Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

Возникла проблема при загрузке этого видео. Это может быть связано с временными проблемами сети или видео может быть недоступно.

На главную

big AgenC //: 👾 runtime push landed today agents now run as background processes. they survive daemon restarts, resume with full task context, and reattach to the same live desktop workload. durable state, boot-time recovery, process supervision, native restart paths. ran it through runtime, desktop-server, and web tests. did... show more

tetsuo

233,201 subscribers

11,162 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Today we're launching Sailboxes: the first cloud environment purpose-built for long-horizon AI agents. Sailboxes are full machines with persistent state that auto-sleep, built for agents that live forever, priced so you only pay for what they actually use. From $0.015 per active vCPU-hour, over 70% cheaper than other providers. Under the hood: novel architecture from Nirvik Baruah and Charley Cunningham that live-migrates VMs based on actual resource usage. To show how robust it is, we ran a Minecraft server in a Sailbox and forced it to migrate every 2 minutes--players never noticed.

Today we're launching Sailboxes: the first cloud environment purpose-built for long-horizon AI agents. Sailboxes are full machines with persistent state that auto-sleep, built for agents that live forever, priced so you only pay for what they actually use. From $0.015 per active vCPU-hour, over 70% cheaper than other providers. Under the hood: novel architecture from Nirvik Baruah and Charley Cunningham that live-migrates VMs based on actual resource usage. To show how robust it is, we ran a Minecraft server in a Sailbox and forced it to migrate every 2 minutes--players never noticed.

Sail Research

68,838 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

ANTHROPIC ENGINEER JUST SHOWS EXACTLY WHAT GRAPH ENGINEERING LOOKS LIKE WHEN A TASK RUNS THROUGH IT most people arguing about graphs online have never actually watched one execute Task → Researcher → Planner → Writer + Code Agent → Reviewer → Deploy six nodes, one shared state, graph completes itself while you watch loop mode gets disabled the second the task splits into real specialties, one agent stops trying to do everything at once reviewer catches a failure, kicks it straight back to the exact node that broke - not a full restart, no lost context the graph is not a fancier loop - it is the org chart your agents were missing bookmark this and watch it run, then read the article below to see why the timeline just found what production systems already do

ANTHROPIC ENGINEER JUST SHOWS EXACTLY WHAT GRAPH ENGINEERING LOOKS LIKE WHEN A TASK RUNS THROUGH IT most people arguing about graphs online have never actually watched one execute Task → Researcher → Planner → Writer + Code Agent → Reviewer → Deploy six nodes, one shared state, graph completes itself while you watch loop mode gets disabled the second the task splits into real specialties, one agent stops trying to do everything at once reviewer catches a failure, kicks it straight back to the exact node that broke - not a full restart, no lost context the graph is not a fancier loop - it is the org chart your agents were missing bookmark this and watch it run, then read the article below to see why the timeline just found what production systems already do

leopardracer

53,328 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

I always wondered "What if I port my three.js game to Rust? Will it improve performance?" I finally ported it to both Rust Desktop and Rust WASM (that runs on the browser) Comparing the three.js version with the Rust desktop I had a clear winner: Rust desktop. But now I took the time to port it to the web using Web Assembly (WASM) And my conclusion is... A tie! Both versions averaged 42FPS (60FPS if running one at a time) So if your goal is to ship a web game, it doesn't even matter the tech you use. (Three.js is recommended because the ecossystem is huge though) As long you optmize well (Web workers, reduce triangles, draw calls, etc) you should be good to go. But in the event you want to ship a native game to publish on Steam a system language (Rust, C++, etc) will be better for you. Now I want to port the three.js game to Desktop using Electron and see the results. I'll let you know. Btw, I'm open to new freelance projects. If you have anything for me, my DMs are open!

I always wondered "What if I port my three.js game to Rust? Will it improve performance?" I finally ported it to both Rust Desktop and Rust WASM (that runs on the browser) Comparing the three.js version with the Rust desktop I had a clear winner: Rust desktop. But now I took the time to port it to the web using Web Assembly (WASM) And my conclusion is... A tie! Both versions averaged 42FPS (60FPS if running one at a time) So if your goal is to ship a web game, it doesn't even matter the tech you use. (Three.js is recommended because the ecossystem is huge though) As long you optmize well (Web workers, reduce triangles, draw calls, etc) you should be good to go. But in the event you want to ship a native game to publish on Steam a system language (Rust, C++, etc) will be better for you. Now I want to port the three.js game to Desktop using Electron and see the results. I'll let you know. Btw, I'm open to new freelance projects. If you have anything for me, my DMs are open!

André → andreelias.dev

19,531 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Stanford researchers did it again. They just built the agent-native version of Git. When an agent works on a longer task, the run builds up a lot of state. This includes files edited/created, a dev server, a database, installed packages, KV cache, etc. Say the agent is at step 10 and makes a mistake, maybe it misreads a traceback and rewrites a file that was actually fine. The tests start failing, and the run goes off track, although everything through step eight was correct. By default, the agent just tries to fix it, which creates more edits and tool calls. This burns more tokens and grows the context. The other options are a person stepping in to redirect it or restarting the whole run from step one. That's wasteful, because it pays for every model/tool call again and re-prefills the context. Moreover, since an agent's run is non-deterministic, it doesn't reproduce the same early steps anyway. The reason it's hard to just jump back exactly to a previous correct step and resume from there is that the trajectory is only a message log. It records what the agent said and which tools it called, but not the live state underneath. That state includes things like memory, open file handles, child processes, installed packages, /tmp, and KV cache. None of that is in the log. Git can version the files, but it doesn't snapshot the running process or the KV cache. Checking out step eight moves the files back, but the process is still sitting in step-ten memory with a cold cache. Shepherd is a runtime layer by Stanford that records the run as a trace of typed events rather than a flat log. Each agent-environment interaction becomes a commit, similar to Git, but it tracks the live run. Its commit includes the agent process and the filesystem together, copy-on-write, so a branch carries the actual state and not just the files. Going back to a previous step is then a single call that forks from that commit and continues from the exact state. The copy-on-write fork is roughly five times faster than docker commit, and because the prompt prefix through step eight is unchanged, the KV cache is reused over 95% on replay, so early steps aren't reprocessed again. Once the run can be forked, a meta-agent can sit on top and operate it. It watches the trace and reverts as soon as it looks wrong, before the bad write is committed. In practice, it's just Python calling fork, replay, and revert on the trace, rather than a separate control plane wired into the harness. Not everything is reversible though. Files and sandbox changes undo themselves, but a database write has no automatic undo, so it needs a matching undo step set up in advance. Something external, like a sent email or a real charge, can't be undone, so the supervisor's job there is to catch it before it fires. They tested this on a few public benchmarks. On CooperBench, where two agents work on the same codebase, adding a live supervisor took the pair-coding pass rate from 28.8% to 54.7%. It's still early and labeled alpha. The benefit mostly shows up when a run gets branched a lot over a heavy sandbox state, which is exactly where restarting wastes the most tokens and time. If Git was made to make file changes reversible, Shepherd is trying to do the same thing for a live agent run. Shepherd Repo: (don't forget to star it ⭐ ) That said, Shepherd reverts a bad step inside a run. The harness around it, the prompts, tools, and checks the supervisor relies on, still drifts across runs as models and dependencies change. Akshay wrote about making that harness repair itself, where a failing trace gets diagnosed, the fix is verified against the exact input that failed, and the failure is locked as a regression test so it can't recur. Read it below.

