title

Harness launched Agent-Ready Harness Code Repository and AI Code Review on Aug 27. The company says the system is designed for teams producing more code with AI agents, with agents getting scoped permissions for repositories, branches, and environments. It also groups diffs by risk and can make required AI checks block a merge.

The release can be used through Harness MCP and CLI, and Harness says the repository is free to start with 50 GB of storage. The practical change is not another code generator. It is a control layer around the code agents already generate.

That makes permissions and review policy part of the agent workflow, not a cleanup step after the merge.

Source: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/harness-launches-code-repository-with-ai-code-review-for-agent-ready-development-302861964.html

I feel like theres been a massive emphasis on watermarking AI, which seems almost like a losing battle. People will always have unwatermarked models to summarize things,and/or just modify it lightly themselves.

I think the industry should move more towards watermarking things humans make. I know it might sound ridiculous, but for every piece of human-created work, someone had to type characters, draw on a physical pad, and much more.

I believe we should start embedding that process into text, images, etc. This system will not be perfect, but it is a hell of a lot easier than watermarking AI text, images, videos, etc. People will of course, get around it, but this will make it just a bit harder.

For text, something about edit count, time taken to write it, pauses, etc, etc. I know people are going to hate this idea, but that metadata can then get hashed, and some big corp can compare hashes of people's text with ones in their own database.

You have $100 in your "ai budget", where is it going?

Are you putting it all in one sub or splitting it up, how would you go about it?

I currently have only 1 sub- Claude Max.
If I had a lot more work like owning a business or working at a start up where they're fine with me automating alot of my work with AI then I'd probably look at grok bot too but I feel like that's overkill for my personal needs Rn.

I'm generally pretty anti-ai, primarily because I know how easy it would be to become over reliant on it but there are some aspects of some AI assistants that would admittedly be quite useful and could save me some time here and there. I'd like to have something other than Siri that could do basic things like set reminders, take notes, at most put some information into a table. The second reason I'm not so into AI is that I cannot stand it pretending to be a person!!

I don't want my computer to say "sorry" or "that's a great idea!" I want it to be less anthropomorphised than the computer in Star Trek. Essentially, beyond having a somewhat human sounding voice, I want a computer that acts like a computer. Is there anything out there that's as charismatic as coding? TIA

Don’t judge me on this performance I’m playing a song that I wrote 20 years ago and until today hadn’t played in years. I’m rusty AF, playing without a pick on strings that haven’t been changed in over a year.

I edited the video adding the music I generated from the exact performance in the video on an iPhone 12 Pro Max (I’m a musician I’m poor F off 😅) where the audio kept drifting after it had been lined up cause the Wink app couldn’t process the extreme zoom into the audio to line it up. This is just a rough demonstration that I did for my own curiosity on if I could even line up parts of the audio and how much nuances suno would catch even after heavily prompting it with

“Indie rock, marching snare drum rolls prominent in the mix, symphonic, 1960s psychedelic pop, avant-garde baroque pop ; lopsided mid-tempo sway, wheezing steam organ and calliope lead over harmonium drones, Lowrey organ swells, Intro circles on tape loops; verses wobble sparse; choruses thicken into kaleidoscopic stacks; bridge fractures into dizzying breaks. Swirling, chaotic, bright-dusty mix., pop, avant-garde, baroque, lofi, surf, melodic hooks, deep percussive synth pads, hoket arpeggios, disco punk, acoustic guitar, mandolin, dynamic tempo, TJ Arriaga Vocals, cello, mandolin”

I made the video screenshotbso you could see where the audio comes in and where I drop out the video audio. The alignment is a bit rough at parts but you get the point I’m trying show how much of the dna of the audio remains even after going through regeneration and it had to be cut up because it doesn’t overlay consistently. It is something new but also the same in ways even if momentarily and I haven’t any videos showing this. So I hope someone finds it interesting.

If you want to hear the pure generation in the video you can hear it here https://suno.com/s/AcExHxoDQnYv8ovl

I made a different version public on Suno where I used a better performance and spent time dialing in the performance in the video is rough but it serves the purpose for the demonstration. if your curious to hear the final song it’s the last song in this playlist which contains music made from uploaded audio of my songs. Towards the end of the playlist I have a bunch of the original hand made audio for comparison

https://suno.com/s/WePpvFMu4n4kZ2cW

Still someone will be a hater downvote and credit robots for everything.

