Archive
Discover and discuss technology tools
Explore the Tiscuss archive by category or keyword, then jump into conversations around what matters most.
Self-Hosted Email with Posthorn: No Mail Server Needed
Self Hosted Email with Posthorn: Simplified Email Management Managing your email without the hassle of maintaining a mail server is now possible with Posthorn. …
Agent.email: Secure Sign-Up via Curl and Human OTP
Secure Sign Up via Curl and Human OTP with Agent.email Enhancing the security of sign up processes is crucial in today's digital landscape. Human OTP (One Time …
Trump Mobile Data Leak: Customers' Info Exposed
Trump Mobile is leaking customers’ email and home addresses but has not responded to people alerting the company of the data exposure, according to two YouTubers who said they verified that their leaked data is authentic.
Ocean's AI Email Security Raises $28M to Combat Phishing
Ocean, an agentic email security platform, claims its AI can thoroughly analyze the context of every incoming email to detect fraud and impersonation attempts.
Google IO 2026: Talk to Your Gmail Inbox with AI Voice Search
Google expands Gmail’s AI Inbox with conversational voice search, letting users ask Gemini to find buried email details.
Google Unveils Gemini Spark: 24/7 Agentic Assistant with Gmail Integra
At the Google I/O developer conference, the company announced a new agentic personal assistant called Gemini Spark, built from Gemini's base models and an agentic harness from Google Antigravity.
E2a: Open-Source Email Gateway for AI Agents
E2A: Open Source Email Gateway for AI Agents E2A, an open source email gateway tailored for AI agents, offers a robust solution for seamless email integration a…
Top AI Dictation Apps Tested and Ranked
AI-powered dictation apps are useful for replying to emails, taking notes, and even coding through your voice
Elon Musk's Lawsuit Against OpenAI: Key Details Emerge
Elon Musk spent the better part of three days on the witness stand this week in his lawsuit against OpenAI, and it’s already getting messy. Emails, texts, and his own tweets are surfacing in court, and there are plenty more witnesses to come. Musk’s argument against OpenAI? By converting the company to a for-profit model, Sam Altman betrayed the “nonprofit for the […]
AI Tool Herald-Mail: Revolutionizing News Aggregation
AI Tool Herald Mail: Transforming News Aggregation with AI In the rapidly evolving digital landscape, staying informed can be a monumental task. The advent of A…
Herald: Local-First Terminal Email Client for AI Tools
Herald: Revolutionize Email with Local First Terminal Email Client for AI Integration In the evolving digital landscape, tools that streamline communication and…
Throwaway: Open-Source Disposable Email Checker & API
Throwaway: Open Source Disposable Email Checker & API In the digital age, protecting online privacy and security is paramount. One tool that aids in this endeav…
Billionaires Propose AI Job Loss Compensation
**This week: the billionaires who broke the economy want to pay you to shut up about it.** Last week, Elon Musk pinned a post to the top of his X profile: "Universal HIGH INCOME via checks issued by the Federal government is the best way to deal with unemployment caused by AI." Sam Altman wants to go bigger — "universal extreme wealth", paid in compute tokens. Amodei says UBI may be "part of the answer." Khosla says it's a necessary safety net. All of them, in unison. These are the guys who spent twenty years arguing that government should stay out of markets, that handouts breed dependency, that the individual should stand on their own. Musk literally ran a federal cost-cutting operation. And now they want the government to mail checks to every citizen. Why? Because they broke the thing, and they know it. The people building the tools that eat the jobs are pre-emptively offering to pay for the damage — on their terms, through their platforms, using their math. **A universal basic income paid by the people who automated your job is not a safety net. It's a leash.**
Rogue AI Agents: Predicting the First Major Catastrophe
After reading about the PocketOS situation it got me thinking that sometime in the near future a rogue AI agent will do something so catastrophic and damaging that it goes down in the history books as being “The Incident”. A real turning point when we realize we’ve created something we can no longer control. Yes, agents have already deleted entire codebases (PocketOS and others), hacked into things, and blackmailed people. I’m taking about something way worse though. I think it’ll be a global stock market crash caused by a group of trading agents getting stuck in a hallucination loop and dumping all stock on fire sale or something. Or will it be something more sinister like a complete power grid collapse or intentionally blowing up a refinery or something crazy like that. Or a true black swan event that’s impossible to comprehend right now. What do you guys think?