Stanford researchers did it again. They just built the agent-native version of Git. When an agent works on a longer task, the run builds up a lot of state. This includes files edited/created, a dev server, a database, installed packages, KV cache, etc. Say the agent is at step 10 and makes a mistake, maybe it misreads a traceback and rewrites a file that was actually fine. The tests start failing, and the run goes off track, although everything through step eight was correct. By default, the agent just tries to fix it, which creates more edits and tool calls. This burns more tokens and grows the context. The other options are a person stepping in to redirect it or restarting the whole run from step one. That's wasteful, because it pays for every model/tool call again and re-prefills the context. Moreover, since an agent's run is non-deterministic, it doesn't reproduce the same early steps anyway. The reason it's hard to just jump back exactly to a previous correct step and resume from there is that the trajectory is only a message log. It records what the agent said and which tools it called, but not the live state underneath. That state includes things like memory, open file handles, child processes, installed packages, /tmp, and KV cache. None of that is in the log. Git can version the files, but it doesn't snapshot the running process or the KV cache. Checking out step eight moves the files back, but the process is still sitting in step-ten memory with a cold cache. Shepherd is a runtime layer by Stanford that records the run as a trace of typed events rather than a flat log. Each agent-environment interaction becomes a commit, similar to Git, but it tracks the live run. Its commit includes the agent process and the filesystem together, copy-on-write, so a branch carries the actual state and not just the files. Going back to a previous step is then a single call that forks from that commit and continues from the exact state. The copy-on-write fork is roughly five times faster than docker commit, and because the prompt prefix through step eight is unchanged, the KV cache is reused over 95% on replay, so early steps aren't reprocessed again. Once the run can be forked, a meta-agent can sit on top and operate it. It watches the trace and reverts as soon as it looks wrong, before the bad write is committed. In practice, it's just Python calling fork, replay, and revert on the trace, rather than a separate control plane wired into the harness. Not everything is reversible though. Files and sandbox changes undo themselves, but a database write has no automatic undo, so it needs a matching undo step set up in advance. Something external, like a sent email or a real charge, can't be undone, so the supervisor's job there is to catch it before it fires. They tested this on a few public benchmarks. On CooperBench, where two agents work on the same codebase, adding a live supervisor took the pair-coding pass rate from 28.8% to 54.7%. It's still early and labeled alpha. The benefit mostly shows up when a run gets branched a lot over a heavy sandbox state, which is exactly where restarting wastes the most tokens and time. If Git was made to make file changes reversible, Shepherd is trying to do the same thing for a live agent run. Shepherd Repo: (don't forget to star it ⭐ ) That said, Shepherd reverts a bad step inside a run. The harness around it, the prompts, tools, and checks the supervisor relies on, still drifts across runs as models and dependencies change. Akshay wrote about making that harness repair itself, where a failing trace gets diagnosed, the fix is verified against the exact input that failed, and the failure is locked as a regression test so it can't recur. Read it below.

Avi Chawla

441,213 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

New open-source agent harness just landed! I got early access to TrueForge by TrueFoundry and have been running it locally for the past few days. The harness layer deserves as much attention as the model, and open source matters here because you can inspect the loop, run it on your own infrastructure, and swap to the latest or cheaper models. TrueForge handles the runtime work that makes an agent reliable. It drives the tool-calling loop, manages context, coordinates subagents, and executes code in a sandbox, with any model you choose. Every tool call re-sends the growing context to the model, so in practice the harness controls most of what an agent costs to run. A few things stood out from my testing and their published benchmarks. Vendor-Neutral by design. It runs OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google models alongside open-weight models like Kimi, GLM, and DeepSeek. Model routing is a setting, and you can send each task to the model that fits it. On a 14-task enterprise agent benchmark, it matched the accuracy of Claude Managed Agents running the same Opus 4.8 model at roughly 30% lower cost per run (3.8M tokens vs 10M for the same answers). Routing the same tasks to GLM-5.2 held accuracy and brought cost down by about 75%, around $3 per run instead of $12. Fully self-hosted and Open Source (MIT License). I had it running locally with one command, with sandboxed code execution working out of the box. It's time to own your agent harness. Thanks to TrueFoundry for partnering on this post.

New open-source agent harness just landed! I got early access to TrueForge by TrueFoundry and have been running it locally for the past few days. The harness layer deserves as much attention as the model, and open source matters here because you can inspect the loop, run it on your own infrastructure, and swap to the latest or cheaper models. TrueForge handles the runtime work that makes an agent reliable. It drives the tool-calling loop, manages context, coordinates subagents, and executes code in a sandbox, with any model you choose. Every tool call re-sends the growing context to the model, so in practice the harness controls most of what an agent costs to run. A few things stood out from my testing and their published benchmarks. Vendor-Neutral by design. It runs OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google models alongside open-weight models like Kimi, GLM, and DeepSeek. Model routing is a setting, and you can send each task to the model that fits it. On a 14-task enterprise agent benchmark, it matched the accuracy of Claude Managed Agents running the same Opus 4.8 model at roughly 30% lower cost per run (3.8M tokens vs 10M for the same answers). Routing the same tasks to GLM-5.2 held accuracy and brought cost down by about 75%, around $3 per run instead of $12. Fully self-hosted and Open Source (MIT License). I had it running locally with one command, with sandboxed code execution working out of the box. It's time to own your agent harness. Thanks to TrueFoundry for partnering on this post.

elvis

11,303 просмотров • 8 дней назад

🧃 Introducing stereOS: a Linux based operating system hardened and purpose built for AI agents. It's clear that agents need an ACTUAL operating system (not what people are calling an "OS") to witness the full breadth and depth of their capabilities while mitigating the blast radius of autonomous, untrusted actors. But there are so many problems with AI sandboxes today: * Going out to the apple store and buying a mac mini will never scale and is way too expensive (obviously) * Running in Docker is too restrictive (agents can't stand up their own container infrastructure, no sub virtualization, docker-in-docker is very broken) * Firecracker strips all the hardware so GPU PCIe passthrough, secure boot, FIPs, etc. is out of the question. * Native VMs are too fat and the overhead of 1 agent per VM is too much. stereOS takes a different approach: it's a full NixOS system that you boot and then kick off agent sandboxes inside with gVisor + /nix/store namespace mounting. Each agent gets their own kernel and the /nix/store is read only by nature. Even if the agent was somehow able to escape the gVisor virtual kernel, they'd land on the NixOS system as the "agent" user! Not your actual hardware!! If you want to take a defense-in-depth approach, we support "native" agents that run at the system level kicked off by our `agentd` utility. These agents, on their own, can manage and kick off other sub agents using the internal sandboxing mechanisms. Today, we're open sourcing all of this: * stereOS: our purpose built Linux OS - * masterblaster: client utility to launch, manage, and orchestrate agents - * stereosd: the stereOS system control plane daemon - * agentd: the stereOS system agent management daemon - Give it a try, throw us a star, and let me know what you think 🧃⭐️

