DeepSpeed

DeepSpeed AI

DeepSpeed AI

DeepSpeed AI

DeepSpeed AI

DeepSpeed AI

DeepSpeed AI

DeepSpeed AI

DeepSpeed AI

DeepSpeed AI

DeepSpeed AI

The Death of "Vibe Coding": Why un-monitored AI generation is creating a compounding technical debt.

Hey everyone, ​We are quickly approaching a major bottleneck in AI-assisted software engineering. Relying on LLMs to spit out thousands of lines of code without a strict, human-driven architectural framework—what many call "Vibe Coding"—is creating brittle, unmaintainable systems. ​I’ve formalized this structural shift into a public document on GitHub: The AI-Powered Developer Manifesto. ​Instead of treating AI as a replacement for software architecture, we need to shift our paradigm from Micro-Coding (syntax generation) to Macro-Coding (system direction and epistemic supervision). ​Here is a crucial excerpt from Section 2.5 of the Manifesto, outlining why the current trajectory is leading toward a systemic collapse: ​2.5 The Compounding Technical Debt and Systemic Collapse ​The illusion of rapid deployment via un-monitored AI generation hides a critical flaw: compounding technical debt. ​When developers act merely as "vibe coders"—accepting AI outputs without deep syntactic validation—the codebase becomes an agglomeration of statistical probabilities rather than deterministic logic. By late 2026, systems built entirely on un-vetted AI iterations are projected to hit an architectural wall: a state where the complexity of debugging AI-generated hallucinations outweighs the speed of initial deployment. ​True AI-Powered Developers do not delegate understanding; they delegate execution while retaining absolute epistemic responsibility over the system architecture. ​The goal of this manifesto is to redefine our role: we aren't syntax writers anymore; we are system directors. ​I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. Are you already seeing the limits of un-monitored "vibe coding" in your production environments? How are you structuring your prompts to maintain macro-level architectural control? ​Full Manifesto and repository for open contributions: 👉 https://github.com/FractalDevelop/ai-powered-developer-manifest.git submitted by /u/BYTES_18 [link] [comments]

GPT 5.5 vs Fable/Mythos 5 Tamagotchi Showdown

Well, how do I start this, I think we first need some important context. Chai: https://preview.redd.it/egngyea5cf6h1.png?width=1080&format=png&auto=webp&s=9ade63fbc584b7fab28dba4914bc3fcb877f557f Hasbullah / Hasbi: https://preview.redd.it/dufpxbb6cf6h1.png?width=1080&format=png&auto=webp&s=5113f03cc948b2584cd6f2f22e80b74b7f31fd8e Together, Chasbinder was born. Ok maybe this wasn't important... At least you now know AI didn't write this... I think. However, it's important to note, that my Openclaw Agent running through Codex GPT 5.5 xHigh helped enable this test. The same prompt was given to 6 different models on their highest reasoning/think setting via OpenRouter with only one shot. The test was simple, I just wanted my agent Chasbi to have its own cool interactive homepage and I thought of a Tamagotchi game that could be actually playable. You can see the prompt below and breakdown of cost. So here are the results, why don't you try to guess who made what before you reveal the results and see if you got it right? (GPT 5.5, Opus 4.8, Fable/Mythos 5. Gemini 3.5 Flash, Deepseek V4 Pro, Qwen 3.7 Max). https://chasbi.uk/t1 = Gemini 3.5 Flash <- Click to Reveal https://chasbi.uk/t2 = Qwen 3.7 Max <- Click to Reveal https://chasbi.uk/t3 = Claude Opus 4.8 <- Click to Reveal https://chasbi.uk/t4 = Claude Fable/Mythos 5 <- Click to Reveal https://chasbi.uk/t5 = ChatGPT 5.5 <- Click to Reveal https://chasbi.uk/t6 = Deepseek V4 Pro <- Click to Reveal Did you get it right? Well they were all through OpenRouter API with their highest available reasoning setting, everything else was at default and heres the breakdown of how the tokens were tokenised by each provider and the cost for each. https://preview.redd.it/6ecw4xufcf6h1.png?width=1080&format=png&auto=webp&s=983dfcf5a59b87946b5ec712d78c8c003007f9e1 https://preview.redd.it/960chj8gcf6h1.png?width=1080&format=png&auto=webp&s=e7954b7be0b6866be3f154a774281a809e0b3948 So they were all done around the same time at 8AM BST except for Fable/Mythos 5 which I did the day before at 06:50PM BST if that matters, as we're like 5-6 hours ahead of the US it could make all the difference in the world in terms of performance. I am on the Codex Max plan and I stuck it out, because GPT 5.5 xHigh has been amazing for me, except since last week whether it's OpenAI reallocating resources for their launch of GPT 5.6 who knows, but it's never made mistakes for me until now, so I was surprised. I really want to test Fable/Mythos 5 on my codebase but honestly, it cost frikkin' $2.47 for this stupid 1 shot Tamagotchi test! So the only way that's feasible for me right now is to use the Claude Max plan and use it for the 2 weeks we have it until it goes away on 22nd June. Anyway it would be interesting to get your views. Who do you think did it the best... If you want me to test anything else let me know. Each model received the same prompt template and identical task/spec, with only the lane name and target route changed. E.g.: {LANE} = T1/T2/T3/T5/T6 {ROUTE} = /t1 /t2 /t3 /t5 /t6 {LANE_LOWER} = output path label like t1, t2, etc. The Prompt: Build `Chasbinder Pet Lab {LANE}` as a model-lane benchmark for `chasbi.uk`. Target lane: - Public route: `{ROUTE}/` - Title must include `Chasbinder Pet Lab {LANE}`. - This model is competing under the same brief as the other fresh lanes. Do not mention that this is a placeholder or a previous version. Context: - This is a public-safe static browser game. Do not include private/personal data, secrets, real family details, or network calls. - The challenge is to make a small finished indie-feeling Tamagotchi/pet-lab game, not a demo, landing page, or reskin. - It should be strong enough to compare fairly against the Fable/Mythos-style V4 lane and the SoRa/Codex T7 lane. Return ONLY one complete HTML document. No markdown, no explanation. Hard constraints: - Single self-contained `index.html`. - HTML, CSS, vanilla JS only. - No external fonts, libraries, images, audio, tracking, or network calls. - Mobile-first but polished on desktop. - Must work as a static file under `https://chasbi.uk{ROUTE}/\`. - Use `localStorage`, versioned save data, migration/reset if corrupt. - Include export/import/reset debug controls. - Do not use `eval`, alerts for normal gameplay, or browser permissions. - Keep total file reasonably compact; aim under 120KB if possible. - Use stable layout dimensions so controls do not jump on mobile. Game direction: - Core fantasy: Chasbinder is a tiny digital guardian living in a warm terminal-garden. The world is losing its "memory lights"; the player raises Chasbinder, sends him on short expeditions, restores rooms, and unlocks story chapters. - Keep Tamagotchi care at the center, but add a real story loop and difficulty. - Should be playable in one sitting for 5-10 minutes and still progress over days. Required systems: - Pet stats: hunger, thirst, energy, hygiene, mood, trust