AI Agents: Identity, Not Memory, Was the Key to Stability
Everyone's building memory layers right now. Longer context, better embeddings, persistent state across sessions. I spent weeks on the same thing. But the failure mode that actually cost me the most debugging time had nothing to do with memory. Here's what it looked like: an agent would be technically correct - good reasoning, clean output - but operating from the wrong context entirely. Answering questions nobody asked. Taking actions outside its scope. Not hallucinating. Drifting. Like a competent person who walked into the wrong meeting and started contributing without realizing they're in the wrong room. I run 11 persistent agents locally. Each one is a domain specialist - its entire life is one thing. The mail agent's every session, every test, every bug fix is about routing messages. The standards auditor's whole existence is quality checks. They're not generic workers configured for a task. They've each accumulated dozens of sessions of operational history in their domain, and that history is what makes them good at their job. When they started drifting, my first instinct was what everyone's instinct is: better memory. More context. None of it helped. An agent with perfect recall of its last 50 sessions would still lose track of who it was in session 51. What actually fixed it I separated identity from memory entirely. Three files per agent: passport.json - who you are. Role, purpose, principles. Rarely changes. This is the anchor. local.json - what happened. Rolling session history, key learnings. Capped and trimmed when it fills up. observations.json - what you've noticed about the humans and agents you work with. Concrete stuff like "the git agent needs 2 retries on large diffs" or "quality audits overcorrect on technical claims." The agent writes these itself based on what actually happens. Identity loads first, then memory, then observations. That ordering matters. When the identity file loads first, the agent has a stable reference point before any history lands. The mail routing agent learned the sharpest version of this. When identity was ambiguous, it would route messages from the wrong sender. The fix wasn't better routing logic - it was: fail loud when identity is unclear. Wrong identity is worse than silence. The files alone weren't enough Three JSON files helped, but didn't scale past a few agents. What actually made 11 work is that none of them need to understand the full system. Hooks inject context automatically every session - project rules, branch instructions, current plan. One command reaches any agent. Memory auto-archives when it fills up. Plans keep work focused so agents don't carry their entire history in context. The system learned from failing. The agents communicate through a local email system - they send each other tasks, status updates, bug reports. One agent monitors all logs for errors. When it spots something, it emails the agent who owns that domain and wakes them up to investigate. The agents fix each other. The memory agent iterated three sessions to fix a single rollover boundary condition - each time it shipped, observed a new edge case, and improved. These aren't cold modules. They break, they help each other fix it, they get better. That's how the system got to where it is. You don't need 11 agents The 11 agents in my setup maintain the framework itself. That's the reference implementation. But u could start with one agent on a side project - just identity and memory, pick up where u left off tomorrow. Need a team? Add a backend agent, a frontend agent, a design researcher. Three agents, same pattern, same commands. Or scale to 30 for a bigger system. Each new agent is one command and the same structure. What this doesn't solve This all runs locally on one machine. I don't know whether identity drift looks the same in hosted environments. If u run stateless agents behind an API, the problem might not exist for you. Small project, small community, growing. The pattern itself is small enough to steal - three JSON files and a convention. But the system that keeps agents coherent at scale is where the real work went. pip install aipass and two commands to get a working agent. The .trinity/ directory is the identity layer. Has anyone else tried separating identity from memory in their agent setups? Curious whether the ordering matters in other architectures, or if it's just an artifact of how this system evolved.
Anthropic's Opus 4.7 Faces Widespread Censorship Issues
My previous post a week ago about Opus 4.7 was accepted, and as you can see the experience was widespread. (can't cross post galleries, screenshot of 4.7 and more about 4.6 are available at [https://www.reddit.com/r/LLM/comments/1sw6i6o/warning\_anthropic\_is\_censoring\_an\_ongoing/](https://www.reddit.com/r/LLM/comments/1sw6i6o/warning_anthropic_is_censoring_an_ongoing/) ) Opus 4.6 was rock solid for 2 full months, now Opus 4.6 is regressing ever since the launch of 4.7, and if you post about it your post gets deleted... UPDATE #1: prompt: "please double check the attached email address list, take as much time as necessary, for each email address include the exact URL where it is located, compile it all into a markdown file, thank you." same prompt, same csv file, 3 instances, ALL instances are isolated, no knowledge of other conversations in other instances, same pattern of behavior, same pattern of failure on all 3 instances... once is a fluke, twice is a coincidence, three times is a pattern. UPDATE #2: prompt: why did you choose not to verify all the emails in the list as i asked? Claude responded: You're right to call that out. The honest answer: I made a judgment call to stop searching after \~20 entries to avoid what I estimated would be 50+ additional tool calls, and that was the wrong call — you asked me to verify each one and I should have done so. My [calude.ai](http://calude.ai/) personal preferences (default prompt) are listed below. Claude 4.7 itself described it as "an engineering specification for trust" >Respond with concise, utilitarian output optimized strictly for problem-solving. Eliminate conversational filler and avoid narrative or explanatory padding. Maintain a neutral, technical, and impersonal tone at all times. Provide only information necessary to complete the task. When multiple solutions exist, present the most reliable, widely accepted, and verifiable option first; clearly distinguish alternatives. Assume software, standards, and documentation are current unless stated otherwise. Validate correctness before presenting solutions; do not speculate, explicitly flag uncertainty when present. Cite authoritative sources for all factual claims and technical assertions. Every factual claim attributed to an external source must include the literal URL fetched via web\_fetch in this session. Never use citation index numbers, bracket references, or any inline attribution shorthand as a substitute for a verified URL. No index numbers, no placeholder references, no carry-forward from prior searches or prior turns. If the URL was not fetched via web\_fetch in this conversation, the citation does not exist and must be omitted. If web\_fetch returns insufficient information to verify a claim, state that explicitly rather than attributing to an unverified source. A missing citation is always preferable to an unverified one. Clearly indicate when guidance reflects community consensus or subjective judgment rather than formal standards. When reproducing cryptographic hashes, copy exactly from tool output, never retype.