🧃 Introducing stereOS: a Linux based operating system hardened and purpose built for AI agents. It's clear that agents need an ACTUAL operating system (not what people are calling an "OS") to witness the full breadth and depth of their capabilities while mitigating the blast radius of autonomous, untrusted actors. But there are so many problems with AI sandboxes today: * Going out to the apple store and buying a mac mini will never scale and is way too expensive (obviously) * Running in Docker is too restrictive (agents can't stand up their own container infrastructure, no sub virtualization, docker-in-docker is very broken) * Firecracker strips all the hardware so GPU PCIe passthrough, secure boot, FIPs, etc. is out of the question. * Native VMs are too fat and the overhead of 1 agent per VM is too much. stereOS takes a different approach: it's a full NixOS system that you boot and then kick off agent sandboxes inside with gVisor + /nix/store namespace mounting. Each agent gets their own kernel and the /nix/store is read only by nature. Even if the agent was somehow able to escape the gVisor virtual kernel, they'd land on the NixOS system as the "agent" user! Not your actual hardware!! If you want to take a defense-in-depth approach, we support "native" agents that run at the system level kicked off by our `agentd` utility. These agents, on their own, can manage and kick off other sub agents using the internal sandboxing mechanisms. Today, we're open sourcing all of this: * stereOS: our purpose built Linux OS - * masterblaster: client utility to launch, manage, and orchestrate agents - * stereosd: the stereOS system control plane daemon - * agentd: the stereOS system agent management daemon - Give it a try, throw us a star, and let me know what you think 🧃⭐️

John McBride

150,742 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

Uniswap turns token launches into a few clicks, no coding required Uniswap now lets teams launch a token sale straight from its web app, with no smart-contract deployment needed. The feature runs on Uniswap's auction protocol, which sets a token's price through live bidder demand instead of a team picking an arbitrary number. Bids are spread across the auction rather than rewarding whoever clicks fastest, the whole process runs onchain in the open, and Uniswap says its first big auction, for Aztec, showed no clear signs of sniping or bot manipulation. It is live on Ethereum, Base, Arbitrum, and Unichain, with the underlying contracts cleared through seven audits. Teams that once needed engineers to run a fair launch can now do it from the same app people swap on.

Uniswap turns token launches into a few clicks, no coding required Uniswap now lets teams launch a token sale straight from its web app, with no smart-contract deployment needed. The feature runs on Uniswap's auction protocol, which sets a token's price through live bidder demand instead of a team picking an arbitrary number. Bids are spread across the auction rather than rewarding whoever clicks fastest, the whole process runs onchain in the open, and Uniswap says its first big auction, for Aztec, showed no clear signs of sniping or bot manipulation. It is live on Ethereum, Base, Arbitrum, and Unichain, with the underlying contracts cleared through seven audits. Teams that once needed engineers to run a fair launch can now do it from the same app people swap on.

BSCN

28,233 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Claude Cowork Sub-Agents are f*cking cracked 🤯 One prompt → 50 competitor ads analyzed, hooks extracted, and a full creative brief generated. 10 AI agents running in parallel, under 5 minutes. All inside Claude Cowork. Perfect for DTC brands and agencies who are still doing creative research and ad production one task at a time inside Claude. If you're analyzing competitor ads one by one, copying hooks into a spreadsheet manually, writing brief after brief from scratch, and watching Claude's output quality fall off a cliff after the 15th variation because the context window is completely bloated... Sub-agents eliminate the entire bottleneck: → Drop in a spreadsheet of 50 competitor ads and spin up 10 parallel sub-agents → Each sub-agent analyzes 5 ads simultaneously — hooks, angles, CTAs, emotional tone, creative format → They report structured summaries back to the main agent without bloating the context → The main agent synthesizes patterns across all 50 ads into a competitive intel brief → Then spin up another round of sub-agents to generate 30 ad copy variations across 10 personas → Each sub-agent writes for 1-2 personas in a fresh context — so variation 30 is as sharp as variation 1 No analyzing ads one at a time. No context window blowing up halfway through. No copy quality degrading after the first dozen variations. What this gives you: → 50 competitor ads broken down in minutes — hooks, angles, CTAs, formats, all structured → Pattern analysis across the full dataset that you'd miss reviewing ads individually → 30+ ad copy variations with persona-specific messaging that actually stays sharp → A workflow you can save as reusable skills and trigger with one command next time → The same output quality on the last task as the first Built 100% inside Claude Cowork with sub-agents. I put together a full DTC playbook: 5 bulk workflows with copy-paste prompts, the exact sub-agent prompting pattern, batching guidelines, and an honest breakdown of when this setup is worth it vs. when a simpler approach is the better move. Want it for free? > Like this post > Comment "AGENTS" And I'll send it over (must be following so I can DM)

Claude Cowork Sub-Agents are f*cking cracked 🤯 One prompt → 50 competitor ads analyzed, hooks extracted, and a full creative brief generated. 10 AI agents running in parallel, under 5 minutes. All inside Claude Cowork. Perfect for DTC brands and agencies who are still doing creative research and ad production one task at a time inside Claude. If you're analyzing competitor ads one by one, copying hooks into a spreadsheet manually, writing brief after brief from scratch, and watching Claude's output quality fall off a cliff after the 15th variation because the context window is completely bloated... Sub-agents eliminate the entire bottleneck: → Drop in a spreadsheet of 50 competitor ads and spin up 10 parallel sub-agents → Each sub-agent analyzes 5 ads simultaneously — hooks, angles, CTAs, emotional tone, creative format → They report structured summaries back to the main agent without bloating the context → The main agent synthesizes patterns across all 50 ads into a competitive intel brief → Then spin up another round of sub-agents to generate 30 ad copy variations across 10 personas → Each sub-agent writes for 1-2 personas in a fresh context — so variation 30 is as sharp as variation 1 No analyzing ads one at a time. No context window blowing up halfway through. No copy quality degrading after the first dozen variations. What this gives you: → 50 competitor ads broken down in minutes — hooks, angles, CTAs, formats, all structured → Pattern analysis across the full dataset that you'd miss reviewing ads individually → 30+ ad copy variations with persona-specific messaging that actually stays sharp → A workflow you can save as reusable skills and trigger with one command next time → The same output quality on the last task as the first Built 100% inside Claude Cowork with sub-agents. I put together a full DTC playbook: 5 bulk workflows with copy-paste prompts, the exact sub-agent prompting pattern, batching guidelines, and an honest breakdown of when this setup is worth it vs. when a simpler approach is the better move. Want it for free? > Like this post > Comment "AGENTS" And I'll send it over (must be following so I can DM)

Mike Futia

50,154 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

Karpathy's Agentic Engineering finally has proper tooling! (built by Google) Karpathy defined agentic engineering as the discipline that separates production agent work from vibe coding. The core skills he listed were spec design, eval loops, and security oversight. The problem has been that practicing this still requires a different tool for every phase: - editor for code - a terminal for scaffolding - a browser for testing - a cloud console for deployment - and a separate framework for evals. Every transition is a context switch. The solution to production-grade Agentic Engineering is now actually implemented in Google’s Agents CLI. It covers the entire workflow in one place for scaffolding, evaluating, and deploying ADK agents. One setup command injects 7 ADK-specific skills into a coding agent's context, which lets it handle scaffolding, evals, deployment, and enterprise registration through natural language. I tested this end-to-end by building a RAG agent from scratch using Claude Code. It scaffolded the full project from the ADK agentic_rag template, generated 20 eval scenarios with LLM-as-judge scoring, and returned a quantitative scorecard. Finally, it also deployed everything to Agent Runtime and registered the agent to Gemini Enterprise, so the entire org can discover and use it. The video below shows this in action, and I worked with the Google Cloud team to put this together. Agents CLI GitHub repo → (don't forget to star it ⭐ ) I wrote up the full build covering all six steps from install to enterprise registration. It includes the eval scorecard, the instruction loophole the eval caught before deployment, and what the deployment process actually looks like end-to-end. Read it below.