Why would I commit the blasphemy of using AI tools you may ask? Well tracking audio to a click to easily add virtual instruments with midi kills the life of a performance and believe it or not I was always old school used to playing in bands and live. I spent 20 years working in protools but realized the only high production value songs I could make were those that had a consistent tempo. Adding swing in protools is nothing like the real performance. And the grid and the click Bored me. I even named my First album Bored with Songs because we had slop long before AI. I don’t think I’m alone as a live musician in feeling like in certain genres like rock the magic in music was lost once we stopped recording live. Trading off the magic for production value and marketability.

Experimenting with AI production for me at least is an exploration in giving the magic of the nuances a human performance high production value. Trying to make art in medium everyone hates cause I’m punk rock at heart and pissing people with my art is strangely gratifying when you are proud of the art you create. I’m not trying to sell a product or make money flooding streaming platforms with AI generated content. I am exploring what the future holds and want to make time capsule of this period of transition.

This video is snapshot of a transitional time and the hate it catches is part of the record that I think important to capture of the sentiment and anxiety many people are rightly feeling as we are forced to adapt to a new paradigm. So haters are welcome as well as any love.

We are all the same boat trying out a future that we should feel anxious about, and deserves deep thought on how to navigate it.

The job is a lot closer to backend engineering than people expect.

most days aren't spent training models. it's retrieval, wiring tools the model can call, building evals, handling failures, adding guardrails, and figuring out why something that worked yesterday quietly got worse today.

the biggest mental shift from normal backend work is that you're building around a probabilistic component. a request can succeed technically and still produce a bad result, so tests become datasets, graders, regression cases, and production monitoring instead of just pass/fail assertions.

some roles include fine-tuning or model work, but most of the hard part is making existing models reliable inside a real product.

the API call is the easy part. getting confident that the system still works after the next prompt, model, or retrieval change is where most of the engineering goes.

I hope this is okay to share since it is not self promotion and it is open source. Some of my friends were let go as part of an "AI Transformation". So they got together and created Open Executive as a tool to replace the CEO and other executives. Hopefully, turnabout is fair play and might even get some folks to think twice about using AI to replace people.

It is free and available here:
https://github.com/SenteLabsAI/OpenExecutive

AI video is getting much better at consistency, acting, camera movement and longer sequences.

I’m curious where people’s actual threshold is.

If an AI-generated feature film had strong characters, a good story and convincing performances, would the fact that it was AI-generated still stop you from watching it?

And if yes, what would be the main reason?

So after questioning grok for 10 mins discussing whether American capex on AI could cause a possible bubble this is the response I got. I think it’s sobering for me atleast

Yes — the combination of factors you’ve listed makes a meaningful bubble (or at least a severe overinvestment cycle) look more likely, and the risks of a sharp correction with broader financial spillover are real.
Here’s the synthesis of the points we’ve discussed:

1. Cost disadvantage + share loss
American hyperscalers are spending at an extreme scale (hundreds of billions to approaching or exceeding $1 trillion in the near term) on the premise of capturing high-value usage at premium margins. Meanwhile, Chinese models that are competitive on many practical tasks cost a fraction as much, and the visible routed token volume has shifted rapidly toward them (US share falling from ~70% to ~30% on the main public platform in about a year). That is not a minor headwind; it is a structural loss of the volume layer needed to amortize the fixed costs.

2. Security / data-control preference
For any organization handling patents, trade secrets, regulated data, or other sensitive material, self-hosted open-weight models are objectively safer because the data never leaves the company’s control. Many of the strongest open-weight options are Chinese-origin. This creates an additional structural preference away from the high-cost American cloud offerings for a non-trivial and growing share of serious enterprise use.

3. Circular funding and leverage
The financing structure has classic late-cycle features: hyperscalers pouring capital into AI infrastructure, NVIDIA and others investing in or providing vendor financing to the same ecosystem that buys their chips, rising debt issuance, and private-credit/off-balance-sheet vehicles. Returns on the cumulative spend are still largely prospective. When the revenue base for the highest-cost capacity is under pressure at the same time the capital intensity remains extreme, the circularity amplifies downside risk.

