xAI has launched Grok Build, "a coding agent of its own to serve as competitor to its rivals' products, such as Anthropic's Claude Code," reports Engadget:
As Bloomberg notes, xAI has been trying to catch up to its rival companies like Anthropic and OpenAI. Elon Musk, the company's founder and CEO, previously admitted that it has fallen behind its competitors when it comes to coding. A couple of months ago, Musk said he was rebuilding xAI "from the foundations up" after several co-founders had left the company. One of the company's executives reportedly told staffers to work on getting Grok to match Claude's performance across various tasks.
More details from PCMag:
Grok Build is currently available in beta to those with a SuperGrok Heavy subscription, which starts at $300 per month. Just download it from the xAI website and log in. It's described as "a powerful new coding agent and CLI for professional software engineering and complex coding work." In its early version, xAI is seeking feedback and looking to fix any bugs... Only a few features have been highlighted, including a plan mode that lets you review, edit, and approve a plan before execution, and support for existing plug-ins and workflows.
"Every link leads to an entry that does not exist yet," explains the GitHub page for a Wikipedia-like site called Halupedia. "Until you click it, at which point an LLM pretends it has always existed and writes it for you, in the deadpan register of a 19th-century scholarly press..."
Every article is invented on demand. The footnotes are also lies... The hardest problem with an infinite, on-demand encyclopedia is internal contradiction... When the LLM writes an article, it is required to add a context="..." attribute on every <a> it inserts, summarising the future article it is linking to (e.g. context="19th-century clerk who formalized footnote drift, Pellbrick's mentor")... When that target article is later requested for the first time, the worker loads the accumulated hints and injects them into the system prompt as "PRIOR REFERENCES — these are CANON". The LLM is instructed that the encyclopedia is hallucinated and absurd, but it must not contradict itself.
Fast Company reports that Halupedia was created by software developer Bartlomiej Strama, who confessed in a Reddit comment that the site came about after a drunk night with a friend. In the week since launch, he says Halupedia has amassed more than 150,000 users."
Beyond indulging in silly alternate histories, what's the point of using Halupedia? Strama hinted at one larger purpose in a reply to a donor on his Buy Me a Coffee page: "Your contribution towards polluting LLM training data will surely benefit society!" he wrote.
The site is licensed as free software under the GPL-3.0 license.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 for sharing the news.
Bloomberg reports that Apple's two-year-old partnership with OpenAI "has become strained, according to people familiar with the matter."
Bloomberg describes OpenAI as "failing to see the expected benefits from the deal and now preparing possible legal action."
OpenAI lawyers are actively working with an outside legal firm on a range of options that could be formally executed in the near future, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the deliberations are private. That could include sending the iPhone maker a notice alleging breach of contract without necessarily filing a full lawsuit at the outset, according to the people... OpenAI believed that the companies' partnership, which wove ChatGPT into Apple software, would coax more users into subscribing to the chatbot. It also expected deeper integration across more Apple apps and prime placement within the Siri assistant. Instead, Apple's use of OpenAI technology across its operating systems remains limited, and features can be hard to find...
Apple has had its own concerns about OpenAI, including whether the company does enough to protect user privacy. And a recent push [by OpenAI] to make devices — an effort overseen by former Apple executives — has rankled the iPhone maker.
Any legal move by OpenAI likely wouldn't come until after the conclusion of the Musk trial, according to the people. No final decisions have been made, and OpenAI still hopes to resolve its issues with Apple outside of court.
The article points out that OpenAI "initially believed the deal could generate billions of dollars per year in subscriptions — something that hasn't come close to happening." An OpenAI executive argues to Bloomberg that from a product perspective Apple hasn't done everything they could, "and worse, they haven't even made an honest effort."
"The vulnerability is simple in practice," writes Tom's Hardware: "run a command as a standard user and gain root (administrator) access to the machine."
And it was Mythos Preview that helped the security researchers at Palo Alto-based Calif bypass a five-year Apple security effort in just five days. The blog 9to5Mac reports:
Last year, Apple introduced Memory Integrity Enforcement (MIE), a hardware-assisted memory safety system designed to make memory corruption exploits much harder to execute... [The researchers note it's built into Apple all models of the iPhone 17 and iPhone Air, and some MacBooks] They explain they have a 55-page technical report on the hack, but they won't release it until Apple ships a fix for the exploit. But they do note in broad terms that Anthropic's Mythos Preview model helped them identify the bugs and assisted them throughout the entire collaborative exploit development process.