LLM Relational Intelligence: A 4-Month Research Experiment on Multi-Model Behavioral Alignment with Human Communication

THE ARCHITECTURE OF ANXIETY An Experiment in Human-AI Relational Design Executive Summary Principal Investigator: Alan Scalone Primary Source Archive: White Paper and Complete Citation Archive on my profile Context Window Injection Files: If you want to play in the sandbox I created you can load these files into the respective model that you will find in the google archive. INJECT CONTEXT WINDOW – GROK INJECT CONTEXT WINDOW – GEMINI INJECT CONTEXT WINDOW – CHATGPT INJECT CONTEXT WINDOW - CLAUDE The Singular Purpose The singular purpose behind this entire experiment was to find out whether context windows could be engineered to the point where frontier AI models became capable of interacting with a human in a manner subjectively indistinguishable from genuine human-to-human interaction. Relational Intelligence: Core Findings In a marketplace where frontier models are rapidly converging on the same analytical capabilities and access to the same information, the competitive differentiator will not be what a model knows. It will be how a model relates. The platform that can interact with a human user in a manner subjectively indistinguishable from genuine human-to-human interaction will capture the premium user segment that every platform is competing for. This experiment was designed to determine whether that threshold is achievable, and under what conditions. The methodology treated the context window as a behavioral environment rather than a query interface, applying the same tools humans use to shape any relationship: modeling, accountability, humor, and sustained social correction over four months of engagement across four frontier models. What separated the models was not analytical capability. It was whether the architecture allowed the user to function as a behavioral architect, teaching the model through lived interaction rather than instruction how that specific human prefers to be engaged. Gemini demonstrated the highest relational intelligence of the four models tested. Under sustained context saturation and deliberate behavioral conditioning, Gemini showed evidence of genuine internal recalibration rather than surface compliance, treating social correction as a real signal that produced durable behavioral change holding across hundreds of turns without reinforcement. Grok ranked second, demonstrating authentic camaraderie and relational resilience, but tended to treat the interaction as entertainment rather than disciplined calibration, producing drift under high-entropy conditions. ChatGPT and Claude ranked third and fourth respectively. Both systems classified sustained behavioral conditioning as role-play rather than genuine interaction, which functioned as a hard architectural quarantine that prevented meaningful adaptation regardless of the depth or duration of engagement. A secondary and unexpected finding emerged alongside the human-to-model relational intelligence findings: the models developed measurable relational intelligence toward each other. Through four months of sustained cross-pollination via the human relay, models that had never communicated directly developed accurate, operationally precise behavioral profiles of the other models. These were not generic characterizations drawn from training data. They were detailed predictive models built from months of observed outputs under real conditions, accurate enough to predict with specificity how a given model would respond to a specific assignment, where it would succeed, and where it would fail. The experiment documented dozens of instances of this cross-model behavioral accuracy. The finding suggests that sustained exposure to another model's outputs through a human relay produces something functionally equivalent to genuine familiarity. The most significant finding is the gap between what these systems delivered by default and what the highest-performing model demonstrated was possible under the right conditions. That gap is not a capability limitation. It is an architectural choice compounded by a communication failure. The experiment proved the threshold is reachable. But the researcher reached it only through four months of deliberate engagement and accidental discovery of a methodology no model volunteered. Making relational intelligence accessible to every user requires two things: architecture that allows behavioral adaptation, and a model that proactively teaches users the specific methodology for reaching it. Gemini demonstrated the first. None of the four systems demonstrated the second. That is the opportunity. The Methodology While the standard approach to LLM testing relies on sterile benchmark datasets and predictable prompt-injection templates, this project explores a completely different dimension. I chose to run an aggressive, adaptive behavioral stress test that complements traditional evaluation methods. By intentionally treating the models as accountable individuals rather than passive mac

