Machine Learning

149 posts

cloudflare3 min readCurated summary

From reactive to proactive: closing the phishing gap with LLMs

Cloudflare argues that email security must move beyond reacting to user-reported phishing misses. LLMs can analyze millions of emails, reveal emerging threat patterns that traditional systems overlook, and guide specialized detection models before attacks become widespread. Its Sales Outreach phishing program reportedly reduced average daily reported misses by 20.4% from Q3 to Q4 2025, with a further two-thirds decline in Q1 2026. ## The Blind Spot in Reactive Defense - Traditional systems improve mainly after users report messages that were incorrectly classified as clean. - This feedback is valuable but inherently delayed: it reveals attacks that already succeeded. - The authors compare this problem to Abraham Wald’s World War II aircraft analysis: - Engineers studied bullet holes on returning planes. - Wald identified the missing data—the damage on planes that never returned. - Email security faces the same challenge because undetected threats are largely invisible. ## Mapping Threats with LLMs - LLMs can interpret context, intent, urgency, deception, and other nuanced characteristics in natural-language emails. - Cloudflare processes millions of unwanted messages daily, making manual classification and detailed threat mapping impractical. - LLM-generated categories expose emerging patterns and persistent trends, including: - `PrizeNotification` - `SalesOutreach` - These tags give analysts near-real-time, high-fidelity signals and reduce the need for manual investigation. - The resulting intelligence helps Cloudflare create or retrain targeted machine-learning models before threats become widely visible through customer reports. ## Detecting Sales Outreach Phishing - Sales Outreach phishing imitates legitimate B2B communication, using offers, special deals, or transactional requests to encourage malicious clicks or credential disclosure. - After identifying it as a major threat category, Cloudflare used LLM tags to build a continuously growing corpus of relevant messages. - Training data was grouped by linguistic and structural traits such as: - Persuasive framing - Manufactured urgency - Transactional language - Subtle social proof - Feature extraction focused on sentiment and intent rather than static indicators. - A specialized sentiment-analysis model was trained for Sales Outreach behavior instead of overloading a general phishing classifier. ## From Classification to Enforcement - The specialized model produces a risk score based on how closely an email matches known Sales Outreach patterns. - That score is combined with other signals, including: - Sender reputation - Link behavior - Historical context - Messages can then be allowed, quarantined, or blocked. - LLMs serve as the discovery layer, identifying new language variants, while the specialized model provides fast, scalable enforcement. - Newly detected examples continuously feed back into the pipeline as attackers change their tactics. ## Reported Results - Cloudflare says the proactive approach reduced customer-reported Sales Outreach misses. - Average daily submissions fell from 965 in Q3 2025 to 769 in Q4 2025. - This represented a 20.4% quarterly reduction. - The company reports that average daily submissions decreased by another two-thirds in Q1 2026. - Fewer misses mean less analyst work, fewer interruptions for users, and fewer opportunities for phishing messages to reach inboxes. Cloudflare’s approach recommends combining broad LLM-based threat discovery with narrowly focused detection models. This creates a proactive feedback loop that can identify and address emerging phishing techniques before relying on large volumes of user-reported failures.

Read original(opens in new tab)
figma3 min readCurated summary

Our Config 2026 Speakers on the Biggest Opportunities With AI | Figma Blog

Figma’s Config 2026 speakers see AI as more than a productivity tool: it is expanding the scope of creative work, from software and music to fashion and manufacturing. Their perspectives emphasize human direction, participation, taste, and intention as AI accelerates experimentation. The central opportunity is to use AI to extend creative capacity without losing the distinctly human role of shaping meaning and purpose. ## AI as a New Creative Medium - Holly Herndon describes software as one of the defining artistic mediums of the current era. - AI enables studios to take on more complex projects, shifting creative roles toward orchestration. - Herndon and Mat Dryhurst’s *Starmirror* treats AI models as collective, public endeavors: - Visitors and local choirs contribute vocal data. - The data will train a new AI choir. - Participants engage with both the model’s inputs and outputs. - The project demonstrates how creative work can keep humans actively involved rather than treating AI as an isolated generator. ## Connecting Digital Creativity to the Physical World - Danit Peleg argues that AI will increasingly create tangible objects, not just digital designs. - AI is likely to influence: - Manufacturing - Architecture - Fashion - Wearable textiles - Peleg uses AI agents throughout her production pipeline, from initial concepts through fabrication. - Figma Weave, created after Figma’s acquisition of Weavy, is intended to expand AI-native capabilities for: - Image and video generation - Animation and motion design - VFX creation and editing - These tools point toward workflows where digital concepts can move more directly into physical production. ## Creativity as Attention and Care - Vicki Tan connects creativity with decision-making: both involve following questions and intuition despite uncertainty. - She argues that creativity is not primarily originality or talent, but care, attention, and sustained engagement with an idea. - Her interpretation of the French word *attendre*—to wait for or tend to—frames creativity as allowing meaning to emerge over time. - Rather than constantly seeking something completely new, creators can begin by noticing what already feels personal, meaningful, or instinctively theirs. ## Rethinking Creative Work in 2026 - The featured speakers come from varied fields, including art, fashion, behavioral design, software strategy, and emerging technology. - Their work challenges older assumptions about creativity and encourages experimentation with new processes. - AI’s greatest value may lie in amplifying human judgment, participation, and creative intent rather than replacing them. Creators should treat AI as an expandable medium and collaborator while preserving the human practices—attention, taste, participation, and purpose—that give creative work meaning.