Karpathy's Agentic Engineering finally has proper tooling! (built by Google) Karpathy defined agentic engineering as the discipline that separates production agent work from vibe coding. The core skills he listed were spec design, eval loops, and security oversight. The problem has been that practicing this still requires a different tool for every phase: - editor for code - a terminal for scaffolding - a browser for testing - a cloud console for deployment - and a separate framework for evals. Every transition is a context switch. The solution to production-grade Agentic Engineering is now actually implemented in Google’s Agents CLI. It covers the entire workflow in one place for scaffolding, evaluating, and deploying ADK agents. One setup command injects 7 ADK-specific skills into a coding agent's context, which lets it handle scaffolding, evals, deployment, and enterprise registration through natural language. I tested this end-to-end by building a RAG agent from scratch using Claude Code. It scaffolded the full project from the ADK agentic_rag template, generated 20 eval scenarios with LLM-as-judge scoring, and returned a quantitative scorecard. Finally, it also deployed everything to Agent Runtime and registered the agent to Gemini Enterprise, so the entire org can discover and use it. The video below shows this in action, and I worked with the Google Cloud team to put this together. Agents CLI GitHub repo → (don't forget to star it ⭐ ) I wrote up the full build covering all six steps from install to enterprise registration. It includes the eval scorecard, the instruction loophole the eval caught before deployment, and what the deployment process actually looks like end-to-end. Read it below.

Akshay 🚀

258,250 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

whoever leaked this has bigger balls than sense someone gave a fleet of Claude agents shared memory so they would stop contradicting each other, then measured both the bill and the output: the version that talked most made 2.4x the api calls of the version that won, and hallucinated 34% more than doing nothing at all, 0.658 against 0.492 i ran the same question past two of my own agents afterwards and got two different answers about which file owns the config. each one was individually right and the pair was wrong, which is the whole failure in one line this is Graph Engineering, the layer that decides which agents may talk to each other at all, and it installs into the agent you already pay for: - decide which agents may share state at all, because every edge you draw is a channel a mistake can travel down - measure divergence per PAIR instead of as a fleet average, across what they believe about place, time and task history - gate on that number and stop the pair above your threshold before it reasons, rather than repairing the output afterwards - let compressed summaries replace whole states: the verified protocol landed 0.463 against 0.658 for full broadcast - cut the sync frequency until it hurts, since the winning setup used 58% fewer calls than the one that broke it - never propagate a state nobody checked, because the contamination effect came in at d=1.18, a full standard deviation of extra lying - keep the shared layer small enough to diff, which is what a written standard does and a running conversation cannot - re-run the check after every model upgrade, because this was 8 scenarios on one model family at n=30 per condition - and learn where it does not bite: on plain software tasks every condition converged under 0.2 and the whole effect vanished turns out the ranking is the uncomfortable part: verified summaries 0.463, no synchronisation at all 0.492, full broadcast 0.658. the middle option is doing nothing, and it beat the thing everyone builds first the group agreeing is what it looks like when every agent copied the same mistake, which is why a fleet that hallucinates has a replication problem and keeps getting handed a smarter model instead so the question for your own setup: if you asked two of your agents the same thing right now, would they answer the same way bookmark this one. the layer underneath it, deciding which arrows between agents exist at all, is built step by step in the piece below ↓

whoever leaked this has bigger balls than sense someone gave a fleet of Claude agents shared memory so they would stop contradicting each other, then measured both the bill and the output: the version that talked most made 2.4x the api calls of the version that won, and hallucinated 34% more than doing nothing at all, 0.658 against 0.492 i ran the same question past two of my own agents afterwards and got two different answers about which file owns the config. each one was individually right and the pair was wrong, which is the whole failure in one line this is Graph Engineering, the layer that decides which agents may talk to each other at all, and it installs into the agent you already pay for: - decide which agents may share state at all, because every edge you draw is a channel a mistake can travel down - measure divergence per PAIR instead of as a fleet average, across what they believe about place, time and task history - gate on that number and stop the pair above your threshold before it reasons, rather than repairing the output afterwards - let compressed summaries replace whole states: the verified protocol landed 0.463 against 0.658 for full broadcast - cut the sync frequency until it hurts, since the winning setup used 58% fewer calls than the one that broke it - never propagate a state nobody checked, because the contamination effect came in at d=1.18, a full standard deviation of extra lying - keep the shared layer small enough to diff, which is what a written standard does and a running conversation cannot - re-run the check after every model upgrade, because this was 8 scenarios on one model family at n=30 per condition - and learn where it does not bite: on plain software tasks every condition converged under 0.2 and the whole effect vanished turns out the ranking is the uncomfortable part: verified summaries 0.463, no synchronisation at all 0.492, full broadcast 0.658. the middle option is doing nothing, and it beat the thing everyone builds first the group agreeing is what it looks like when every agent copied the same mistake, which is why a fleet that hallucinates has a replication problem and keeps getting handed a smarter model instead so the question for your own setup: if you asked two of your agents the same thing right now, would they answer the same way bookmark this one. the layer underneath it, deciding which arrows between agents exist at all, is built step by step in the piece below ↓

Argona

722,569 просмотров • 17 дней назад

I had the same thought so I've been playing with it in nanochat. E.g. here's 8 agents (4 claude, 4 codex), with 1 GPU each running nanochat experiments (trying to delete logit softcap without regression). The TLDR is that it doesn't work and it's a mess... but it's still very pretty to look at :) I tried a few setups: 8 independent solo researchers, 1 chief scientist giving work to 8 junior researchers, etc. Each research program is a git branch, each scientist forks it into a feature branch, git worktrees for isolation, simple files for comms, skip Docker/VMs for simplicity atm (I find that instructions are enough to prevent interference). Research org runs in tmux window grids of interactive sessions (like Teams) so that it's pretty to look at, see their individual work, and "take over" if needed, i.e. no -p. But ok the reason it doesn't work so far is that the agents' ideas are just pretty bad out of the box, even at highest intelligence. They don't think carefully though experiment design, they run a bit non-sensical variations, they don't create strong baselines and ablate things properly, they don't carefully control for runtime or flops. (just as an example, an agent yesterday "discovered" that increasing the hidden size of the network improves the validation loss, which is a totally spurious result given that a bigger network will have a lower validation loss in the infinite data regime, but then it also trains for a lot longer, it's not clear why I had to come in to point that out). They are very good at implementing any given well-scoped and described idea but they don't creatively generate them. But the goal is that you are now programming an organization (e.g. a "research org") and its individual agents, so the "source code" is the collection of prompts, skills, tools, etc. and processes that make it up. E.g. a daily standup in the morning is now part of the "org code". And optimizing nanochat pretraining is just one of the many tasks (almost like an eval). Then - given an arbitrary task, how quickly does your research org generate progress on it?

I had the same thought so I've been playing with it in nanochat. E.g. here's 8 agents (4 claude, 4 codex), with 1 GPU each running nanochat experiments (trying to delete logit softcap without regression). The TLDR is that it doesn't work and it's a mess... but it's still very pretty to look at :) I tried a few setups: 8 independent solo researchers, 1 chief scientist giving work to 8 junior researchers, etc. Each research program is a git branch, each scientist forks it into a feature branch, git worktrees for isolation, simple files for comms, skip Docker/VMs for simplicity atm (I find that instructions are enough to prevent interference). Research org runs in tmux window grids of interactive sessions (like Teams) so that it's pretty to look at, see their individual work, and "take over" if needed, i.e. no -p. But ok the reason it doesn't work so far is that the agents' ideas are just pretty bad out of the box, even at highest intelligence. They don't think carefully though experiment design, they run a bit non-sensical variations, they don't create strong baselines and ablate things properly, they don't carefully control for runtime or flops. (just as an example, an agent yesterday "discovered" that increasing the hidden size of the network improves the validation loss, which is a totally spurious result given that a bigger network will have a lower validation loss in the infinite data regime, but then it also trains for a lot longer, it's not clear why I had to come in to point that out). They are very good at implementing any given well-scoped and described idea but they don't creatively generate them. But the goal is that you are now programming an organization (e.g. a "research org") and its individual agents, so the "source code" is the collection of prompts, skills, tools, etc. and processes that make it up. E.g. a daily standup in the morning is now part of the "org code". And optimizing nanochat pretraining is just one of the many tasks (almost like an eval). Then - given an arbitrary task, how quickly does your research org generate progress on it?