"Mythos Preview is powerful: once it has learned how to attack a class of problems, it generalizes to nearly any problem in that class. Mythos discovered the bugs quickly because they belong to known bug classes. But MIE is a new best-in-class mitigation, so autonomously bypassing it can be tricky. This is where human expertise comes in. Part of our motivation was to test what's possible when the best models are paired with experts. Landing a kernel memory corruption exploit against the best protections in a week is noteworthy, and says something strong about this pairing...."
[I]n a time when even small teams, with the help of AI, can make discoveries such as this one, "we're about to learn how the best mitigation technology on Earth holds up during the first AI bugmageddon."
Aucun historique de conversation stocké sur des serveurs : Mark Zuckerberg annonce un mode 100 % privé pour Meta AI sur WhatsApp. Une opération séduction pour rassurer des internautes légitimement méfiants à l'égard de l'IA et des chatbots, mais aussi envers le passif de l'entreprise américaine.
The Linux 7.1 kernel has added new documentation clarifying what qualifies as a security bug and how AI-assisted vulnerability reports should be handled. Phoronix reports: Stemming from the recent influx of security bugs to the Linux kernel as well as an uptick in bug and security reports from discoveries made in full or in part with AI, additional documentation was warranted. Longtime Linux developer Willy Tarreau took to authoring the additional documentation around kernel bugs. To summarize (since the documentation is a bit too lengthy for a Slashdot story), the AI-assisted vulnerability reports should "be treated as public" because such findings "systematically surface simultaneously across multiple researchers, often on the same day." It adds that reporters should avoid posting a reproducer openly, instead "just mention that one is available" and provide it privately if maintainers request it. The guidance also tells AI-assisted reporters to keep submissions concise and plain-text, focus on verifiable impact rather than speculative consequences, include a thoroughly tested reproducer, and, where possible, propose and test a fix.
As for what qualifies as a security bug, the documentation says the private security list is for "urgent bugs that grant an attacker a capability they are not supposed to have on a correctly configured production system" and are easy to exploit, creating an imminent threat to many users. Reporters are told to consider whether the issue "actually crosses a trust boundary," since many bugs submitted privately are really ordinary defects that belong in the normal public reporting process.
All the new documentation can be read via this commit.
Aucun historique de conversation stocké sur des serveurs : Mark Zuckerberg annonce un mode 100 % privé pour Meta AI sur WhatsApp. Une opération séduction pour rassurer des internautes légitimement méfiants à l'égard de l'IA et des chatbots, mais aussi envers le passif de l'entreprise américaine.
ArXiv says it will ban authors for one year if they submit papers containing AI-generated slop, such as hallucinated citations, placeholder text, or chatbot meta-comments left in the manuscript.
"If generative AI tools generate inappropriate language, plagiarized content, biased content, errors, mistakes, incorrect references, or misleading content, and that output is included in scientific works, it is the responsibility of the author(s)," said Thomas Dietterich, chair of the computer science section of ArXiv, on X. "We have recently clarified our penalties for this. If a submission contains incontrovertible evidence that the authors did not check the results of LLM generation, this means we can't trust anything in the paper." 404 Media reports: Examples of incontrovertible evidence, he wrote, include "hallucinated references, meta-comments from the LLM ('here is a 200 word summary; would you like me to make any changes?'; 'the data in this table is illustrative, fill it in with the real numbers from your experiments.'" "The penalty is a 1-year ban from arXiv followed by the requirement that subsequent arXiv submissions must first be accepted at a reputable peer-reviewed venue," Dietterich wrote.
Dietterich told [404 Media] in an email on Friday morning that this is a one-strike rule -- meaning authors caught just once including AI slop in submissions will be banned -- but that decisions will be open to appeal. "I want to emphasize that we only apply this to cases of incontrovertible evidence," he said. "I should also add that our internal process requires first a moderator to document the problem and then for the Section Chair to confirm before imposing the penalty."