Read original(opens in new tab)
pinterest3 min readCurated summary

Bridging the Gap: Diagnosing Online–Offline Discrepancy in Pinterest’s L1 Conversion Models

Pinterest found that strong offline gains in L1 conversion-rate models did not translate into online improvements because training and serving environments were not aligned. Although experimental models reduced LogMAE by roughly 20–45% and improved calibration, online A/B tests showed neutral or worse CPA and unexpected oCPM mix shifts. The investigation identified feature coverage gaps and embedding version skew as structural causes rather than problems with offline evaluation or serving reliability. ## How L1 Models Are Evaluated - L1 filters and prioritizes ads under strict latency limits before downstream ranking and auction stages. - Offline evaluation focused on: - LogMAE and calibration - Performance across candidate pools and pCVR percentiles - Multiple data sources, including auction winners and candidates - Online evaluation focused on: - CPA and other business metrics - Candidate counts and recall across funnel stages - Differences among optimization types, especially oCPM traffic ## Hypotheses That Were Ruled Out - **Offline evaluation errors** - The experimental model consistently outperformed production across three log sources. - Gains remained across pCVR buckets, including after outlier handling. - **Exposure bias** - Increasing treatment traffic from approximately 20% to 70% did not resolve the online over-calibration issue. - **Serving failures** - Control and treatment had comparable success rates and p50/p90/p99 latency. - Timeouts and tail latency were therefore unlikely to explain the discrepancy. ## Missing Features in L1 Serving - Offline training used rich logged features, while online L1 embeddings only included features explicitly onboarded into the embedding pipeline. - Important feature families were absent online, including: - Targeting specification flags - Offsite conversion visit counts over 1-, 7-, 30-, and 90-day windows - Annotations and MediaSage image embeddings - Models learned to depend on these signals during training, but received a substantially thinner feature set when serving many oCPM and performance-oriented ads. - Pinterest updated UFR configurations to add the missing features to L1 embeddings. - Online feature coverage recovered, and online loss improved for CVR and engagement models, particularly on shopping traffic. - UFR tooling was also changed so features onboarded for L2 are automatically considered for L1 embedding usage. ## Query–Pin Embedding Version Skew - Pinterest’s two-tower architecture requires query and Pin embeddings to be generated from compatible model checkpoints. - Offline evaluation generally uses one fixed checkpoint for both towers. - Online pipelines could instead serve query and Pin embeddings produced from different model versions, creating a mismatch between training assumptions and production behavior. - This version skew was identified as a second structural source of online–offline inconsistency. ## Practical Conclusion Offline model quality is not sufficient for launching L1 improvements. Teams must verify feature coverage in serving artifacts such as ANN indices, enforce synchronized query and Pin embedding versions, and monitor funnel behavior and online feature coverage alongside standard offline metrics.

Read original(opens in new tab)
gitlab2 min readCurated summary

AI can detect vulnerabilities, but who governs risk?

AI can increasingly detect vulnerabilities and suggest fixes, but detection alone does not make software secure. The post argues that enterprises also need governance, context, continuous assurance, and supply-chain oversight to determine which risks are acceptable and what can ship. GitLab presents its platform as the orchestration layer for enforcing these controls across AI-assisted development. ## Trust Requires Governance - AI analysis is not the same as accountability. - Humans must define acceptable risk, policies, guardrails, separation of duties, and audit requirements. - As autonomous agents gain more control over development, stronger governance becomes essential rather than optional. - Governance enables organizations to trust AI at scale without relying on unchecked autonomy. ## Context Matters Beyond Code Scanning - LLMs typically assess code in isolation, while enterprise platforms can evaluate its broader context. - Important factors include: - Who authored the change - The application’s business criticality - Its dependencies and infrastructure interactions - Whether vulnerable code is reachable in production - Whether the vulnerability is exploitable in the actual runtime environment - Context reduces noisy alerts and supports faster, more effective risk triage. ## Risk Changes Continuously - Dependencies, environments, and system interactions evolve after an initial scan. - A clean static scan does not guarantee that software remains safe at release time. - Organizations need continuous assurance embedded throughout development, testing, and deployment. - Detection identifies risk, while ongoing governance determines how that risk is managed. ## Governing AI-Generated Software - Modern software combines AI-generated code, open-source libraries, and third-party dependencies across many projects. - Governing this entire supply chain is more difficult than detecting flaws in individual code changes. - The post argues that developer-side AI tools alone are not designed to provide organization-wide enforcement and auditability. - GitLab Ultimate is positioned as a platform combining policy enforcement, security scanning, governance, and auditing within software delivery workflows. Organizations adopting AI most successfully will pair capable coding assistants with strong, continuous governance. The practical recommendation is to treat AI security as a platform and lifecycle-management problem—not merely a vulnerability-detection problem.