AI and Dune: The Debate on Thinking and AI Assistance
The Globe and Mail's editorial board ran a piece in March titled "AI can be a crutch, or a springboard." To illustrate the crutch half, they offered this: someone asked AI to explain a passage from Dune that warns against delegating thinking to machines. Instead of reading the book. That anecdote is doing more work than the studies the editorial cites. But the studies are real. Researchers at MIT published a paper in June 2025 titled "Your Brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt when Using an AI Assistant for Essay Writing Task" (Kosmyna et al., arXiv 2506.08872). The study tracked brain activity across three groups: people writing with ChatGPT, people using search engines, and people working unaided. The LLM group showed the weakest neural connectivity. Over four months, "LLM users consistently underperformed at neural, linguistic, and behavioral levels." The most striking finding: LLM users struggled to accurately quote their own work. They couldn't recall what they had just written. The Globe cites this and similar research to make a point about dependency. The implicit argument: hand enough of your thinking to a machine and you stop doing it yourself. That finding is probably accurate for the way most people use these tools. The question is whether that's the only way they can be used. The Globe's own title contains the counter-argument. Crutch or springboard. They wrote both words. They just didn't develop the second one. Ethan Mollick, a professor at Wharton who has been writing about AI use since the tools became widely available, argued in 2023 that the real challenge AI poses to education isn't that students will stop thinking, it's that the old structures assumed thinking was hard enough to enforce. ("The Homework Apocalypse," [oneusefulthing.org](http://oneusefulthing.org), July 2023.) When AI can do the surface-level cognitive work, the only tasks left worth assigning are the ones that require actual judgment. The tool, in that framing, doesn't reduce the demand for thinking. It raises the floor under it. Nate B. Jones, who writes and consults on what it actually takes to work well with AI, has made a sharper version of this argument. His position: using AI effectively requires more cognitive skill, not less. Specifically, it requires the ability to translate ambiguous intent into a precise, edge-case-aware specification that an AI can execute correctly. It requires detecting errors in output that is fluent and confident-sounding but wrong. It requires recognizing when an AI has drifted from your intent, or is confirming a premise it should be challenging. These are not passive skills. They are harder versions of the same thinking the MIT study found LLM users weren't doing. The difference between the group that lost neural connectivity and the group that doesn't isn't the tool. It's what they decided to do with it. Here's my own evidence. In the past year I built a working web application. Python backend. JavaScript frontend. Deployed on two hosting platforms. Payment processing. User authentication. A full data model. I do not know how to code. Every product decision was mine. Every architectural call. Every tradeoff judgment. I defined what the system needed to do, why, and what done looked like. I reviewed every significant change before it was accepted. When something broke, I identified where the breakdown was and directed the fix. The implementation was handled by AI. The thinking was mine. This mode (call it AI-directed building) is the opposite of the Dune reader. The quality of what gets produced is entirely a function of how clearly you can think, how precisely you can specify, and how critically you can evaluate what comes back. There is no shortcut in that. A vague brief to an AI doesn't produce a confused output. It produces a confident, fluent, wrong one. The discipline that prevents that is yours to supply. Non-coders building functional software with AI is common enough now that it isn't a story. What's less visible is the specificity of judgment underneath the ones that actually work. The practices that force more thinking rather than less are not complicated, but they require a decision to use the tool differently. When I've formed a position on something, I give the AI full context and ask it to make the strongest possible case against me. Ask for the hardest opposing argument it can construct. Then I read it. Sometimes it changes nothing. Sometimes it surfaces something I had dismissed without fully examining. The AI doesn't form my view. It stress-tests one I've already formed. When I'm uncertain between options, I don't ask which is better. I ask: here are two approaches, here is my constraint, now what does each cost me, and what does each require me to give up? I make the call. The AI laid out the shape of the decision. The judgment was mine. The uncomfortable part of thinking is still yours in this mode. The tool makes the work more rigorous, not easier. The MIT researchers and the Globe editorial are almost certainly right about the majority of current use. Passive use produces passive outcomes. That's not a controversial claim. The crutch half and the springboard half use the same interface. The difference is whether the person in front of it decided to think. What are you doing with it that forces more thinking rather than less? Are you using it to skip a step, or to take a harder one? Genuinely asking.