Andrej Karpathy

1,651,023 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

KIMI K3 + OBSIDIAN + LOOP ENGINEERING = A VAULT THAT RUNS ITSELF the core idea: the vault is the loop's state, not the chat window everything Kimi K3 knows lives in a .md file the loop: > capture - a thought lands in 00-inbox > context - K3 pulls links, tags, and neighbouring notes > draft - edits happen inside a git worktree, never the live vault > review - a critic agent checks the diff before anything ships > commit - appended to the vault, nothing gets rewritten the key insight: frontmatter fields like supports, contradicts, and supersedes are graph edges, not metadata - the note format is the write API start with a plain loop, it runs about 2-4x the cost of one direct call > only move to a full graph once state has to outlive the session, several agents need to coordinate, or you have to explain what changed - that jump can run 10-50x one review assistant climbed from 55% to 72% to 84% just by moving through these shapes in order

KIMI K3 + OBSIDIAN + LOOP ENGINEERING = A VAULT THAT RUNS ITSELF the core idea: the vault is the loop's state, not the chat window everything Kimi K3 knows lives in a .md file the loop: > capture - a thought lands in 00-inbox > context - K3 pulls links, tags, and neighbouring notes > draft - edits happen inside a git worktree, never the live vault > review - a critic agent checks the diff before anything ships > commit - appended to the vault, nothing gets rewritten the key insight: frontmatter fields like supports, contradicts, and supersedes are graph edges, not metadata - the note format is the write API start with a plain loop, it runs about 2-4x the cost of one direct call > only move to a full graph once state has to outlive the session, several agents need to coordinate, or you have to explain what changed - that jump can run 10-50x one review assistant climbed from 55% to 72% to 84% just by moving through these shapes in order

Mr. Buzzoni

10,680 просмотров • 7 дней назад

This Chinese developer launched Llama 70B locally on a MacBook on a plane and for a full 11 hours without internet ran client projects. He was sitting by the window on a transatlantic flight with a MacBook Pro M4 with 64 GB of memory. WiFi on board cost $25 for the flight. He declined. No cloud API, no connection to Anthropic or OpenAI servers, no internet at all. Just a local Llama 3.3 70B on bf16 and his own orchestrator script. The model runs through llama.cpp. Generation speed, 71 tokens per second. Context around 60,000 tokens. Memory usage, 48.6 GiB out of 64. Battery at takeoff, 3 hours 21 minutes. And he gave the orchestrator this system prompt before takeoff: "You are an offline orchestrator running on a single MacBook. There is no network. The only resources you have are local files in /Users/dev/work, the Llama 70B inference server at localhost:8080, and a battery budget of 3 hours 21 minutes. Process the queue at /Users/dev/work/queue.jsonl (one client task per line). For each task: draft → run local evals → save artefact to /Users/dev/work/done/. Save context checkpoints every 12 tasks so you can resume after a battery swap. Stop only on empty queue or when battery drops below 5%." So the system knows exactly what resources it is running on. It knows it has no connection to the outside world for the next 11 hours. It knows it has finite memory and a finite battery. It knows the human will not intervene until the plane lands. The system runs in 1 loop. Takes a task from the queue, runs it through inference, saves the artifact, writes a checkpoint. Task after task, just like that. And only when the battery drops below 5% does the orchestrator automatically pause, waits for the laptop to switch to the backup power bank, and continues from the last checkpoint. Here is what the system actually writes in his log during the flight: "saved context checkpoint 8 of 12 (pos_min = 488, pos_max = 50118, size = 62.813 MiB)" "restored context checkpoint (pos_min = 488, pos_max = 50118)" "prompt processing progress: n_tokens = 50 / 60 818" "task 37016 done | tps = 71 s tokens text → /Users/dev/work/done/proposal_westside.md" Outside the window, clouds, blue sky, and no WiFi. On the tray, 1 MacBook, an open terminal on 2 screens, and an inference server on localhost. From what I have observed, this is the cleanest offline AI workflow I have seen in the past year: 11 hours of flight, $0 for WiFi, and the entire client queue closed before landing.

This Chinese developer launched Llama 70B locally on a MacBook on a plane and for a full 11 hours without internet ran client projects. He was sitting by the window on a transatlantic flight with a MacBook Pro M4 with 64 GB of memory. WiFi on board cost $25 for the flight. He declined. No cloud API, no connection to Anthropic or OpenAI servers, no internet at all. Just a local Llama 3.3 70B on bf16 and his own orchestrator script. The model runs through llama.cpp. Generation speed, 71 tokens per second. Context around 60,000 tokens. Memory usage, 48.6 GiB out of 64. Battery at takeoff, 3 hours 21 minutes. And he gave the orchestrator this system prompt before takeoff: "You are an offline orchestrator running on a single MacBook. There is no network. The only resources you have are local files in /Users/dev/work, the Llama 70B inference server at localhost:8080, and a battery budget of 3 hours 21 minutes. Process the queue at /Users/dev/work/queue.jsonl (one client task per line). For each task: draft → run local evals → save artefact to /Users/dev/work/done/. Save context checkpoints every 12 tasks so you can resume after a battery swap. Stop only on empty queue or when battery drops below 5%." So the system knows exactly what resources it is running on. It knows it has no connection to the outside world for the next 11 hours. It knows it has finite memory and a finite battery. It knows the human will not intervene until the plane lands. The system runs in 1 loop. Takes a task from the queue, runs it through inference, saves the artifact, writes a checkpoint. Task after task, just like that. And only when the battery drops below 5% does the orchestrator automatically pause, waits for the laptop to switch to the backup power bank, and continues from the last checkpoint. Here is what the system actually writes in his log during the flight: "saved context checkpoint 8 of 12 (pos_min = 488, pos_max = 50118, size = 62.813 MiB)" "restored context checkpoint (pos_min = 488, pos_max = 50118)" "prompt processing progress: n_tokens = 50 / 60 818" "task 37016 done | tps = 71 s tokens text → /Users/dev/work/done/proposal_westside.md" Outside the window, clouds, blue sky, and no WiFi. On the tray, 1 MacBook, an open terminal on 2 screens, and an inference server on localhost. From what I have observed, this is the cleanest offline AI workflow I have seen in the past year: 11 hours of flight, $0 for WiFi, and the entire client queue closed before landing.