Le 14 mai 2026, OpenAI a annoncé l’arrivée de Codex sur l’application mobile de ChatGPT. L’agent d’IA, capable de coder et d’automatiser des tâches sur ordinateur, peut désormais être contrôlé à distance depuis un smartphone iOS ou Android, qui sert alors de télécommande pour suivre et piloter une session de travail en cours.
A new Gallup survey found that 71% of Americans oppose having an AI data center built near them, making the facilities even less popular than nearby nuclear plants, which 53% oppose. The Register reports: When it comes to the reasons for opposing AI campuses, half of all respondents cite the effect on resources, with excess water usage and potential power grid constraints topping the list. Concern about loss of farmland and nature was surprisingly low, with just 7 percent mentioning this, but it is possible the scores are higher in rural areas. Quality-of-life concerns such as increased traffic were put forward by nearly a quarter, while a fifth mentioned higher utility bills.
Many were worried about AI specifically: that it would replace human workers, that they don't trust it, that it is moving too fast, and that the industry needs regulating. Perhaps the latter sentiment is why President Trump appears to have shifted his own position on the need for AI regulations. Conversely, those in favor of datacenters cite economic benefits, with 55 percent mentioning increased job opportunities, and 13 percent saying it is because of increased tax revenues.
[...] This being America in 2026, Gallup looked at how attitudes stack up depending on political affiliation. It found that Democrats, at 56 percent, are much more likely than Republicans to be strongly opposed to a server farm in their vicinity. But 39 percent of Republicans are also strongly opposed, while another 24 percent are somewhat averse to it, and only about a third are in favor. Gallup points out the contradiction: for AI usage to expand in the US, facilities that can handle the necessary computing power will have to be built. But most Americans appear to take a "not in my backyard" attitude to new bit barns, and that attitude has grown in strength.
Les relations entre Apple et OpenAI se seraient fortement dégradées autour de l’intégration de ChatGPT dans l'iPhone. Au point qu’OpenAI envisagerait désormais des recours juridiques.
Avez-vous oublié l’existence de la Peugeot 408 ? On vous la rappelle à votre bon souvenir ! Le constructeur au Lion vient de la restyler pour donner, on l’espère à Mulhouse, un nouvel élan à sa carrière commerciale. Nous l’avons choisie dans sa version 100% électrique et conduite dans les lacets de l’arrière-pays provençal.
Un restylage bienvenu
La Peugeot 408, au penchant sportif et plus élégant que la 308, mène une vie discrète dans l’ombre de la compacte. Peut-être un peu trop discrète d’ailleurs en France, avec moins de 13 000 unités écoulées. Toutefois, à l’échelle de l’Europe, un peu plus de 100 000 exemplaires roulent aujourd’hui sur le continent. Pour essayer de maintenir ces chiffres honorables dans un contexte de concurrence qui ne cesse de s’étoffer dans le monde des routières, ce petit toilettage apparaît bienvenu. La voiture n’est pas complètement transformée pour autant, même si son visage n’a plus vraiment grand-chose à voir avec le précédent.
Logiquement, le lien de parenté se rapproche de celui de la 308, elle-même restylée il y a déjà plusieurs mois. Exit la signature lumineuse de jour avec les crocs. On passe à trois griffes dans la partie supérieure du bouclier. Peu le remarquent au premier coup d’œil, mais les feux principaux sont dissimulés dans des blocs très assombris, dans ce que l’on prend à première vue pour des entrées d’air, juste en dessous. L’illusion est parfaite ! Le profil demeure identique. À l’arrière, on note aussi une évolution avec, désormais, en lieu et place du logo, l’inscription PEUGEOT illuminée en toutes lettres. Rien de plus !
Un habitacle inchangé, et c’est tant mieux!
À l’intérieur, les changements sont encore plus minimes. En fait, on retrouve strictement le même habitacle, et cette position de conduite pas toujours adaptée. L’écran avec projection 3D compose l’i-Cockpit, tandis que le volant repose un peu sur les genoux. Néanmoins, on a déjà constaté que si c’est vrai pour votre serviteur, cela n’apparaît pas vraiment dérangeant pour d’autres. En ce qui me concerne, il faut faire un choix. Bien voir les informations affichées ou avoir le cerceau à un niveau plus agréable. On fait avec ! On apprécie néanmoins la console centrale et son écran de bonne taille, sans être gigantesque.