Read original(opens in new tab)
dropbox3 min readCurated summary

Using LLMs to amplify human labeling and improve Dash search relevance

Dropbox Dash improves AI answers through retrieval-augmented generation (RAG): enterprise search retrieves relevant company documents, and an LLM uses a small subset of them to generate grounded responses. Because ranking determines which documents reach the LLM, search relevance depends heavily on high-quality query–document labels. Dash combines a small set of human judgments with large-scale LLM-generated labels to produce training data efficiently while retaining human oversight. ## How Dash search ranking works - Dash uses a trained ranking model, such as XGBoost, rather than manually configured rules. - The model learns from query–document pairs labeled on a 1–5 relevance scale: - **5:** Closely matches the user’s intent. - **1:** Not useful enough to display. - Relevance depends on the query, user context, and timing; it is not an intrinsic property of a document. - Ranking quality is especially important because enterprises may have millions or billions of indexed documents, while only a small selection can be sent to the answer-generating LLM. ## Sources of relevance labels - Labels can come from: - User behavior, such as clicks or skipped results. - Human evaluators assigning relevance scores. - LLMs directly judging query–document relevance. - Behavioral signals are useful but often sparse, biased by existing rankings, and unevenly distributed, so they work best as a supplement. - Human evaluators can provide comprehensive judgments across result sets, but labeling is expensive, difficult to scale, and vulnerable to inconsistency. - Humans also cannot directly review sensitive or proprietary customer data in this process, and different content types—such as Slack messages, Jira tickets, and Salesforce records—require different contextual expertise. ## LLM-assisted relevance evaluation - LLMs can evaluate far larger candidate sets at lower cost and with greater consistency than human annotators. - They can operate across languages and analyze customer content within established compliance boundaries. - Their judgments still depend on the model’s quality and the clarity of the evaluation prompt. - LLM-generated labels therefore require calibration and validation before being used for model training. ## Combining human review with LLM scale - Dropbox first creates a relatively small, high-quality dataset using human evaluators and limited, non-sensitive internal data. - These human labels are used to tune LLM prompts and model parameters. - Once the LLM meets quality thresholds, it generates hundreds of thousands or millions of relevance labels. - This approach multiplies human labeling effort by roughly 100 times, enabling broader and more representative training data. - LLMs are used offline rather than directly at query time because production-time use would introduce excessive latency and context-window limitations. - The LLM acts as a teacher for smaller, faster ranking models that can serve searches at scale. ## Evaluation as the foundation - Dash follows an iterative process: measure performance, change the model or instructions, and measure again. - The article compares this to chess engines, where the quality of the evaluation function determines which possible moves are preserved or discarded. - The same principle applies to ranking: poor relevance judgments can cause useful search-result patterns to be eliminated, while accurate judgments guide the model toward better rankings. Dash’s approach uses humans for quality control and contextual grounding, then uses LLMs to expand that expertise into large-scale training data. This hybrid strategy offers a practical way to improve enterprise search relevance without exposing customer data to human reviewers or imposing LLM latency on every search.

Read original(opens in new tab)
gitlab2 min readCurated summary

Secure and fast deployments to Google Agent Engine with GitLab

Google Agent Engine provides a managed, scalable runtime for AI agents built with Google’s Agent Development Kit (ADK). The post shows how to deploy an ADK agent through GitLab using Workload Identity Federation, avoiding service-account keys while integrating security scanning into CI/CD. A GitLab pipeline can automatically test and deploy the agent to Agent Engine when changes reach the main branch. ## Agent Engine and GitLab - Agent Engine manages infrastructure, scaling, sessions, memory storage, logging, monitoring, and IAM. - GitLab simplifies deployment through: - Dependency scanning, SAST, and secret detection. - Native Google Cloud integration. - Keyless authentication with Workload Identity Federation. - CI/CD templates and the ADK deployment CLI. ## Prerequisites - A Google Cloud project with the Cloud Storage and Vertex AI APIs enabled. - A GitLab project containing the agent source code. - A Google Cloud Storage bucket for deployment staging. - GitLab’s Google Cloud IAM integration configured. ## Configure IAM with Workload Identity Federation - In GitLab, configure the Google Cloud IAM integration with: - Project ID - Project number - Workload Identity Pool ID - Provider ID - Run GitLab’s generated setup script in Google Cloud Shell. - Grant the federated service principal: - `roles/aiplatform.user` - `roles/storage.objectAdmin` - This setup lets GitLab authenticate to Google Cloud without storing long-lived service-account keys. ## Build the GitLab CI/CD Pipeline - Add a `.gitlab-ci.yml` file with `test` and `deploy` stages. - Use the `google/cloud-sdk:slim` image and define variables for: - Google Cloud project and region - Staging bucket - Agent name - Agent entry point - Include GitLab templates for: - Dependency scanning - Static application security testing - Secret detection - Enable keyless authentication with: ```yaml identity: google_cloud ``` - Install the ADK and required Google Cloud libraries during the job. - Deploy with: ```bash adk deploy agent_engine \ --project=$GCP_PROJECT_ID \ --region=$GCP_REGION \ --staging_bucket=gs://$STORAGE_BUCKET \ --display_name="$AGENT_NAME" \ $AGENT_ENTRY ``` - Restrict deployment to the `main` branch. - Cache Python dependencies to speed up later pipeline runs. ## Deploy and Verify - Commit the agent code and `.gitlab-ci.yml` to GitLab. - Monitor the pipeline under **Build > Pipelines**. - Confirm that security scans complete successfully before deployment. - The deployment stage packages the agent, places it in the staging bucket, and publishes it to Agent Engine. The recommended approach is to combine GitLab’s built-in security checks and Workload Identity Federation with the ADK CLI. This provides a secure, keyless, and repeatable deployment process for Google AI agents.