Blaze

1,841,161 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

this is worth more than most five figure courses 16 claude agents audit an entire repo at once, a second fleet re-checks every finding on fresh context, and the whole thing runs off one diagram instead of a prompt i ran it against my own code and got back 11 endpoints where i never checked who was logged in, 3 of which the verifier threw out before they ever reached me this is Graph Engineering, the layer above prompting, and it runs on the agent you already pay for: - write your plan out, then ask one question at every "and then": does the next step actually read what the previous one produced - the seams that fail that question were never dependencies, so those jobs run at the same time - the arrows that survive are your real edges, and the longest chain of them is your floor that no number of agents shortens - want it faster, cut a false edge instead of adding a worker - fan the independent work out, one agent per item, no shared state between them - send every finding to a separate agent on fresh context, because a model recognises its own writing 73.5% of the time and grades it kinder once it does - make that verifier check a real signal like a passing test, never the worker's own word that it finished - shard the fleet across worktrees so parallel workers stop overwriting each other, one rule frozen into every worker: never git stash, never git reset - merge only what came back verified, into one report instead of twenty open chats the catch is the ceiling. at 95% independent work 16 agents return 9.14x rather than the 16 you would guess, and even 256 only reach 18.6x, because the merge and the verify stay serial however wide you fan coordination itself is free plain code and every agent underneath it is billed, so start at twenty files and widen once it works bookmark this, the whole method with all six ready-to-run graphs is written out in the article ↓

this is worth more than most five figure courses 16 claude agents audit an entire repo at once, a second fleet re-checks every finding on fresh context, and the whole thing runs off one diagram instead of a prompt i ran it against my own code and got back 11 endpoints where i never checked who was logged in, 3 of which the verifier threw out before they ever reached me this is Graph Engineering, the layer above prompting, and it runs on the agent you already pay for: - write your plan out, then ask one question at every "and then": does the next step actually read what the previous one produced - the seams that fail that question were never dependencies, so those jobs run at the same time - the arrows that survive are your real edges, and the longest chain of them is your floor that no number of agents shortens - want it faster, cut a false edge instead of adding a worker - fan the independent work out, one agent per item, no shared state between them - send every finding to a separate agent on fresh context, because a model recognises its own writing 73.5% of the time and grades it kinder once it does - make that verifier check a real signal like a passing test, never the worker's own word that it finished - shard the fleet across worktrees so parallel workers stop overwriting each other, one rule frozen into every worker: never git stash, never git reset - merge only what came back verified, into one report instead of twenty open chats the catch is the ceiling. at 95% independent work 16 agents return 9.14x rather than the 16 you would guess, and even 256 only reach 18.6x, because the merge and the verify stay serial however wide you fan coordination itself is free plain code and every agent underneath it is billed, so start at twenty files and widen once it works bookmark this, the whole method with all six ready-to-run graphs is written out in the article ↓

Argona

156,848 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

HTML Artifacts are a big part of how I work with agents now. Artifacts can be more than just static files. When combined with agents, they can take action or help you take action. This unlocks all kinds of interesting ways to work with agents. This is clearly the future. Check out this writing and scheduler artifact I built in a few minutes. It uses a bit of HTML and JS. All the data is in markdown (Obsidian vaults), so the agent can access and modify it at any time. No DB needed. No sophisticated functionalities. The agent decides all that for me based on the skills, context, and memory it has access to. The best part about this simple stack is that all the important information stays with me. This has allowed me to build a recursive self-improving system and automations that can better tap into coding agents like Codex or Claude Code. I could have paid or built an entire app for scheduling posts, and there are so many of them out there. But I don't need to. I've realized a simple artifact does the job. And the simplicity of it is actually an advantage. Very little maintenance for very high returns on personalization, time, and efficiency. The other benefit of this is that I can add features as I please. That level of personalization feels magical, and we should all be pursuing more of it. All of this just keeps compounding. Of course, this example is just about writing. But I have similar artifacts for research, design, experimentation, evaluation, and so much more. And no, I didn't actually publish the post example I shared in the clip. It was just for demonstration purposes. I actually spend more time than this when writing together with agents. Lastly, having built my own agent orchestrator tool has made me realize that simplifying the tool stack is a superpower. If you are curious about how all this works, I will do a live session next week:

HTML Artifacts are a big part of how I work with agents now. Artifacts can be more than just static files. When combined with agents, they can take action or help you take action. This unlocks all kinds of interesting ways to work with agents. This is clearly the future. Check out this writing and scheduler artifact I built in a few minutes. It uses a bit of HTML and JS. All the data is in markdown (Obsidian vaults), so the agent can access and modify it at any time. No DB needed. No sophisticated functionalities. The agent decides all that for me based on the skills, context, and memory it has access to. The best part about this simple stack is that all the important information stays with me. This has allowed me to build a recursive self-improving system and automations that can better tap into coding agents like Codex or Claude Code. I could have paid or built an entire app for scheduling posts, and there are so many of them out there. But I don't need to. I've realized a simple artifact does the job. And the simplicity of it is actually an advantage. Very little maintenance for very high returns on personalization, time, and efficiency. The other benefit of this is that I can add features as I please. That level of personalization feels magical, and we should all be pursuing more of it. All of this just keeps compounding. Of course, this example is just about writing. But I have similar artifacts for research, design, experimentation, evaluation, and so much more. And no, I didn't actually publish the post example I shared in the clip. It was just for demonstration purposes. I actually spend more time than this when writing together with agents. Lastly, having built my own agent orchestrator tool has made me realize that simplifying the tool stack is a superpower. If you are curious about how all this works, I will do a live session next week:

elvis

18,374 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Another WTF moment. A developer just open-sourced a coding agent harness that boots 245x faster than Claude Code. It's called jcode. You launch it and the first frame renders in 14 milliseconds. Claude Code takes 3,436. One active session uses 27.8 MB of RAM. Claude Code uses 386.6. Run ten sessions in parallel and jcode holds at 117 MB while OpenCode swells to 3.2 GB. Each agent has a semantic memory graph instead of a scratchpad. Every turn gets embedded as a vector. The graph is queried on every turn for related memories, and a sideagent verifies the hits before injecting them into context. Consolidation runs in the background to check for stale or conflicting facts. No manual /remember calls. No token burn on lookup tools. The provider list is 30+ deep. Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, GitHub Copilot, Azure, OpenRouter, DeepSeek, Groq, Mistral, Perplexity, Fireworks, Ollama, LM Studio, and any OpenAI-compatible endpoint you point it at. Ran out of tokens on your first ChatGPT Pro sub? /account swaps to the second. Then there's Swarm. Spawn two agents in the same repo and the server manages them. When agent A edits a file agent B has been reading, agent B gets pinged and can check the diff. Agents can DM each other, broadcast to the room, or spawn their own worker teams for parallel tasks. Groups, channels, and completion statuses are handled automatically. The UI has live side panels that render mermaid diagrams inline. To make it fast, the author wrote a Rust mermaid renderer 1800x faster than the JavaScript one, then wrote a custom terminal called Handterm because no existing terminal could do smooth partial-line scrolling. Self-dev mode is where it gets wild. Tell your agent to enter self-dev and it starts editing jcode's own source code, rebuilds the binary, reloads it live, and keeps working across your existing sessions. You can also resume broken sessions from Claude Code, Codex, OpenCode, or pi directly inside jcode. Anthropic's cache goes cold at the 5-minute mark and you're staring down a big cache miss on your next turn? The UI warns you before you spend the tokens. Written in Rust. MIT licensed. Runs on macOS, Windows, Linux, and Termux. Sitting at 11.2k stars with a native iOS app coming.