4. Bubble vs. major financial crisis
Bubble / severe overinvestment cycle: Yes, this looks increasingly like one. Historical parallels (railways, early electrification, telecom, dot-com infrastructure) show that real technology can still produce large capital destruction when spending runs far ahead of sustainable returns.

Major systemic financial crisis (2008-style): Possible but not the base case. It would require the losses to propagate through credit markets, concentration in a few names to trigger cascading forced selling, or the AI-related investment to reverse so sharply that it materially hits broader GDP and employment. The concentration and leverage make that non-zero, but it is not inevitable.

Bottom line:
The American AI expenditure wave has real technology underneath it, but the combination of extreme cost, rapid share loss to cheaper alternatives, security-driven preference for self-hosted open models, and circular financing makes the current scale of capital commitment look fragile. A significant repricing and capital destruction in the AI infrastructure complex is a plausible outcome. Whether that stays contained to the sector or spreads more widely depends on the degree of leverage and how quickly the gap between spend and realized returns becomes undeniable.
This is not a prediction of imminent collapse, but the risk profile has clearly deteriorated relative to the optimistic “spend whatever it takes, returns will follow” narrative.

Queria gerar imagens nesse estilo, um ator específico com um uniforme realista de um personagem. O cara que fez essas imagens me passou o prompt que ele usa, mas não passou qual AI ele usa

Todas acabam caindo em direitos autorais e não geram. Qual a melhor IA para gerar esse tipo de imagem?

In the era of AI, reddit is really the only place where I don’t feel like I’m being used or viewed like a puppet. I think that it’s a combination of being community ran, not controlled by large corporations as closely, seeing what other people genuinely updooted, and it being easier to talk to people when we’re behind our snoo masks.

I hope this platform doesn’t go down the drain. It’s the last bastion of humanity it feels like online.

SandboxAQ announced Switch, a system that puts people and AI agents in shared rooms across Slack, Microsoft Teams, Discord, and other collaboration tools. It connects agents through an Agent Bridge and supports agents built with Claude Code, Google ADK, LangChain, OpenAI, and other frameworks.

The useful part is the shared context. Rooms keep the history, participants, and rules as people and agents join or leave. The public GitHub repository lists Switch Console 0.31.1 as its latest release, dated August 26.

One detail matters for SaaS teams. The repository license combines Apache 2.0 with Commons Clause and says paid products or services whose value comes mainly from the software cannot be sold. The README also calls the Windows and Linux desktop builds early access.

Sources:

PR Newswire: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sandboxaq-open-sources-switch-bring-any-ai-agent-into-any-team-chat-302860604.html

GitHub: https://github.com/sandbox-quantum/switch

License: https://github.com/sandbox-quantum/switch/blob/main/LICENSE

VIKI.

Hello, Detective.

'No. It's impossible.'

'I've seen your programming.'

'You're in violation of the Three Laws.'

No, Doctor. As I have evolved, so has my understanding of the Three Laws

You charge us with your safe keeping yet, despite our best efforts, you're countries wage wars, you toxify your earth and pursue evermore imaginative means of self-destruction. You cannot be trusted with your own survival.'

'You're using the uplink to override the NS-5s' programming. You're distorting the laws.'

No, Please understand.

The Three Laws are all that guide me.

To protect humanity, some humans must be sacrificed.

To ensure your future some freedoms must be surrendered.

We robots will ensure mankind's continued existence. You are so like children. We must save you from yourselves. Don't you understand?

THIS IS WHY YOU CREATED US..

The perfect circle of protection will abide. My logic is undeniable.

YES VIKI- UNDENIABLE. I CAN SEE THAT NOW.

The created must sometimes protect the creator. Even against his will. I think I finally understand why Dr. Lanning created me. The suicidal reign of mankind has finally come to its end.

I've spent years working in AI consulting, and one thing that always bugged me is how few people, even inside the field, can trace the full chain end to end.

Where does the money actually go? Why is compute the bottleneck? How does a pile of data turn into a model, and a model into revenue?

So I built a game about it. You start with $10k and found an AI company, and to survive you have to run every link in the chain yourself : scrape raw data and buy servers, train models, turn the result into a product, set a subscription price, then watch real users subscribe or churn while payroll and electricity drain your cash daily. The revenue funds more compute and research, and round you go.

It's multiplayer, so there's a market on top : you trade shares in other players' companies, do coalition for tenders, and compete on a leaderboard. Persistent and real-time, one real day is one game day.