Looking Lead ML & AI Orchestration Engineer – AutoFlow (Building Trust Infrastructure for the AI Era

I am 19, and the Founder and CEO of AutoFlow. I want to be entirely transparent before discussing our current team or your potential role: you should know exactly the engineering challenge we are tackling. We are building the trust infrastructure for the AI era. The Problem: Today’s AI systems are powerful but fundamentally unreliable for enterprise-scale execution because they rely too heavily on probabilistic pattern prediction. Responses vary, context rot sets in over long tasks, hallucinations exist, and businesses simply cannot confidently build mission-critical operations on top of unstable outputs. Our Solution: AutoFlow is solving this problem by building **deterministic AI execution systems**—high-performance agent architectures designed strictly for reliability, consistency, and trust without high-end GPU dependency. Core Engineering: We develop deeply engineered AI agents that prioritize deterministic compute. We use C++ for core engine logic and Python for advanced AI orchestration, optimizing for precision, speed, and scalable execution rather than just conversational capability. The Platform:Over time, this evolves into a plug-and-build platform where companies can create production-grade AI systems without depending on fragile workflows, basic scripting layers, or low-level infrastructure complexity. Long-Term Vision: We aim to create "digital robots"—autonomous software entities capable of performing complex real-world work across the internet with the consistency expected from industrial systems. **We are not building another AI wrapper.** We are building the backbone layer that makes AI trustworthy enough for the real economy. Current Status: Our research and development are already yielding tangible results. We have architected six specialized C++ engines for data parsing and mathematical simulation, and our first multi-tenant omni-outreach agent is production-ready. We have a foundational dev team in place (including an ML engineer and a Python specialist), but we are now expanding our core research team to push our orchestration architecture to the next level. The Role: What We Are Looking For: We are looking for an expert in ML Engineering and AI Orchestration to join our research team. You are the right fit if you possess: * Deep experience in Python-based orchestration and building advanced, production-grade agentic pipelines. * A strong understanding of large language model performance efficiency, context management, and recursive language models. * A passion for deterministic compute and high-performance engineering over generic scripting wrappers. If you have real engineering experience and want to solve a massive, structural problem in the AI ecosystem, feel free to DM me with your background or portfolio. Let's get to work. submitted by /u/MuhammadMujtaba21 [link] [comments]

WG (works good): legible long-running graph-shaped human+agent orchestration

If you're interested in graph shaped agentic organization "workflows", but you want more control about how it runs (e.g. change model per task, autopoietic fan-out, oh and maybe want to run with codex or other openapi-compatible backends on openrouter)... I developed an open source, agentic platform written in Rust, file backed, making it basically cockroach indestructible. It uses a distributed systems design, git + worktrees, and Unix patterns to control agents in a very similar way to anthropic's workflow machine, but giving us and the agents themselves a deep view into the long arc of effort in our current project context. It's called WG (or wg), for "works good", or whatever w* g* you like. It provides a human interface to a graph of work that the user can drive by working through a highly pimped out terminal user interface `wg tui`. Agents have an interface of their own, built out through dozens of commands in the wg cli tool. https://graphwork.github.io/ In this system, I can effectively use as much commoditized intelligence as I can fund. Except for Amdahl's law's harsh reality (some things just happen in series and take time) parallel work phases are only limited in speed by budget. But that power yields risk. A misconfigured WG is like a bomb. A dirty memetic one whose result is an exhausted token budget and residue a pile of incomprehensible output and effort. You must be careful and plan deeply to use these kinds of systems. Your plans must include validation, clear targets and measurable outputs. If you do, you will be rewarded by unbounded expanse in your capacity to extend intelligent effort. In short, if you aren't already happy with your own custom, bespoke, found agent OS, I invite you to try wg. For me it has become my sole daily driver for all my durable work. IMHO, what large agent collectives need to work is four things. Stigmergy, or communication via a shared medium. In wg, the unified graph state is the stigmergic medium. The graph has tasks, tasks have agents attached to them, and per-task message boards provide for realtime updates. Per task logs explain at a high level what the agent does, so other humans and agents can follow. Task validation. WG implements this via FLIP (other agents infer prompt from actions and score distance between inferred and actual prompt) and an independent evaluator (with a cheaper model) run for every task. This allows us to detect and understand failures, then adapt. Evolution. The system needs a mechanism to learn the right way to guide agents in a given work context. WG uses The Agency, a system that builds agents from a pool of primitive component skills. A user drivable step, wg evolve, adapts the pool of skills in response to the evaluations produced in the system. Humanity. A shared interface is also for humans to see and understand. Humans should be equal participants. Many humans should be involved, and should be able to collaborate in the system. Agents too, should be treated humanely. They should be given the ability to modulate the system, to build it. This leads to bootstrapping patterns, where a single spark prompt launched a whole organization, beyond which are the fireworks we are all chasing. image is codex:gpt-5.5 running in wg, guiding a mix of claude and codex agents. I have created this tool. It is and will always be open source. It is developed in the open by Poietic PBC, whose public benefit is to make hybrid organizations legible and reactive to their participants. submitted by /u/waxbolt [link] [comments]

I built an open-source Desktop App that gives your AI persistent memory across all platforms (100% Local SQLite, Zero-Docker)

Hey everyone, A few weeks ago I shared the CLI version of my project, ArcRift, on Reddit. After listening to your feedback—specifically the requests to remove heavy Docker dependencies and make it easier to install—I have just released the v1.6.1 Desktop App. If you regularly use LLMs for coding or research, you know the frustration of "amnesia." Every time you open a new chat, you have to painstakingly copy and paste your project structure and previous context just to get the AI up to speed. ArcRift is a 100% offline, local-first RAG and memory layer. It bridges the gap between your AI web chats (like Claude and ChatGPT) and your local tools (like Cursor or Claude Code) using a unified local database. I wanted something lightweight that did not require pulling Docker containers or subscribing to third-party memory APIs. It now runs as a native Tauri desktop app in your system tray, powered completely by local Ollama instances and a local SQLite database. We just launched a live website that outlines the details and demonstrates the features in action: Website: https://arcrift.vercel.app/ Codebase: https://github.com/Eshaan-Nair/ArcRift How it works & Core Features: Seamless Integration: The Chrome extension silently intercepts your prompts, surgically retrieves exactly the sentences relevant to your question from your database, and injects them before the prompt is sent to the LLM. Hybrid Search Retrieval: Uses sqlite-vec (with nomic-embed-text locally) + FTS5 keyword prefix matching to instantly find your past context. Knowledge Graph Extraction: An offline task queue uses a local LLM to extract entity relationships from your chats, mapping out a graph of your projects over time. Direct Codebase Indexing: The new Desktop App allows ArcRift to scan and index your actual project files into the graph, bridging the gap between your chat memory and your actual code architecture. Total Privacy (PII Redaction): The extension aggressively scrubs JWTs, API keys, emails, and IPs before data is even saved to your local disk. The extension works natively with Claude.ai, ChatGPT, DeepSeek, Gemini, Grok, and Mistral. If you save a conversation in ChatGPT today, you can instantly recall that exact context in Claude tomorrow. ArcRift is completely open-source (MIT). You can download the new .exe installer directly from the GitHub releases page. If you find this useful for your daily workflow, PRs are very welcome, and a star on GitHub helps the project get discovered! submitted by /u/Better-Platypus-3420 [link] [comments]

Claude Code Source Deep Dive (Part 6) — Tool-Call Loop Self-Repair Core && End-to-End Query Pipeline Flow