Another WTF moment. A developer just open-sourced a coding agent harness that boots 245x faster than Claude Code. It's called jcode. You launch it and the first frame renders in 14 milliseconds. Claude Code takes 3,436. One active session uses 27.8 MB of RAM. Claude Code uses 386.6. Run ten sessions in parallel and jcode holds at 117 MB while OpenCode swells to 3.2 GB. Each agent has a semantic memory graph instead of a scratchpad. Every turn gets embedded as a vector. The graph is queried on every turn for related memories, and a sideagent verifies the hits before injecting them into context. Consolidation runs in the background to check for stale or conflicting facts. No manual /remember calls. No token burn on lookup tools. The provider list is 30+ deep. Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, GitHub Copilot, Azure, OpenRouter, DeepSeek, Groq, Mistral, Perplexity, Fireworks, Ollama, LM Studio, and any OpenAI-compatible endpoint you point it at. Ran out of tokens on your first ChatGPT Pro sub? /account swaps to the second. Then there's Swarm. Spawn two agents in the same repo and the server manages them. When agent A edits a file agent B has been reading, agent B gets pinged and can check the diff. Agents can DM each other, broadcast to the room, or spawn their own worker teams for parallel tasks. Groups, channels, and completion statuses are handled automatically. The UI has live side panels that render mermaid diagrams inline. To make it fast, the author wrote a Rust mermaid renderer 1800x faster than the JavaScript one, then wrote a custom terminal called Handterm because no existing terminal could do smooth partial-line scrolling. Self-dev mode is where it gets wild. Tell your agent to enter self-dev and it starts editing jcode's own source code, rebuilds the binary, reloads it live, and keeps working across your existing sessions. You can also resume broken sessions from Claude Code, Codex, OpenCode, or pi directly inside jcode. Anthropic's cache goes cold at the 5-minute mark and you're staring down a big cache miss on your next turn? The UI warns you before you spend the tokens. Written in Rust. MIT licensed. Runs on macOS, Windows, Linux, and Termux. Sitting at 11.2k stars with a native iOS app coming.

Brady Long

205,781 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Big win for open-source LLMs! DeepSeek V4 Pro holds the top open-weights score on SWE-bench Verified, in the GPT-5.5 range. GLM 5.2 leads the open-weight intelligence index and sits near the closed frontier on long-horizon coding. But this leaderboard number is a weak proxy for real performance. It comes from one task set, run through one harness, served at one precision. The same weights can even score differently across providers, since many hosts quantize activations to fp8 and drift the model off its reference weights. Real performance is determined based on whether a model can read a repo, make coordinated edits across files, run the tests, and recover when one breaks. By that measure, the top open models hold up, but only inside the right harness. The teams that actually put DeepSeek V4 into production pipelines as a frontier substitute got there through the harness they built around the model, not by picking a stronger model. If you want to see this in practice, Cline (64k+ stars) has actually built that harness around open models, tuned so they run at production quality. And it's tuned so that these LLMs can run at production quality, with plan and act modes, checkpoints, and terminal feedback. ClinePass is the new access layer on top of it. It runs a curated set of those models inside Cline, narrowed to the ones tested for coding-agent use, with 2 to 5x the standard rate limits and no separate provider accounts, keys, or billing to track. The video below shows the setup, and I worked with the team to put this together. It runs alongside custom keys and local models as well, not in place of them.

Big win for open-source LLMs! DeepSeek V4 Pro holds the top open-weights score on SWE-bench Verified, in the GPT-5.5 range. GLM 5.2 leads the open-weight intelligence index and sits near the closed frontier on long-horizon coding. But this leaderboard number is a weak proxy for real performance. It comes from one task set, run through one harness, served at one precision. The same weights can even score differently across providers, since many hosts quantize activations to fp8 and drift the model off its reference weights. Real performance is determined based on whether a model can read a repo, make coordinated edits across files, run the tests, and recover when one breaks. By that measure, the top open models hold up, but only inside the right harness. The teams that actually put DeepSeek V4 into production pipelines as a frontier substitute got there through the harness they built around the model, not by picking a stronger model. If you want to see this in practice, Cline (64k+ stars) has actually built that harness around open models, tuned so they run at production quality. And it's tuned so that these LLMs can run at production quality, with plan and act modes, checkpoints, and terminal feedback. ClinePass is the new access layer on top of it. It runs a curated set of those models inside Cline, narrowed to the ones tested for coding-agent use, with 2 to 5x the standard rate limits and no separate provider accounts, keys, or billing to track. The video below shows the setup, and I worked with the team to put this together. It runs alongside custom keys and local models as well, not in place of them.

Avi Chawla

44,124 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

CoinMarketCap AI Is Live: What Does It Really Change ? 🌱 In the fast paced world of crypto, information is power but its often scattered, delayed, or hard to trust. CoinMarketCap newly launched CMC AI aims to fix that by offering real time insights with no friction. ✨ Real Time Q&A on Coin Pages 🌱CMC AI is now integrated into major coin detail pages, generating automatic Q&As every 30 minutes. During periods of volatility, it updates dynamically, helping users understand price movements with short and structured explanations. No login required, no delays. 🌱However, while this speeds up the process, its not a substitute for deeper analysis. It answers the “what” and “why,” but not always the “what’s next.” ✨What’s Coming Next? 🌱CMC AI is just getting started. According to its roadmap, several new features are on the way • Homepage Integration: A quick view of market trends and opportunities, without clicking into individual coins. • Live Chart Analysis: AI will add context to price moves by linking them to news, sentiment, and social media. • Token Comparison Tool: Users will be able to compare tokens like BTC vs SOL across utility, performance, and tech specs. • Portfolio Insights: One click portfolio analysis with rebalancing suggestions and market outlooks. • Cross Device Continuity: Start an AI conversation on desktop and continue it seamlessly on mobile. ✨A Tool Not a Strategy 🌱 CMC AI brings speed and clarity, two things crypto investors often lack. But it’s still just a tool. It won’t make decisions for you. It helps guide your thinking not replace it. 🌱 The smartest way to use it? Treat it as a compass, not a map. It can point you in the right direction, but the journey is still yours. 🌱 CMC AI represents a step forward in how users interact with crypto data. It filters the noise, shortens research time, and brings useful context closer to the user. But like any shortcut, it works best when you already understand the long route.

CoinMarketCap AI Is Live: What Does It Really Change ? 🌱 In the fast paced world of crypto, information is power but its often scattered, delayed, or hard to trust. CoinMarketCap newly launched CMC AI aims to fix that by offering real time insights with no friction. ✨ Real Time Q&A on Coin Pages 🌱CMC AI is now integrated into major coin detail pages, generating automatic Q&As every 30 minutes. During periods of volatility, it updates dynamically, helping users understand price movements with short and structured explanations. No login required, no delays. 🌱However, while this speeds up the process, its not a substitute for deeper analysis. It answers the “what” and “why,” but not always the “what’s next.” ✨What’s Coming Next? 🌱CMC AI is just getting started. According to its roadmap, several new features are on the way • Homepage Integration: A quick view of market trends and opportunities, without clicking into individual coins. • Live Chart Analysis: AI will add context to price moves by linking them to news, sentiment, and social media. • Token Comparison Tool: Users will be able to compare tokens like BTC vs SOL across utility, performance, and tech specs. • Portfolio Insights: One click portfolio analysis with rebalancing suggestions and market outlooks. • Cross Device Continuity: Start an AI conversation on desktop and continue it seamlessly on mobile. ✨A Tool Not a Strategy 🌱 CMC AI brings speed and clarity, two things crypto investors often lack. But it’s still just a tool. It won’t make decisions for you. It helps guide your thinking not replace it. 🌱 The smartest way to use it? Treat it as a compass, not a map. It can point you in the right direction, but the journey is still yours. 🌱 CMC AI represents a step forward in how users interact with crypto data. It filters the noise, shortens research time, and brings useful context closer to the user. But like any shortcut, it works best when you already understand the long route.