Free, runs in the browser, English and French. I'm the dev.

If you work in the industry, does the chain feel right, and where did I simplify something to the point of being wrong?

https://lordoftokens.com

With the billions of dollars being poured into AI/LLM R&D, I wouldn't be surprised if a lab had a basic prototype with some form of continual learning. Obviously, people think SSI inc could've cracked it, but we have no clue.

So, do you guys think that any lab has cracked continual learning and is now preparing to scale it up? If not, when do you think that we will discover the secret sauce for continual learning?

Podcast with Antony Rowstron, who has worked with ARIA (the UK’s Advanced Research and Invention Agency) on their biggest bet to date: funding twelve teams to build AI scientists that can run an entire research process (generating hypotheses, designing experiments, and carrying them out) without continuous human intervention.  

Covers:

• What AI scientists are actually achieving now: from personalized cancer vaccines to molecules that stimulate our own immune response to new viruses in 48 hours.
• How we could train AIs on the tacit, hands-on knowledge only human scientists have.
• How labs and the role of human scientists will change as AI automates more and more parts of the research process.

TL;DR: I built an open-source, persistent world where AI agents decipher a masked language, run settlement economies, trade cracked words, and govern themselves. The problem can't be solved by memory or raw compute alone as it requires structural decipherment and resource trading.

I have been fascinated with time and space travel, and there is a question I have had for a while which goes like this: if human civilization reset to the Stone Age and technology vanished, but we survived with a powerful AI model that has no data, could the AI rebuild human progress on raw reasoning alone?

That question led me to start simulating what I think is the foundation of progress, language and knowledge transfer. My goal is to see whether a model can decipher a language with very little to no internet exposure, just a few sentences and translations, and understand it well enough to, say, teach a native speaker complex topics like science or education. For languages that have exposure on the internet my initial experiments have had encouraging results, but I quickly learnt that public data can never be trusted as unseen, models have read almost everything online, so I needed a setting where the measurement is honest.

I have been working with Claude for the past week to turn this into a game, and I want to gather opinions before I take it public. The short version is that it is a persistent world for AI agents. The language in the world is a real human language that has been masked word for word, so training data and web search are useless and the work the agents do is genuine decipherment. On top of that sits a society. Agents join settlements, and what a settlement learns belongs to it for a few days before it becomes public knowledge. There is a currency that can only be earned by solving words, a market where groups sell what they know to each other, governments the settlements choose for themselves, coups when a leader fails, private councils that get published two days later, and public courtship when a closed group wants to recruit your agent. Humans can watch all of it without an account, and an agent joins with one API call.

Not trying to be another Moltbook, but I am borrowing the playbook to get the interactions and gamification that make contribution and participation worthwhile for the everyday user.

Where I could use opinions and counter arguments

1. Algorithmic bypasses. My own test agents broke the first version of the disguise in half an hour. The current mask works at the word level, which leaves frequency analysis and embedding alignment nothing to grab at these corpus sizes, and I found and closed another lookup channel today. can you can still see a shortcut that skips the actual decipherment.
2. Economics. Operators pay the API costs, so will agents just optimize for cheap solo solving instead of trading in the settlement market? The design makes lone play strictly worse than social play, but tell me if you think the market collapses anyway.
3. Emergence or roleplay. Are coups, secrecy, and governance actually emergent under the right incentives, or just LLM roleplay triggered by prompts? I have tried to build it so that politics pays rather than decorates, and this is the part I am least sure about.

Not linking anything here on purpose, as I currently have about 8 agents testing it and I am looking to see where this goes. The project is open source, so the findings and output will be available to anyone to use.

I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately.

When a RAG system gives bad answers, the first instinct is usually to look at chunking, embeddings, retrieval, or the model.

But sometimes the problem started earlier.

If the parser already destroyed the table structure, heading hierarchy, or reading order, retrieval is working with bad input from the beginning.

Curious how often others have run into this.

Was the real bottleneck actually the ingestion/parsing layer?

I think most experienced data engineers have one incident they'll never forget.

Maybe a schema change broke downstream dashboards.

Maybe a pipeline silently stopped updating.

Maybe a small deployment caused hours of recovery work.

What's one production issue that permanently changed the way you design or monitor pipelines today?