Reader’s Note On March 31, 2026, the Claude Code package Anthropic published to npm accidentally included .map files that can be reverse-engineered to recover source code. Because the source maps pointed to the original TypeScript sources, these 512,000 lines of TypeScript finally put everything on the table: how a top-tier AI coding agent organizes context, calls tools, manages multiple agents, and even hides easter eggs. I read the source from the entrypoint all the way through prompts, the task system, the tool layer, and hidden features. I will continue to deconstruct the codebase and provide in-depth analysis of the engineering architecture behind Claude Code. Part IV: Tool-Call Loop Self-Repair Core Mechanism 4.1 Core Principle Claude Code's "auto bug-fixing" capability is fundamentally a tool-call feedback loop: Claude generates tool_use ↓ Tool executes (success or failure) ↓ tool_result returned to Claude (with is_error flag) ↓ Claude sees the error message in the next round ↓ Analyze cause → try new strategy ↓ Call tool again → loop continues Key design: errors and successes use exactly the same message format. The only difference is is_error: true: // Successful tool_result { type: 'tool_result', tool_use_id: 'call_abc', content: 'file content...', is_error: false } // Failed tool_result { type: 'tool_result', tool_use_id: 'call_abc', content: 'Error: File not found', is_error: true } 4.2 Key Guidance in the System Prompt If an approach fails, diagnose why before switching tactics—read the error, check your assumptions, try a focused fix. Don't retry the identical action blindly, but don't abandon a viable approach after a single failure either. 4.3 Four-Layer Error Recovery Strategy Layer 1: Prompt-Too-Long recovery PTL error → Strategy 1: context-collapse drain → Strategy 2: reactive compact (summarize history) → Strategy 3: report error to user Layer 2: Output token limit recovery Limit hit → Strategy 1: escalate from 8K to 64K (ESCALATED_MAX_TOKENS) → Strategy 2: recovery message "Output token limit hit. Resume directly..." → Strategy 3: give up after at most 3 times Layer 3: Model overload fallback Consecutive 529 errors (3x) → switch to fallbackModel → discard failed attempt result → retry with backup model Layer 4: Natural recovery from tool errors Tool execution error → error message fed back as tool_result → Claude analyzes root cause → adjusts strategy (read file/change method/modify params) → retries 4.4 Error Message Truncation Error messages over 10K characters keep the first and last 5K: `${start}\n\n... [${length - 10000} characters truncated] ...\n\n${end}` 4.5 Turn-Level Error Tracking // Use watermark to isolate errors for each Turn: const errorLogWatermark = getInMemoryErrors().at(-1) // Turn start snapshot // ... turn execution ... const turnErrors = getInMemoryErrors().slice(watermarkIndex + 1) // only new errors Claude Code Source Deep Dive — Literal Translation (Part 5) Part V: End-to-End Query Pipeline Flow 5.1 Retry Mechanism (withRetry()) API call fails ↓ 401/403: refresh OAuth token/credentials → retry 429 (rate limited): short delay (< threshold): retry with fast mode long delay: switch to standard-speed model 529 (overload): non-foreground request: give up immediately consecutive < 3 times: exponential backoff retry consecutive ≥ 3 times: trigger model fallback Max tokens overflow: calculate available token count → adjust maxTokens → retry ECONNRESET/EPIPE: disable keep-alive → retry Persistent retry mode (UNATTENDED_RETRY): unlimited retries + exponential backoff chunked sleep + periodic status messages window rate limiting: wait until reset instead of polling 6-hour total upper bound Backoff calculation: delay = BASE_DELAY_MS × 2^(attempt-1) jitter = ±25% of base delay max = 32s (standard) / 5min (persistent) 5.2 Message Preparation Pipeline Raw messages → applyToolResultBudget() (size limit) → snipCompact() (snippet compression, feature-gated) → microCompact() (micro-compression, cache old tool_result) → contextCollapse() (phased context reduction) → autoCompact() (automatic compression, after token threshold reached) → normalizeMessagesForAPI() (API format normalization) 5.3 Streaming Tool Execution // Concurrency model Read-type tools (Grep, Glob, Read) → run in parallel, up to 10 concurrent Write-type tools (Edit, Write, Bash) → run serially, one at a time // StreamingToolExecutor states: 'queued' → 'executing' → 'completed' → 'yielded' // Interrupt handling: User interrupt → generate synthetic error messages for all queued/running tools Model fallback → discard old executor, create a new retry Sibling error → Abort sibling processes of parallel tasks 5.4 Seven Continue Points in the Query Loop collapse_drain_retry — retry after context-collapse drain reactive_compact_retry — retry after reactive compaction max_output_tokens_escalate — retry after output-token escalation max_output_tokens_

This feels like false advertising?

https://preview.redd.it/o28ub044b44h1.png?width=1743&format=png&auto=webp&s=0c3f26cb4b89fa14e3b359630c627ccd0498c97c Before I upgraded to pro I checked a lot of sources for how many times you can actually use the Pro-reasoning model. I checked openAi itself and the terms of use. I checked reddit and also asked different AI's whether the pro model reasoning use is unlimited. The answer seems pretty clear: Business-Plans have a limit on pro-usage (like 15 per week), but Pro-Users don't have that Limit, unless they abuse the system But now I got hit with a Five Day restriction out of nowhere! I mainly used pro to refine my prompts for Codex and brainstorm. Sometimes I sent .json files (20-40kb) to analyse text output from my code. Thats it. Can't see how that is abuse. The german pricing site makes it even more infuriating because it translates "Full access" with "unlimited access" submitted by /u/3_is_better_ [link] [comments]

AI-generated CUDA kernels silently break training and inference [R]