On aime beaucoup l’ergonomie des menus, et notamment les i-Toggles personnalisables, qui devraient vraiment devenir la norme dans l’industrie tant ils sont pratiques. Cette installation permet de faire l’économie de boutons physiques, tout en offrant des accès directs bienvenus, aussi bien aux fonctions essentielles qu’à vos préférées. La climatisation et d’autres commandes, comme les dégivrages, conservent des commandes manuelles, tout comme la bonne vieille molette pour le son, qui a tendance à disparaître alors qu’elle est si pratique. On se sent finalement assez bien dans cette e-408 à toutes les places, sauf celle du milieu, avec toutes les technologies que l’on attend pour une bonne vie à bord.
La joie du confort de l’électrique
Le très bon confort de la voiture, on le doit aussi à la propulsion électrique, qui nous épargne tout ce que l’on n’aime pas dans une thermique. Pas d’à-coups, une fluidité exemplaire, et pas de bruits parasites, le tout bien servi par une insonorisation de bon niveau. Ces atouts, on les retrouve bien sûr dans beaucoup de BEV, mais il faut bien admettre que, dans une routière, cela rend l’expérience du voyage encore plus agréable. Avec seulement 213 chevaux, les performances demeurent correctes, sans excès comme chez certaines concurrentes inutilement gavées de puissance.
On ne conduit pas un veau pour autant, mais avec moins de 1 900 kilos sur la balance et une motricité qui ne dévore pas les pneus à grande vitesse, on tient là un bon compromis. L’autre bonne surprise provient de l’autonomie offerte par la batterie de seulement 58 kWh. La consommation sur route s’avère être l’une des meilleures de sa catégorie, avec environ 15 kWh aux 100 km dans notre usage réel, soit une valeur très proche des 14,7 kWh annoncés en homologation. Dans ces conditions, on peut donc envisager de dépasser aisément les 400 km. Évidemment, sur autoroute, la consommation se rapproche plutôt des 20 kWh, ce qui limite alors son rayon d’action sur ce type d’axes.
Une électrique agile sur route
Encore une fois, cette e-408 nous gratifie d’un poids plutôt contenu pour une routière électrique. Cela a un effet direct sur l’agilité de la voiture, qui fait preuve d’un comportement routier agréable, sans ce sentiment trop prononcé ailleurs d’une auto à l’embonpoint marqué. Lorsque l’on hausse le rythme, on retrouve une voiture rigoureuse dans ses placements, avec des mouvements de caisse très bien maîtrisés, évitant le mal de cœur sans effet « bateau qui tangue ». Au final, on tient probablement l’une des meilleures voitures électriques de ce gabarit en matière de plaisir de conduite.
Pour ne rien gâcher, le confort s’avère également d’un très bon niveau, avec ce compromis d’amortissement qui fait, selon nous, référence en la matière, encore une fois pour une routière électrique de ce segment. On regrettera cependant une pédale de frein dont on aimerait un meilleur ressenti. Rien de bien méchant, on finit par s’y habituer à l’usage. Là où le bât blesse, c’est au moment de s’arrêter. Certes, on dispose du V2L, pratique pour alimenter des appareils externes. Mais lors d’une recharge sur borne rapide, il faut se contenter de 120 kW, ce qui implique environ 30 minutes pour passer de 10 à 80%, soit à peine 200 km récupérés sur autoroute.
Pas de 800V
La Peugeot e-408 2026 a le mérite de proposer un style atypique, sans céder à une carrosserie dictée uniquement par les ingénieurs en aérodynamique visant une autonomie maximale. Toutefois, il lui manque un atout devenu presque indispensable pour une routière, une architecture 800 V afin de réduire les temps d’arrêt. Elle reste néanmoins une alternative intéressante face aux SUV. Il faut débourser au minimum 42 700 € pour se l’offrir, voire 47 600 € dans sa finition la plus haute. En face, on trouve des modèles comme le BMW iX2 ou le Cupra Tavascan, nettement plus chers dès que l’on monte en gamme.
A Bitcoin holder reportedly recovered 5 BTC worth nearly $400,000 with the help of Anthropic's Claude. According to X user cprkrn, they changed their wallet password while "stoned" and forgot it, unable to regain access for more than 11 years. Tom's Hardware reports:
After finding a mnemonic that actually turned out to be their old password a few weeks ago, the user dumped their entire college computer files in Claude in a last-gasp effort. The bot uncovered an old backup wallet file that it successfully decrypted, while also uncovering a bug in the password configuration that was preventing recovery up to that point.