Read original(opens in new tab)
gitlab2 min readCurated summary

GitLab Duo Agent Platform with Claude accelerates development

GitLab Duo Agent Platform integrates external AI models such as Anthropic’s Claude and OpenAI’s Codex directly into GitLab workflows. Instead of operating as isolated coding assistants, these agents use project context and organizational standards to handle multi-step development tasks. The result is faster delivery, more consistent quality, and less manual work across the software development lifecycle. ## From an Idea to a Working Application - An agent can use an issue’s title and detailed requirements as the foundation for a complete application. - It analyzes project context and related assets, then generates: - Backend Java classes - Frontend HTML, CSS, and JavaScript - Business logic and UI components - Build configuration - The agent creates a merge request containing the implementation for developers to test and refine through natural-language interaction. ## Automated Code Review - Developers can mention the external agent in a merge request to request a review. - The review can cover: - Code strengths and critical issues - Medium- and low-priority improvements - Security risks - Testing gaps and code metrics - Recommendations and an approval status - This provides consistent review coverage while allowing senior developers to focus on architecture and complex decisions. ## Pipeline and Container Image Creation - When a project lacks CI/CD configuration, the agent can generate the required pipeline. - It creates a Dockerfile with a suitable base image for the project’s Java version. - The pipeline can: - Build the application - Build a Docker image - Push the image to GitLab’s container registry - The resulting workflow runs automatically through build, image creation, and deployment stages. ## Broader Impact on Development - External agents remain within GitLab, reducing context switching between development tools. - They can follow project-specific coding standards and understand broader repository context. - Teams can automate work from initial requirements through implementation, review, and deployment. - Developers spend less time on repetitive tasks while maintaining stronger consistency and quality. GitLab presents Duo Agent Platform as a way to turn external AI models into integrated development collaborators. Teams can use it to accelerate coding, automate reviews, and create deployment pipelines while keeping humans focused on validation, architecture, and innovation.

Read original(opens in new tab)
airbnb4 min readCurated summary

Academic Publications & Airbnb Tech: 2025 Year in Review

Airbnb’s 2025 research program expanded across major academic venues, with a focus on applying AI, machine learning, and data science to search, ranking, personalization, and marketplace optimization. The company strengthened its presence at KDD and CIKM while broadening into NLP, optimization, and measurement science. Its research emphasized practical systems that improve experimentation, retrieval, recommendations, ranking quality, and booking conversion. ## Research Expansion in 2025 - Airbnb presented research at established conferences including KDD and CIKM, while expanding into venues such as COLING, LION, and VLDB. - Researchers used these conferences to: - Share production-scale findings with academic and industry peers. - Develop new collaborations. - Learn about emerging methods. - Mentor early-career researchers. - The work was organized around themes including applied machine learning for search and personalization, and NLP and LLM systems in production. ## Search Ranking and Marketplace Retrieval at KDD KDD is a leading conference for data mining, knowledge discovery, and large-scale analytics. Airbnb has presented there since 2018, and its 2025 contributions focused on improving search experimentation and location retrieval. - **Interleaving and counterfactual evaluation** - Airbnb introduced techniques for evaluating search-ranking ideas before launching full A/B tests. - These methods help teams identify promising experiments more quickly. - They are especially useful for accommodation booking, where long conversion cycles can make statistical significance slow to achieve. - The goal is to accelerate experimentation without compromising evaluation accuracy. - **Extreme classification for audience expansion** - Airbnb presented a high-precision approach to retrieving relevant geographic areas in its two-sided marketplace. - The system uses categorical location cells to identify areas containing listings a guest might realistically book. - This helps balance Airbnb’s diverse global inventory with users’ preferences for location, amenities, style, and price. - Airbnb also presented work on **TSMO**, or Two-sided Marketplace Optimization, and indicated that some technologies might eventually be open-sourced. ## Search and Recommendation Advances at CIKM At CIKM 2025, Airbnb’s Relevance and Personalization team had five peer-reviewed papers accepted. The work addressed search, recommendations, ranking metrics, multimodal representations, and user comparison behavior. - **Recommendations for overly narrow searches** - Airbnb developed a system that suggests alternatives when a guest’s search returns too few accommodations. - Suggestions may include different dates, broader amenity requirements, or adjusted price ranges. - The system aims to reduce search frustration and increase booking rates. - **Map-specific ranking optimization** - Maps account for approximately 80% of Airbnb search interactions. - Traditional feed-ranking assumptions do not accurately represent how users view and interact with map results. - Airbnb introduced a map-specific version of NDCG, a ranking-quality metric. - Experiments showed that optimizing for this metric improved bookings. - **BiListing multimodal embeddings** - BiListing combines listing text and photos into unified embedding representations. - It uses large language models and pretrained language-image models as ranking signals. - The approach produced a reported 0.425% improvement in normalized discounted booking gain and generated tens of millions of dollars in incremental revenue. - **Beyond pairwise learning-to-rank** - Airbnb proposed a learning-to-rank method that models interactions between items during pairwise comparisons. - This provides a more realistic view of what users prefer when evaluating search results. - The paper also describes efficient implementation techniques and online and offline evaluation results. - **Learning to Comparison-Shop** - The LTCS system models how users compare multiple listings rather than evaluating each listing independently. - It produced statistically significant improvements of 1.7% in NDCG and 0.6% in booking conversion rate. - The work reflects Airbnb’s broader effort to make ranking models sensitive to the context of an entire results page. ## NLP and Production LLM Systems - Airbnb also highlighted NLP and production LLM research, including participation in EMNLP. - Relevant application areas include: - Customer support. - Search and discovery. - Trust and safety. - EMNLP covers language-model architectures, training strategies, safety, evaluation, datasets, and open-source tooling. Airbnb’s 2025 publications show a strong emphasis on research that translates directly into marketplace performance. The most practical opportunities involve faster experimentation, context-aware ranking, multimodal listing understanding, and recommendation systems that help guests recover from overly restrictive searches.

Read original(opens in new tab)
discord3 min readCurated summary

Getting Global Age Assurance Right: What We Got Wrong and What's Changing

Discord’s CTO says the company mishandled communication around its global age-assurance rollout, leading users to believe that face scans or ID uploads would be required for everyone. Discord’s stated goal is to protect teens and restrict age-sensitive content while preserving the normal experience for most users and avoiding collection of users’ identities. The company plans to use internal signals for most age determinations and privacy-focused third-party verification only when necessary. ## Where Discord Says It Fell Short - Discord did not clearly explain how age assurance would work or who would be affected. - Many users mistakenly believed that everyone would need to submit a face scan or government ID. - The company acknowledges that skepticism about technology companies collecting personal data is justified. - Discord says the rollout was not intended to create a pretext for gathering more personal information. ## The Goal of Age-Appropriate Experiences - More than 90% of users are expected to continue using Discord without verifying their age. - Discord wants teenagers to receive stronger safeguards while allowing adults to access the full range of content. - The approach is being influenced by laws already taking effect in the UK and Australia, with Brazil, Europe, and several US states following. - Discord says building its own system could demonstrate that age can be verified without identifying users. ## Internal Age Determination - Discord’s systems may determine age using account-level signals, including: - Account age - Whether a payment method is attached - Server membership patterns - General account activity - The system will not read private messages, analyze conversations, or inspect posted content. - Discord compares this process to existing safety systems used to detect spam, raids, and coordinated abuse. - The company plans to publish its methodology before the global launch. ## What Happens If Verification Is Required - Fewer than 10% of users are expected to need additional verification. - Users who do not verify can keep: - Their accounts - Servers - Friends lists - Direct messages - Voice chat access - They will only lose access to age-restricted content and the ability to change certain default safety settings intended to protect teens. - A user’s age group will remain private and will not be visible to other Discord users. ## Third-Party Verification Partners - Discord plans to use vendors when its internal systems cannot confirm that a user is an adult. - Vendors are intended to return only an age group, not the user’s identity. - Discord says vendors cannot connect verification information back to a Discord account, and Discord cannot use the process to learn the user’s identity. - Partners undergo security and privacy reviews, contractual data-use restrictions, and retention and deletion requirements. - Verification data is generally deleted immediately after it is no longer needed. - Discord clarified that the vendor involved in a previous customer-service security incident is not used for age assurance and is no longer a partner. - The company tested Persona in the UK in January but decided not to proceed with that vendor. Discord’s revised approach emphasizes minimal data collection, multiple verification choices, and transparency about how age estimation works. Publishing the methodology and clearly explaining vendor safeguards will be essential to rebuilding user trust.

Read original(opens in new tab)
gitlab3 min readCurated summary

Agentic SDLC: GitLab and TCS deliver Intelligent Orchestration across the enterprise

GitLab and TCS are partnering to help enterprises scale DevSecOps through AI-agent orchestration. Their combined approach addresses fragmented toolchains, inconsistent security, manual compliance, and the risks of AI-generated code by combining GitLab’s unified platform and guardrails with TCS’s migration, architecture, and industry expertise. The goal is to evolve DevSecOps into auditable “Intelligent Orchestration,” where humans and AI agents collaborate across the software lifecycle. ## Supporting the Future-Ready Enterprise - GitLab’s unified data model connects planning, coding, testing, security, and deployment in one source of context. - Enterprises can standardize pipelines, controls, and metrics without repeatedly re-engineering their development platforms. - GitLab and TCS combine: - Multi-agent orchestration - Dynamic planning - Confidence-scored decisions - Continuous learning cycles - GitLab Duo agents, including Planner, Security Analyst, and Code Review agents, can be invoked through MCP-driven integrations and TCS’s structured agent hierarchy. - These agents operate with project context while remaining subject to GitLab’s AI-native DevSecOps controls. ## Scaling DevSecOps Through Platform Engineering - Platform engineering replaces individually managed pipelines with an Internal Developer Platform (IDP). - Self-service “golden paths” standardize how applications are built, tested, secured, and deployed. - Policy-as-code embeds governance, compliance, and security into development by default. - GitLab serves as the IDP control plane. - TCS designs and industrializes self-service workflows around that control plane. - GitLab Duo adds AI-driven automation to development and operational tasks. ## From DevSecOps to Intelligent Orchestration - Traditional DevSecOps platforms manage code, pipelines, and controls; intelligent orchestration also coordinates human and AI work. - GitLab Duo agents can work in parallel on: - Code generation - Testing - Code review - Security analysis - CI/CD troubleshooting - Pipeline repair - Developers remain in control through rules and guidance while agents handle repetitive or multi-step work. - Agent actions are contextual, auditable, and policy-aligned. - This allows organizations to extend AI across thousands of engineers while preserving security and regulatory compliance. ## The GitLab–TCS Reference Architecture - GitLab contributes: - Intelligent Orchestration across the DevSecOps lifecycle - Unified project context - Specialized AI agents - Integrated security and compliance controls - TCS contributes: - Reference architectures - Migration factories - Enterprise security baselines - AI capabilities and risk-management frameworks - Platform engineering and adoption programs - TCS’s industry and regulatory experience helps adapt GitLab to legacy systems, organizational models, compliance obligations, and multi-cloud environments. - The partnership emphasizes enterprise-scale adoption rather than isolated tooling deployments. Together, GitLab and TCS recommend building an Internal Developer Platform with embedded policy-as-code, self-service workflows, and governed AI agents. This approach can reduce delivery friction and manual toil while allowing enterprises to scale automation without sacrificing oversight, security, or compliance.

Read original(opens in new tab)
grammarlyOriginal article

10 Best AI Assistants: Top Tools for Work, Writing, and Everyday Tasks (opens in new tab)

Modern AI assistants have evolved from general-purpose chatbots into specialized productivity tools that leverage Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Large Language Models (LLMs) to automate complex workflows. By selecting an assistant based on specific task relevance, integration depth, and technical capabilities like context window size, users can significantly reduce manual effort and context switching. Ultimately, the most effective tools are those that proactively support "in-flow" work rather than requiring users to step away from their primary applications. ### Technical Foundations of AI Assistants * Assistants use NLP to interpret the intent and tone behind everyday language, moving beyond the rigid menu-based structures of traditional software. * Responses are generated by LLMs trained on massive datasets, allowing the tools to recognize linguistic patterns and provide natural-sounding outputs. * Functionality is typically driven by prompts—typed or spoken requests—that allow the AI to summarize documents, refine messaging, or brainstorm project outlines. ### Evaluation Criteria for Professional Use * **Context Awareness:** This refers to the "context window," or the amount of information an AI can hold in its active memory; larger windows allow for the analysis of entire documents or long-term conversation history. * **Proactivity versus On-demand:** Some tools wait for a specific prompt, while others are "proactive," surfacing suggestions and refinements automatically as the user works. * **Integration Ecosystem:** High-value assistants operate as extensions within browsers (Chrome, Edge) or directly inside 100+ third-party apps to pull in relevant background info without manual data entry. * **Accuracy and Verification:** For research-heavy tasks, the best tools offer citations and references to mitigate the risk of "hallucinations" or incorrect data common in LLMs. * **Privacy and Security:** Professional-grade tools provide transparent data handling and storage policies, which is essential for teams managing sensitive information. ### Specialized Assistants and Use Cases * **Go:** A communication-focused assistant that works proactively within existing workflows to draft emails and improve clarity in real-time. * **ChatGPT:** A versatile, general-purpose tool best suited for technical problem-solving, coding support, and creative ideation, though it often requires manual context switching. * **Claude AI:** Optimized for high-volume text processing, making it the preferred choice for deep document analysis and complex, long-form revisions. To achieve the best results, users should audit their daily app usage and primary tasks—such as scheduling, coding, or drafting—before committing to a platform. Prioritizing an assistant that integrates directly into your most-used software will yield the highest productivity gains by eliminating the friction of copying and pasting data between windows.

spotify3 min readCurated summary

Why We Use Separate Tech Stacks for Personalization and Experimentation | Spotify Engineering

Personalization and experimentation overlap, especially with contextual bandits, but they serve different purposes. Personalization chooses the best experience for each user, while experimentation evaluates whether a system or product change improves outcomes overall. Spotify therefore keeps personalization in its ML stack and uses its experimentation platform, Confidence, to measure the impact of those systems. ## What Personalization Does - Personalization adapts products to individual users instead of optimizing for an “average” user. - Spotify uses it for: - Personalized playlists and discovery recommendations - Search results based on listening and search history - Home-screen shortcuts tailored to user behavior - Recommendation systems use models ranging from regression and random forests to neural networks, LLMs, and reinforcement learning. - These systems combine user characteristics, historical behavior, and real-time context to select recommendations and improve them from user responses. ## Where Experimentation and Personalization Overlap - Traditional A/B tests randomly assign users to variants and identify the best option on average. - Multi-armed bandits adapt traffic allocation, sending more users to better-performing treatments. - Contextual bandits use user features to select different treatments for different users. - This creates a conceptual transition: - A/B tests seek the best average treatment. - Multi-armed bandits efficiently find the best average treatment. - Contextual bandits seek the best treatment for each user or context. - Once contextual information determines treatment assignment, the goal is no longer simply measuring one variant’s average effect. - The relevant comparison becomes the value of the personalization system versus a static treatment or an earlier personalization system. ## Why Contextual Bandits Are Not Experimentation Platforms - A contextual bandit can personalize a checkout button based on factors such as cart contents, age, and location. - The bandit is itself a product feature or recommendation system, not the experiment used to evaluate it. - Teams still need experiments to compare different versions of the bandit and determine whether personalization improves user outcomes. - Measuring average or conditional treatment effects may be less important than evaluating the overall benefit of the personalization system. ## Why Spotify Separates the Stacks - Personalization systems require specialized ML infrastructure for: - Training diverse model types - Managing rich feature sets - Serving models with low latency - Collecting real-time data - Computing recommendations at request time - Putting these capabilities into experimentation tools would either greatly expand their scope or limit the sophistication of personalization. - Combining unrelated responsibilities can create technical debt and operational complexity. - Spotify’s ML platform standardizes the development and deployment of personalization systems. - Its experimentation platform, Confidence, evaluates those systems alongside thousands of other product experiments. ## How the Systems Work Together - Personalization algorithms, including contextual bandits, remain in the ML stack. - The experimentation stack treats a personalization system as a treatment to be evaluated. - This separation lets teams improve recommendation logic independently while using controlled experiments to measure its product impact. - It also avoids confusing dependencies that arise when a bandit is both the experiment mechanism and the system being evaluated. Spotify’s approach is to separate building personalized experiences from measuring their effectiveness. Teams should use ML infrastructure for model development and real-time decision-making, then use an experimentation platform to compare personalization systems and quantify their impact.

Read original(opens in new tab)
gitlabOriginal article

Agentic AI, enterprise control: Self-hosted Duo Agent Platform and BYOM (opens in new tab)

GitLab 18.9 introduces critical updates designed to provide regulated enterprises with governed, agentic AI capabilities through self-hosted infrastructure and model flexibility. By combining the Duo Agent Platform with Bring Your Own Model (BYOM) support, organizations in sectors like finance and government can now automate complex DevSecOps workflows while maintaining total control over data residency. This release transforms GitLab into a high-security AI control plane that balances the need for advanced automation with the rigid sovereignty requirements of high-compliance environments. ## Self-Hosted Duo Agent Platform for Online Cloud Licenses The Duo Agent Platform allows engineering teams to automate sequences of tasks, such as hardening CI/CD pipelines and triaging vulnerabilities, but was previously difficult to deploy for customers under strict online cloud licensing. This update makes the platform generally available for these environments, bridging the gap between cloud-based licensing and self-hosted security needs. * **Usage-Based Billing:** The platform now utilizes GitLab Credits to provide transparent, per-request metering, which is essential for internal chargeback and regulatory reporting. * **Infrastructure Control:** Enterprises can host models on their own internal infrastructure or within approved cloud environments, ensuring that inference traffic is routed according to internal security policies. * **Deployment Readiness:** By removing the requirement to route data through external AI vendors, the platform is now a viable option for critical infrastructure and government agencies. ## Bring Your Own Model (BYOM) Integration Recognizing that many enterprises have already invested in domain-tuned LLMs or air-gapped deployments, GitLab now allows customers to integrate their existing models directly into the Duo Agent Platform. This ensures that organizations are not locked into a specific vendor and can leverage models that have already passed internal risk assessments. * **AI Gateway Connectivity:** Administrators can connect third-party or internal models via the GitLab AI Gateway, allowing these models to function as enterprise-ready options within the GitLab ecosystem. * **Granular Model Mapping:** The system provides the ability to map specific models to individual Duo Agent Platform flows or features, giving admins fine-grained control over which agent uses which model. * **Administrative Ownership:** While GitLab provides the orchestration layer, administrators retain full responsibility for model validation, performance tuning, and risk evaluation for the models they choose to bring. For organizations operating in high-compliance sectors, these updates offer a path to consolidate fragmented AI tools into a single, governed platform. Engineering leaders should evaluate their current model investments and leverage the GitLab AI Gateway to unify their automation workflows under one secure DevSecOps umbrella.

gitlabOriginal article

Claude Opus 4.6 now available in GitLab Duo Agent Platform (opens in new tab)

GitLab has integrated Anthropic’s Claude Opus 4.6 into its Duo Agent Platform, providing developers with a high-intelligence frontier model designed for complex agentic workflows. By combining a 1-million-token context window with native access to DevSecOps data, the update enables more autonomous task execution and deeper reasoning within the software development lifecycle. This integration allows teams to delegate multi-step tasks to AI agents that can now process entire codebases and project histories in a single interaction. ## Advanced Agentic Capabilities and Reasoning * Claude Opus 4.6 features enhanced "agentic" behavior, meaning it can proactively take actions and drive tasks forward with minimal human intervention. * The model supports multi-agent orchestration, allowing it to spin up subagents and coordinate parallel workstreams to solve complex, multi-step problems. * Adaptive thinking capabilities allow the model to calibrate its reasoning depth based on the query, using extended thinking for difficult tasks while maintaining speed for simpler ones. * Deep reasoning via test-time compute helps the model navigate challenging development bottlenecks and architectural decisions. ## Full-Context DevSecOps Integration * The model boasts a 1-million-token context window—a fivefold increase over Opus 4.5—enabling the processing of massive codebases and extensive documentation. * Integration with the GitLab Duo Agent Platform provides the model with direct access to repositories, merge requests, pipelines, and security findings. * Enterprise-grade security features, including human-in-the-loop controls and group-based access, ensure that agentic actions remain transparent and governed. * Native integration ensures developers can utilize these frontier capabilities without leaving their established GitLab workflows. ## Availability and Resource Consumption * Opus 4.6 is currently available for GitLab.com users via the Duo Agent Platform and Agentic Chat, though it is not supported for GitLab Duo Classic features. * Support for the model within various Integrated Development Environments (IDEs) is expected to be released in the near future. * Usage is managed via GitLab credits, with multipliers determined by the size of the prompt. * Prompts containing 200k tokens or fewer are charged at 1.2 requests per credit, while larger prompts exceeding 200k tokens are charged at 0.7 requests per credit. Organizations aiming to automate complex development workstreams should migrate their specialized agents to Claude Opus 4.6 to take advantage of its superior orchestration and context handling. By leveraging the model's ability to coordinate parallel subagents, teams can significantly reduce the manual effort required for codebase-wide refactors and security remediation.

aws3 min readCurated summary

Announcing Amazon SageMaker Inference for custom Amazon Nova models | Amazon Web Services

Amazon SageMaker Inference now generally supports deploying and scaling full-rank customized Amazon Nova models. The feature gives production workloads more control over instance types, autoscaling, context length, concurrency, and batch settings while improving cost efficiency through optimized GPU utilization. Customers can train Nova Micro, Nova Lite, and Nova 2 Lite models with SageMaker Training Jobs or HyperPod, then deploy them as managed real-time or asynchronous endpoints. ## Custom Nova Model Support - Supports customized Nova Micro, Nova Lite, and Nova 2 Lite models. - Models can use: - Continued pre-training - Supervised fine-tuning - Reinforcement fine-tuning - Custom models can be trained through Amazon SageMaker Training Jobs or Amazon HyperPod. - SageMaker Inference provides managed deployment, scaling, and HTTPS access for production workloads. - GPU utilization and inference costs can be optimized with Amazon EC2 G5 and G6 instances instead of relying exclusively on P5 instances. - Autoscaling can respond to five-minute usage patterns. - Configurable context length, concurrency, and batch size help balance latency, cost, and accuracy. ## Deploying Through SageMaker Studio - In SageMaker Studio, users select a trained Nova model from the Models menu. - Choosing **Deploy**, **SageMaker AI**, and **Create new endpoint** starts deployment. - Deployment settings include: - Endpoint name - Instance type - Initial and maximum instance counts - Permissions - Networking configuration - Supported launch instance types vary by model: - Nova Micro: G5, G6, and P5 options, including `g5.12xlarge` through `g6.48xlarge` and `p5.48xlarge` - Nova Lite: `g5.48xlarge`, `g6.48xlarge`, and `p5.48xlarge` - Nova 2 Lite: `p5.48xlarge` - Provisioning takes time because SageMaker must create infrastructure, download model artifacts, and initialize the inference container. - Once the endpoint is `InService`, users can test it in the Studio Playground using chat prompts. ## Deploying with the SageMaker SDK - Deployment requires two SageMaker resources: - A model object referencing the Nova artifacts and inference container - An endpoint configuration specifying the instance type and count - Model artifacts can be stored in Amazon S3 and referenced with an S3 prefix. - Environment variables configure inference behavior, including: - `CONTEXT_LENGTH` - `MAX_CONCURRENCY` - `DEFAULT_TEMPERATURE` - `DEFAULT_TOP_P` - The endpoint configuration creates a real-time endpoint, such as one using an `ml.g5.12xlarge` instance. - SageMaker supports network isolation and execution roles for secure deployment. ## Inference and Request Configuration - Endpoints support synchronous real-time inference in streaming or non-streaming modes. - Asynchronous endpoints are available for batch-style processing. - Requests can configure: - Maximum output tokens - Temperature - Top-p and top-k sampling - Log probabilities - Streaming usage statistics - Reasoning effort, with `low` and `high` options - The example request asks the model to compare quarterly spending against budget and identify variances above 10 percent. SageMaker Inference provides a complete path from Nova customization to production deployment. Teams should select instance types and tune context length, concurrency, batching, and sampling parameters based on their workload’s latency, cost, and accuracy requirements.

Read original(opens in new tab)