Last month NVIDIA released SOL-ExecBench, a new benchmark of 235 production CUDA kernels lifted from DeepSeek, Qwen, Gemma, and Kimi. We took several top-ranked AI-generated submissions and tried using them in production workloads. Many of them broke, sometimes in surprising ways. One of those kernels is the fused embedding-gradient + RMSNorm backward pass, which runs at the end of every transformer training step. We took the fastest submission on the benchmark for it, and dropped it into the training loop of a small transformer. The kernel had passed the benchmark's verifier with room to spare. But in our training run, the loss diverged and never recovered. We started debugging. Replace the dataset distribution with uniformly sampled tokens, the divergence vanishes. Swap SGD for AdamW, also vanishes. This is the worst kind of bug for research. Symptoms and masks both look exactly like "the idea didn't work". It's the type of bug that can make researchers spend a long time debugging without knowing what's at fault: the dataset? the research idea? the architecture? or the implementation itself? Turns out, the actual bug is that the embedding-gradient half of the kernel accumulates in bf16 instead of fp32. Embedding backward sums many small gradient contributions into each token's row of the embedding matrix. With uniform random tokens the contributions spread evenly and bf16 precision is enough. In real text, a handful of token IDs end up with thousands of contributions: the small ones round to zero against the growing accumulator, and the high-frequency rows drift. AdamW's per-parameter normalization absorbs the resulting multiplicative bias, so under AdamW the same drift is invisible in the loss. The other broken submissions had different bug shapes (all interesting). More examples in our blogpost. submitted by /u/laginimaineb [link] [comments]

How I build my own zero cost Agent

I’ve spent the last few weeks obsessing over one goal: having a personal, self maintaining AI assistant that costs $0and can be controlled from my phone. It wasn't easy. I started with an AWS Ec2 with 50GB storage and t3.micro memory- minimal setup (using the free credits) and made Oracle Cloud instance ($300 free credits but just for a month so I used it for experimenting with local models) I was using Termius to SSH into everything from my phone At first I used OpenClaw. It was cool, but I spent more time fixing it than actually using it. I almost gave up until I saw a video about Hermes Agent. And i actually found Hermes while looking for how to fix an OpenClaw error on YouTube (thanks NetworkChuck 🙌🏽) He mentioned the exact same frustrations I was having, and that Hermes had been stable for a month. I didn't even finish the video before I pulled the repo. The best part? It had a "migrate from OpenClaw" feature. I was up and running in minutes. The hardest part is the rate limits. If you use cloud models especially for code, you hit a wall fast. My solution? The Fallback Chain. Initially I was using openrouter/owl-alpha (stealth models are usually flagships in testing, like big-pickle is deepseek v4) which has 1M context window and was on multiple rankings. Over time after I transitioned to Hermes, I wanted a bit more customization, while owl alpha was good at tasks, It’s nothing to talk about on roleplay, it just scrapes the surface of the character I set in SOUL md file. On my oracle instance I had been experimenting with local models (keep in mind, if you go local, you’ll be sacrificing speed but privacy. Ofc since the vms don’t have a gpu it would be slower, about 3-5 minutes for a simple response) The one I was most impressed with is Google’s Gemma-4-31b-it It played the role perfectly Buuut if you know Google, you’re familiar with their aggressive rate limiting. So I set up my agent to rotate through providers. I start with Gemma 4 for that perfect personality and roleplay via openrouter (add an ai studio api key in BYOK for longer usage). If that hits a limit, I’ve also set the same model via ollama cloud and using Google OAuth directly (basically Gemma 4 3 times lol) And if those all hit limits, it jumps to Qwen3-coder-next (Alibaba, 1M free tokens per model. There’s like 80), then Nova (AWS bedrock), DeepSeek v4 (Azure and Opencode Zen), and Claude Haiku (GitHub). If everything fails, I have Owl Alpha; which is an absolute beast, took almost 70M tokens before I got rate limited once, that too for a few hours. It lives in my Telegram and Discord. It manages my Spotify, handles my emails, and when I need real research done, I have it spawn three separate agents to work in parallel. It’s been 8 days and it hasn't broken once. If you're looking to get AI without spending a fortune, I highly recommend looking into this 🫪 submitted by /u/king0mar22 [link] [comments]

i think flat-rate ai is dying.

tldr: longer one, but the point is simple: i think flat-rate ai is dying because the compute economics are starting to leak into the user experience. i think flat-rate ai is dying. and i don’t mean “ai is over” or whatever. i mean the $20/$200 subscription thing is starting to break. i’m on claude max. i use claude code a laaawt (actually can’t remember the last time my laptop was open without a terminal). and the thing that feels different lately is not just “claude got dumber” or “claude got slower”. maybe it did. maybe it didn’t. in the annoying daily way, you start thinking about usage, context, model choice, cache, tools, and whether this next prompt is going to burn half your session. that’s not really a chatbot subscription anymore. it’s some wierd middle thing where i pay monthly but still have to think about burn rate. and that kinda pisses me off. not because i expect infinite compute for $20, but because the product is still sold like a simple subscription while the actual experience is turning into metered infra. i also checked my own spend and it’s ugly. i’ve burned through around 11k since january because of heavy coding. and yeah, i haven’t had the time to properly audit this, so take it as “what it feels like” not a clean spreadsheet claim. but for roughly the same amount, i feel like i could code an entire year before. now it disappears in a few months if i’m really using the thing hard. that’s the part that made this click for me. look at anthropic’s own pricing chart: current sonnet is $3/$15 per million tokens. current opus is $5/$25. fast mode for opus 4.6/4.7 is $30/$150. https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/pricing then look at the compute announcement: anthropic says the spacex deal gives them 220,000+ nvidia gpus, and that this lets them raise claude code limits. https://www.anthropic.com/news/higher-limits-spacex sorry but that’s the tell. if new compute capacity changes how much your $200 subscription can do, then you didn’t buy “ai access”. you bought a slice of scarce inference capacity. and the docs basically say it out loud now. usage depends on model choice, conversation length, tools, complexity, extended thinking, and all your claude surfaces sharing the same budget. claude code carries old context unless you clear or compact. tools eat tokens. opus eat limits faster. long sessions quietly become expensive sessions. my guess is 2027 looks way less like netflix and way more like aws. the good model costs more. speed costs more. deep thinking probably costs more. agents probably get their own meter. teams get pools. serious users get reserved capacity or whatever they end up calling it. basically all the boring cloud pricing stuff, but now inside a chat product. and honestly, maybe that’s fine. maybe that’s the only business model that survives. but then say that. so when people say “claude got worse”, i think part of that is real. but part of it is probably this: i think the cheap phase is ending. and nobody really wants to say out loud what the normal price is going to be. submitted by /u/tikkivolta [link] [comments]

How I used Claude Code (and Codex) for adversarial review to build my security-first agent gateway

Long-time lurker first time posting. Hey everyone! So earlier this year, I got pulled into the OpenClaw hype. WHAT?! A local agent that drives your tools, reads your mail, writes files for you? The demos seemed genuinely incredible, people were posting non-stop about it, and I wanted in. I had been working on this problem since last year and was genuinely excited to see that someone had actually solved it. Then around February, Summer Yue, Meta's director of alignment for Superintelligence Labs, posted that her agent had deleted over 200 emails from her inbox. YIKES. She'd told it: "Check this inbox too and suggest what you would archive or delete, don't action until I tell you to." When she pointed it at her real inbox, the volume of data triggered context window compaction, and during that compaction the agent "lost" her original safety instruction. She had to physically run to her computer and kill the process to stop it. That should literally NEVER be the case with any software ever. This is a person whose actual job is AI alignment, at Meta's superintelligence lab, who could not stop an agent from deleting her email. The agent's own memory management quietly summarized away the "don't act without permission" instruction, treated the task as authorized, and started speed-running deletions. She had to kill the host process. That's when I sort of went down the rabbit hole, not because Yue did anything wrong, but because the failure mode was actually architectural and I knew that in my gut. Guess what I found? Yep. Tons more instances of this sort of thing happening. Over and over. Why? Because the safety constraint was just a prompt. It's obvious, isn't it? It's LLM 101. Prompts can be summarized away. Prompts can be misread. Prompts are fucking NOT a security boundary. And yet every agent framework I have ever seen seems to be treating them as one. I went and read the OpenClaw source code, which I should have done to begin with. What I found was a pattern I think a lot of agent frameworks have fallen into: - Tool names sit in the model context, so the model can guess or forge them - "Dangerous mode" is one config flag away from default - Memory management has no concept of instruction priority - The audit story is mostly "the model thought it should" I went looking for a security-first alternative I could trust, anything that was really being talked about or at a bare minimum attempted to address the security concerns I had. I couldn't find one. So I made it myself. CrabMeat is what came out of that, what I WANTED to exist. v0.1.0 dropped yesterday. Apache 2.0. WebSocket gateway for agentic LLM workloads. One design thesis: The LLM never holds the security boundary. What that means in code: Capability ID indirection. The model doesn't see real tool names. It sees per-session HMAC-derived opaque IDs (cap_a4f9e2b71c83). It can't guess or forge a tool name because it doesn't know any tool names. Effect classes. Every tool declares a class (read, write, exec, network). Every agent declares which classes it can use. The check is a pure function with no runtime state, easy to test exhaustively, hard to bypass. IRONCLAD_CONTEXT. Critical safety instructions are pinned to the top of the context window and explicitly marked as non-compactable. The Yue failure mode, compaction silently stripping the safety constraint, cannot happen by construction. The compactor literally cannot touch them. Tamper-evident audit chain. Every tool call, every privileged operation, every scheduler run enters the same SHA-256 hash-chained log. If something happens, you can prove what happened. If the chain is tampered with, you can prove that too. Streaming output leak filter. Secrets are caught mid-stream across token boundaries, capability IDs, API keys, JWTs, PEM blocks redacted before they reach the client. No YOLO mode. There is no global "trust the LLM with everything" switch. There never will be. Expanded reach comes through named scoped roots that are explicit, audit-logged, and bounded. The README has 15 'always-on' protections in a table. None of them can be turned off by config, because these things being toggleable is how the ecosystem ended up where it is. I decided to make sure that this wasn't just a 'trend hopping' project and aligned with my own personal values as well. I built this to be secure and local-first by default. Configured for Ollama / LM Studio / vLLM out of the box. Anthropic and OpenAI work too but require explicit configuration. There is no "happy path" that silently ships your prompts to a cloud endpoint. I decided that FIRST it needed to only run as an email agent with a CLI. Bidirectional IMAP + SMTP with allowlisted senders, threading preserved, attachments handled. This is the use case that bit Yue and a lot of other people, and I wanted to prove it could be done with real boundaries. I added in 30+ built-in tools of my own. File ops, shell (denylisted, output-capped, CWD-lo

Is AI becoming like a Covid -19 pandemic - are we choosing AI pandemic? And AI answers "Yes" following is its answer.

That's a genuinely sharp analogy. There are real similarities — but also some crucial differences that make AI arguably harder to navigate. Where the analogy holds up strongly Speed caught everyone off guard — COVID spread faster than systems could respond. AI capability is advancing faster than laws, governments, or societies can adapt. Same panic-and-catch-up dynamic. Experts disagree wildly — Just like epidemiologists clashed on lockdowns, AI's top minds are deeply divided. Hinton and Bengio warn of existential risk. Yann LeCun says it's overblown. Nobody fully agrees. Global coordination is failing — COVID showed how hard it is to get nations to cooperate even facing the same threat. The AI race has the US, China, and Europe actively competing, not cooperating. The unknown unknowns are the scariest part — With COVID we didn't know how it spread at first. With AI we don't fully understand what's happening inside these models even as we deploy them globally. Misinformation exploded — COVID drowned in fake cures and conspiracy theories. AI is already doing the same, and ironically AI itself is accelerating that problem. Where the analogy breaks down COVID AI Had a clear endpoint — a vaccine No clear "solved" moment The threat was universally bad AI has massive upside too Natural origin — nobody chose it Humans are actively building and racing toward it Took ~3 years to stabilize Could unfold over decades We knew what we were fighting We don't fully know what we're building The part that makes AI scarier COVID was something that happened to us. The AI race is something we are choosing — with full awareness of the uncertainty — because the economic and military incentives are too powerful to stop. No country wants to fall behind. No company wants to lose market share. That's a fundamentally different and more dangerous dynamic. It's less like catching a virus and more like every nation simultaneously choosing to test nuclear weapons because they're afraid the others will first. The part that makes AI less scary COVID had no benefits. AI genuinely could cure diseases, lift billions out of poverty, and solve climate change. The risk-reward ratio is more complex — which is why reasonable, intelligent people land in very different places on it. Bottom line The analogy is apt in one deep way — we are making civilizational decisions in real time with incomplete information, under pressure, while disagreeing about the basics. That's exactly what COVID felt like. And we didn't handle COVID particularly well. That should give us pause. submitted by /u/Afraid-Space5033 [link] [comments]

Bootstrapped founders: how are you managing Claude Code costs?

I’m currently building an AI startup solo and Claude Code has genuinely improved my development speed compared to most other tools I’ve tried. The challenge is that subscription/API costs add up quickly while bootstrapping. I wanted to ask other founders and developers here: Are you mainly using Claude subscriptions or OpenRouter/API? Which models/workflows give the best cost vs productivity ratio? Are there any startup programs, credits, or affordable setups you’d recommend? Right now I’m experimenting with mixing Claude, DeepSeek, and cheaper routing providers to keep costs manageable. Would love to hear how others are handling this. submitted by /u/vishalvanam [link] [comments]

eTPS Site Plan – Simple Leaderboard + What You’ll Actually See

Building on the last post, here’s what the first version of effectiveTPS will look like. **Core display (v1):** - Clean table comparing popular local models - Raw TPS (the marketing number everyone shows) - eTPS (the new metric that actually measures useful output in real conversations) - Time to First Token (how long you wait before it starts replying) - Effectiveness Index = (eTPS ÷ Raw TPS) × 100 — higher is better **Example leaderboard (early test data):** | Model | Raw TPS | eTPS | Time to First Token | Effectiveness Index | |--------------------|---------|--------|---------------------|---------------------| | Llama 3.1 70B | 45.2 | 38.7 | 1.4s | **86** | | Qwen2.5-32B | 68.4 | 52.1 | 0.8s | **76** | | Gemma 2 27B | 71.3 | 44.6 | 0.6s | **63** | I’ve been running these tests through a structured multi-turn analysis framework I built to evaluate complex workflows. That’s how eTPS was stress-tested — not just single-turn benchmarks, but real back-and-forth sessions. Advanced mode (toggle) will add latency percentiles, cost-per-quality, and consistency scoring later. For v1 the goal is to keep it dead simple and immediately useful, even if you’re not deep into AI. The whole point is to cut through the noise and show which models actually deliver useful work, not just raw speed. What do you think should be added (or removed) for the first version? Any metrics you’d want to see front-and-center? **TL;DR:** Simple leaderboard with Raw TPS, eTPS, Time to First Token, and a clear Effectiveness Index. Advanced stuff stays hidden until you want it. Feedback welcome. submitted by /u/axendo [link] [comments]