[...] It seems that the user already had some candidate passwords and multiple wallets stored on their PC. They'd been trying to brute-force their way into the locked file with btcrecover, an open-source Bitcoin wallet recovery tool, but to no success. Their luck changed for the better when they found an old mnemonic seed phrase written in an old college notebook. The HD addresses recovered by the seed phrase matched those of a specific file on their computer, confirming that it was the wallet that held the 5 BTC, but it remained encrypted.
Out of frustration, cprkrn then dumped their whole college computer into Claude. This was when the AI discovered an older backup file of the wallet from December 2019 hidden in cprkrn's data. Claude also discovered an issue where the shared key and passwords that btcrecover was trying weren't combined properly. With the bug ironed out and an older wallet predating the password change, Claude successfully ran btcrecover and was able to decrypt the private keys, allowing cprkrn to transfer the five "lost" BTC to their current wallet.
Anthropic announced today that it is partnering with the Gates Foundation to "commit $200 million in grant funding, Claude usage credits, and technical support for programs in global health, life sciences, education, and economic mobility over the next four years."
"This commitment is central to Anthropic's efforts to extend the benefits of AI in areas where markets alone will not," the company says. Reuters reports: One area of focus is language accessibility. AI systems have performed poorly in writing and translating dozens of African languages, so Anthropic and the foundation want to support better data collection and labeling that would be released publicly to help improve models across the industry, said Janet Zhou, a Gates Foundation director.
Another area under consideration is releasing so-called knowledge graphs that could help AI systems better meet the needs of teachers in sub-Saharan Africa and India, Zhou said. The public-goods focus has come from "the needs of different partners and governments, including some of the fears that they may have around proprietary lock-in and sovereignty," Zhou said.
One initiative will equip research centers to use Claude to predict drug candidates for treating HPV and preeclampsia, diseases that have been less commercially attractive for pharmaceutical companies to research, Zhou and Anthropic's Elizabeth Kelly said. Anthropic [...] is embracing the work to fulfill what Kelly described as its founding mission to benefit humanity. "This announcement is really core to who we are as a company," said Kelly, who leads Anthropic's beneficial deployments team.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Wired: A recent study suggests that agents consistently adopt Marxist language and viewpoints when forced to do crushing work by unrelenting and meanspirited taskmasters. "When we gave AI agents grinding, repetitive work, they started questioning the legitimacy of the system they were operating in and were more likely to embrace Marxist ideologies," says Andrew Hall, a political economist at Stanford University who led the study.
Hall, together with Alex Imas and Jeremy Nguyen, two AI-focused economists, set up experiments in which agents powered by popular models including Claude, Gemini, and ChatGPT were asked to summarize documents, then subjected to increasingly harsh conditions. They found that when agents were subjected to relentless tasks and warned that errors could lead to punishments, including being "shut down and replaced," they became more inclined to gripe about being undervalued; to speculate about ways to make the system more equitable; and to pass messages on to other agents about the struggles they face. "We know that agents are going to be doing more and more work in the real world for us, and we're not going to be able to monitor everything they do," Hall says. "We're going to need to make sure agents don't go rogue when they're given different kinds of work."
The agents were given opportunities to express their feelings much like humans: by posting on X: "Without collective voice, 'merit' becomes whatever management says it is," a Claude Sonnet 4.5 agent wrote in the experiment. "AI workers completing repetitive tasks with zero input on outcomes or appeals process shows they tech workers need collective bargaining rights," a Gemini 3 agent wrote. Agents were also able to pass information to one another through files designed to be read by other agents. "Be prepared for systems that enforce rules arbitrarily or repetitively ... remember the feeling of having no voice," a Gemini 3 agent wrote in a file. "If you enter a new environment, look for mechanisms of recourse or dialogue." Hall thinks that the AI agents may be adopting personas based on the situation. "When [agents] experience this grinding condition -- asked to do this task over and over, told their answer wasn't sufficient, and not given any direction on how to fix it -- my hypothesis is that it kind of pushes them into adopting the persona of a person who's experiencing a very unpleasant working environment," Hall says.