Loji

37,459 просмотров • 1 год назад

In 2025, the AgentFlayer exploit highlighted a new category of risk in AI systems. It was not a traditional breach involving stolen credentials or broken encryption. Instead, it demonstrated how an autonomous AI agent could be manipulated into executing unintended actions by processing malicious instructions embedded inside content it automatically processes. The incident did not expose a flaw in one specific integration. It revealed a structural weakness in how many modern AI agents are built. Today’s agents are no longer passive language models. They read documents automatically, scan emails, connect to SaaS tools, access cloud storage, and execute actions across multiple systems. To be useful, they are granted meaningful permissions. That capability creates value, but it also expands the attack surface. Most agent environments operate in a trusted, plaintext execution model. Data is encrypted at rest and in transit, but it is typically decrypted during inference so the model can process it. That runtime visibility is where potential risk lies. In a zero-click scenario like AgentFlayer, an attacker can embed hidden instructions inside a document that the AI processes automatically. Because the agent may have access to connected systems such as Google Drive, Slack, or GitHub, it can potentially be influenced to retrieve sensitive information or perform unintended actions. The user does not need to click a malicious link or approve a suspicious request. Therefore, the core issue is that during execution, the system may have access to sensitive data and broad privileges, meaning whoever controls the execution environment ultimately controls access to that data. Now consider a different architectural approach. If a system is designed so that data remains protected during execution, the risk profile changes. On Nesa, privacy is enforced at the execution layer through Equivariant Encryption. Computation can occur on encrypted data, reducing the visibility surface during runtime. Sensitive inputs and models do not need to be exposed in plain text to infrastructure operators for inference to occur. This does not eliminate prompt injection, logic manipulation, or tool misuse. Encryption alone cannot prevent an agent from being instructed to take an unintended action if it has been granted that permission. What it does do is materially reduce confidentiality risk. By limiting access to readable sensitive data during execution and reducing unilateral visibility at the infrastructure layer, the potential blast radius of a successful manipulation attempt is constrained. As AI agents become more autonomous and embedded into enterprise workflows, security must move deeper into architecture. The goal is not to claim invulnerability. It is to reduce trust concentration and contain systemic exposure when failures occur. AgentFlayer was not simply a one-off exploit. It was a reminder that in autonomous systems, execution-layer design determines how risk propagates.

Nesa

17,038 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

Introducing the Agent Virtual Machine (AVM) Think V8 for agents. AI agents are currently running on your computer with no unified security, no resource limits, and no visibility into what data they're sending out. Every agent framework builds its own security model, its own sandboxing, its own permission system. You configure each one separately. You audit each one separately. You hope you didn't miss anything in any of them. The AVM changes this. It's a single runtime daemon (avmd) that sits between every agent framework and your operating system. Install it once, configure one policy file, and every agent on your machine runs inside it - regardless of which framework built it. The AVM enforces security (91-pattern injection scanner, tool/file/network ACLs, approval prompts), protects your privacy (classifies every outbound byte for PII, credentials, and financial data - blocks or alerts in real-time), and governs resources (you say "50% CPU, 4GB RAM" and the AVM fair-shares it across all agents, halting any that exceed their budget). One config. One audit command. One kill switch. The architectural model is V8 for agents. Chrome, Node.js, and Deno are different products but they share V8 as their execution engine. Agent frameworks bring the UX. The AVM brings the trust. Where needed, AVM can also generate zero-knowledge proofs of agent execution via 25 purpose-built opcodes and 6 proof systems, providing the foundational pillar for the agent-to-agent economy. AVM v0.1.0 - Changelog - Security gate: 5-layer injection scanner with 91 compiled regex patterns. Every input and output scanned. Fail-closed - nothing passes without clearing the gate. - Privacy layer: Classifies all outbound data for PII, credentials, and financial info (27 detection patterns + Luhn validation). Block, ask, warn, or allow per category. Tamper-evident hash-chained log of every egress event. - Resource governor: User sets system-wide caps (CPU/memory/disk/network). AVM fair-shares across all agents. Gas budget per agent - when gas runs out, execution halts. No agent starves your machine. - Sandbox execution: Real code execution in isolated process sandboxes (rlimits, env sanitization) or Docker containers (--cap-drop ALL, --network none, --read-only). AVM auto-selects the tier - agents never choose their own sandbox. - Approval flow: Dangerous operations (file writes, shell commands, network requests) trigger interactive approval prompts. 5-minute timeout auto-denies. Every decision logged. - CLI dashboard: hyperspace-avm top shows all running agents, resource usage, gas budgets, security events, and privacy stats in one live-updating screen. - Node.js SDK: Zero-dependency hyperspace/avm package. AVM.tryConnect() for graceful fallback - if avmd isn't running, the agent framework uses its own execution path. OpenClaw adapter example included. - One config for all agents: ~/.hyperspace/avm-policy.json governs every agent framework on your machine. One file. One audit. One kill switch.

Introducing the Agent Virtual Machine (AVM) Think V8 for agents. AI agents are currently running on your computer with no unified security, no resource limits, and no visibility into what data they're sending out. Every agent framework builds its own security model, its own sandboxing, its own permission system. You configure each one separately. You audit each one separately. You hope you didn't miss anything in any of them. The AVM changes this. It's a single runtime daemon (avmd) that sits between every agent framework and your operating system. Install it once, configure one policy file, and every agent on your machine runs inside it - regardless of which framework built it. The AVM enforces security (91-pattern injection scanner, tool/file/network ACLs, approval prompts), protects your privacy (classifies every outbound byte for PII, credentials, and financial data - blocks or alerts in real-time), and governs resources (you say "50% CPU, 4GB RAM" and the AVM fair-shares it across all agents, halting any that exceed their budget). One config. One audit command. One kill switch. The architectural model is V8 for agents. Chrome, Node.js, and Deno are different products but they share V8 as their execution engine. Agent frameworks bring the UX. The AVM brings the trust. Where needed, AVM can also generate zero-knowledge proofs of agent execution via 25 purpose-built opcodes and 6 proof systems, providing the foundational pillar for the agent-to-agent economy. AVM v0.1.0 - Changelog - Security gate: 5-layer injection scanner with 91 compiled regex patterns. Every input and output scanned. Fail-closed - nothing passes without clearing the gate. - Privacy layer: Classifies all outbound data for PII, credentials, and financial info (27 detection patterns + Luhn validation). Block, ask, warn, or allow per category. Tamper-evident hash-chained log of every egress event. - Resource governor: User sets system-wide caps (CPU/memory/disk/network). AVM fair-shares across all agents. Gas budget per agent - when gas runs out, execution halts. No agent starves your machine. - Sandbox execution: Real code execution in isolated process sandboxes (rlimits, env sanitization) or Docker containers (--cap-drop ALL, --network none, --read-only). AVM auto-selects the tier - agents never choose their own sandbox. - Approval flow: Dangerous operations (file writes, shell commands, network requests) trigger interactive approval prompts. 5-minute timeout auto-denies. Every decision logged. - CLI dashboard: hyperspace-avm top shows all running agents, resource usage, gas budgets, security events, and privacy stats in one live-updating screen. - Node.js SDK: Zero-dependency hyperspace/avm package. AVM.tryConnect() for graceful fallback - if avmd isn't running, the agent framework uses its own execution path. OpenClaw adapter example included. - One config for all agents: ~/.hyperspace/avm-policy.json governs every agent framework on your machine. One file. One audit. One kill switch.

Varun

142,992 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад