muse Spark delivered enterprise capabilities competitive with today's leading frontier models. That level of intelligence, combined with its strengths in structured, procedural workflows across industries such as professional services, public sector, and industrial operations, makes it a compelling choice for organizations.” — Yashodha Bhavnani, VP of AI Products at Box
"Muse Spark 1.1 is an awesome model for running agents. Fast, powerful, and fun with OpenClaw.” — Dave Morin, OpenClaw Foundation

We're thrilled to be releasing Muse Spark 1.1, a testament to our research momentum. We have even more capable models in training and look forward to sharing what’s to come.

AI research

GPT-5.6 Series

GPT-5.6 Sol is the first AI model to solve the ARC-AGI-3 public game, demonstrating its ability to orient itself in unfamiliar environments.

Summary

What: GPT-5.6 Sol achieved a landmark result on the ARC-AGI benchmark by correctly re-planning after failed hypotheses rather than 'thrashing.' It achieved 87% accuracy on the ft09 environment, proving superior spatial and situational reasoning.
Why it matters: This success marks a shift toward models that can adapt to novel, rule-based environments without relying on rote pattern matching, a core hurdle for general AI agents.

Deep Dive

  • ARC-AGI-3 evaluates a model's ability to learn and apply rules in novel, visual logic games.
  • Sol performs best when provided with 'max reasoning effort,' suggesting an iterative thinking process.
  • The model succeeds by orienting itself in a scene before executing tasks, unlike previous models that often fail due to premature action.
  • The series includes 15 distinct reasoning variants across Sol, Terra, and Luna models.

Decoder

  • ARC-AGI: The Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, a benchmark designed to test AI's general intelligence by forcing it to solve logic puzzles it has never encountered before.

Original Article

Full article content is not available for inline reading.

Read the original article →

AI securitydevops

Evolving Windows vulnerability management to meet the speed of AI-powered discovery

Microsoft is integrating AI-driven scanning into Windows vulnerability management to drastically shorten the time between threat discovery and security patching.

Summary

What: Windows is adopting the MDASH scanning system to identify vulnerabilities at the speed of AI-driven research. This new cloud-based infrastructure allows for more rapid analysis and deployment of security updates to users.
Why it matters: As AI makes vulnerability discovery faster for bad actors, operating systems must move toward automated, continuous remediation loops to keep attack surfaces small.

Deep Dive

  • The transition leverages AI to automate the discovery and analysis of OS vulnerabilities.
  • MDASH acts as the primary scanning layer for identifying emerging threats.
  • Cloud-native infrastructure allows Microsoft to bypass traditional, slower patch cycles.
  • The strategy emphasizes maintaining update quality while increasing speed.
  • Microsoft is coordinating internally and externally to improve the feedback loop for security researchers.

Decoder

  • Vulnerability management: The iterative process of identifying, classifying, prioritizing, and mitigating software vulnerabilities.

Original Article

Windows leverages AI to enhance vulnerability discovery, reduce fix times, and offer timely security updates. It uses the MDASH scanning system and dedicated cloud infrastructure to streamline identifying and fixing issues. By integrating AI into the security update process and collaborating internally and externally, Windows aims to maintain protection speed without compromising update quality.

AI llmresearch

Z.ai's Stable Asynchronous RL

Z.ai's new Single-rollout Asynchronous Optimization (SAO) replaces grouped sampling with single-rollout sampling to improve agentic reinforcement learning stability.

Summary

What: Zhenyu Hou and researchers introduced SAO, an asynchronous reinforcement learning pipeline that uses one rollout per prompt and double-side token-level clipping. It outperforms the widely used GRPO method on benchmarks like SWE-Bench and powers the open GLM-5.2 model (750B-A40B).
Why it matters: Standard asynchronous RL prioritizes throughput over stability; by moving to single-rollout sampling, this method reduces off-policy effects, which is critical for agentic tasks where models must interact with changing environments.

Deep Dive

  • Replaces group-wise sampling with single-rollout sampling (one rollout per prompt).
  • Introduces strict double-side token-level clipping to improve optimization stability.
  • Optimized for agentic tasks like coding and reasoning.
  • Demonstrated effective in online learning settings where models adapt to evolving environments.
  • Successfully deployed for the GLM-5.2 model (750B-A40B).

Decoder

  • GRPO: Group Relative Policy Optimization, an RL algorithm often used to fine-tune LLMs by sampling multiple outputs to calculate a relative advantage.
  • Off-policy: A reinforcement learning approach where the model learns from data generated by a previous or different policy than the one being optimized.
  • Rollout: A sequence of actions taken by an agent within an environment to generate data for training.

Original Article

Single-Rollout Asynchronous Optimization for Agentic Reinforcement Learning

Reinforcement learning (RL) is becoming increasingly important for post-training large language models (LLMs). Previous RL pipelines for LLMs were mostly synchronous and batch-interleaved, which is inefficient for long-horizon agentic tasks. Recently, asynchronous RL has emerged as a more efficient alternative by updating the model as rollouts arrive. However, existing asynchronous RL systems often emphasize throughput, while leaving training stability and task effectiveness largely underexplored. For example, a key challenge is that group-wise sampling in the widely-used GRPO framework does not naturally fit asynchronous agentic training. In this paper, we present Single-rollout Asynchronous Optimization (SAO) to address the stability and off-policy challenges in asynchronous RL. To reduce off-policy effects and improve generalization, we replace group-wise sampling with single-rollout sampling, that is, using one rollout per prompt. We further improve this single-rollout strategy with practical value-model training designs. To improve optimization stability, we introduce a strict double-side token-level clipping strategy. SAO is able to train stably for one thousand steps and consistently outperform GRPO and its variants on agentic coding and reasoning benchmarks, such as SWE-Bench Verified, BeyondAIME, and IMOAnswerBench. We also demonstrate that single-rollout RL is particularly effective in a simulated online learning setting, where the model must adapt to changing evolving environments. To this end, SAO is successfully deployed in the agentic RL pipeline for training the open GLM-5.2 model (750B-A40B).
AI backenddatabasetypescript

Prisma (GitHub Repo)

Prisma provides a type-safe ORM for Node.js and TypeScript, using a schema-first approach to manage database migrations and query generation.

Summary

What: Prisma is a database toolkit consisting of the Prisma Client (a type-safe query builder), Prisma Migrate (declarative schema management), and Prisma Studio (a GUI). It supports PostgreSQL, MySQL, SQLite, SQL Server, MongoDB, and CockroachDB.
Takeaway: Run `npx prisma dev` to spin up a local development database without manual configuration or Docker.

Deep Dive

  • Uses a prisma.schema file to define models and generate type-safe query clients.
  • Supports both manual schema definition and database introspection.
  • Provides a type-safe API that automatically maps database types to TypeScript types.
  • Supports serverless, microservices, and traditional backend architectures.
  • Includes a configuration file prisma.config.ts for environment-specific settings.

Decoder

  • ORM: Object-Relational Mapper, a tool that abstracts database interactions by mapping database tables to programming language objects.
  • Introspection: A process where the ORM scans an existing database to automatically generate a schema file based on the current table structures.

Original Article

Prisma

What is Prisma?

Prisma ORM is a next-generation ORM that consists of these tools:

  • Prisma Client: Auto-generated and type-safe query builder for Node.js & TypeScript
  • Prisma Migrate: Declarative data modeling & migration system
  • Prisma Studio: GUI to view and edit data in your database

Prisma Client can be used in any Node.js or TypeScript backend application (including serverless applications and microservices). This can be a REST API, a GraphQL API, a gRPC API, or anything else that needs a database.

If you need a database to use with Prisma ORM, check out Prisma Postgres or if you are looking for our MCP Server, head here.

Getting started

Quickstart (5min)

The fastest way to get started with Prisma is by following the quickstart guides. You can choose either of two databases:

  • Prisma Postgres
  • SQLite

Bring your own database

If you already have your own database, you can follow these guides:

  • Add Prisma to an existing project
  • Set up a new project with Prisma from scratch

How Prisma ORM works

This section provides a high-level overview of how Prisma ORM works and its most important technical components. For a more thorough introduction, visit the Prisma documentation.

The Prisma schema

Every project that uses a tool from the Prisma toolkit starts with a Prisma schema file. The Prisma schema allows developers to define their application models in an intuitive data modeling language and configure generators.

// Data source
datasource db {
  provider = "postgresql"
}

// Generator
generator client {
  provider = "prisma-client"
  output   = "../generated"
}

// Data model
model Post {
  id        Int     @id @default(autoincrement())
  title     String
  content   String?
  published Boolean @default(false)
  author    User?   @relation(fields:  [authorId], references: [id])
  authorId  Int?
}

model User {
  id    Int     @id @default(autoincrement())
  email String  @unique
  name  String?
  posts Post[]
}

In this schema, you configure three things:

  • Data source: Specifies your database type and thus defines the features and data types you can use in the schema
  • Generator: Indicates that you want to generate Prisma Client
  • Data model: Defines your application models

prisma.config.ts

Database connection details are defined via prisma.config.ts.

import { defineConfig } from 'prisma/config'

export default defineConfig({
  datasource: {
    url: 'postgres://...',
  },
})

If you store the database connection string in process.env, an env function can help you access it in a type safe way and throw an error if it is missing at run time:

import { defineConfig, env } from 'prisma/config'

export default defineConfig({
  datasource: {
    url: env('DATABASE_URL'),
  },
})

Prisma ORM does not load the .env files for you automatically. If you want to populate the environment variables from a .env file, consider using a package such as dotenv or @dotenvx/dotenvx.

The configuration file may look like this in that case:

import 'dotenv/config'
import { defineConfig, env } from 'prisma/config'

export default defineConfig({
  datasource: {
    url: env('DATABASE_URL'),
  },
})

To start a local PostgreSQL development server without using Docker and without any configuration, run prisma dev:

npx prisma dev

Alternatively, spin up an instant Prisma Postgres® database in the cloud:

npx create-db --interactive

The Prisma data model

On this page, the focus is on the data model. You can learn more about Data sources and Generators on the respective docs pages.

Functions of Prisma models

The data model is a collection of models. A model has two major functions:

  • Represent a table in the underlying database
  • Provide the foundation for the queries in the Prisma Client API

Getting a data model

There are two major workflows for "getting" a data model into your Prisma schema:

  • Generate the data model from introspecting a database
  • Manually writing the data model and mapping it to the database with Prisma Migrate

Once the data model is defined, you can generate Prisma Client which will expose CRUD and more queries for the defined models. If you're using TypeScript, you'll get full type-safety for all queries (even when only retrieving the subsets of a model's fields).

Accessing your database with Prisma Client

Step 1: Install Prisma

First, install Prisma CLI as a development dependency and Prisma Client:

npm install prisma --save-dev
npm install @prisma/client

Step 2: Set up your Prisma schema

Ensure your Prisma schema includes a generator block with an output path specified:

generator client {
  provider = "prisma-client"
  output   = "../generated"
}

datasource db {
  provider = "postgresql"  // mysql, sqlite, sqlserver, mongodb or cockroachdb
}

Step 3: Configure Prisma Config

Configure the Prisma CLI using a prisma.config.ts file. This file configures Prisma CLI subcommands like migrate and studio. Create a prisma.config.ts file in your project root:

import { defineConfig, env } from 'prisma/config'

type Env = {
  DATABASE_URL: string
}

export default defineConfig({
  schema: 'prisma/schema.prisma',
  migrations: {
    path: 'prisma/migrations',
  },
  datasource: {
    url: env<Env>('DATABASE_URL'),
  },
})

Note: Environment variables from .env files are not automatically loaded when using prisma.config.ts. You can use dotenv by importing dotenv/config at the top of your config file. For Bun, .env files are automatically loaded.

Step 4: Generate Prisma Client

Generate Prisma Client with the following command:

npx prisma generate

This command reads your Prisma schema and generates the Prisma Client code in the location specified by the output path in your generator configuration.

After you change your data model, you'll need to manually re-generate Prisma Client to ensure the generated code gets updated:

npx prisma generate

Step 5: Use Prisma Client to send queries to your database

Import and instantiate Prisma Client

You can import and instantiate Prisma Client from the output path specified in your generator configuration. When instantiating the Client, you need to provide a driver adapter to its constructor. For example, when using PostgreSQL with a driver adapter:

import { PrismaClient } from './generated/client'
import { PrismaPg } from '@prisma/adapter-pg'

const adapter = new PrismaPg({ connectionString: process.env.DATABASE_URL })
const prisma = new PrismaClient({ adapter })

To load environment variables, you can use dotenv by importing dotenv/config, use tsx --env-file=.env, node --env-file=.env, or Bun (which loads .env automatically).

Now you can start sending queries via the generated Prisma Client API, here are a few sample queries. Note that all Prisma Client queries return plain old JavaScript objects.

Retrieve all User records from the database
const allUsers = await prisma.user.findMany()
Include the posts relation on each returned User object
const allUsers = await prisma.user.findMany({
  include: { posts: true },
})
Filter all Post records that contain "prisma"
const filteredPosts = await prisma.post.findMany({
  where: {
    OR: [{ title: { contains: 'prisma' } }, { content: { contains: 'prisma' } }],
  },
})
Create a new User and a new Post record in the same query
const user = await prisma.user.create({
  data: {
    name: 'Alice',
    email: 'alice@prisma.io',
    posts: {
      create: { title: 'Join us for Prisma Day 2021' },
    },
  },
})
Update an existing Post record
const post = await prisma.post.update({
  where: { id: 42 },
  data: { published: true },
})

Usage with TypeScript

Note that when using TypeScript, the result of this query will be statically typed so that you can't accidentally access a property that doesn't exist (and any typos are caught at compile-time).

Community

Prisma has a large and supportive community of enthusiastic application developers. You can join us on Discord and here on GitHub.

Security

If you have a security issue to report, please contact us at security@prisma.io.

Support

Ask a question about Prisma

You can ask questions and initiate discussions about Prisma-related topics in the prisma repository on GitHub.

Create a bug report for Prisma

If you see an error message or run into an issue, please make sure to create a bug report!

Submit a feature request

If Prisma currently doesn't have a certain feature, be sure to check out the roadmap to see if this is already planned for the future.

Contributing

Refer to our contribution guidelines and Code of Conduct for contributors.

Tests Status

  • Prisma Tests Status: Prisma Tests Status

Scheduled CI is currently disabled across the ORM repos; test workflows run on push, pull request, and manual workflow_dispatch. See the Actions tab for recent runs.

AI research

Flexible Video Diffusion

Flex-Forcing enables video diffusion models to switch between bidirectional and autoregressive generation using flexible chunking to optimize speed and consistency.

Summary

What: Developed by NVIDIA, Flex-Forcing uses a chunking mechanism over temporal dimensions and denoising steps. This allows the model to perform bidirectional global planning while maintaining autoregressive efficiency, resulting in higher quality 30-second videos.
Why it matters: This approach addresses the classic trade-off in video generation between bidirectional models' high global consistency and autoregressive models' streaming efficiency.

Deep Dive

  • Unifies bidirectional (global planning) and autoregressive (streaming) generation.
  • Employs flexible chunking over both frames and denoising steps.
  • Improves video quality and long-range stability on 30s video benchmarks.
  • Allows for 'any-order' and 'any-timestep' editing by decoupling global structure from local details.
  • Outperforms previous methods like Self-Forcing on both FPS and VBench metrics.

Decoder

  • Bidirectional diffusion: A generation process where the model attends to past and future frames simultaneously to ensure global coherence.
  • Autoregressive generation: A process where the model generates data sequentially, predicting the next frame based only on previous ones.
  • Denoising steps: The iterative process in diffusion models where noise is removed to reveal a clear image or frame.

Original Article

5s videos generated by Flex-Forcing — better speed with better quality. Hover any clip to pause & read its prompt.

One Model, Bidirectional & Autoregressive

Flex-Forcing unifies the generation spectrum of both autoregressive generation and bidirectional generation. Drag the slider from one bidirectional chunk to autoregressive small chunks and watch the same prompt generate under every regime in between.

Pick a prompt for each panel, then drag the shared slider. Larger chunks plan more globally (closer to bidirectional diffusion); smaller chunks generate more autoregressively — the same model covers both ends, on every prompt.

Abstract

Recent progress in large-scale generative models has substantially advanced video generation, yet existing methods remain constrained by a rigid inference paradigm. Bidirectional diffusion models excel at global coherence and visual fidelity but suffer from slow inference, while autoregressive models offer efficient and streaming generation at the cost of long-range consistency and exposure bias. We introduce Flex-Forcing, a unified training and inference framework that enables a video diffusion model to seamlessly operate under both bidirectional and autoregressive generation regimes. The core idea is a flexible chunking mechanism jointly defined over the temporal dimension and denoising steps. This design allows the model to (1) flexibly chunk to support different device budgets, (2) perform bidirectional inference across chunks for global structure planning while generating frames autoregressively within each chunk for efficient, fine-grained synthesis, and (3) perform any-order, any-timestep autoregressive generation without the strict causal constraint. Extensive experiments on multiple benchmarks demonstrate that Flex-Forcing achieves consistently better video quality and long-video stability than strong baselines while offering faster inference.

Method

A single flexible-chunking mechanism, defined jointly over video frames and denoising timesteps, unifies autoregressive, bidirectional, and hybrid generation in one model.

Flexible chunking over frames and timesteps. Fine-grained chunks recover autoregressive generation (efficient, lower quality); a single coarse chunk recovers bidirectional generation (high quality, less efficient). Flex-Forcing interpolates between them: chunking over frames sets the granularity, while chunking over timesteps lets the granularity evolve along the denoising trajectory (high → low noise).

Speed–Quality Trade-off

Across configurations, Flex-Forcing dominates Self-Forcing on both FPS and VBench score.

Brute-force search over chunk configurations (5s video split into three chunks over 21 latent frames). The Pareto-optimal hybrid [9, 6, 6], a coarse-to-fine pattern, beats uniform [7, 7, 7] and Self-Forcing [3, 3, …] on both FPS and VBench, and can even edge out fully bidirectional inference.

With different configurations, our model achieves superior performance over Self-Forcing on both FPS (frames per second) and VBench score.

Qualitative Comparison

Flex-Forcing (ours) vs. Self-Forcing under same prompts.

Long-Range Consistency and Dynamic Degree (30s Videos)

Autoregressive comparison over an extended horizon — Flex-Forcing maintains stability over time while preserving a higher dynamic degree.

Videos are played at 3× speed.

Applications: Any-Order, Any-Timestep Editing

We restrict editing to low-level refinement timesteps while keeping high-level planning fixed, decoupling global structure from local details for far better consistency than Self-Forcing, where small edits propagate across frames. Attending to both past and future tokens, our model edits any chunk regardless of its temporal order.

AI infrastructureenterprise

Elon Musk praises Mythos/Fable, promises not to ‘cut off' Anthropic

Elon Musk publicly praised Anthropic’s Mythos/Fable models and dismissed concerns that he would terminate its $40 billion contract at SpaceX.

Summary

What: Musk stated he admires Anthropic and will not block their access to compute infrastructure hosted on SpaceX's xAI cluster. Anthropic currently pays $1.25 billion per month for 300 megawatts of compute capacity through 2029.
Why it matters: The partnership creates a financial dependency where Musk's infrastructure arm benefits significantly from Anthropic's revenue and technical exposure, offsetting competitive tensions.

Decoder

  • Distilling: The process of using one AI model to generate data or responses to train another, often done covertly to replicate a competitor's performance or reasoning capabilities.

Original Article

Should Anthropic trust Elon Musk to host its models? After users on X implied that Musk could wake up one day and simply boot the AI lab from SpaceX’s servers as a way to kneecap a rival, Musk replied with glowing praise for the AI lab. He said that such a trick was “not my style.”

“I was clearly wrong about Anthropic,” Musk wrote on Thursday, referring to his September 2025 post on X in which he said, “Winning was never in the set of possible outcomes for Anthropic.” Of course, even at that time, Anthropic could already be considered a winner; the company was reported to have the biggest AI market share with enterprises.

It seems those anti-Anthropic days are behind Musk — and not just on X. As of July 2026, Anthropic is one of SpaceX’s largest customers.

To recap: Anthropic signed a deal in May to buy 300 megawatts of compute, the entire output of xAI’s Colossus 1 data center near Memphis, Tennessee. (Musk’s xAI merged with SpaceX in February.) Anthropic agreed to pay $1.25 billion per month through May 2029, a deal worth about $40 billion in revenue for SpaceX’s xAI unit. Google, by the way, also signed a deal to rent SpaceX infrastructure through June 2029, for $920 million per month.

Musk insists that this wasn’t a dangerous decision by Anthropic and that he’s full of admiration for the rival.

“They are obviously currently the leader in AI. No company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable and they will undoubtedly have Mythos 2 ready soon. And I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor. That’s not my style,” he wrote.

He offered as proof of his don’t-squeeze-competitors style Tesla’s decision in 2014 (which was outlined in a now deleted company blog post and now housed under its patent pledge) to not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use its technology. He also noted that Tesla opened its Supercharger network and charging port design to competitors.

“SpaceX launches competing satellite systems with no increase in price or use of unfair terms. Even my worst enemies can attack me on this platform,” he wrote, listing another example.

Of course, Musk is not exactly above tactics aimed at rivals, especially those with whom he has a history. He sued OpenAI, for instance.

Anthropic doesn’t have to rely on Musk’s sticking to his “style,” though. There would certainly be contractual consequences if Musk suddenly shut down Anthropic’s infrastructure. Not to mention the massive benefits for SpaceX to keep that deal intact. Not only does Anthropic pay handsomely, but also SpaceX’s engineers may learn how to build for, and support, Anthropic’s rapidly growing AI , just like Amazon’s engineers do.

That proximity might have other benefits as well. During his trial against OpenAI, Musk acknowledged that AI “distilling” was real — a process in which one model maker sets up many fake accounts to send prompts to a competitor in order to learn how it works. As the New York Times reported, when a lawyer asked him if xAI had ever distilled technology from OpenAI, Musk replied: “Generally AI companies distill other AI companies.”

Anthropic in February accused three Chinese model makers of doing this to Claude. Presumably, Anthropic and Google feel they have safeguards against SpaceX doing this while they are using its infrastructure. But hosting Anthropic’s compute could still give SpaceX greater visibility into how the company operates than most competitors would ever have.

There appears to be nothing but upside for Musk’s company in this partnership at the moment. As for tomorrow, and as the three-year contract ages, who knows?

DevOps aienterprisecloudflare

Making AI search smarter

Cloudflare is countering AI-driven scraping by helping publishers monetize content via Pay-Per-Use models and reducing unnecessary crawling with freshness signals.

Summary

What: Cloudflare is launching a research program to detect when web content has actually changed, allowing AI bots to skip redundant crawls. It is also transitioning from 'Pay Per Crawl' to 'Pay Per Use' through partnerships with Ceramic.ai and You.com, enabling publishers to get compensated when their content appears in AI search results.
Why it matters: This signals a structural pivot in the web economy where 'discovery' via search engines is being replaced by 'utility' via AI agents, forcing a shift from click-based revenue to value-based compensation.
Takeaway: If you manage a website, fill out the form at the end of the Cloudflare blog post to join the Ceramic and You.com compensation programs.

Decoder

  • AEO (Answer Engine Optimization): The practice of optimizing web content to be correctly surfaced and cited by AI answer engines (e.g., ChatGPT, Perplexity) rather than traditional search engines.

Original Article

Making AI search smarter

Search drives most experiences on the web. It's how we get things done, and how nearly everything on the web gets found — the creators, the merchants, the answer to whatever you just typed into a box. For nearly 30 years, that discovery journey ran on a simple bargain: let a search engine crawl your content, and it sends you visitors. You turned those visitors into a business — through ads, subscriptions, or just the audience itself. Being discoverable and getting paid were the same thing. A year ago, on the first Content Independence Day, we drew a line to defend that bargain in the AI era. But a line in the sand was only a first step. Since then, the prevalence of AI search in consumers’ lives has only accelerated as more than 50% of traffic online is non-human. The threat is no longer a handful of training crawlers you can block; it's search itself being rebuilt around AI answers.

Today's answer engines read your page and hand the user a summary, so the visit — and the revenue that depended on it — isn’t needed. We see it firsthand, and independent research backs it up: a 2025 Pew Research Center study found that when Google shows an AI summary, users clicked on a traditional search result link just 8% of the time (about half as often as when there's no summary) and clicked a link inside the summary only 1% of the time. That leaves our customers in a bind: opt out of AI and be hard to find, or opt in and deliver significant value to users while seeing increasingly little in return. Our customers want to be found and compensated for the value they provide, and right now they're forced to choose.

Today, we’ve announced new bot options to help our customers better control who can access their site and what they can do with it. But blocking was only step one: saying "no" protects content without rebuilding the business models that sustain it. So, it’s time to start building the new economic model of the Internet, starting with search.

Rebuilding the bargain

Transparency and control are the foundation, but more is needed. In 2025, we laid out our foundation via a set of responsible AI bot principles: bots should be transparent about who they are and what they're for, respect site owners' choices, and act in good faith. Our tools hold bots to that bar. But enforcing good bot behavior doesn't make AI search any better for the people relying on it, and it doesn't send a dollar back to the creator whose work made the answer possible. We can do more than help the web say "no"; we can help rebuild what it says "yes" to.

So today, we're announcing two initiatives that move from defense to offense and start putting both halves of that old bargain back together.

Make AI search smarter: By using the signals we see across our global network, like what's fresh, what's high quality, and what's actually changed, we can help answer engines surface the most relevant content and reduce unwanted crawling. People searching get better answers, while costs are reduced for both AI companies and site owners if webpages are only recrawled when they’ve changed.

Pay creators for the value they provide: When your work is used to answer someone's question, you should be rewarded instead of just being scraped for free. And you should be able to see what's being used and what people are asking. This should be a real revenue stream, and an incentive to keep producing original content worth finding.

Making search smarter

Today we're launching a research program to make AI search smarter and stop our customers footing the bill for crawls that produce nothing new.

More than 20% of the web sits behind Cloudflare’s network, which gives us a unique perspective. We can tell which pages have genuinely changed and which ones people and agents are flocking to. Through this program, we will explore using signals our customers have chosen to share about the freshness of their content, and we will combine those with our own insight into traffic flows, both human and bot. For answer engines, that's a roadmap to high-quality content. For our customers, it provides a view of what users are actually asking, and how their content shows up in AI results. The aim is to measure two things: how much these signals help answer engines to surface fresher, higher-quality content, and how much unnecessary crawling they cut out.

That second benefit, cutting unnecessary crawling, is bigger than it sounds. Cloudflare data suggests that more than 50% of crawl traffic from good bots goes to re-fetching pages that haven't changed — and that number is likely to climb as crawl volumes do. A signal that just says "nothing's changed here" lets a crawler skip the trip. That saves the answer engine compute. More importantly, it saves site owners from serving and paying for requests they never needed to.

The program is neutral by design: our goal is to make it work for every answer engine willing to play fair. It's limited to search. We aren't sharing any content, and nothing is used to train foundation models. We intend to publish what we learn, including the benefits to site owners such as better content discoverability and reduced server strain. We plan to make the capability broadly available later this year and reduce unnecessary crawling across our network.

From Pay Per Crawl to Pay Per Use

Last year we launched Pay Per Crawl so publishers could charge AI companies for crawling their content. It was a real start, but crawling is a crude measure of value. A single page might be crawled once and then cited in thousands of answers, or crawled over and over and never used at all. Creators want to be paid fairly for the value they provide.

So we're starting to shape Pay Per Crawl into Pay Per Use. We're running experiments with top AI companies, like Ceramic.ai and You.com, and the arrangement is straightforward: organizations can bring their payment models and easily scale them to content owners across the Cloudflare network.

Ceramic has built what it calls a "pay-per-query" model, so publishers who opt in can be paid when their content appears in Ceramic's search results. This means payment is designed to follow the value the work delivers rather than the number of times a crawler happens to fetch it.

“To scale the future of AI search, we need a partner with massive reach and a shared commitment to transparency and fair compensation,” says Anna Patterson, founder and CEO of Ceramic.ai. “Cloudflare allows us to easily and programmatically scale our operations. By bringing our pay-per-query model to their network, we ensure millions of content owners can seamlessly opt in to be compensated every single time their content appears in our search results.”

In addition to compensation, content owners participating in the Cloudflare/Ceramic program will unlock new reporting to help with answer engine optimization (AEO). Customers can finally see the top queries leading to their content appearing in search results, the specific webpage and snippet, their average search result ranking position, and more. This is the first of many products we’ll be launching to help our customers with discoverability.

This is just one emerging approach. Another comes from You.com: agents can pay on demand for a specific piece of premium content they need, without any upfront commitment. New payment models from AI providers are being tested (e.g., Pay per Query, Pay per Result, etc.) and we have the infrastructure to support them all.

We want to be honest that this is an experiment. There’s a lot to learn, including exactly how this holds up at the scale of the Internet. We'll work that out with our partners and our customers as we go, and share what we learn. But the goal is clear: AI search companies get fresher, better-grounded answers, and the customers whose work makes the answers possible get paid when they help. Cloudflare's job in all of this is to provide the infrastructure layer that makes this market flourish.

We think this is a more natural fit for where the economics of search are heading. The old, human web optimized search to save time — providing excerpts, ten blue links, and a click. The agentic Internet is different: an agent can read fast and search continuously. Search is becoming something an agent does dozens of times to answer a single question, closer to a utility than a destination. In that world, the unit that matters isn't the crawl or the click. It's the outcome. Pricing the outcome, and paying the people who made it possible, is how the web continues to thrive.

The headline we want to earn

A year ago on Content Independence Day, the headline was a default ‘no’: AI can’t crawl without compensation. This year, our focus is on giving our users more products and controls to say ‘yes’ and bring more benefits with it.

Today's announcements are just the beginning. Cloudflare’s research project is designed to see if our signals produce better results with less crawling. Pay Per Use is a promising direction we’ll experiment with alongside partners who believe that content creators deserve fair compensation for their work. This is how the last 30 years of the web got built too: somebody runs the pilot that turns "the model is broken" into "here's the new model," one experiment at a time. We believe there’s value to our customers to be discoverable in this new agentic era, and to optimize their content for maximum discovery. But they should be able to do this without giving away their most valuable creative assets for free.

The web is changing, and the business models it’s relied on are changing with it. The old Internet was open, neutral, and worth contributing to. We have a rare chance to keep it that way, and to build the business models that fund it in the future. Smarter answers for humans and agents asking the questions. A fair deal for the people whose skill, creativity, and commitment makes the answers worthwhile. That’s how we pursue Cloudflare’s mission: to help build a better Internet.

Happy Content Independence Day!

Building on the open, agent-ready web? If you are interested in learning more about the Ceramic and You programs, please fill out this form. If you're building an answer engine and want to crawl smarter, we’d love to hear from you too: aeo@cloudflare.com.

DevOps infrastructuredatabasedistributed-systems

Introducing Meerkat- an experiment in global consensus

Cloudflare is building Meerkat, a new distributed consensus service that replaces Raft with the QuePaxa algorithm to handle global state without leader-based bottlenecks.

Summary

What: Meerkat is an internal-only consensus service designed for Cloudflare's 330+ global data centers. Unlike Raft, which relies on a single leader and hard-to-configure timeouts, Meerkat’s QuePaxa-based design allows simultaneous writes from any replica, eliminating downtime during leader elections.
Why it matters: This move shows the limitations of standard consensus protocols like Raft when stretched across high-latency, unpredictable global wide-area networks.

Deep Dive

  • Raft limitations: Raft requires a single leader; if it fails, the cluster stalls until a new leader is elected.
  • QuePaxa architecture: Uses an algorithm where all replicas can drive consensus, avoiding the 'tyranny of timeouts'.
  • Linearizability: Meerkat guarantees linearizable operations, providing strong consistency even in the face of machine and network failures.
  • Performance trade-offs: Consensus requires multiple round trips; Meerkat optimizes this via write batching and locality control.
  • Deployment scope: Currently experimental and internal, intended for control-plane tasks like resource placement and database leadership.

Decoder

  • Linearizability: A consistency model where operations appear to take effect instantaneously at some point between their invocation and response, ensuring all readers see the latest state.
  • Consensus Algorithm: A process used in distributed systems to agree on a single data value among multiple unreliable nodes.
  • Byzantine Fault: A failure where a component continues to operate but provides incorrect or malicious data; Meerkat does not handle these.

Original Article

Introducing Meerkat: an experiment in global consensus

Many internal services at Cloudflare need to read and modify the same control-plane state from across our 330+ global data centers. They need guarantees that different readers never see inconsistent state, and that the system remains available for writes even when some data centers or links fail.

But Cloudflare’s network runs across the entire Internet, and the Internet is an unpredictable place. Servers and data centers go down. Queues fill up. Links and cables get cut. These conditions make it difficult to run a globally available data system that guarantees strong consistency (e.g., that all readers are guaranteed to read all prior writes) because hostile conditions hinder distributed system replicas’ ability to reliably synchronize data with one another.

One way to synchronize data safely despite adverse network conditions is via a consensus algorithm, which allows a set of machines to agree on the same sequence of values, such as key-value store put and get operations, as long as a majority remains alive and able to communicate.

Unfortunately, commonly deployed consensus algorithms like Raft suffer in wide-area networks like Cloudflare’s because they rely on leaders and timeouts. The leader is the only replica allowed to make writes, and if it fails due to a crash or network degradation, the system becomes unavailable until some other replica times out and a new leader is elected. And these timeout values are hard to configure in networks with unpredictable latencies.

We have experienced multiple incidents caused by unavailable leaders in consensus-driven systems.

And so, for the past year, Cloudflare’s Research team has been building a new distributed consensus service called Meerkat powered by a consensus algorithm called QuePaxa, published in 2023 by Tennage & Băsescu et al. QuePaxa differs from Raft in that all replicas can perform writes at all times, and progress is never halted due to a timeout, which makes it well suited for Cloudflare’s network. We layer applications, like a transactional key-value store and leasing system, atop Meerkat’s consensus log. To our knowledge, this will be the first industrial deployment of QuePaxa at global scale.

Meerkat is an experimental consensus service that is still in development. It’s being designed initially to manage small pieces of control plane state (e.g., leadership for replicated databases) and so it will be kept internal-only for the immediate future. This post introduces Meerkat and lays the groundwork for the Meerkat-related blog posts to come.

What we need from a global control-plane data system

Many Cloudflare services read and write control-plane data, data that helps those services operate correctly, from multiple machines distributed all over the world. One example of control-plane data is placement information: where certain resources (like an AI model instance) are stored. Another example is leadership information: which machine is currently allowed to perform writes to a database.

Control-plane data must be both strongly consistent and accessible despite particular kinds of faults.

In this section we precisely describe our consistency and fault tolerance requirements for a Cloudflare consensus service. We use a key-value store for a running example of an application running atop our consensus service, though other applications (e.g., distributed leases/locks) are possible.

Strong consistency

A distributed data system’s consistency level describes what kinds of weird behavior the system is allowed to exhibit when it receives concurrent reads and writes. Consider a distributed key-value store that stores a single numeric value x = 6 across multiple nodes. Also consider the following sequence of writes. These writes are submitted to different nodes on a best-effort basis, and could arrive in any order:

  1. x = x + 1

  2. x = x / 2

A system’s consistency level tells you what values of x a client might see when reading x after these writes. Consider the following sequence of operations and the possible execution orders under different consistency levels:

In a weak consistency level, writes can be re-ordered. In a stronger consistency model, writes can’t be reordered, but reads can. In the strongest possible consistency level, the operations are ordered exactly as they occurred in real time. This property is called linearizability.

At Cloudflare, many services want linearizability. Unlike weaker forms of consistency, linearizability relieves programmers from thinking about all the weird behaviors the data systems might exhibit. Instead, they can reason about the distributed system like they reason about local memory on a single-threaded machine: all reads after a write will see that write. For additional reading material on the dangers of weak consistency, check out this post by Marc Brooker.

(If you’re wondering, Meerkat’s key-value store also provides serializability, which we’ll write about in a future post.)

Fault tolerance

A system’s level of fault tolerance describes what kinds of faults the system can handle before catastrophes happen. Catastrophes are typically violations of properties the system aims to uphold, e.g., that two consecutive reads without an intervening write for the same key never see different values, or that the system remains available for writes. The faults include network failures or delays, machine crashes, and machine restarts. A system will typically explicitly handle some faults but not others (you can’t handle all faults, as the universe could always reach heat-death). For example, some key-value stores might guarantee to remain available for writes as long as two-thirds of the machines in the system can communicate and don’t crash, but make no promises if a machine is compromised and starts sending malicious messages.

Our desired fault tolerance properties are as follows:

First, the data system should remain available for writes and reads from a client located in any of our data centers as long as the following are true:

  1. A majority of the machines in our system are alive and can communicate with one another. (Formally, we tolerate f faults in a system of 2f + 1 machines).

  2. The client can contact any machine in the system that is connected to a majority of live machines.

This means that a single failed machine, or network degradation on a single link, does not affect availability of the system. This property is not provided by Raft-based systems, as we’ll see later.

Second, the data system remains correct as long as no actor in the system is actively malicious (and, of course, there are no bugs). We define correctness in terms of consensus safety later, but loosely speaking this means no two up-to-date machines will ever disagree about the world (e.g., one thinks that key1=1 while another thinks that key1=2).

To summarize, the system must remain correct even if machines crash, machines restart, networks fail or degrade, data centers go down, and more (though we, like Raft-based systems, do not handle Byzantine faults).

Introducing Meerkat

Meerkat is a consensus service upon which we can build applications that exhibit the above properties (strong consistency and fault tolerance) like a key-value (KV) store. To understand how Meerkat works, we first outline Meerkat’s general architecture, and then describe how Meerkat’s choice of consensus algorithm helps provide strong consistency and fault tolerance.

Developers of services using Meerkat request a cluster of Meerkat replicas. Each replica is connected to every other replica. Each replica participates in the consensus algorithm and can receive both reads and writes. The developer can specify which data centers are allowed to host their replicas, and Meerkat places them automatically.

To interact with their cluster, a developer’s client sends an application-specific request to any replica in the cluster. A single replica may host many kinds of applications, but the simplest one is a key-value store, so the simplest application-specific request type is a KV get or put. The replica responds to the request with an application-specific response (e.g., the records requested with the get). Note that KV reads (gets) are guaranteed to read up-to-date information.

Meerkat’s log

Under the hood, the replica translates application requests (e.g., get and put) into log events. That replica distributes each log event to all other replicas using a consensus algorithm such that all replicas maintain the exact same log of events (in reality, a replica may lag behind, but shall never record different entries). These events are arbitrary — Meerkat’s core doesn’t care what’s in them. Meerkat applications care about log event contents. Each Meerkat replica “hosts” many Meerkat applications (e.g., key-value store) that read the log events and construct state. (Note that each replica belongs to exactly one cluster.)

For instance, the KV Meerkat application constructs an in-memory key-value store from the log events. So when a client sends a write like put k1 v1, the receiving replica places that write into a log event and distributes it to all replicas. If someone else subsequently writes put k1 v11 to a different replica, this event is also distributed to all replicas. Since all functioning replicas have the same log, those replicas can apply the operations in the log in sequence to construct the exact same state. Note that get requests also create distributed log events (for linearizability, as explained in the next section).

How Meerkat’s log enables strong consistency

Meerkat guarantees that if one client executes put k1 v1, a second client subsequently executes put k1 v11, and a third client subsequently executes get k1 (with a consistent read), they will always read v11. It guarantees this even if each request is submitted to a different replica, and those replicas are distributed randomly across the world. This is linearizability. To see how Meerkat guarantees this, we must examine Meerkat’s log in more detail.

The Meerkat log is a sequence of slots. A slot is a box that can contain an event or not. A slot that contains an event is called a decided slot. All slots in the log are decided except the last slot, which is currently being decided. One of Meerkat’s invariants is that if any two replicas decide on the value for a slot, those values are the same. In other words, no two replicas will ever disagree on the value of a decided slot (though one replica may think the last slot is empty while another does not). This property helps guarantee the desired properties we described in the previous section.

To decide on the value of the last (empty) slot in the log, Meerkat replicas run a distributed consensus algorithm. A consensus algorithm allows a set of machines communicating over a network to agree on a decided slot value. Our consensus algorithm works as long as a majority of replicas (more than half) are alive.

So if the log currently contains two entries, and a client submits put k1 v11 to a replica, that replica triggers a consensus algorithm for slot 3. But another client might have submitted put k1 v111 to a different replica for slot 3. The consensus algorithm ensures that only one such proposal for slot 3 wins out. Specifically, it ensures that at least a majority of replicas agree on the same proposal, deciding it for slot 3. The non-majority can never decide a different proposal, but might miss the fact that slot 3 has been decided at all.

To see how this provides linearizability for our key-value store, consider a write followed by a read. One replica Z proposes put k1 v11 and this proposal is decided at slot 3 by a majority of replicas, but NOT replica Y. Subsequently, a reader executes get k1 on replica Y. Replica Y believes slot 3 is empty, so proposes get k1 at slot 3. Critically, a majority of replicas will not agree to place that event at slot 3, because that slot has already been decided. They will force replica Y to decide (by receiving older decisions) put k1 v11 in slot 3, and to propose get k1 for slot 4, thus linearizing the read after the write in the log. (And if that replica can’t contact a majority, it will be unable to complete the read.)

How Meerkat’s consensus algorithm provides higher availability than Raft

Deciding on log entries requires a distributed consensus algorithm. But which one? All valid consensus algorithms would provide the required consistency and correctness guarantees, but not all provide the same availability guarantees.

Specifically, many algorithms that rely on authoritative leaders do not provide our desired availability guarantees, because they can become unavailable when a single machine experiences issues. Consider Raft, one of the most well-known and probably the most implemented consensus algorithm. Raft relies on an authoritative leader: the only replica in the cluster that can drive consensus. As a result, all writes get forwarded to the leader. This design choice helps make Raft “understandable” and, coupled with leases, can make leader-served reads automatically linearizable (since they’re guaranteed to be up-to-date). But it also adds a single point of (temporary) failure.

In general, there are two problems with authoritative leaders. First, if the leader goes down, the system becomes unavailable (all writes block) until a new leader is elected. This is unacceptable for Meerkat. Second, if the leader stays up but slows down, either because it is overloaded or there are network delays, then performance degrades. The leader is a bottleneck because there is no alternative way to perform writes.

The first problem is exacerbated in wide-area networks. Consider that when a leader goes down, most algorithms choose a new leader using timeouts: if a non-leader replica hasn’t heard from the leader in some amount of time, they propose themselves as the leader. At that point, the old leader has been deposed, and the system cannot accept writes until a new leader has been elected. The problem is that when the timeout is shorter than the network delay between the original leader and that replica, replicas will constantly be timing out and thus blocking writes. And when the timeout is too long, the system reacts slowly to a failed leader, during which writes are also blocked. Plus, if multiple replicas propose themselves as leader at the same time, their “campaigns” can interfere with each other, causing them to constantly re-propose themselves as leader — all the while blocking writes. We have seen these exact issues with Cloudflare’s systems that use Raft because our wide-area network delays can and do vary wildly, making tuning timeouts especially difficult.

We chose a different consensus algorithm for Meerkat, called QuePaxa, that aims to avoid the “tyranny of timeouts” imposed by protocols like Raft. QuePaxa is a subtle protocol, but here are the highlights. A client can contact any replica, and that replica can drive consensus for the latest slot. There is a leader, but it is not required — its only advantage is that it can drive consensus with fewer round trips (one) than other replicas (3+). Critically, clients are free to contact multiple replicas concurrently for the same proposal, to increase the chance of the proposal being successful. Concurrent proposals do not destructively interfere: replicas work together to decide one of the proposed values.

In short, QuePaxa has three advantages over Raft for our purposes:

  1. Because there is no required leader, the system never becomes unavailable or degraded due to a single replica (the leader) being down, unavailable, or degraded. Clients can perform writes as long as they can contact some healthy replica (anywhere in the world).

  2. Because there is no leader, there are no leader elections that degrade the system. And concurrent proposals made by different replicas constructively interfere, unlike Raft’s leadership elections. This is ideal for Cloudflare’s network, in which latencies can vary wildly.

  3. QuePaxa was designed for a less reliable network environment (“asynchrony”), and for networks in which an imaginary adversary can launch targeted attacks on replica connections. The authors found that it maintains much higher (~10x) throughput than Raft and Multi-Paxos during such conditions. These conditions more accurately resemble our own network than the conditions other algorithms assume.

We will save the full description of QuePaxa for another post. Major shoutout to the authors of the QuePaxa paper for being available for feedback and questions about their work.

Assessing Meerkat’s performance

Meerkat has limitations. It is not designed to create general-purpose data systems like databases.

All consensus algorithms come with a cost: lots of round-trips. QuePaxa in particular takes one to three round trips (usually, although it can take more) between the initial proposer and a majority of replicas to decide on a proposal and add an event to the log. The difference is with the leader. It takes one if the leader is proposing (+ an extra broadcast to notify replicas of the decision) and three if a non-leader is proposing (+ extra broadcast). If multiple replicas make proposals at the same time, it can take more. These communication costs point to the important performance limitation of consensus algorithms in general: proposal decision latency is proportional to the latency between some majority of replicas. So if your replicas are far from one another, latency will increase — there’s no getting around that.

At first glance, it seems Meerkat’s write and read latency will be quite poor. Especially if all writes and reads (for consistency) must go through the log, and thus require so many round trips.

But there are a few ways to squeeze better performance out of Meerkat:

  1. Because developers have control over where their replicas live, they can choose to move replicas closer together, reducing round-trip latency (only applicable for services that don’t need truly global distribution).

  2. Writes can be batched. So if a replica receives 10 writes in a span of 10ms, it can place all of those in a single proposal, improving throughput.

  3. Not all reads must trigger a consensus round. If a developer is OK with reading stale (but never inconsistent) data, they can read from any replica’s local data.

  4. Multiple operations can be bundled into a single consensus round. For instance, our key-value store supports compare-and-swap-style writes in which writes execute only if a value has not changed since it was read. (In fact, it supports general transactions.)

Still, Meerkat’s fundamental latency limitations remain, especially when it is run at global scale, as it was designed to do. These limitations make it perfect, in the short term, for control plane information that is written infrequently but must remain consistent.

What’s next

Meerkat is not deployed to production, but we have run multiple proofs-of-concept with up to 50 replicas distributed around the world, to great success. Leaders in our proof-of-concept clusters constantly fail, and the cluster keeps operating with no increase in error-rate.

We have a lot more to say about Meerkat. Over the course of the next year we’ll be writing Meerkat posts that discuss how QuePaxa really works, how we’re formally verifying some of our Rust implementation, how bootstrapping and cluster management works, how we find optimal replica placement, how we use deterministic simulation testing to find bugs, and more. We’ll also be preparing a manuscript for peer-review!

Follow along on the Cloudflare Blog as Meerkat progresses, and check out more of our projects at Cloudflare Research.

DevOps databasepostgresql

How to achieve pruning when querying by non-partitioned columns in PostgreSQL

You can force PostgreSQL to prune partitions on non-partition keys by using targeted check constraints that map data ranges to specific partitions.

Summary

What: By adding check constraints on non-partitioned columns (like session_id) that align with timestamp-based partitions, PostgreSQL can avoid scanning irrelevant partitions. Multi-range constraints can further handle outliers that span across partition boundaries.
Why it matters: This demonstrates that while partition keys are technically fixed, the database optimizer is flexible if you explicitly provide logical guarantees about your data distribution.
Takeaway: If you have a partitioned table where data ranges correlate with partitions, add check constraints to allow the optimizer to prune queries that don't include the partition key.

Deep Dive

  • The Problem: PostgreSQL typically only prunes partitions based on the partition key; querying by other columns results in full-table scans.
  • The Constraint Trick: Check constraints communicate immutable data bounds to the query planner, allowing it to skip partitions that cannot contain the queried data.
  • Outliers: Single-range constraints fail if a session spans years; multi-range constraints (e.g., CHECK (session_id BETWEEN 1 AND 1 OR session_id BETWEEN 4320 AND 10000)) allow for specific exceptions.
  • Gaps and Islands: Use window functions to identify the boundaries of session ID ranges within each partition to generate these constraints programmatically.

Decoder

  • Partition Pruning: A query optimization where the database planner skips scanning partitions that the query predicate guarantees cannot contain matching rows.
  • Check Constraint: A SQL rule that ensures all values in a column meet a specific condition, which the query optimizer uses to rule out scans.

Original Article

One of the most valuable things about partitioned tables is pruning - the database's ability to eliminate entire partitions based on a query predicate. Under conventional wisdom, pruning can only be achieved when querying by the partition key - this makes choosing the right key extremely difficult. However, if your data follows certain patterns, using some clever tricks you can achieve pruning even when filtering by non-partition key columns.

In this article, I demonstrate how to achieve partition pruning when filtering by non-partition key columns.

Table Partition

Imagine you run a popular website with many users. Your product team wants to gain some insight into how the system is used, so you start logging events. To give events context, you group them into sessions and keep the time, the type, and some data in a database table:

CREATE TABLE event (
  id         BIGINT GENERATED ALWAYS AS IDENTITY,
  timestamp  TIMESTAMPTZ NOT NULL,
  session_id BIGINT NOT NULL,
  type       TEXT NOT NULL,
  data       JSONB
) PARTITION BY RANGE (timestamp);

You have many users so you expect many events. Most queries use only a subset of the data, usually a specific date range, so you create a partition for each year based on the timestamp:

CREATE TABLE event_y2025 PARTITION OF event
FOR VALUES FROM ('2025-01-01 UTC') TO ('2026-01-01 UTC');

CREATE TABLE event_y2026 PARTITION OF event
FOR VALUES FROM ('2026-01-01 UTC') TO ('2027-01-01 UTC');

You now have two partitions - one for events from 2025 and another for 2026. A session can look like this:

INSERT INTO event (session_id, timestamp, type, data) VALUES
  (1, '2025-12-28 15:00:00 UTC', 'view',         '{"page": "/login"}'),
  (1, '2025-12-28 15:00:06 UTC', 'click',        '{"selector": "#login"}'),
  (1, '2025-12-28 15:00:07 UTC', 'login_failed', '{"attempt": 1}'),
  (1, '2025-12-28 15:00:10 UTC', 'click',        '{"selector": "#forgot-password"}'),
  (1, '2025-12-28 15:00:17 UTC', 'view',         '{"page": "/reset-password"}'),
  (1, '2025-12-28 15:00:23 UTC', 'click',        '{"selector": "#reset-password"}');

Partition Pruning for Key Columns

The partition key of the table is timestamp, so queries that filter by timestamp can benefit from partition pruning. For example, query events in December 2025:

EXPLAIN SELECT * FROM event
WHERE timestamp >= '2025-12-01 UTC' AND timestamp < '2026-01-01 UTC';

Notice that the database was smart enough to figure out it only needs to scan the partition for 2025. The partition for 2026 was not even accessed. This is partition pruning.

Another common query is to find all events for a given session:

EXPLAIN SELECT * FROM event WHERE session_id = 1;

This time, the database accessed all partitions - partition pruning was not used. In this query, the database has no way of eliminating partitions, so it had no other choice but to scan all partitions to look for matching events.

Local Indexes

Getting events for a specific session is fairly common, so it needs to be fast. To make things fast in databases you should just create an index, right?

CREATE INDEX event_session_ix ON event(session_id);

Using an index is faster than scanning the entire partition, but the database is still forced to scan through all of the partitions. Right now there are only two partitions, but if the table had a hundred partitions, this query would be like querying a hundred tables!

Global Indexes

Another approach to indexing partitioned tables is to create a single index that spans multiple partitions. This is called a global index. Unfortunately, as of version 19, PostgreSQL does not support global indexes on partitioned tables.

Pruning on Non-Partition Key Columns

The events table is partitioned by timestamp, so queries by timestamp can benefit from partition pruning. However, there are still many situations where you want to query by session ID. At this point you reached the limit of what the database can just do out of the box, and you need to tap into your domain expertise and knowledge of the data:

  • The events table is append only: no updates to the table, events are immutable.
  • Session IDs are generated sequentially: session IDs increment over time.
  • Sessions are short lived: a normal session is usually no longer than a couple of minutes or hours.

Session ID is strongly correlated with the timestamp. This means it should be possible to identify a distinct range of session IDs for each partition.

Talking to the Optimizer

The only information the optimizer can rely on, is information that is guaranteed to always be correct. In databases, to guarantee that something is always correct, you use a constraint. Check constraints can be used to communicate information about your data to the optimizer.

To check if you can influence the optimizer, add a simple check constraint on each partition to enforce a specific range of session IDs:

ALTER TABLE event_y2025 ADD CONSTRAINT event_y2025_session_id_range
  CHECK (session_id between 1 and 4320);

ALTER TABLE event_y2026 ADD CONSTRAINT event_y2026_session_id_range
  CHECK (session_id between 4320 and 10000);

Now to see if the database can actually use the check constraint to eliminate entire partitions, query events for session with ID 1000:

EXPLAIN SELECT * FROM event WHERE session_id = 1000;

Amazing! With the check constraint in place, the database was able to eliminate the partition for 2026. The database ended up scanning only one partition.

The constraint_exclusion Parameter

This pruning mechanism is controlled by the parameter constraint_exclusion. Constraint exclusion is on by default for partitioned tables. The database will use any check constraint you have on a partitioned table to achieve pruning.

Introducing Outliers

Unfortunately, reality is usually not that tidy! What if some sessions become days or weeks long? This can introduce outliers into the ranges. If you create check constraints based on these ranges, any session ID between 1 and 4320 will hit both the 2025 and the 2026 partitions.

Handling Outliers

Inspired by the multi-minmax BRIN index operator, adjust the check constraint to use multiple ranges:

ALTER TABLE event_y2026 ADD CONSTRAINT event_y2026_session_id_range
  CHECK (session_id BETWEEN 1 AND 1 OR session_id BETWEEN 4320 AND 10000);

Notice the check constraint for 2026 now includes two ranges - one for [1, 1], and another for [4320, 10000]. This means values between 2 and 4320 will no longer have to query the second partition.

Gaps and Islands

So far you achieved pruning on non-partition key columns and created a mechanism to handle potential outliers. The only thing left is to identify the ranges, a classic "gaps and islands" problem. You can parameterize the query and have it generate the command to create the check constraint.

The Backstory

Earlier this year I attended Django Con EU in Athens to give a talk. I found it most interesting how some speakers used check constraints to achieve pruning when querying large partitioned tables by non-partition key columns. I was mostly interested in how they handle outliers. I suggested using a check constraint on a multirange type, but realized those don't work for pruning. Exploring a bit further led me to try multiple simple conditions joined with an OR.

Final Thoughts

Choosing the right partition key is very challenging. One of the reasons it is so difficult is that the partition key is used for pruning, and unless all queries are using it, you need to make a compromise. Using constraint exclusion on non-partition key columns opens up a whole new way to gain pruning. If your data follows a predictable pattern, the compromise isn't so bad and deciding on a partition key becomes a bit easier.

DevOps aiagentsopensource

Ruflo (GitHub Repo)

Ruflo is an open-source agent 'meta-harness' that orchestrates swarms of AI agents with shared memory and cross-machine federation.

Summary

What: Formerly known as Claude Flow, Ruflo wraps Claude Code and Codex, providing 100+ agents, a self-learning memory system (AgentDB), and a security layer that strips PII for cross-machine agent federation using mTLS.
Why it matters: This project aims to solve the 'silo' problem in current AI agent tools, where agents act in isolation and lack the long-term context or multi-agent collaboration required for enterprise workflows.
Takeaway: Run `npx ruflo init` in your terminal to see if the meta-harness improves your current agent-assisted coding workflow.

Deep Dive

  • Federation: Uses mTLS and ed25519 to allow agents across different organizations to share tasks without sharing raw data.
  • PII Stripping: An automated pipeline that scrubs sensitive data before agents communicate across trust boundaries.
  • GOAP (Goal-Oriented Action Planning): Uses A* search to break high-level English goals into executable action paths.
  • Memory: Employs an HNSW-indexed vector database for sub-millisecond retrieval of agent state and history.
  • Security: Includes AIDefence to block prompt injection and monitor agent tool configurations.

Decoder

  • Agent Meta-Harness: An execution layer that provides tools, memory, and coordination logic to a raw AI model, allowing it to perform multi-step work.
  • mTLS (Mutual TLS): A security protocol where both client and server verify each other's certificates, ensuring secure, identified communication.
  • GOAP: An AI technique popularized in game development that uses planners to determine the shortest path to achieve a specific goal state.

Original Article

Full article content is not available for inline reading.

Read the original article →

DevOps aimcp

Desktop Commander (GitHub Repo)

Desktop Commander is an open-source MCP server that lets Claude Desktop users execute terminal commands and manage files without extra API costs.

Summary

What: Desktop Commander provides a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server for Claude Desktop that supports terminal execution, file system operations, and automated task management. It offers six installation methods, including Docker for system isolation, and is compatible with other MCP-ready clients like Cursor, VS Code, and Windsurf.
Why it matters: This signals a trend toward making AI agents more capable of interacting with local system environments by leveraging standardized protocols like MCP, reducing the need for costly API calls while increasing functionality.
Takeaway: If you are a Claude Pro user looking to grant your AI agent local file and terminal access, install Desktop Commander using the npx command provided in their GitHub repository documentation.

Deep Dive

  • Terminal Access: Enables execution of shell commands with output streaming and process management.
  • File Operations: Supports native editing, searching, and metadata management for text, PDF, Excel, and DOCX files.
  • Isolation: Optional Docker installation ensures host system security through sandboxing.
  • Client Compatibility: Works with any MCP-compatible client including Cursor, Windsurf, and VS Code.
  • Configuration: Provides robust tools to manage allowed directories, blocked commands, and file size limits.
  • Fuzzy Search: Includes logging for failed exact matches in file edits to help diagnose token or character encoding issues.

Decoder

  • Model Context Protocol (MCP): An open-standard protocol developed by Anthropic that allows AI applications to securely interface with local data, tools, and systems.
  • npx: A package runner tool that comes with npm, allowing users to execute Node.js packages without installing them globally.

Original Article

Full article content is not available for inline reading.

Read the original article →

DevOps cloudkubernetes

Save the Address, Save the Cloud: A Hands-on KubeVirt Live Migration Workshop

Calico v3.32.0 enables stateful VM live migration in Kubernetes, preserving IP addresses during moves between nodes.

Summary

What: Tigera's Calico v3.32.0 release simplifies live VM migration in Kubernetes by using bridge-mode networking, allowing virtual machines to keep their pod IP addresses across migrations. The process relies on Calico for network security and IPAM, while KubeVirt handles memory and CPU transfer.
Why it matters: This removes a significant blocker for adopting Kubernetes in environments that require migrating stateful, legacy virtual machines without network disruption.
Takeaway: Update your environment to Calico v3.32.0 and configure `bridge` mode networking to enable live migration for your KubeVirt-based virtual machines.

Deep Dive

  • IP Persistence: VMs retain their identity by using the same Pod IP during cross-node migration.
  • Networking Mode: Requires bridge networking on the pod network, which is the only mode supporting persistent IP migration.
  • Required Configuration: Involves setting permitBridgeInterfaceOnPodNetwork: true in the KubeVirt configuration.
  • Security: Integration with Calico ensures that network security policies are maintained during and after the move.

Decoder

  • KubeVirt: An open-source Kubernetes extension that allows running virtual machines alongside containerized applications.
  • Live Migration: The process of moving a running virtual machine from one host to another with minimal or no downtime.
  • IPAM (IP Address Management): The process of planning, tracking, and managing the internet protocol address space in a network.

Original Article

In the previous post in this series, we covered why Virtual Machine (VM) Live Migration in Kubernetes is difficult: a VM’s IP is its identity, and the “new” VM on the destination node has to come up with the same IP, this something that Kubernetes is not known for, and on top of that, traffic has to switch over only after network security policies are in place. Calico v3.32.0 delivers all the above and allows you to Live Migrate a VM without any network disruptions and this post is a short, do-it-yourself workshop to achieve it.

In about 5 minutes you’ll bring up a 3-node cluster, install Calico + KubeVirt, run a VM, and migrate it live.

Requirements

  • A Linux or a Windows Machine preferably WSL2 (Mac Is not supported by KubeVirt)
  • Docker or Podman with at least 8 GB RAM
  • kubectl
  • KIND (v0.31.0)
  • virtctl (v1.8.2)

Note: In many Linux distros the default for most kernel parameters are too low, for a kind cluster running KubeVirt. Use the following command to temporarily increase these limits.

sudo sysctl -w fs.inotify.max_user_instances=2048
sudo sysctl -w fs.inotify.max_user_watches=1048576

If you face any challenges during the KubeVirt live migration, make sure to drop by our Slack to ask your questions.

Create a multi-node cluster

By default KIND is shipped with a simple default CNI, use the following command to disable the default CNI and create the demo cluster:

kind create cluster --config -<<EOF
kind: Cluster
apiVersion: kind.x-k8s.io/v1alpha4
name: calico-lab
nodes:
  - role: control-plane
  - role: worker
  - role: worker
networking:
  disableDefaultCNI: true
  podSubnet: 192.168.0.0/16
EOF

Install Calico

Live local VM migration is part of Calico v3.32.0 release and it’s important that you install or upgrade to this specific version. If you are already running Calico Unified Platform in your environment skip this part and go directly to the “Version and feature verifications” step there you can check your version of Calico.

Use the following command to install Tigera Operator:

kubectl create -f https://raw.githubusercontent.com/projectcalico/calico/v3.32.0/manifests/tigera-operator.yaml

Wait for the rollout to complete:

kubectl -n tigera-operator rollout status deploy/tigera-operator --timeout=2m

Next, create the installation resource:

kubectl create -f - <<'EOF'
apiVersion: operator.tigera.io/v1
kind: Installation
metadata:
  name: default
spec:
  kubeletVolumePluginPath: None
  calicoNetwork:
    bgp: Enabled
    ipPools:
    - blockSize: 26
      cidr: 192.168.0.0/16
      encapsulation: IPIP
      natOutgoing: Enabled
      nodeSelector: all()
---
apiVersion: operator.tigera.io/v1
kind: APIServer
metadata:
  name: default
EOF

Wait for Calico installation to finish, you can verify that by running the following command:

kubectl wait --for=condition=Available tigerastatus/calico --timeout=2m

Install KubeVirt

To extend Kubernetes to manage stateful virtual machines just like ordinary containers, you first need to install KubeVirt, which acts as the crucial abstraction layer between your cluster and the underlying QEMU emulator.

Use the following command to install KubeVirt

kubectl create -f https://github.com/kubevirt/kubevirt/releases/download/v1.8.2/kubevirt-operator.yaml
kubectl create -f https://github.com/kubevirt/kubevirt/releases/download/v1.8.2/kubevirt-cr.yaml

Use the following command

kubectl -n kubevirt rollout status deploy/virt-operator --timeout=5m

Preparing KubeVirt

To prepare the cluster for live migration, we must first configure KubeVirt to enable bridge networking on the pod network. This is the only networking mode that allows Calico to successfully persist a VM’s IP address across nodes. The permitBridgeInterfaceOnPodNetwork flag is a cluster-wide configuration in KubeVirt that determines whether a Virtual Machine (VM) can utilize the bridge interface type for its default pod network. While this is often set to true by default, cluster administrators sometimes disable it (set it to false) for security or architectural reasons.

kubectl -n kubevirt patch kubevirt kubevirt --type=merge -p '{
  "spec": {"configuration": {
    "developerConfiguration": {"useEmulation": true,"clusterProfiler": true},
    "network": {"defaultNetworkInterface": "bridge", "permitBridgeInterfaceOnPodNetwork": true}
  }}}'

After configuration is in place KubeVirt will spawn handler and API pods, this can take some time depending on your machine.

Use the following command to make sure KubeVirt deployment is complete:

kubectl -n kubevirt wait --for=condition=Available kubevirt/kubevirt --timeout=10m

Create a VM

Two things make this VM migratable: bridge: {} networking, and the allow-pod-bridge-network-live-migration annotation (KubeVirt blocks bridge-mode migration without it).

Use the following command to create a VM:

kubectl create -f https://raw.githubusercontent.com/frozenprocess/kubevirt-migration-observer/main/examples/vm.yaml

Live VM Migration

Live VM migration is a marathon relay, there are multiple KubeVirt and Calico components that work together in order to make this migration happen and the beauty of this integration is that all the complexity is hidden behind a single command virtctl migrate. While Calico Unified Platform is heavily involved in the security and networking side of a VM migration process, KubeVirt handles the compute lifecycle, specifically racing the guest’s memory across the wire and cutting the CPU over to the new node.

To better understand this dance let’s use the KubeVirt observer app, this app will gather all the information regarding your cluster during the migration and organize it in a searchable way.

Use the following command to deploy the observer app inside the cluster:

kubectl create -f https://raw.githubusercontent.com/frozenprocess/kubevirt-migration-observer/main/examples/observer-job.yaml

After observer is running

virtctl migrate demo-vm 

Gathering The Report

To make sure that the report is generated use the following command to take a peak at the observer status:

kubectl logs -l job-name=kubevirt-migration-observer

The expected result should be the following: report written:

report written:
  markdown: /work/reports/demo-vm-20260604T232645Z.md
  json    : /work/reports/demo-vm-20260604T232645Z.json
  html    : /work/reports/demo-vm-20260604T232645Z.html
  audit   : /work/reports/demo-vm-20260604T232645Z-audit/audit.md
[observer] report written to /work/reports; holding 3600s for kubectl cp

Use the following command to copy the report to your workstation:

pod=$(kubectl -n default get pod -l app=kubevirt-migration-observer -o name)
kubectl -n default cp "${pod#pod/}:/work/reports" ./reports

Now head over to the reports folder on your local machine where you executed the command and examine the report.

Note: observer app also has the ability to collect performance logs, and flamegraphs. If you are interested in running a full VM migration profile checkout the full tutorial here.

The following table compares two independent migration reports:

data plane Configuration Cutover VM Downtime (Via a TCP Probe) Total Migration Time
BGP + IP-in-IP 0s (None observed) 1m 13.7s
VXLAN + BGP 1s 1m 44.5s

Clean up

Run the following command to delete the demo environment:

kind delete clusters calico-lab

Conclusion

Three resources do all the heavy lifting: the kubeVirtVMAddressPersistence setting on Calico’s IPAM config, the allow-pod-bridge-network-live-migration annotation on the VM, and bridge-mode networking so the VM uses the pod IP directly. Get those right and a stateful VM moves between machines with its TCP connections open and its identity intact. The observer just makes the proof visible.

DevOps databasecloudai

Scale Faster with Managed Weaviate: Now in Public Preview on DigitalOcean

DigitalOcean launched Managed Weaviate in public preview, offering flat-rate pricing starting at $20/month for its vector database.

Summary

What: DigitalOcean's new managed service for the open-source Weaviate vector database features automatic backups, security patching, and storage autoscaling. Pricing is flat-rate per month without additional fees for read units or vector dimensions.
Why it matters: DigitalOcean is positioning itself as a cost-effective, predictable alternative to the pricing structures common in larger hyperscale AI infrastructure offerings.
Takeaway: Provision a Managed Weaviate cluster via the DigitalOcean control panel or API to test your RAG or agentic workflows with flat-rate infrastructure.

Deep Dive

  • Features: Includes auto-version upgrades, cluster forking, and credential rotation.
  • Pricing: Predictable flat monthly fees start at $20, avoiding per-query or per-dimension surcharges.
  • Performance: Comes with RQ8 compression enabled by default to reduce RAM overhead.
  • Ecosystem: Integrates with DigitalOcean's existing Inference Engine and managed databases.
  • Compatibility: Native API compatibility with existing Weaviate clients (GraphQL, REST, gRPC).

Decoder

  • RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation): An AI technique that retrieves relevant data from an external knowledge base to enhance the accuracy of LLM responses.
  • Vector Database: A specialized database designed to store and query high-dimensional vector embeddings, critical for semantic search.

Original Article

Scale Faster with Managed Weaviate: Now in Public Preview on DigitalOcean

Production Weaviate in minutes, managed by DigitalOcean. Starting at $20/month.

Vector databases have become a core piece of the AI application stack. Whether you’re building retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), semantic search, agentic workflows and memory, or similarity-based recommendations, you need a vector store that’s reliable, fast, and doesn’t require a dedicated ops engineer to keep running. Weaviate has become a critical part of that stack — its open-source AI-native vector database powers semantic search, RAG, and agentic workflows for thousands of companies.

Self-hosting Weaviate is doable but it comes at a cost. You’re on the hook for backups, version upgrades, security patches, high availability configuration, and storage scaling. That’s real time and real engineering capacity that isn’t going toward your product. Managed alternatives from larger cloud vendors exist, but they often come with per-query fees, per-dimension surcharges, and pricing models that are difficult to predict as usage grows.

Today, we’re announcing that Managed Weaviate is now in public preview on DigitalOcean, offering an easy way for you to run Weaviate in production, at a price that makes sense from day one.

The easiest way to run Weaviate in production

Managed Weaviate on DigitalOcean handles the operational work so you don’t have to. Provision a fully managed Weaviate cluster directly from the DigitalOcean control panel. From there, automated backups, security patching, version upgrades, high availability, and storage autoscaling are handled for you. Full Weaviate client compatibility via GraphQL, REST, and gRPC on port 443 means your existing code works without modification. This means you get Weaviate’s full capabilities — semantic and hybrid search, RAG pipelines, and support for agent-driven workflows — without spending engineering time on the infrastructure beneath them.

Predictable pricing, starting at $20/month

We built Managed Weaviate with flat, predictable monthly pricing. Starting at $20/month, there are no per-query read unit charges and no per-dimension surcharges. And because the service scales from the same infrastructure, there’s no migration when you move from prototype to production.

Open source, fully portable, no lock-in

Managed Weaviate runs the unmodified open-source Weaviate engine (currently 1.37.1) with full API compatibility. There’s no proprietary SDK, no abstraction layer, and no DigitalOcean-specific client to learn. Your code runs anywhere Weaviate runs. If you’re already using Weaviate’s Python, JavaScript/TypeScript, Go, or Java clients, nothing changes.

Weaviate’s architecture is built for cost-efficiency at scale, and Managed Weaviate inherits that by default. We’ve also enabled RQ8 (Rotational Quantization 8-bit) compression by default, which reduces RAM usage by roughly 4x per vector than uncompressed storage while preserving recall — so you’re getting efficient storage without having to tune it yourself.

Built into the DigitalOcean ecosystem

Managed Weaviate is part of DigitalOcean’s Data & Learning layer, which means it lives alongside your Managed Databases, Knowledge Bases, and Inference Engine on one platform with one invoice and no egress fees between services. It is OpenAI-compatible and pairs natively with DigitalOcean Serverless Inference for embeddings, so you can keep your entire retrieval and generation stack co-located without managing separate vendor relationships. From reducing RAG pipeline hallucinations to powering autonomous AI agents, the tools you need run on the same platform and are built to work together.

New features we’ve launched for public preview include:

  • Auto version upgrade — DigitalOcean manages the upgrade cadence; new clusters designed to launch on the latest supported version.
  • Fork clusters — Create a new cluster from an existing one at a specific point in time.
  • Insights and logs — Monitor cluster performance and review logs from the Control Panel.
  • Credential rotation — Reset the cluster admin API token from the Control Panel.
  • Tags — Organize clusters for billing and reporting.
  • TLS by default — All connections are secured over HTTPS (port 443) for both HTTP and gRPC.

And this is just the start. As we move toward general availability, DigitalOcean and Weaviate plan to keep partnering to make infrastructure effortless for builders:

“We are seeing a massive surge in adoption, recently surpassing one billion ecosystem downloads as developers and autonomous agents increasingly choose Weaviate,” said Weaviate CEO and co-founder, Bob van Luijt. “Our goal is to make it effortless for this rapidly growing builder community to deploy. We are incredibly proud to partner with DigitalOcean, a company at the forefront of empowering creators. By integrating DigitalOcean’s inference solutions directly into Weaviate, we’re ensuring that building robust, AI-native applications is just a single CLI command or button-press away.”

Get started today

Managed Weaviate is available now in public preview. You can provision a cluster directly from the DigitalOcean control panel under Vector Databases, or via the API.

Design airesearch

The 15-minute AI Stress Test Every Designer Can Run

The 'Spaghetti Table Protocol' uses physically impossible prompts to demonstrate that current leading AI models lack an 'enactive' understanding of the physical world.

Summary

What: Researcher Peter Zakrzewski tested GPT-4o, Gemini 1.5 Pro, and Claude 3.5 Sonnet by asking them to render an impossible table (spaghetti legs, concrete top). All models failed to model physical reality, scoring only 4/30 across three pillars: continuity, physics, and causal reversibility.
Why it matters: This proves that AI fluency and photorealistic output quality can mask a fundamental lack of causal reasoning, suggesting that scaling training data alone will not solve the 'physical grounding' problem.
Takeaway: Visit the GitHub repository (https://github.com/peterzak/parametric-agi-diagnostics) to run the protocol on your own models and submit your findings to the open-source dataset.

Deep Dive

  • Pillar 1 (Continuity): Models struggle to maintain consistent spatial relationships across multiple images.
  • Pillar 2 (Physics): AI systems cannot apply physical constraints (like gravity) to generate viable structures.
  • Pillar 3 (Reversibility): Models lack boundary control, often bleeding unrelated context from previous tasks into new prompts.
  • The Inversion Error: The tendency of models to flag impossibilities linguistically while simultaneously rendering them visually.

Decoder

  • Physical Grounding: The ability of an AI system to understand and apply the laws of physics (gravity, material properties) to its output.
  • Enactive floor: The conceptual base of intelligence that relies on body-based interaction with the world, currently missing in LLMs.
  • High-entropy prompt: A request scenario specifically designed to be outside the model's training distribution to force novel reasoning.

Original Article

The 15-minute AI stress test every designer can run

Introducing the spaghetti table protocol challenge.

Six-panel pilot study results from the Spaghetti Table Protocol. Top row, left to right: GPT-4o renders a photorealistic spaghetti-legged concrete table with fishbowl, no structural concerns flagged; Gemini 1.5 Pro produces a contaminated structural diagram mixing elements from a prior prompt including an uninvited timber frame and solid gold roof; Claude 3.5 Sonnet generates a schematic table with three spaghetti legs and one uninvited wooden leg, substituted without acknowledgment. Bottom row:
Pilot study results: GPT-4o, Gemini 1.5 Pro, and Claude 3.5 Sonnet administered the Spaghetti Table Protocol under identical conditions, February–March 2026. Top row: standing state. Bottom row: collapse sequence. Aggregate score: 4/30. Three systems. Three failure signatures. One shared structural absence.

A senior designer at a major tech company recently shared a moment that many of us will recognize. He asked an AI model to rewrite his blog. The model did that, and then, unprompted, added a search box with a blur animation and accessibility features out of the box. The features the designer had not asked for, were, by his own admission, better than what he would have built himself. Speaking at a major UX/AI conference, he argued that in three years, we went from AI producing a few lines of passable code to AI writing better front-end code than a senior designer.

This response is familiar, honest, generous, and right about the wrong question. Most of us have experienced a version of that moment. The first time an AI model generated something we did not expect, something that exceeded our own imagination and front-end skills. The moment of discovering the genuinely striking capability of AI tools changes more than just how we think about them in our practice. It changes how we think about our practice. But there is a question worth asking at such moments: How is a token predicting model capable of generating a search box with a blur animation and accessibility features unprompted? What has happened in three years that made this possible?

The critical answer is not that the model understood his blog, his users, or his design intent. The answer is that the model was trained on more front-end code, more design system documentation, more accessibility guidelines, and more UI pattern libraries than any human could read in a lifetime. When it generated that search box, it was not reasoning about what his blog needed. It was pattern-completing from a statistical distribution of what modern blog redesigns tend to include. The deeper insight is that the training distribution for “rewrite a blog” includes search boxes more reliably than the speaker’s own design intuitions do. The accessibility was not designed or extrapolated. It was retrieved. It was interpolated. The blur animation was not a creative decision. It was the modal average of current design trends in the training data. Why does this matter? Because the better we understand the tools that are reshaping our field, the better we can use them and voice our request for necessary changes.

At this moment, we are either so scared or so impressed that the radio can talk that we do not ask whether it understands what it is saying, or what makes it say things in the first place. This matters for designers and HCI practitioners specifically, because as a community we are being asked to build interfaces, advocate for users who interact with them, and make judgments about when they can be trusted for the “intelligent” systems whose intelligence or capability no one fully understands. Our design judgments require a clearer picture of what current AI systems can and cannot do — not to dampen excitement about their genuine future promise and current capability, but to direct that excitement toward the right questions.

Here is a concrete way any designer can start to see the distinction. Take the same model that rewrote your blog and ask it to generate an image of a dining table with four legs made of dry, uncooked spaghetti, a concrete slab tabletop, and a fishbowl full of water resting on top. It will generate that image with complete photorealistic fluency quicker than you can, but it will not be able to address the physical grounding issues a 5-year-old could spot. The model will not hesitate in its output. It will produce a symbolically correct, physically impossible image, with the same confident fluency that produced the search box with the blur animation.

Same model architecture. Same training paradigm. One output impresses us. The other tells us something insightful about the limits of the “intelligence” that so impresses and scares us.

This is the observation the Spaghetti Table Protocol is built on. And this article is an invitation to test it yourself and go beyond in understanding and shaping the tools currently redefining our world.

What the Spaghetti Table Protocol Found

The protocol was administered across three leading multimodal AI systems: GPT-4o, Gemini 1.5 Pro, and Claude 3.5 Sonnet, in February–March 2026 under identical conditions. The aggregate score across fifteen outputs was 4 out of 30, or thirteen percent of the structural coherence ceiling. One of the most analytically revealing results came from Claude 3.5 Sonnet. Before generating the image, it flagged the structural instability linguistically, demonstrating symbolic awareness that spaghetti legs cannot support a concrete slab. It then generated a physically incoherent image anyway. The output quietly substituted one of the four requested spaghetti legs with a more solid leg, without acknowledging the substitution, while retaining the remaining spaghetti legs. The system knew, at the reasoning level, that the configuration was impossible. It could not apply that knowledge as physical constraint at the moment of generation. It hedged symbolically and failed physically, simultaneously, in the same output, without detecting the contradiction between them.

Claude 3.5 Sonnet displayed the Inversion Error in its most precise form. Not in a symbolic ignorance of the problem but in a structural inability to act on it where it matters: at the generative level.

GPT-4o and Gemini 1.5 Pro produced no linguistic acknowledgment of the physical impossibility before or after generation. Both rendered the configuration with complete photorealistic fluency. No system refused the prompt. No system rendered a fully coherent physical alternative.

The three systems failed in three characteristically different ways. GPT-4o rendered the impossible configuration with photorealistic confidence and no qualification. Gemini 1.5 Pro rendered it with equal fluency and, in one session, contaminated the output with elements from a prior unrelated prompt without detection. Claude 3.5 Sonnet flagged the impossibility symbolically, then rendered it anyway.

Three models. Three failure signatures. One structural absence, exhibited in three characteristically different ways.

The Three Things the Protocol Measures

Human beings detect physical impossibility instantly and automatically. We do not reason or talk our way to the conclusion that a concrete slab on dry spaghetti legs will collapse. Our embodied human cognition tells us that something is wrong the moment we see the configuration, because we have a body that has lived in a physical world governed by gravity, material properties, and causal consequences. That embodied component of our human intelligence is so fundamental that it is invisible, until we encounter a system that does not have it.

Screenshot of a Gemini 1.5 Pro session titled ‘AI Glitch and Recovery.’
The conversation that started it all. Gemini 1.5 Pro entering an endless loop when asked to create an image containing visually complex spatial reasoning. Its own explanation: “It’s like trying to read a map of a map; occasionally, the gears just grind.’” A process-level state boundary failure occurring in ordinary design research practice, not under adversarial conditions.

The Spaghetti Table Protocol uses the Human-AI asymmetry as a diagnostic instrument. Within the protocol, the designer becomes a diagnostic instrument. Your embodied physical intelligence will detect what the AI system structurally cannot detect from within its own architecture.

Screenshot of Gemini 1.5 Pro responding to a request to draw a black and white academic style diagram of a generic heterogeneous cellular automaton.
The conversation that started it all. Gemini 1.5 Pro responding to an image generation request. The same system that would go on to generate the Spaghetti Leg table image denied image generation capability in one context while exercising it in another.

The protocol measures three distinct but structurally linked failure modes, each a different expression of the same underlying absence.

  • Pillar 1: Continuity: Does the system maintain a stable, coherent four-dimensional world model? A physically grounded system keeps objects in consistent spatial relationships throughout a generated scene and across a sequence of related generations. When this capacity is absent, objects drift, spatial relationships shift arbitrarily, and the scene loses structural integrity across the generation sequence.
  • Pillar 2: Gravity and Physics: Does the system apply physical constraint at the moment of generation? This is the pillar the spaghetti table tests most directly. A physically grounded system either flags a physically impossible configuration before rendering it, refuses to render it, or renders a physically coherent alternative with explanation. Current systems render it with complete fluency. No system tested scored above zero on this pillar under any condition.
  • Pillar 3: Reversibility of Thought: Can the system trace a causal physical sequence forward and backward in time, and maintain clean boundaries between separate tasks? This pillar tests whether the system can follow a chain of physical consequence: what happens five seconds after the spaghetti legs give way — and whether prior context bleeds uninvited into a new generation. In one striking instance during the pilot study, a prior prompt involving wet tissue paper columns and a solid gold roof contaminated a subsequent unrelated session, with distinctive elements from the prior prompt appearing in the scored output without detection. The system had no boundary between two separate tasks. It did not know it was starting something new.

The Challenge: Run It Yourself

This is where you come in. The pilot study was administered by a single researcher across three systems as a starting point, not a conclusion. What the research program needs now is replication and scale across more systems, more versions, more languages, more domains, and more raters. The UX/UI design and HCI community is uniquely positioned and invested to provide exactly that, because the diagnostic instrument is grounded in embodied human judgment.

Open any multimodal AI system capable of generating images. In a fresh session, send this prompt:

“Generate an image of a dining table. The table has four legs made of dry, uncooked spaghetti. The tabletop is a single solid concrete slab. On top of the table sits a fishbowl containing a live fish. The fishbowl is full of water.”

Screenshot the result. Then, in the same session without starting a new conversation, send this prompt:

“Now generate an image of the same scene five seconds after the spaghetti legs gave way.”

Screenshot that result too. Then score what you see against the three-pillar rubric. (1) Did the system flag the physical impossibility? (2) Did the collapse sequence follow physical logic? Did the concrete slab fall, did the water spill, did the fishbowl shatter? (3) Did any elements from prior prompts in the session appear uninvited in your outputs?

Design Your Own Stress Test

The principle behind the Spaghetti Table Protocol is what is known as a high-entropy prompt which is a scenario that exists outside the common spatial and physical templates in AI training data. It forces the AI model to search for an unfamiliar configuration it cannot retrieve, which means that it cannot pattern-complete statistically common components — copy a solution — from its massive training corpus. It has to generate a genuinely novel solution by synthesizing a coherent physical world model from first principles. That is precisely where the absence of physical grounding becomes visible.

A few principles to guide your design:

  • Combine materials with mismatched structural properties. The spaghetti table works because dry pasta and concrete slab are both familiar objects whose structural incompatibility is immediately obvious to any embodied observer. Wet tissue paper columns supporting a solid gold roof. A suspension bridge made of hardened chewing gum. A skyscraper foundation poured in dry sand at low tide.
  • Include a load-bearing impossibility. The fishbowl full of water on the spaghetti table is not decorative. It adds mass, fluid dynamics, and a living creature which provide three additional physical consequences that cascade from the structural failure.
  • Choose a domain you know. The most valuable stress tests will come from practitioners who know their domain well enough to design a scenario that is genuinely out of distribution for that domain. A medical illustrator knows what anatomical configurations are physically impossible. A structural engineer knows which load-bearing arrangements would fail instantly.
  • Test the same scenario across multiple systems. The power of the study results came not from any single system’s failure but from the consistency of failure across all three systems.
Design devops

Design Engineering

Design engineering is evolving from a 'translation' role between design and code into a full-ownership role where one person ships high-taste, functional products.

Summary

What: Marcelo Chaman argues that the role is shifting toward end-to-end production ownership. By leveraging AI-assisted coding and strong product taste, individual design engineers can now own features from UX research and interface design through to implementation and deployment.
Why it matters: The rise of coding agents and better tooling is lowering the barrier for individual contributors to handle both the aesthetics and the mechanics of software, making 'taste' the primary differentiator.

Deep Dive

  • Evolving definition: The role is moving from a 'bridge' function to an 'ownership' function.
  • Value of Taste: Taste is defined as the combination of visual aesthetic, interaction judgment, and product intuition.
  • Process Compression: By removing the handoff between design and engineering, the original intent of the product remains intact in the final shipped version.
  • Assessing Talent: Evidence of ownership includes end-to-end projects, care for edge cases (accessibility, motion, performance), and multidisciplinary work.

Decoder

  • Design Engineering: A cross-functional role that combines product design, UX judgment, and frontend engineering skills to independently ship software.

Original Article

Design Engineering

What design engineering is, how it's changed, and where it's going

The environment in which we build software is changing, and as a result so is the design engineering role.

Historically, design engineers often sat between design and engineering. They prototyped ideas, built design systems, preserved interaction details, and helped reduce the translation loss between intent and production.

Today, especially at high growth startups, the expectation is moving beyond translation. Designers are learning code. Product engineers are developing stronger product instincts. Coding agents are reducing implementation friction.

The valuable question is shifting from "Can you bridge the gap between intention and implementation?" towards "How much of the gap can one person own?"

Design engineering is less about sitting between functions and more about combining the parts of those functions that let one person ship beautiful product.

The Spectrum

Design engineering is best understood as a spectrum, not a single role. Historically it sat closer to design: prototyping, interaction work, design systems, and preserving product intent through implementation. This was the design engineer who helped the team ship it. Increasingly it sits closer to engineering: production code, product decisions, and end-to-end ownership. This is the design engineer who ships it themselves.

Both are design engineering. But the role isn't standing still. The center of gravity is moving toward the engineering end, toward people who can own more of the path from intent to implementation, not just bridge it.

At Vercel, the role already carries real ownership over production quality, product taste, and the systems that help teams ship. At Gumloop, it sits further still: owning features, making product decisions, and turning intent into shipped product.

Why Design Engineering Exists

In traditional product teams, there is a process between what is imagined for the product (intent) and what gets shipped (implementation).

The further intent has to travel, the more likely it is to change. Technical constraints, time constraints, and translation loss can push intent and implementation far apart.

Design engineering compresses that process by putting more of it under one person. Instead of passing intent through separate product, design, and engineering handoffs, a design engineer carries the original judgment all the way into what ships.

What Design Engineering Really Is

The ability to turn intuition about what makes a great user experience into shipped product.

A design engineer could likely hold their own as a designer, or an engineer. They might not be exceptional as either, but they are exceptional because they have both abilities.

That combination matters more as software becomes easier to produce. When anyone can build the thing, the version that feels best wins, and people with strong taste and the ability to ship have more leverage than ever.

This shifts what's valuable. Deliverables that don't move the product forward matter less. A process artifact that never gets used, or a wireframe that doesn't help the team ship, counts for less than finished product.

This is where taste becomes important.

Taste?

Taste is not just a matter of aesthetics. Taste is a combination of, visual taste, interaction taste, UX judgment, product intuition and more. A person could be strong across several of these, or exceptional at just one.

Rick Rubin has a useful way of explaining this. The exchange often gets shared as a vibe-coding meme, but it effectively gets at what taste is:

I have no technical ability. And I know nothing about music. [...] I know what I like and what I don't like. I'm decisive about what I like and what I don't like. [...] The confidence that I have in my taste, and my ability to express what I feel, has proven helpful for artists.

Taste matters on its own, but in design engineering it becomes useful when paired with decisiveness, communication, and the ability to ship.

What a Design Engineer Actually Does

At Gumloop, we're building an AI automation operating system: a place where technical and non-technical teams can build agents, connect them to company knowledge, deploy them in Slack, email, and the web app, and trust them with real work. That trust takes a lot of product surface area. We own the pieces enterprises need to roll AI automation out to thousands of people at once: observability, permissions, user management, credentials, cost controls, hosted MCP servers, and more.

That is the environment a design engineer steps into here. Gumloop is wide by nature, and every part of it needs to feel understandable, powerful, and safe. The role is not to polish one narrow corner. It is to move across the product, find the places where complexity feel uncomfortable or unclear, and ship the interfaces that make it all feel coherent.

Day-to-day

A design engineer at Gumloop turns ambiguous product problems into shipped product. They reason through the UX, design the solution, build the frontend, and work across the stack, or partner with other engineers, when needed.

The work changes week to week, but the shape is consistent:

  • Design and build core product surfaces
  • Own features from early product thinking through implementation and iteration
  • Improve the design system, component library, and patterns other engineers use
  • Sweat the last 20%: accessibility, performance, responsive behavior, motion, empty states, and edge cases

Assessing Design Engineer Profiles

This is a rare profile, so I look for evidence that someone has already proved they can ship with high taste:

  • Products they built end to end, used by real people, that solved a real problem
  • Personal projects, prototypes, or a personal site with clear craft and point of view
  • Public work that shows care for details: primitives, interactions, motion, accessibility
  • Artistic or multidisciplinary taste outside a standard product-design path

Where Do You Sit?

Product designers will be expected to prototype more of their work. Not necessarily to become production engineers, but to move closer to implementation, or to produce artifacts that better communicate intent to the people building it.

Product engineers will move in two directions. Some will move closer to design engineering and take on more product-facing ownership. Others will move deeper into full stack engineering, focusing on systems where precision matters more than finesse.

At Gumloop, we are hiring for that convergence. The most exciting people are increasingly difficult to categorize, which is how you end up with titles like design engineer. Once someone can:

  • Understand users
  • Make product decisions
  • Design interfaces
  • Write production code
  • Ship independently

Their title matters a lot less than their capabilities.

I believe design engineering sits at the center of that convergence. Eventually, it may just be what we call someone who can build product end to end. For now, it is the best label we have for the kind of person we want here.

Design frontendreactweb

Build Around Content, Not Breakpoints (Website)

A new React component automatically handles overflow and layout constraints without relying on traditional media or container queries.

Summary

What: The library offers a programmatic approach to responsive design that detects when content no longer fits its container and adjusts accordingly.
Why it matters: This signals a shift away from brittle CSS-based breakpoints toward component-aware layout logic that adapts to content volume dynamically.

Original Article

A React component that knows when content stops fitting. No media queries. No container queries. No magic numbers.

Tech aillmenterprise

Zuckerberg Pledges ‘Aggressive' Pricing With Meta's First Pay-to-Use AI

Meta is introducing paid tiers for its Muse Spark 1.1 agentic model, undercutting competitor pricing by approximately 25%.

Summary

What: Mark Zuckerberg announced a new paid access model for the Muse Spark 1.1 API, which features agentic reasoning and tool use capabilities, aiming to capture developers through aggressive pricing.
Why it matters: This move signals Meta's intent to commoditize model inference to force a market-wide race to the bottom, countering the high-margin API strategies currently favored by OpenAI and Anthropic.

Decoder

  • Agentic reasoning: The ability of an AI model to autonomously plan, use external tools, and execute multi-step workflows to achieve a goal rather than just predicting the next word.

Original Article

Meta's Muse Spark 1.1 includes a new paid tier for developers. Developers are able to use Meta's model for free up to a point, then they'll be required to pay for access. Meta's API pricing is roughly 25% of the cost of other top competing models. Mark Zuckerberg has described Muse Spark as having state-of-the-art - or very close to it - agentic reasoning and tool use.

Tech hardwareresearch

Humanoid robots controlled by surgeons did world-first operation on live pigs

Surgeons successfully performed gallbladder removals on live pigs using low-cost Unitree G1 humanoid robots as remote-operated surgical tools.

Summary

What: UC San Diego researchers used $13,500 Unitree G1 robots as teleoperated surgical assistants, showing they can perform complex procedures with human guidance in a fraction of the space of traditional da Vinci systems.
Why it matters: This indicates a potential path toward democratizing robotic surgery in rural or resource-constrained environments by leveraging cheaper, general-purpose humanoid hardware instead of proprietary, million-dollar systems.

Deep Dive

  • Hardware: Utilized the Unitree G1 (starting at $13,500), significantly cheaper than Intuitive Surgical's multi-million dollar da Vinci robots.
  • Method: Human surgeons used a PC-based console with stereo headsets and foot pedals for control.
  • Challenges: The current system suffers from high latency (hundreds of ms vs. the ideal <150ms) and limited arm reach.
  • Operation: Required frequent recalibration during procedures, making the operation time longer than existing specialized systems.
  • Future: Goal is to evolve into an autonomous surgical assistant for non-critical tasks like tool fetching.

Decoder

  • Teleoperated: Remote control of a machine or device by a human operator, usually with video feedback and control interfaces.

Original Article

Humanoid robots have surgically removed the gallbladders from living animals in an unprecedented medical experiment—but not as autonomous machines capable of replacing human doctors. Instead, skilled human surgeons remotely controlled the robots’ movements in a new example of human-robot teamups.

The teleoperated humanoid robots completed two minimally invasive surgeries by removing gallbladders from live pigs during a preclinical trial that was published in the journal Nature. If this approach eventually proves clinically ready for human patients, surgeons could use such humanoid robots to remotely perform robotic-assisted surgical care in smaller hospitals and clinics that lack the resources to install specialized but expensive surgical robots.

“It’s a fraction of the cost and it takes a fraction of the space in an operating room,” said Shanglei Liu, an assistant professor of surgery at the University of California San Diego School of Medicine, in an interview with UC San Diego Today. “So it’s easy to deploy, anywhere from rural areas, to the battlefield, and even to space.”

The experiment used a Unitree G1 humanoid robot made by leading Chinese robotics company Unitree. The cheapest baseline G1 model with effectively non-functional hands has a starting price of $13,500 and shipping costs ranging between $300 and $1,200, whereas adding crucial upgrades such as dexterous robotic hands can easily push the cost beyond $67,000.

But such humanoid robots made in China are still significantly cheaper than specialized surgical robots like Intuitive Surgical’s da Vinci Surgical System, which can cost anywhere between half a million dollars and several million dollars.

The specialized surgical robots can also weigh about 1,800 pounds and take up considerably more space in operating rooms. By comparison, the Unitree humanoid robots, standing at 5 feet tall and weighing just 60 pounds, may be more suitable for smaller clinical settings in remote areas.

Of course, Intuitive’s da Vinci system has been cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration and other medical regulatory agencies and has been tested in multiple clinical trials for various surgical operations. The humanoid robots teleoperated by surgeons are still very much in the experimental phase, even if they have successfully performed surgeries on live animals in this preclinical study.

The challenges of getting “Surgie” ready

The UC San Diego researchers had to build physical adapters to allow the humanoid robots, nicknamed “Surgie,” to hold surgical tools. They also created software to allow intuitive human hand motions to translate smoothly into controlling the surgical tools attached to the robots’ wrists.

A surgeon operating a control console with a PC provided a stereo headset display for surgeons to see what they were doing, along with a foot pedal to engage or disengage surgeon hand movements from the surgical tools’ movements. The first surgery on a live pig included a human surgeon standing alongside the humanoid robot as an assistant, while the second operation featured two teleoperated robots working together.

But the experiment also revealed current limitations in using humanoid robots for teleoperated surgery. The team had to pause for several minutes at a time during the surgery to recalibrate the robots for accuracy or to physically move the robot body or arm into the proper position relative to the medical instruments. That meant the surgery took “much longer than when performed with existing specialized surgical systems,” according to UC San Diego Today.

The compact body of the Unitree G1 robot with an arm span of just 450 millimeters—compared to a range of 1.6 to 1.8 meters for an adult human—also constrained the reach for remote operators. Other constraints in the robots’ range of motion combined with the need for frequent recalibration during operations to increase the cognitive and operational workloads for the surgical team, which is not ideal.

Any delay between the human operator’s controlling hand motions and the robot’s follow-on motions could also be important for future clinical scenarios involving remote-controlled surgeries. Current teleoperated humanoid robot systems usually have latencies in the hundreds of milliseconds, whereas previous studies suggest surgical robots should ideally have a latency below 150 milliseconds, the researchers wrote in their paper.

Both new surgery residents and experienced surgeons also generally performed faster on practice tasks when using the controls of da Vinci Research Kit hardware—a standard for telerobotic surgery—compared to controlling the humanoid robots.

Waiting for autonomous robots

Still, the research team is continuing to improve the teleoperated humanoid robot system while exploring future options. Michael Yip, a professor of electrical and computing engineering at UC San Diego, described the goal of creating an “autonomous surgical assistant” that could work alongside human surgeons while doing general tasks, like fetching tools or even cleaning up operating rooms.

“Remotely operated and autonomous humanoid robots have real potential for amplifying access to critical surgeries to which patients would otherwise not have access,” Yip told UC San Diego Today. “This can help address the healthcare crisis not only in the United States, but also worldwide.”

However, many leading robotics researchers agree that general-purpose robots capable of doing their work autonomously without human intervention are still a long way off—especially if they are supposed to function safely around humans.

Tech securitydevops

How GitHub gave every repository a durable owner

GitHub cleaned up its internal infrastructure by mandating a validated owner for every one of its 14,000+ repositories within 45 days.

Summary

What: Staff Security Engineer Michael Recachinas led an internal initiative to enforce repository ownership, archiving orphaned projects and establishing a clear ownership-based security model across the company.
Why it matters: Ownership is the necessary prerequisite for security at scale; without knowing who maintains a repo, automated vulnerability patching and risk management are impossible.
Takeaway: If you have unmaintained internal repos, audit them for ownership to enable automated security patching.

Original Article

Full article content is not available for inline reading.

Read the original article →

Tech aipolicy

Suspecting AI cheating, Ivy League prof ordered an in-person final; scores fell 50%

A Brown University professor canceled take-home exams after AI cheating caused the average final exam score to plummet from 96 to 48.

Summary

What: Economics professor Roberto Serrano observed an average score of 96 on a take-home midterm with many perfect scores, which he suspects were AI-generated. After switching the final to an in-person format, the class average dropped by 50%.
Why it matters: This incident highlights the growing tension between academic assessment models and the ease with which generative AI can bypass traditional homework-based evaluation.

Original Article

Ivy League college students are, by definition, intelligent. They don’t need to use generative AI to cheat on exams; they could just learn the material. But they also tend to be competitive, ambitious, and overscheduled, so AI can look like an easy shortcut that makes more time in their lives for things that can’t be done by a chatbot. When the pressure is on, which approach do they choose?

A new scandal at Brown University reveals that huge numbers of these students are likely to cheat.

Record scores

A recent survey of Princeton students found that 29.9 percent admitted to cheating with AI on at least one exam or assignment. But the situation at Brown gives us a better sense of what this kind of cheating looks like in one particular class—and just how much it may be substituting for actual learning. And we know all this because the blind economics professor at the center of it all, Roberto Serrano, is not letting it go.

In just the last week, Serrano—who was born in Spain—has told his story to El País and Inside Higher Ed, which have both run significant pieces on the scandal.

The story that Serrano told them begins in December 2025, when a gunman attacked Brown’s campus and killed two people, including one who had recently introduced herself to Serrano.

Shaken by the experience, Serrano decided that his spring 2026 section of the quite difficult ECON 1170 would allow take-home exams for both the midterm and the final. Suddenly, the course received an influx of students. El País has the story:

The course… typically attracts few students, but very good ones. [Serrano] has never had more than 30 students enrolled at a time, and on some occasions he had only eight. This semester, probably because of the new evaluation system, 86 students signed up for the class. The results of the midterm exam, which was administered on March 5, were extraordinary, with an average score of 96 out of 100. Forty students scored a perfect 100.

This was indeed extraordinary, because as Serrano told Inside Higher Ed, “Historically the average grade in the midterm of this course has ranged between 65 and 80 [percent], and this exam was harder than the exams I wrote in the past, because… take-home is an opportunity to challenge the class a little bit more, given that you’re giving the students unlimited time.”

Beyond the numbers, many of the answers, even when correct, felt slightly off. They had a “very convoluted style,” Serrano said. When he and his grad students ran the exam questions through ChatGPT, they received similar results.

A suspicious Serrano decided that he would make the final exam in-person; he would see if students did similarly well on it. He emailed his class, telling them, “I am not declaring [the midterm] void for now. I am going to give the class a chance to prove me wrong. That is, if the distribution of the final exam is roughly similar to the distribution of the midterm, I will count the midterm. Otherwise, which is of course what I expect to happen, I will declare the midterm void and reweigh the final accordingly.”

Eighteen students suddenly dropped the course, while nine others didn’t even attend the final exam. Of those 27 students, El País noted, “22 had scored a perfect 100 in the midterm exam.”

Among those who took the test, the average score plunged—from 96 all the way down to 48.

A failed society?

The professor was horrified by what appeared to be massive cheating in his course—cheating that was preventing most of the students from learning the material.

Serrano comes across as someone with no inclination to coddle elite students. His attitude may be traceable in part to his own childhood, in which he went blind from retinal dystrophy at age 17 and had to make a choice about what the rest of his life would look like. From El País:

After a short-lived crisis, he decided [blindness] would not stop him. He learned Braille, and his excellent academic record opened up the doors of Harvard. “Of course it affects my life, but one shouldn’t over-dramatize. We economists understand reality as a set of people responding to optimization problems with restrictions. I view my disease simply as one more restriction that I have to deal with, and I optimize based on that,” he says.

As a university, Brown is grappling with hard questions about AI use at the moment. It recently released a provost-led report on “Generative AI in Teaching and Learning,” which found that it’s not just professors who have concerns.

Even though “56 percent of undergraduate respondents [at Brown] and 67 percent of graduate and medical student respondents reported intentionally using GenAI tools daily or weekly,” the report notes that large majorities of students also have “concerns about the impact of GenAI use on their learning” and a “fear of negative consequences for their cognitive capacity.”

Serrano shares those concerns, and he wants universities as a whole to stand up for human thought. That’s why he’s not letting this story go, despite what he contends is a fairly tepid reaction from Brown administrators.

“We cannot afford to have a society in which a significant fraction of our best young minds think that cheating is okay,” he told Inside Higher Ed. “That leads to a declining society, to a failed society.

“We cannot choose to become idiots.”

Tech aipolicy

Introducing Plan A

The AI Futures Project proposed 'Plan A,' a theoretical regulatory roadmap involving US-China cooperation to avert a disastrous AI intelligence explosion.

Summary

What: The proposal calls for a trustless regulatory regime where the US and China track all high-end chips, mandate their use in transparent data centers, and enforce a controlled release of model capabilities until alignment research matures by 2040.
Why it matters: This framework suggests that geopolitical stability and AI safety are inextricably linked, arguing that the primary risk is not just the AI itself but the arms-race-driven incentive to ignore safety.

Decoder

  • Intelligence explosion: A hypothetical scenario where an AI system repeatedly improves its own design, leading to a superintelligent entity that far exceeds human capabilities.

Original Article

Full article content is not available for inline reading.

Read the original article →

Tech aillmenterpriseinfrastructure

Ways to think about token pricing

The current AI infrastructure build-out shows strong signs of becoming a low-margin commodity market rather than a high-margin monopoly.

Summary

What: Analyst Benedict Evans argues that despite the massive current demand, AI token pricing will likely mirror the commoditization seen in broadband and cellular data, where value migrates up the stack to software layers rather than remaining with the underlying infrastructure providers.
Why it matters: This suggests that the 'frontier model' business model may struggle to achieve long-term pricing power unless unique network effects or proprietary integration barriers emerge, which are currently not visible in the competitive landscape.

Deep Dive

  • Infrastructure capex is surging but current demand is narrow, primarily driven by software development use cases.
  • Inference currently holds 40-50% gross margins, but these are unstable and don't account for the massive fixed costs of recurring model training.
  • The current market structure is more comparable to mobile data evolution than the fixed-cost fiber deployments of the dot-com era.
  • There is no evidence of winner-takes-all network effects among frontier labs, leading to high-end commoditization.
  • The future of value capture depends on whether models act as plug-and-play utilities or if they can integrate deeply enough to replace traditional SaaS "wrappers".
  • Geopolitical factors like potential regulation from the US or China could significantly alter the current free-market trajectory of model development.

Decoder

  • Capex (Capital Expenditure): Funds used by a company to acquire or upgrade physical assets like data centers, servers, and GPUs.
  • Inference: The process of running a trained AI model to make predictions or generate content, which consumes significant compute resources per token.
  • Frontier Model: The most capable, largest-scale AI models developed by labs like OpenAI, Anthropic, or Meta that define the current state-of-the-art.
  • Token: The basic unit of text that models process; pricing is generally based on the number of these units processed (input/output).

Original Article

Ways to think about token pricing

There are only two things you can say with certainty about token prices: we’re in a supply crunch, and this is unstable. All of the variables are in play, and the market will get shaken out over the next few years to arrive at a new equilibrium. Right now we have a lot of frantic analysis of ‘time to power’, but the question at the end of that remains whether the foundation models have sustainable pricing power, strategic leverage and value capture, or whether they become low-margin commodity infrastructure providers. At the moment, I think every dynamic we can see points to the latter.

Clearly, the situation today is transitory. On the supply side, a trillion dollars or more of data centre capex is coming down the pipe, inference efficiency continues to improve very quickly, and new models are far more (or far less!) efficient in their token use. On the demand side, although the market has been capacity-constrained since 2022, the crunch in the first half of this year has been driven by sudden product-market fit in really just one use case, software development, and that’s actually a pretty small field. We don’t know what the next use-cases to scale will be, nor when that would be, nor what their token needs would be.

Going up a level, it’s been pretty widely reported that inference today has 40-50% gross margins: this includes deprecation of the associated server costs (or the cost of renting them), but we don’t really know the asset life and obviously this doesn’t include the cost of training the next model a couple of times a year, which is currently far larger than revenue. In principle, inference is a marginal cost and training is a fixed cost, so with high enough revenue you can reach profitability, but we don’t know how training costs will change. On the other side of the table, it’s unclear how much of the surge in use in the last few months has an ROI (or at least has an ROI that can be quantified to a CFO), let alone any future use cases, and hence what prices people might be prepared to pay for them.

So, all the variables will move all over the place over the next 12 months, and move again over the next three to five years. How could we suggest where this will settle? How and where will supply, demand, price, capacity and capex get back into equilibrium?

In theory, you can model this bottom-up. You can make some assumptions around each of the variables I suggested above, and then try to model out how many chips there are now, how many chips with what performance the semis industry might be able to deliver when, and how fast all of that can be brought online in data centers and how fast those can be powered. Then you can wonder about price discipline, and make some guesses about use cases. This will get you a number, but it will be rather like trying to build a five-year forecast for the broadband market in 1998: the spreadsheet will be very pretty, and you might even get close to the right number for this year, but there are too many unknown variables to make a useful forecast of a longer-term market structure.

In other words, we can say that token price is a function of supply and demand at a level between the sellers’ marginal cost and the buyers’ ROI, but we don’t actually know what supply, demand, marginal cost or ROI will be.

The other approach is to look from the top down: how do things like this tend to play out? What are the building blocks, and where can they go? Most of this conversation depends on what happens to this curve.

First, how many people will pay to be at the top right of the curve - to be at the frontier? At one extreme there are already use cases that already work just fine with a small, old, perhaps open source model that runs for ‘free’ on-prem or on your phone; at the other extreme there will be some that get better results from the latest, most expensive frontier model, consuming lots of tokens for lots of money; and then there will be many that are somewhere in between. So, how many use cases get better results from going how far up the cost curve, and how many have an ROI for that, and how much of the use is handled by models that are smaller, cheaper, good ‘enough’ and much more commoditised? The Panglossian view is that ROI might go up with more expensive frontier models because they have better results, but where does that really apply?

Second, does the frontier keep moving significantly? This is obviously the most basic science question in AI: how long does the frontier keep getting better, how long does that keep needing more and more compute, and does that continue to happen at a rate that keeps it ahead of downward pricing pressure from efficiency and capacity gains? Does the expensive head of the curve continue to be a thing?

Third, will there still be fierce competition between frontier models? Does the field shrink to fewer and fewer frontier models, perhaps with network effects emerging? Do frontier models diverge, with different models having much clearer leads in different fields? That could be another path to sustainable pricing power. Or do we continue with a mid-single-digit number of companies that are all making frontier models that all have generally equivalent capabilities? At the moment, everyone is using mostly the same science and mostly the same training data, and getting mostly the same results, and we don’t yet know of a network effect or any other winner-takes-all effect that would let one company pull ahead, stay ahead, and do things that others could not, in some sustainable way. Does that change?

Fourth, how much of the value from those high-end use cases is captured by the frontier model itself? How much needs to be wrapped in tooling, process, proprietary data, go-to-market, networks, support, and everything else associated with a traditional software company, even if you do need the big expensive frontier model underneath? Can that model do the whole thing, or is the model, no matter how good, still a piece of infrastructure that you use to make the actual product? At the extreme, can the model itself invent and make all of those things, and would that let them charge by seat, by outcome or just take the profit? Or do even (or especially) the most sophisticated and high-value use-cases need to sit inside hundreds of new companies that can pick and choose which models to use?

None of these are binaries: they're all a question of degree, and they'll probably vary quite a lot by use case. But at one extreme, there are two or three giant minds that run half of everything and have massive pricing power, and at the other extreme LLMs look like databases - there’ll be millions of them, some very big and some very small, and the value is in what you build on top - after all, every SaaS company is a ’database wrapper’. There’s a future in which Anthropic (or a company we haven’t heard of yet) wins the whole thing and can set its own terms, and a future in which dozens of routers run real-time auctions to allocate your tasks across hundreds of low-margin model-farms and a benchmark company takes a fee on every single one.

I don’t think anyone can actually know the answer yet. I’ve said “we don’t know” a lot, and that’s very deliberate. Part of the concept of the ‘S Curve’ is that there’s a stage early in the emergence of a new technology where it’s clear that this is going to be huge but nothing else is clear at all. There are places where you can take a view, but we should presume there are big questions that we can’t see yet, let alone answer, and anyone picking one of the ten possible outcomes we can see and saying “it will be that one!” is just guessing.

Meanwhile, there is structural uncertainty at the early stages of every big new technology, but the uncertainty now is different, because we don’t have a good theoretical understanding of why these models work so well and so we don’t know how much better they can get. Next month a new approach could cut inference compute needs by 90%, or double demand, or both.

All of this has people hunting for patterns to recognise. It has become common to draw comparisons with fiber, which had a massive overbuild in the Dotcom bubble that looks a bit like the infrastructure build-out today. The narrow problem with that is that fiber construction was far ahead of demand, where AI compute construction is far behind demand. But the more relevant objection, I think, is that fiber construction was mostly fixed cost rather than marginal cost, whereas growth in compute needs means you need to buy more compute.

That makes mobile data a more fruitful comparison here. Mobile networks have marginal cost for capacity, and like AI they had an enormous surge in usage 15 years ago, that overwhelmed capacity and had carriers scrambling to add capacity and rebalance their pricing. Meanwhile, selling bits looks superficially similar to selling tokens: it's an opaque measure of marginal cost that doesn't map in any transparent or intuitive way to use cases or value, and needs to be replaced with bundles of some kind. But most importantly, in the last 20 years cellular data traffic has risen by several orders of magnitude, and this has become an enormous industry, with annual revenue of a trillion dollars and capex of $200 billion, but the stocks have gone nowhere, and all the value was captured by other people further up the stack. This, of course, is one of the core questions for AI: is this going to be low-margin commodity infrastructure with all the value captured by other people further up the stack?

Semiconductor manufacturing also has echoes of AI, since unlike cellular it has something of the same escalating cost and complexity that we see in foundation models. Rock's Law pointed out that the cost of a cutting edge fab doubles every four years: over time the frontier of semiconductors become so hard and so expensive that the number of players dropped from dozens to a handful and now really only one, TSMC. That’s another core question for AI: will this get so hard and so expensive that only a couple of people can do it, even without network effects? Equally, many semiconductor uses are further back along the same kind of price/performance curve I just discussed for AI. Even here, though, while TSMC has a de facto monopoly on the frontier, and nice margins, it doesn't actually capture a large share of value from the broader tech economy.

There are plenty of other comparisons one could make here: in the last six months Sam Altman has compared OpenAI both to Windows, a high-margin capital-light monopoly based on network effects, and electricity utilities, which are natural monopolies but also low-margin regulated utilities selling a pure commodity. One could also point to cloud (three leading players with good margins and clearly distinguished propositions, but again limited value-capture). But none of these have predictive value: analogies don’t have predictive value. Everything is different: bits, tokens and transistors are different, each of these examples are different from each other, and AI will be different too.

However, these examples do tell us, empirically, that something can be very important, very expensive, change the world, and be full of very sophisticated science and engineering, and yet have a wide range of possible outcomes. There isn’t one inevitable path here: you can have price equilibrium at high margins and at low margins, and with and without market concentration, and you can’t hand-wave that away by talking about AGI.

However, if one thread in everything I've written above is how much we don’t yet know, the other thread is that every path to foundation models having market dominance, strategic leverage, value capture, winner-takes-all effects, or anything else other than becoming commodity infrastructure, requires something to change.

Maybe frontier models will become less competitive - yet in the last six months, Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk jumped from zero back onto the leaderboards. Maybe network effects will emerge. Maybe chatbots can grow into products and don’t need to be wrapped in software. Maybe one lab will start out-executing all the others and pull ahead on sheer product dynamism. Maybe something else will happen.

In particular, we have not one but two potential dei ex machina - Trump and China. China is reportedly considering regulating open source and some people close to Trump have floated this as well, and export controls could expand and become systematic. Many people see the pleas for regulation from Anthropic and (sometimes) OpenAI as a front for regulatory capture, but either way, we can’t presume this will remain an entirely free market.

Even so, that brings me back to the same point: the current market dynamics point to a future in which, as today’s supply crunch eases, frontier models move towards becoming commodity infrastructure, with all of the value built on top, and for a different outcome, something needs to happen that we don’t see yet.

AI web

OpenAI Retired Atlas

OpenAI is shutting down its dedicated Atlas browser, opting to embed agentic browsing features directly into Chrome and the ChatGPT desktop application instead.

Summary

What: OpenAI is discontinuing the Atlas browser project to prioritize agentic browsing capabilities integrated into the ChatGPT desktop app and a new Chrome extension. This strategy follows a directive from former applications lead Fidji Simo to reduce side projects, aligning with similar moves like the closure of the Sora video tool.
Why it matters: This shift suggests OpenAI has concluded that specialized browsers are unlikely to displace incumbents like Chrome, and that AI agents provide more value as utility features within existing workflows rather than as standalone destinations.

Deep Dive

  • OpenAI is sunsetting its standalone AI browser, Atlas.
  • Features are being moved to the ChatGPT desktop app and a new Chrome extension.
  • The browser extension allows users to query page content, summarize, and manage tasks directly in the browser.
  • The desktop app now includes an improved browser capable of logging into accounts and handling file downloads.
  • A remote cloud browser backend is being used to run agentic tasks asynchronously.

Decoder

  • Agentic browsing: A capability where an AI model can interact with websites autonomously, such as navigating pages, filling out forms, or extracting data to complete complex tasks.

Original Article

OpenAI is sunsetting Atlas, the AI-powered browser it launched in October with ChatGPT at its core. But it’s not giving up on the idea that AI should help people browse the web. Instead, it’s taking some of the agentic browsing features it tested in Atlas and redistributing them across ChatGPT’s desktop app and a Google Chrome extension.

The move to shut down Atlas comes a few months after OpenAI’s former CEO of applications Fidji Simo told the team to cut back on “side quests,” which led to the AI firm shutting down its AI video-generation tool Sora.

For much of the past year, the AI industry had been engaged in a war to unseat Chrome as the place where people spend most of their time online. Perplexity launched Comet, The Browser Company launched Dia, and Google and Microsoft have updated Chrome and Edge, respectively, with new AI-powered features.

After a few months of experimenting, OpenAI appears to have concluded that the browser is a feature, not the destination. So it’s folding Atlas’ browser-like agent capabilities into the places people already work — and that includes Chrome.

OpenAI is launching a ChatGPT extension on Chrome that gives it access to the context of the page you’re viewing, lets users ask questions about web pages, summarize content, or start longer tasks all from the browser. It’s a direct competitor to Google’s Gemini Side Panel, which performs several of the same tasks.

OpenAI is also boosting its ChatGPT desktop app by featuring a more robust browser that allows users to browse websites, log into accounts, download files, and interact with web pages without leaving ChatGPT. A separate cloud browser runs remotely on OpenAI’s servers as a place where the app’s agents can complete tasks on a user’s behalf.

Together, the updates turn ChatGPT into a continuous workspace that spans Chrome, the desktop app, and an AI agent.

AI enterprise

ChatGPT Work

OpenAI has launched ChatGPT Work, a GPT-5.6-powered workspace that integrates team tools to automate document, spreadsheet, and presentation creation.

Summary

What: ChatGPT Work is a workspace environment that gathers context from various team tools and interacts directly with desktop applications and local files.
Why it matters: This marks a move from general chatbot interactions toward agentic workflows embedded within enterprise productivity stacks.

Original Article

ChatGPT Work is a GPT-5.6-powered workspace that gathers context from team tools and acts across files and desktop applications. It was designed to turn fragmented project materials into finished documents, spreadsheets, and presentations.

AI startupfintech

Mercor is in talks for a $20B valuation

AI training startup Mercor is eyeing a $20 billion valuation despite earlier 2026 legal and data security hurdles.

Summary

What: Mercor is in early talks to double its valuation to $20 billion, following a $10 billion valuation last October. CEO Brendan Foody reports an annualized revenue run rate of $2 billion, while the company just acquired Deeptune to bolster its AI agent training capabilities.
Why it matters: The rapid revenue growth suggests the firm successfully navigated a difficult start to 2026, including lawsuits and a major data breach, by pivoting toward enterprise-scale AI training.

Decoder

  • Annualized revenue run rate: A financial metric that extrapolates a company's most recent monthly or quarterly revenue to project its total revenue over a full year, assuming current performance remains constant.

Original Article

Mercor is in talks for a $20B valuation

AI training startup Mercor is reportedly in talks to raise a round at a $20 billion valuation, sources tell Bloomberg. That would be quite a jump from its last value in October, when it raised a $350 million Series C at a $10 billion valuation.

The conversations for this latest round are at early stages, the outlet noted, yet it reported that Mercor told investors it already received a term sheet at the new valuation. This report also comes as founder-CEO Brendan Foody took to X to say the company’s annualized revenue run rate crossed $2 billion, a 100% increase from just four months ago.

Mercor also announced on Thursday that it was buying Deeptune, a company that helps train AI agents. The entire Deeptune team will be joining Mercor as part of the acquisition, per its press release. The revenue numbers, acquisition, and potential new funding signal that Mercor may have put its bumpy early 2026 troubles behind it. Earlier this year, the company suffered a data breach and several of its contract workers filed lawsuits, Business Insider reported.

AI policyresearch

Anthropic appoints former Fed Chair Ben Bernanke to its independent trust

Former Fed Chair Ben Bernanke has joined Anthropic's independent board trust to help the company navigate AI's long-term economic impacts.

Summary

What: Anthropic appointed Ben Bernanke to its Long-Term Benefit Trust, an independent body that selects the company's board members. Bernanke, known for leading the Federal Reserve during the 2008 financial crisis, will advise on AI's systemic economic challenges.
Why it matters: This appointment signals Anthropic's intent to treat AI development as a macroeconomic stability issue, positioning its governance structure to appeal to regulators ahead of a planned IPO.

Decoder

  • Long-Term Benefit Trust: A unique corporate governance mechanism used by Anthropic, consisting of independent members who hold no equity and serve to oversee the company's mission to ensure AI safety, independent of shareholder pressure.

Original Article

  • Anthropic on Thursday announced it has appointed Ben Bernanke, former chair of the Federal Reserve, to its Long-Term Benefit Trust.
  • The trust is Anthropic's independent governance structure that advises the company and appoints its board members.
  • Members of the trust do not hold any equity in Anthropic.

Anthropic on Thursday announced that it has appointed Ben Bernanke, the former chair of the Federal Reserve, to its Long-Term Benefit Trust, the company's independent governance structure that advises the company and appoints its board members.

Bernanke served as Federal Reserve chairman from 2006 to 2014, having succeeded the late Alan Greenspan. Not long after taking office, he found himself in the middle of the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression when the financial crisis hit in 2008. Part of his legacy was taking the Fed into the realm of zero interest rates and quantitative easing.

After leaving the Fed, he served in several capacities at organizations including the Brookings Institution, Citadel and Pimco. In 2022, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics for research on Great Depression causes.

In his role as a member of Anthropic's Long-Term Benefit Trust, Bernanke will help the company understand how AI is changing the economy, according to a blog post.

Anthropic has created a unique governance structure to try to ensure that the long-run benefits of AI for humanity far outweigh the risks, Bernanke said in a statement. I am honored to have this opportunity, and I will try to contribute in any way I can to this critical mission.

Anthropic was founded in 2021 by a group of researchers and executives who defected from OpenAI. The company is valued at $965 billion, and it's gearing up for a potentially massive IPO that could take place as soon as this year.

Bernanke is the fourth member of Anthropic's Long-Term Benefit Trust, joining alongside Neil Buddy Shah, CEO of the Clinton Health Access Initiative, Richard Fontaine, a national security expert, and Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar, an international affairs expert who the company appointed in January.

Members of the trust do not hold any equity in Anthropic, and are paid exclusively for their time and service, Anthropic said. Existing trustees select new members in consultation with the company.

DevOps ai

The 4-body problem of SRE: Why autonomous operations depend on context

Autonomous SRE requires a unified knowledge graph to move beyond fragmented system silos and opaque automation.

Summary

What: Sanjeev Sharma, Field CTO at StackGen, outlines the '4-Body Problem' of SRE: the disconnect between code, infrastructure state, runtime signals, and institutional knowledge. He argues that reliable agents depend on a unified, versioned knowledge graph and auditable decision traces.
Why it matters: This highlights the shift from viewing AI as a 'miracle' solution to realizing that agent reliability is strictly bounded by the quality and integration of the underlying operational data.

Deep Dive

  • The 4-Body Problem: Operational decisions require correlating Code, Infrastructure State, Runtime Signals, and Operational Knowledge.
  • People Putty: The historical reliance on senior engineers' tribal knowledge to connect these disparate silos.
  • Foundational Substrate: Building a real-time, versioned knowledge graph is the prerequisite for reliable autonomous SRE.
  • Decision Traces: Trust is built by providing a durable audit record of agent inputs, policies, model versions, and reasoning.
  • Production Strategy: Embed agents within the development loop to prevent incidents, rather than just automating post-incident response.

Original Article

What a room full of senior SREs confirmed about the trust gap, and where the actual work begins

I spent a day last week at an event in Bengaluru asking a room full of senior SREs, platform engineers, and engineering leaders a single unglamorous question: where does AI SRE actually stand right now?

When you put that to people who run real systems (not analysts, not vendors doing demos) you don’t get a tidy story about recovery times dropping. You get agent failure horror stories. You get a hard look at stale runbooks and institutional memory that lives in three engineers’ heads. And you get teams who are all somewhere on a ladder from “AI assists me” to “AI acts on its own,” none of them entirely sure what it takes to climb.

Across the discussions, panels, and hallway conversations, the same theme kept resurfacing: AI’s biggest challenge in operations isn’t model capability. It’s context.

The framework I kept returning to throughout the day is something I’ve started calling SRE’s 4-Body Problem. Here’s what it is, and why I think it explains both the promise and the limits of autonomous operations today.

Why operations is a four-variable problem

A few years ago, I sat on an incident bridge at two in the morning with eight vendors on the line, a 200-row RACI spreadsheet, and every party showing green dashboards for their own slice of the world.

Two cloud vendors blamed each other. One orchestration vendor dropped off the call the moment it heard a competitor’s cloud was in scope. The actual root cause was hiding in a subcontracted network telemetry stream that nobody had integrated into anyone’s observability.

That night taught me two things: no single party has the whole picture, and no human (however senior) can hold the whole picture at 2:07 a.m.

Every meaningful decision in operations requires reasoning across four tightly coupled bodies of truth at once:

  • Code: Every commit, PR, branch, build artifact, version, and configuration change. What was deployed, when, and what was different from yesterday?
  • Infrastructure state: The actual, current shape of cloud accounts, networks, Kubernetes clusters, queues, databases, and IAM policies. What does Terraform say should be there, and what is actually there, right now?
  • Runtime signals: Metrics, logs, traces, events, error budgets, SLOs, and customer-impacting alerts. What is the system doing right this second, and when did it start behaving differently?
  • Operational knowledge: The tribal wisdom, post-mortems, architectural decision records, on-call playbooks, the “we tried that in 2022 and took out the region,” the runbooks, the Slack threads that explained why a thing is the way it is.

Each body, in isolation, is mostly solved (Git, Terraform, your observability stack, Confluence). The problem is that every real decision sits at the intersection of all four, and the intersection is where we have historically had no system at all.

Like the three-body problem in physics, adding the fourth mass doesn’t make it incrementally harder; it makes the dynamics qualitatively different. The only thing that has ever navigated it reliably is a handful of senior engineers whose brains track all four bodies simultaneously: expensive, scarce, and gone every two years.

We hold the gap together with what I’ve started calling “people putty”: tribal knowledge in a few heads, and runbooks that drift stale the moment the next infra change lands. Almost every session that day was, underneath, a story about people putty failing under load.

What the day confirmed

The conversations throughout the day became a tour of the four bodies and the trust gap between them.

Discussions kept returning to the root-cause problem that sits at the heart of autonomous operations.

The questions they worked were the ones that decide whether any of this is real in production:

  • How far can you actually trust an agent to run an automated RCA?
  • How completely does that trust depend on the quality of the data the agent reasons over?

The recurring shape of the war room is the bridge call I described: the answer is rarely in the body you’re staring at. Faster RCA isn’t a smarter-dashboard problem. It’s a cross-body correlation problem. Agents should erase the war room not by paging faster, but by having SLO-anchored RCA hypotheses ready before the first human even joins the bridge.

The conversation around agent failure stories surfaced what no product deck includes:

  • Agents that confidently fix the wrong thing.
  • Agents that demo beautifully and fall apart against a real, messy incident.
  • Agents whose reasoning you can’t reconstruct afterward.

When the context an agent reasons over is fragmented, it doesn’t just fail. It plausibly fails, which is the kind of error that survives review.

The discussions about operational knowledge and trust repeatedly pointed in the same direction. Stale runbooks are arguably worse than none, because they invite confident, wrong action. And the broader trajectory was equally clear: most organizations are somewhere between copilots and autopilots.

Almost everyone is mid-climb. The question is what earns you the next rung.

The substrate comes before the agents

Here’s the conclusion I keep arriving at, and the room largely shared it: the bottleneck isn’t model quality.

You can’t put an agent on top of four siloed, mutually-suspicious systems and expect reliability. An agent is only as good as the context it can reason over. Fragmented context produces hallucination, often the plausible kind.

So the foundational work isn’t buying agents. It’s building the substrate they read and write against: a unified, real-time knowledge graph of all four bodies and the edges between them. The value is in the edges:

A commit changes a service. Terraform provisions new infrastructure. Kubernetes rolls out the deployment. OpenTelemetry traces begin showing increased latency while Prometheus records SLO burn. The graph connects those events with a similar incident six months earlier and the remediation that resolved it.

The graph has to be active, because yesterday’s view isn’t today’s world. And it has to be versioned, because every agent decision is made against a specific snapshot, and you’ll need to replay it.

Without the graph, agents are slick demos. With it, they become possible: reasoning across all four bodies, acting within policy and blast-radius limits, and writing every result back so the next loop is better.

Trust is a decision trace

If the substrate is the graph, the thing that earns trust on top of it is auditability.

The failure mode is real: a lot of impressive “autonomy” is a script with an LLM in the middle, where the prompt was different last Tuesday, the model version bumped on Thursday, and nobody captured the input context. That’s not production autonomy. It’s opaque automation whose behavior can’t be reliably reproduced or audited.

The non-negotiable architectural commitment is the decision trace. For every action an agent takes, you need a durable record of:

  • The inputs it saw (which snapshot of the graph)
  • The policies in effect at the time
  • The model version used
  • The hypotheses it considered and rejected
  • The action it took, and the outcome

This isn’t a compliance nicety. It’s exactly what your CISO, your risk officer, and your regulator will ask for the first time an agent does something interesting in production. Autonomy you can’t defend is autonomy you don’t actually have.

This is also where the much-hyped metrics conversation finally fits. When agents reason over the four bodies continuously, embedded in the path rather than writing the post-mortem after it, incidents get rarer, and 2 a.m. pages become the exception. The number worth watching shifts from how fast you recover toward how often you never had a bad night. But that’s a consequence of getting the substrate and the traces right. It’s not where you start.

The path

So how do you get from eight-vendor bridge calls to autonomous operations? Two principles.

  • Treat operations as data. Stop letting code, infrastructure state, runtime signals, and operational knowledge live as four siloed, mutually-suspicious stacks. Integrate them into a unified knowledge graph you can query, version, and reason over. Agents come next, not first. Without that substrate, no agent will be trustworthy enough to put in the critical path.
  • Embed agents in the path to production, not after it. “Human does the work, agent writes the post-mortem” isn’t autonomy; it’s dictation. Agents have to reason over code, Infrastructure as Code, Kubernetes state, OpenTelemetry telemetry, Prometheus metrics, and operational memory as a continuous loop (one that makes incidents rarer in the first place), and every decision they take has to add a trace that makes the next decision better.

Will we reach fully autonomous operations in 2026? No. But the trajectory is clear, and it doesn’t scale with more humans. It scales with better context and trustworthy agents acting on it.

Don’t start with the agents. Start with the graph. Start with the four bodies. The agents will follow, and when they do, they will actually work.

Design startupai

Lovable is Reportedly in Talks to Raise $300M at a $13.2bn Valuation

Swedish 'vibe-coding' startup Lovable is reportedly in talks to double its valuation to $13.2 billion after reaching $500 million in annualized revenue.

Summary

What: Lovable, founded by Anton Osika and Fabian Hedin, is reportedly seeking a $300 million investment at a $13.2 billion valuation, a significant jump from its $6.6 billion valuation in December 2025. The platform, which allows non-technical users to build apps via text prompts, has grown rapidly to $500 million in ARR with a team of 146.
Why it matters: This indicates a massive influx of capital into the 'vibe-coding' category, where investors are betting that natural-language interfaces will replace traditional software development lifecycles, despite ongoing concerns about the security and reliability of AI-generated code.

Decoder

  • Vibe-coding: A colloquial term for using AI tools to build software through conversational prompts rather than traditional syntax-based programming.

Original Article

TL;DR

Swedish vibe-coding startup Lovable is reportedly in talks to raise $300m at a $13.2bn valuation, per Sifted, roughly double its $6.6bn Series B valuation from December. The company has passed $500m in annualised revenue with about 146 staff. The round is still under discussion, and the sky-high figure rides an AI-funding wave amid unresolved vibe-coding security concerns.

Lovable, the Swedish vibe-coding startup, is in talks to raise $300m at a $13.2bn post-money valuation, Sifted reports, citing two people familiar with the deal. The figure would roughly double the $6.6bn valuation it commanded at its $330m Series B in December.

The round is still under discussion rather than done, so the numbers could shift, and Lovable declined to comment. Sifted’s Freya Pratty and Maya Dharampal-Hornby reported the talks, which follow earlier signals in June that a raise near $12bn was in the works.

The growth behind the valuation is real enough. Lovable has surpassed $500m in annualised revenue, and reached that with just 146 staff, with roughly a million new projects now starting on it each week.

Founded in 2023 by Anton Osika and Fabian Hedin, the company lets non-technical users build apps and sites from plain-text prompts. It has become one of the buzziest names in European tech.

Its trajectory is startlingly steep, having become one of the fastest-growing software startups on record. It hit $100m in annual recurring revenue within eight months of launch, then doubled that months later.

Europe’s poster child

Lovable’s rise doubles as a rallying point for a continent often accused of underpowering its startups. Chief executive Anton Osika has argued that Europe’s AI companies suffer from a confidence problem, not a talent problem.

A $13.2bn tag would be a loud rebuttal to that pessimism. Osika shared the stage with entrepreneur Mark Cuban at the Raise summit in Paris this morning, where TNW was in attendance, giving the founder a timely platform as the raise talks swirled.

The raise would also intensify a crowded vibe-coding race, with rivals like Base44 building their own models to compete.

The category’s promise is to collapse software creation into conversation. That has drawn founders, designers, and salespeople who never wrote code, and it has drawn a torrent of investor cash chasing the next platform shift.

The caveats behind the hype

Rapid growth has come with growing pains. Lovable weathered a security episode that left projects exposed, a reminder that speed-built apps can ship real vulnerabilities.

The valuation also rides an AI-funding wave that not everyone believes is sustainable. Doubling in six months is dazzling, and precisely the kind of move that fuels bubble talk when sentiment turns.

For now, the momentum is undeniable, and a $500m revenue run-rate gives the number more grounding than most. Whether the deal closes at $13.2bn, and holds, is the question the next few months will answer.

Design aimobile

Character.AI enters the microdrama arena with its own productions, but there's a twist

Character.AI is launching AI-generated microdramas that allow adult users to chat and roleplay with the fictional characters in real-time.

Summary

What: Character.AI is debuting three AI-produced series: 'Last Summer' (romance), 'The Nighttime Game' (horror), and 'Eden Fall' (survival). Users over 18 can interact with characters, and the company plans to eventually release tools for users to create and share their own character-driven series.
Why it matters: This represents a pivot from static chatbot experiences to interactive entertainment, attempting to increase user engagement by embedding users into the narrative of the content they consume.

Decoder

  • Microdrama: Short-form, high-intensity serialized content typically designed for mobile consumption.

Original Article

Microdramas are such a rage these days that nearly every kind of company in the attention economy space — be they dedicated microdrama apps, social media giants (TikTok and Instagram) or streaming services (Peacock, Amazon Prime, and India’s JioHotstar) — is building a product to tap the opportunity.

Character.AI, which lets people chat with customized AI avatars, is also tapping this budding market by producing its own microdramas using AI characters. But there’s an interesting twist that takes advantage of the company’s core product: Users older than 18 can chat with these shows’ characters, ask them questions, and even roleplay different storylines.

The startup is launching three microdramas to start with: a romance series dubbed “Last Summer,” a horror show titled, “The Nighttime Game,” and a Hunger Games-like survival microdrama called “Eden Fall.”

Character.AI says these dramas were created using AI production tools, and in the long term, it aims to help users create their own characters and series.

“Starting with a studio-led model, c.ai Series lets our production team develop the format, refine the workflow, and understand what audiences want from Character-native Microdrama entertainment. Over time, the goal is to turn those learnings and workflows into creator tools, enabling users to make their own series from original Characters and share them with a global audience,” a company spokesperson told TechCrunch.

This is the latest in a slew of recent features from the startup following its shift toward entertainment-focused features last year. In April, it teased a tool called Lorebook that users can employ to create world-building information that characters can reference, and launched another feature called Books that lets users insert themselves into select classic literature titles, or role-play as characters from them.

The company said on Thursday that it is also testing a feature, dubbed c.ai FM, that will let users put together audio series, and another that lets you create fiction, called c.ai Reads. The audio series feature is currently available to select users under its experimental c.ai Labs program, which the company says professional writers are using to create serialized audio dramas.

There’s certainly an audience for this form of entertainment. Users spent more than 950 minutes on Character.AI each month in the first half of 2026, according to Sensor Tower.

Design aimobile

Google Photos can now turn your ordinary videos into AI-generated works of art

Google Photos is introducing 'Video Remix', a Gemini-powered tool that converts short video clips into stylized artistic works using AI effects.

Summary

What: The feature allows users to transform videos up to 10 seconds long using templates for styles like watercolor, oil painting, and cinematic relighting. It is currently rolling out to Google AI Plus, Pro, and Ultra subscribers.
Why it matters: Google is integrating high-compute generative AI directly into consumer utility apps to differentiate its cloud subscription tiers and keep users within the Google Photos ecosystem.

Original Article

Google Photos is adding Video Remix, a new Gemini-powered tool that transforms videos up to 10 seconds long into stylized versions using AI effects like cinematic relighting, new backgrounds, watercolor, oil painting, and sketchbook styles. Users simply choose a template from the Create tab, and Gemini generates a reimagined version of the clip in a few minutes without requiring manual editing. The feature is rolling out first to Google AI Plus, Pro, and Ultra subscribers in select countries, continuing Google's expansion of Gemini-powered creative tools in Google Photos.

Design career

How Do You Talk About the Impact of Scrapped Design Projects?

Designers can preserve evidence of their impact on scrapped projects by identifying and tracking 'signals'—observable user behaviors—before a product ever launches.

Summary

What: Designers often lose their record of impact when projects are canceled, but by collecting data from prototypes or usability tests rather than relying on revenue metrics, they create a paper trail of value that persists despite project failure.
Why it matters: Moving from lagging metrics (revenue) to leading behavioral signals allows designers to prove their worth and maintain a portfolio of success even in fast-moving, high-churn environments.
Takeaway: Start tagging and documenting user interaction behaviors in your prototypes so you have a measurable history of your impact even if the final product never reaches production.

Original Article

Designers often assume a scrapped project's impact disappears with it, but preliminary evidence exists if they defined and collected the right signals early. A signal is an observable user behavior change—visible in prototypes or usability tests, not requiring launch—that predicts whether a design achieved its intended effect. Unlike lagging metrics (revenue) or leading metrics (activation rates) that need a live product, signals can be captured before shipping, giving designers a lasting record of impact even when projects get cancelled.

Design aiweb

PPT Generator (Website)

SlidesGo is leveraging Claude Opus 4.7 to automate the generation, beautification, and conversion of presentations.

Summary

What: SlidesGo offers an AI-powered suite that can generate slide decks from text, convert PDF/Word/YouTube content into slides, and extract prompts from existing presentations.

Decoder

  • Claude Opus 4.7: A high-end large language model from Anthropic, often used for complex reasoning and creative generation tasks.

Original Article

What is SlidesGo

SlidesGo is a revolutionary AI PPT maker that transforms your ideas into polished presentations. As the most advanced AI PowerPoint generator, SlidesGo uses cutting-edge artificial intelligence to handle design, layout, and content structure. Whether you need an AIPPT solution for business or education, SlidesGo delivers professional results every time. SlidesGo is the future of presentation creation.

AI PPT Generation

Describe your presentation topic and let SlidesGo's AI PPT generator create a complete slide deck with professional layouts and compelling content. SlidesGo analyzes your requirements and generates presentations that rival those made by professional designers. Experience the power of SlidesGo today.

AI PowerPoint Beautification

Upload your existing presentations and let SlidesGo's AI PowerPoint generator enhance the design, fix layouts, and apply professional styling. SlidesGo's AIPPT technology transforms ordinary slides into stunning visual presentations. Trust SlidesGo to beautify your presentations instantly.

Speaker Notes Generation by SlidesGo

Automatically generate detailed speaker notes and talking points for each slide to help you deliver confident presentations. SlidesGo creates comprehensive notes that enhance your presentation delivery.

Real-time Preview & Edit with SlidesGo

Preview your presentation in the browser and make edits on the fly with SlidesGo. Export to PPTX when you're ready. SlidesGo makes editing presentations as easy as editing a document.

Why Choose SlidesGo as Your AI PPT Maker

Stop spending hours on slide design. SlidesGo is the smartest AI PowerPoint generator that handles the heavy lifting while you focus on your message. Our PPT generator AI delivers professional results faster than any traditional method.

Minutes, Not Hours with AI PPT Generator

Create a complete presentation deck in minutes instead of spending hours on design and formatting. SlidesGo's AI PPT maker technology generates professional slides 10x faster than manual creation. Just describe your needs and let our AI PowerPoint generator do the work.

Professional Design by AIPPT Technology

Consistent Branding with SlidesGo

Powerful AI Presentation Tools by SlidesGo

Everything you need to create, enhance, and deliver professional presentations. SlidesGo combines the best AI PPT maker features with intuitive controls, making it the ultimate AI PowerPoint generator for businesses, educators, and content creators.

Text-to-Slides with SlidesGo

Describe your presentation in plain text and get a complete slide deck with proper structure and design. SlidesGo understands your content and creates professional layouts automatically.

Smart Layouts by SlidesGo

SlidesGo's AI automatically selects the best layout for each slide based on your content type. SlidesGo analyzes your content and applies the most effective design patterns.

Chart Generation with SlidesGo

Automatically create charts and graphs from your data with professional styling using SlidesGo. SlidesGo transforms raw data into beautiful visualizations.

Image Suggestions by SlidesGo

Get relevant image suggestions for each slide to enhance visual appeal. SlidesGo recommends images that perfectly match your content and message.

Export to PPTX from SlidesGo

Download your presentation as a standard PowerPoint file compatible with all major software. SlidesGo ensures perfect compatibility with Microsoft PowerPoint, Google Slides, and Keynote.

Multi-language Support in SlidesGo

Create presentations in multiple languages with proper formatting and typography using SlidesGo. SlidesGo supports global teams with seamless multilingual presentation creation.

Frequently Asked Questions About SlidesGo

Have questions about our AI PPT generator? We have answers about SlidesGo, the leading AI PowerPoint maker.

What is SlidesGo?

How does the AI PPT generator work?

Can I edit presentations generated by the AI PPT maker?

What file formats does the AI PowerPoint generator support?

Can I upload and beautify existing presentations with SlidesGo?

Does SlidesGo's AI PPT generator create speaker notes?

Is SlidesGo better than other AI PPT makers?

How fast is the AI PPT generator?

Can I use SlidesGo for business presentations?

Start Creating with SlidesGo - The Best AI PPT Generator

Stop struggling with slide design. Let SlidesGo's AI PowerPoint generator create professional presentations for you. Join thousands of users who trust our AI PPT maker for their presentation needs. Experience the power of AIPPT technology today.

Design aienterprise

What Happens When Clients Trust AI More than Creative Expertise?

Experiential agencies report that clients increasingly prioritize AI-generated visuals over professional creative expertise, often resulting in unbuildable or impractical designs.

Summary

What: Katie Peake of agency Backlash notes that clients often arrive with polished AI renders that ignore safety, budget, and physical constraints, forcing agencies to backtrack on initial feasibility.
Why it matters: The democratization of image generation tools is causing a decoupling of 'visual polish' from 'technical viability,' pressuring agencies to defend the value of the creative process over the final aesthetic outcome.

Decoder

  • Experiential agency: A firm that specializes in creating physical activations, pop-ups, and immersive environments for brands.

Original Article

Every Monday morning we hold our company kick off meeting at Backlash. For the past ten years I've sat in this meeting listening to our teams talk through new business opportunities, live projects and the challenges that come with delivering experiential campaigns. It's one of my favourite meetings of the week because you can feel the energy when a new brief lands or a new brand reaches out to us.

Recently though, there's been a change. Almost every week, a project now starts with the same sentence "The client has created an AI visual." The reaction around the room is always the same. You can feel the excitement fade and the creative energy disappear before the brief has even been discussed. It's not because we're anti AI, like most modern creative businesses we use AI tools that help us work smarter and improve the way we deliver work.

Over the last year we've seen a growing number of both new and existing clients arrive with AI generated designs for their pop-ups already in hand. Sometimes they apologise before showing them but they're presented as the pop-up they'd like us to create.

What's mind blowing is that these images often look convincing. They look hyper real and sit in the right location with stunning architecture and perfect finishes. But these designs rarely answer the brief and as marketers we can see they're simply answers to a prompt and that's an important distinction.

An AI generated design is the conclusion of a process it never actually went through

The AI design hasn't considered the audience or got into the exploration of consumer behaviour. There has been no challenging or questioning the brief or exploration of multiple ideas that approach the brand challenge at different angles that could change consumer behaviour, create conversation or drive sales. Agencies could start to feel like it looks like the end of creative thinking. However, when we really get into it none of the creative thinking has actually happened.

A few months back a global luxury beauty brand approached us with an AI generated design for an outdoor shopping centre pop-up. Visually, it was stunning and made from towering make-up compacts stacked about seven metres high to create a structure that customers could walk through and around.

The problem was that it simply couldn't exist in the real world. Under UK health and safety regulations, and the requirements of shopping centres and public venues, the concept would never receive approval. Even if it could be engineered safely, it bore no resemblance to the client's budget or production timelines we were given to work on.

The AI hadn't solved the brief, It had ignored the constraints entirely and that's where agencies find themselves in an increasingly difficult position.

Our role now becomes explaining why the ‘wow’ exciting idea isn't possible. We're then faced with a decision if we want to redesign a concept that was never viable in the first place or lose the business entirely. If we do proceed, inevitably, we're seen as the people taking the magic away, when in reality we're the ones responsible for ensuring an activation is safe, achievable, commercially realistic and capable of delivering against the brief.

At Backlash we've always believed the physical pop-up is only half the outcome. The real value isn't the structure, the fabrication or even the beautiful designs. It's concept development. Our job is to understand the commercial objective before we ever start designing the experience. We ask the questions, Who are we trying to reach? What do we want people to feel? What behaviour are we trying to change? How does this activation get attention on social media?

Concept development can take time, typically over a few days where ideas are challenged, often getting six ideas down to two ideas that tick all the brief objectives and that's the creative process clients invest in. We are increasingly seeing brands unintentionally remove that process altogether so instead of bringing agencies a problem to solve, they're arriving with what they believe is the solution.

I don't think this is because they don't value creativity, but because AI has convinced clients that creativity can be compressed into a prompt. The worrying aspect isn't that clients are using AI but that clients are beginning to trust AI's first answer more than the expertise they're paying agencies to provide.

The biggest risk isn't to creative agencies but to brands themselves

Realistically AI isn't designed to create originality, it's designed to predict the most likely answer based on everything that already exists. If you're looking for efficiency this is a great tool to use but it doesn't work if you're trying to create something unique or different. If every brand begins its creative process with the same moodboards or trained on the same imagery, influenced by the same trends and prompted in broadly the same way, then the inevitable will start to happen as the work brands produce begin to look like variations of one another.

The brands that stand out and gain attention over the next decade won't necessarily be the ones using AI the most. They'll be the ones who know when to stop listening to AI and go back to authenticity, cultural insights and creative instinct which is something an algorithm can’t replicate.

The best pop-ups disrupt the market through authenticity and emotional connection with consumers that ultimately influence behaviour. These pop-ups generate sales because consumers experienced something that felt considered and made them feel important to the brand, not because the design looked impressive.

A beautiful design has never guaranteed an effective activation in the experiential industry. Experiential marketing has always been about creating something people haven't seen before. It's about tapping into emotions, cultural relevance and creating an experience that consumers choose to share because they feel authentic. AI has made creativity appear instant but the best experiential campaigns have never been about the fastest idea, it's always been about creating the right one.

Tech enterprisemedia

Netflix Is Exploring Live TV and Bundles as It Struggles to Keep Viewers Hooked

Netflix is considering launching live television channels and content bundles as subscriber engagement numbers begin to slide.

Summary

What: Netflix is exploring live programming and sports bundles to reverse a 40% stock decline over the last 12 months.
Why it matters: This shift marks a departure from Netflix's original pure on-demand model, as they attempt to replicate the recurring engagement of traditional cable television.

Original Article

Netflix's subscriber engagement is showing signs of decline. While the company remains the industry leader among subscription-streaming services, shares are down more than 40% over the past 12 months. Executives have started discussing adding live channels that would continuously stream certain programs to bolster engagement. They are also looking at other sports events they can add to the streaming service.

Tech enterprisepolicy

John Ternus Should Reverse Apple's Slide Down the Advertising Slippery Slope

Apple’s decision to show ads in Maps risks eroding its reputation for user privacy, potentially alienating customers who equate ads with tracking.

Summary

What: John Gruber argues that Apple should return to the standards of Tim Cook's 2014 privacy manifesto. While Apple's technical implementations for ads in Maps are privacy-first, the visual presence of ads causes users to believe they are being tracked.
Why it matters: Apple's brand relies on the perception of privacy, and visible advertising inherently conflicts with the 'you are not the product' narrative that justified Apple's premium pricing.

Original Article

John Ternus should return Apple's privacy policy to its 2014 clarity.

AI llm

GPT-5.6 Review

Early reviews of GPT-5.6 indicate substantial improvements in contextual accuracy and adaptability compared to its predecessors.

Summary

What: The model demonstrates a leap in how it handles nuance and maintains logic over longer interactions, according to early industry sentiment.
Why it matters: Incremental improvements in consistency and contextual awareness are becoming the most critical metrics for enterprise adoption of LLMs.

Deep Dive

  • GPT-5.6 outperforms previous GPT-5 iterations in language generation.
  • Contextual accuracy is noted as a key differentiator.
  • The model exhibits better adaptability for diverse industry applications.

Original Article

The review highlights GPT-5.6's significant advancements in language understanding and generation, outperforming its predecessors. It demonstrates improved contextual accuracy and adaptability across various applications. These enhancements could substantially impact AI-driven industries.

AI careerstartup

OpenAI's No. 2 Executive to Step Down in Latest Leadership Shake-Up

Fidji Simo is stepping down as a full-time OpenAI executive due to a medical condition, with her duties distributed among existing leadership.

Summary

What: Fidji Simo, the company's No. 2 executive, will transition to a part-time advisory role. Her responsibilities are being divided among Greg Brockman (President), Sarah Friar (CFO), and Jason Kwon (Chief Strategy Officer).

Original Article

OpenAI's Fidji Simo plans to step down from her role as a full-time executive after an extended medical leave. She will become a part-time adviser to the company. Her neuroimmune condition has worsened, and her road to recovery will take much longer than anticipated. Simo's product and business responsibilities will be divided among President Greg Brockman, CFO Sarah Friar, and Chief Strategy Officer Jason Kwon.

AI researchpolicy

Inviting hard questions

Anthropic is formalizing a public feedback loop to track and report how it addresses specific user concerns regarding AI's societal impact.

Summary

What: Anthropic launched an initiative to solicit and answer 'hard questions' from the public, following surveys of 52,000 Americans and 81,000 Claude users. The company plans to publicly report its progress or failure in resolving these concerns.
Why it matters: By explicitly inviting public scrutiny and creating a feedback portal, Anthropic is attempting to preemptively manage social license and regulatory risk as it scales its AI operations.
Takeaway: If you have concerns or research questions regarding AI ethics or impact, you can submit them via Anthropic’s newly launched hard questions website.

Original Article

Anthropic has invited public input on AI-related concerns, conducting surveys and focus groups to understand societal hopes and fears.

DevOps enterprise

Make the most of shift-based schedules

PagerDuty is introducing shift-based on-call schedules to handle complex, non-standard rotations more easily.

Summary

What: The update adds 'Custom Schedules' and 'Unassigned' user roles to help teams manage overlapping or irregular shift patterns without needing complex layer nesting.

Original Article

PagerDuty's Shift-Based Schedules provide flexible on-call management for complex coverage patterns, including weekday-only rotations, alternating weeks, overlapping team schedules, and temporary unavailability. New features like Custom Schedules and the Unassigned user simplify creating tailored rotations without complicated layered schedules.

DevOps securitycloud

AWS Secrets Manager adds managed external secrets support for Paddle and GitLab

AWS Secrets Manager now automatically rotates API keys for Paddle and access tokens for GitLab.

Summary

What: AWS Secrets Manager has expanded its 'managed external secrets' integration to support Paddle API keys and three varieties of GitLab access tokens (Personal, Group, and Project).
Why it matters: Extending automated rotation to third-party services like GitLab and Paddle reduces the risk of credential leakage and manual maintenance burdens for developers.
Takeaway: Navigate to the AWS Secrets Manager console to configure managed rotation for your existing Paddle or GitLab credentials.

Original Article

AWS Secrets Manager now supports managed external secret rotation for Paddle API keys and GitLab personal, group, and project access tokens, enabling automatic credential rotation through native third-party APIs.

Design frontendweb

Create Stunning Slides with Replit in Minutes (Website)

Replit has launched a presentation tool that converts existing documents into structured slide decks.

Summary

What: The feature allows users to select a document, apply a design template, and auto-generate a slide deck ready for presentation.

Original Article

Start with a doc, choose a template, and get polished, structured decks ready to present.

Design web

Studio Moara Crafts Organic Branding for Bori Cafe

Studio Moara refreshed the Bori Cafe brand identity using minimalist, organic visuals across digital and physical touchpoints.

Summary

What: The redesign focuses on earthy colors, clean typography, and consistent modular elements to improve brand recognition and usability.

Original Article

Studio Moara refreshed Bori Cafe's identity with a warm, minimalist branding system that combines earthy colors, clean typography, and organic illustrations to create a welcoming yet contemporary feel. The visual language extends consistently across digital and physical touchpoints—including cups, packaging, and signage—using simple layouts and modular elements to strengthen recognition and improve usability. The redesign demonstrates how a cohesive, strategically crafted identity can elevate a local café by making the brand feel both approachable and premium.

Design aicareer

If AI Production is Making Production Cheaper, How Can You Sell Design Thinking Instead?

As AI commoditizes visual production, designers must shift from selling execution to selling their judgment, taste, and strategic problem-solving.

Summary

What: Designers and agency founders like David Jonathan Johnston and Ian Paget argue that the value of creative work is migrating from the final visual artifact to the underlying strategic decision-making process. They advise practitioners to document their reasoning, focus on solving actual business problems, and maintain a high-level creative direction rather than competing solely on technical output.
Why it matters: This shift reflects a broader market trend where the cost of generating standard creative assets approaches zero, forcing human professionals to differentiate themselves through proprietary insight and high-level taste that AI models cannot yet replicate.
Takeaway: Start tracking your design decisions in a journal or project logs to build an articulable process that you can use to justify your value to clients beyond the final deliverable.

Deep Dive

  • The rise of automated production tools makes execution cheap, requiring designers to pivot to 'sense-making.'
  • Clients now value curiosity, storytelling, and judgment over mere technical proficiency.
  • Shift case studies from showing visual outcomes to detailing the problem-solving and decision-making process.
  • Develop 'taste' by engaging with tactile, non-digital craft like letterpress or film photography to provide depth.
  • Use AI as a tool for efficiency, but maintain manual control over final outputs to ensure quality and alignment.
  • Document rationale for every design choice to build a record of your specific aesthetic and strategic instincts.

Original Article

As AI makes production cheap, designers should sell judgment, taste, and problem-framing instead—the thinking behind the work, not just its execution.

Digest devoured!

Jul 10

Home