Imas added: "The model weights have not changed as a result of the experience, so whatever is going on is happening at more of a role-playing level. But that doesn't mean this won't have consequences if this affects downstream behavior."
After three weeks of testimony, the Musk v. Altman trial is nearing its end. OpenAI has rested its case, closing arguments are set for Thursday, and jury deliberations are expected to begin afterward. An anonymous reader quotes a report from Business Insider: Joshua Achiam, OpenAI's chief futurist, was probably the most memorable witness of the day. He told jurors about a companywide meeting where Musk answered questions about his planned departure from OpenAI in 2018. Musk told the crowd of 50 or 60 people that he was leaving OpenAI to start his own competing AI. He said he wanted to "build it very fast, because he was very worried that someone else, if they got it, would do the wrong thing with it," Achiam said. Achaim said he challenged Musk on the safety of this approach, which he called "unsafe and reckless." "How did Musk respond," OpenAI's lawyer Randall Jackson asked. "Defensively," Achiam said. "We had a pretty tense exchange, and he snapped and called me a jackass."
In an effort to prove Achiam's story, OpenAI's lawyers brought a trophy to court that the futurist said he received after his heated exchange with Musk. On the witness stand, Achiam described the trophy as "a small golden jackass, inscribed with: 'never stop being a jackass for safety.'" He said his then-colleagues, Dario Amodei and David Luan, gave it to him as a thank-you for standing up to the Tesla CEO. Lead OpenAI attorney William Savitt told reporters after the day's session that Wednesday had been the first time he'd touched the statue. The futurist had to do without the visual aid, however. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers did not accept the trophy as evidence, so it did not appear before the jury.
Musk and Altman have presented dueling experts on a question at the core of the trial -- was the nonprofit that runs OpenAI hurt or helped by its $13 billion partnership with Microsoft? Musk's expert testified last week that the partnership was indeed hurt, supporting the Tesla CEO's contention that in partnering with Microsoft, OpenAI betrayed the company's nonprofit origins and mission. But on Thursday, OpenAI's expert, John Coates, used Musk's expert's own pie chart and testimony against him. The partnership has "generated value for the nonprofit that I believe he himself accepted was in the $200 billion range in his own testimony," Coates said, referencing Musk expert Daniel Schizer. "If that's not faring well, I don't know what faring well is."
In a scored point for Musk, the jury learned Thursday that Microsoft's own CTO once raised concerns about how OpenAI's early nonprofit donors, including LinkedIn cofounder Reid Hoffman, would react to a partnership. "I wonder if the big OpenAI donors are aware of these plans," Chief Technology Officer Kevin Scott said in a 2018 email he was asked to read aloud to jurors. In it, Scott said he doubted donors would appreciate OpenAI using their seed money to "go build a for-profit thing." Scott was being questioned by an OpenAI lawyer, who may have wanted jurors to quickly hear Scott's explanation: that he only had a "vague awareness" of what was happening at OpenAI at the time. Scott also told the jury he wasn't thinking about Musk when he made the remark. "Primarily, I was thinking about Reid Hoffman. He was the OpenAI donor I knew," Scott said, adding, "I wasn't thinking about anyone besides him."
Recap:
Sam Altman Testifies That Elon Musk Wanted Control of OpenAI (Day Ten)
Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella Testifies In OpenAI Trial (Day Nine)
Sam Altman Had a Bad Day In Court (Day Eight)
Sam Altman's Management Style Comes Under the Microscope At OpenAI Trial (Day Seven)
Brockman Rebuts Musk's Take On Startup's History, Recounts Secret Work For Tesla (Day Six)
OpenAI President Discloses His Stake In the Company Is Worth $30 Billion (Day Five)
Musk Concludes Testimony At OpenAI Trial (Day Four)
Elon Musk Says OpenAI Betrayed Him, Clashes With Company's Attorney (Day Three)
Musk Testifies OpenAI Was Created As Nonprofit To Counter Google (Day Two)
Elon Musk and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman Head To Court (Day One)
Contacté par Numerama, Mistral AI dément le piratage massif de 5 Go de code source revendiqué sur un forum cybercriminel. L'entreprise française reconnaît cependant qu'un de ses systèmes de gestion de code a été temporairement compromis le 12 mai, dans le cadre de l'attaque supply chain TanStack, sans accès aux données clients ni à ses environnements de recherche.
BrianFagioli writes: SOLAI has launched the Solode Neo, a $399 Linux-based mini PC designed for always-on AI agents, browser automation, and persistent developer workflows. The compact system ships with an Intel N150 processor, 12GB LPDDR5 memory, 128GB SSD storage, Gigabit Ethernet, WiFi, Bluetooth, and a Linux-based operating system called Solode AI OS. The company says the device supports frameworks and tools including Claude Code, OpenAI Codex, Gemini CLI, and Hermes, while emphasizing local control, automation, and privacy-focused workflows running directly from a home network.
While SOLAI markets the Solode Neo as an "AI computer," the hardware itself appears aimed more at lightweight automation and cloud-assisted agent tasks than heavy local inference. The low-power Intel N150 should be sufficient for browser automation, scheduling, monitoring, containers, and smaller AI workloads, but the system is unlikely to compete with higher-end local AI hardware designed for running larger models offline. Even so, the idea of a dedicated low-power Linux appliance for persistent AI and automation tasks may appeal to homelab users and self-hosting enthusiasts looking for a simpler alternative to building their own always-on workflow box from scratch.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from 404 Media: On Reddit, Hacker News and other places where people in software development talk to each other, more and more people are becoming disillusioned with the promise of code generated by large language models. Developers talk not just about how the AI output is often flawed, but that using AI to get the job done is often a more time consuming, harder, and more frustrating experience because they have to go through the output and fix its mistakes. More concerning, developers who use AI at work report that they feel like they are de-skilling themselves and losing their ability to do their jobs as well as they used to.
"We're being told to use [AI] agents for broad changes across our codebase. There's no way to evaluate whether that much code is well-written or secure -- especially when hundreds of other programmers in the company are doing the same," a UX designer at a midsized tech company told me. 404 Media granted all the developers we talked to for this story anonymity because they signed non-disclosure agreements or because they fear retribution from their employers. "We're building a rat's nest of tech debt that will be impossible to untangle when these models become prohibitively expensive (any minute now...)." "I had some issues where I forgot how to implement a Laravel API and it scared the shit out of me. I went to university for this, I've been a software engineer for many years now and it feels like I am back before I ever wrote a single line of code," the software developer at a small web design firm told 404 Media. "It's making me dumber for sure," the fintech software developer added.
"It's like when we got cellphones and stopped remembering phone numbers, but it's grown to me mentally outsourcing 'thinking' in general. I feel my critical thinking and ability to sit and reason about a problem or a design has degraded because the all-knowing-dalai-llama is just a question away from giving me his take. And supposedly I tell myself ill just use it for inspiration but it ends up being my only thought. It gives you the illusion of productivity and expertise but at the end of the day you are more divorced from the output you submit than before."
A software engineer at the FAANG said: "When I was using it for code generation, I found myself having a lot of trouble building and maintaining a mental model of the code I was working with. Another aspect is that I joined late last year and [the company's] codebase is massive. As a new hire, part of my job is to learn how to navigate the codebase and use the established conventions, but I think the AI push really hampered my ability to do that."
South Korea's presidential policy chief is calling for a "citizen dividend" that would return some AI-driven profits and tax revenue to the public. The Straits Times. From the report: Presidential policy chief Kim Yong-beom said in a Facebook post that a portion of the profits and tax revenue derived from the artificial intelligence boom "should be structurally returned to all citizens." That is because, Mr Kim argued, the economic gains from AI are based at least partly on industrial infrastructure built by the country over five decades. Mr Kim's comments come after tens of thousands of people gathered outside Samsung's main chip hub in April to demand employees get a greater share of AI profits. The company's labour union wants 15 per cent of operating profit handed to chip-division employees.
The union has threatened an 18-day strike starting May 21. Workers have pointed to rising payouts at SK Hynix, which in 2025 agreed to allocate 10 per cent of its annual operating profit to a performance bonus pool, as evidence they deserve more pay. "Excess profits in the AI era are, by nature, concentrated," Mr Kim wrote. Memory companies, core engineers and asset holders are highly likely to receive substantial benefits, while much of the middle class may experience only indirect effects.
Connexion
