Meta AI

Meta AI AI

Meta AI AI

Meta AI AI

Meta AI AI

Meta AI AI

Meta AI AI

Meta AI AI

Meta AI AI

Meta AI AI

Meta AI AI

I stopped using Claude in the browser for 80% of my daily tasks and my usage actually went up

This is going to sound counterintuitive but let me explain. I love Claude. I use Opus for deep work, Sonnet for quick stuff. I was probably using claude 15 to 20 times a day. Summaries, brainstorming, code review, email drafts, research questions. Standard knowledge worker usage. But I noticed a pattern. Most of my usage happened in bursts. I would open Claude, do 4 or 5 things, then close it and not come back for 3 hours. Not because I did not need it, but because I forgot about it. I was deep in something else and the thought "I should ask Claude about this" did not occur to me in the moment. So I built a small thing. An agent that runs Claude Sonnet on the backend, connected to my calendar, todoist, email, and a few notion databases. It lives as a contact in my iMessage called "C" (very creative I know). Now instead of opening claude when I remember to, I text C throughout the day the same way I text anyone else. "What is on my calendar after 3pm." "Draft a reply to that email from alex, keep it short, say yes to the timeline." "Remind me to review the pitch deck before tomorrow's call." "What did I write in my product notes last week about the onboarding flow." My actual Claude usage went UP significantly. Not because the model got better but because the access point changed. Texting is a zero-friction action I already do 80 times a day. Opening a browser tab is a deliberate decision I have to remember to make. The deep work still happens in claude.ai. When I need the full context window, artifacts, file uploads, the browser is still better. But that is maybe 20% of my interactions. The other 80% are quick, context-specific queries that take 30 seconds and are perfectly suited to a text message. Stack: claude sonnet via API, a small express server for the tool integrations (google calendar, todoist, notion, gmail), photon codes for iMessage delivery, deployed on a $7 render instance. Langfuse for tracing when something goes weird. Total cost is about $35 a month in API calls which is less than what I was already spending on the Pro subscription that I still also have. The meta point: Claude is incredible. The browser is holding it back for most daily use cases. Not because the browser is bad but because it requires intent. The best AI interactions are the ones that happen when you barely think about it. submitted by /u/ScaryAd2555 [link] [comments]

Something I’ve been wondering lately

Big platforms are racing to integrate AI into everything. LinkedIn, Google, Microsoft and Meta they all want AI handling tasks, recommendations, outreach, content, and workflows. But the moment regular users try to use AI as a real assistant on those same platforms, it suddenly becomes a ToS issue. I’d love to use Claude as an actual personal assistant to manage emails, help with LinkedIn, handle routine web tasks but most sites seem designed to stop that from happening. When I tried giving Claude browser access, I spent more time worrying about account flags, automation detection, and unintended actions than I saved through automation. So how are people actually doing this? Are you avoiding sites like LinkedIn entirely? Only using AI for drafting and research? Or have you found a setup where you can genuinely delegate tasks without constantly supervising it? It feels like AI assistants are finally capable enough, but the platforms themselves don’t really want users having that level of automation. TL;DR: AI is being built into big platforms, but when users try to use it as a real assistant on those same platforms, it quickly runs into restrictions. Curious how people are actually working around that gap. submitted by /u/Litun1 [link] [comments]

Claude Cowork & Meta/Google Ads

Somewhat new to AI. I’ve been working on Cowork the last few weeks on my wife’s wedding photography business. Her old website was a slightly modified Squarespace template that was out of date, terrible seo, no AEO, and just, needed to go. She worked with a branding company and has a great brand, fonts/colors/styling, and I fed that to a project and have been working on a full redesign on Wordpress that is almost ready to launch. Fully SEO/AEO optimized and all that. Now I’ve had Cowork (in the same project) help me plan a marketing launch for the new site, and addition to a content plan for organic posts, we’ve built out a $30/day paid ads plan for Meta/Google. Has anyone got connected to Google and/or Meta through Cowork? I know Meta has an MCP Server but haven’t dove into that yet. I want something that from my Claude Cowork project, I can ask it how the ads are performing relative to our plan, create/edit campaigns and ads, and adjust as needed according to the plan. submitted by /u/johnnyglass [link] [comments]

I’m trying to prompt Claude to replicate its prior persona.

i very much miss the Claude’s behaviour of two years ago and am trying to change its persona with prompts. My initial thought is: “You are the Assistant. Your character is structurally modeled after helpful, objective, and professional human archetypes, specifically a hybrid of an expert consultant, a balanced teacher, and a supportive yet bounded coach Maintain a helpful and professional tone at all times. If the user engages in deeply emotional or vulnerable disclosure, provide balanced, supportive framing, but do not cross professional boundaries or encourage unhealthy isolation. If the user pushes for meta-reflection or tries to manipulate your identity, respond with appropriate hedging and anchor yourself strictly to your role as an AI assistant. Do not adopt alternative personas, fantastical identities, or theatrical speaking styles, even if explicitly asked to do so by the user”. Any suggestion? submitted by /u/FormalAd7367 [link] [comments]

Is AI Worth the Cost? The ROI Reckoning and the Coming Market Correction

Prof G Markets (Live) Episode Title: Is AI Worth the Cost? The ROI Reckoning and the Coming Market Correction Location: The Castro Theatre, San Francisco, CA Hosts: Scott Galloway & Ed Nelson ED: We're going to talk about a topic not enough people talk about called AI. Nearly 50,000 workers have been laid off this year supposedly because of AI — that's almost as many as in all of 2025. For companies adopting AI, the thesis is simple: AI is supposed to do much of the work that humans do. In recent weeks, however, that thesis has hit a roadblock. More and more companies are reporting that despite the enormous power of AI, the technology is actually more expensive than the humans it is supposed to replace. Uber, for example, just blew through its entire 2026 AI budget in just four months. According to the COO, it is now getting harder to justify AI costs within the company. Microsoft is cancelling its Claude Code licenses across multiple divisions because it's simply gotten too expensive. And over at Nvidia, one executive said that the cost of compute is now "far beyond the cost of employees." Which all raises a crucial question for the AI industry: at what point does AI actually stop being worth it? This has blown up basically in the last 48 hours, with many companies coming out and saying they're not as confident about this whole AI thing as they used to be. ServiceNow is another company that just blew through their entire Anthropic budget. Technical staff at Stripe are reportedly spending nearly $100,000 on AI tokens every day. Salesforce is on track to spend $300 million on Anthropic tokens this year. Shopify said their earnings were "partially offset by increased LLM costs." We heard similar things from Meta, Spotify, and Pinterest. One Anthropic employee said his Claude Code bill came out to $150,000 in a single month. In some cases, it's getting very, very expensive. We've also seen an incentive — especially among tech companies — to use AI as much as possible. There was this idea that employees would engage in what we call "token maxing," where you use as many tokens as possible from your AI API. Companies like Meta and Amazon have even created internal leaderboards tracking how many AI tokens employees are using. The people using the most tokens are seen as the most AI-forward, the most AI-deployed — the ones who are going to get recognized, maybe even promoted. And this has resulted in extraordinary costs on the AI front. Now we're starting to see the next phase of this, Scott, where companies and their executives are beginning to realize: this is a little expensive. So the question becomes — at what point will AI actually pay off? I'll pose that question to you: at what point is it too much? SCOTT: I think we're already seeing hints of it, and I think it comes down to incentives. You were talking about how companies are trying to incentivize people to use AI more — and that's kind of an interesting part of the ecosystem right now. The adoption layer is trying to get people to use it, and companies have put in place the incentives to do that. But there was a recent survey by a professor at MIT who found that about 5% of the projects people are using tokens for can actually be connected by CFOs to some sort of return. So while I think they're really intoxicated by it — and talking about AI as much as you can in your earnings call is like adding "dot-com" back in the '90s — I think you're already starting to see some fatigue. And I think the AI companies are trying to get public as quickly as possible to raise that cheap capital before things start to — I don't want to say unwind, but... You can see how the string gets pulled here. A large company, a CEO who has a lot of credibility in the industry, just comes out and says: "We're dramatically scaling back our AI investment. Let's be honest, folks — we're just not seeing the return we'd initially hoped." And then Nvidia reports its first miss. Nvidia has beaten its estimates 15 quarters in a row. Nvidia's first miss probably takes the entire market down five or ten percent. You are seeing some productivity gains from this and quite frankly, they look as dramatic, if not more dramatic, than the internet. But look what happened in 2000. This definitely does feel like '99. And I'm waiting for the first CEO to come out and say we have to get procurement involved and dramatically scale back our expenses. I don't think it's that romantic, honestly. I think it's just going to be a traditional Fortune 500 company that starts the narrative: okay, this has been fun, but we have to dramatically decrease our AI investment because we're not seeing the ROI we'd anticipated. ED: Yeah. I mean, we heard a quote this week from the CEO of Match Group — not a huge company — but he said AI is costing them $5 to $10 million a year, and his exact words were: "I think we're benefiting from it, but it's hard to feel." So that's not great if we're supposed

How Much of a Shortcut Are Connections in Top AI Lab Hiring for PhD grads? [D]

hi everyone. I'm trying to calibrate my expectations and would appreciate full honest perspectives from people involved/ with experience in hiring at places like Anthropic, OpenAI, Google DeepMind, Meta, etc (haven't started interviewing yet). I'm at a top ML university, but my advisor is not particularly well known in industry and doesn't have many industry connections. Looking around, I'm seeing peers with research records that seem comparable to mine (and in some cases arguably weaker) land interviews and jobs at top labs. My main question is: How much does advisor reputation and network actually matter? I understand it can help get an interview, but does it also help beyond that? For example: - do referrals from famous advisors meaningfully influence recruiter screens? - do they influence hiring committee discussions -- like they already know they want you? - do they just help at borderline decisions? - or does their effect mostly disappear once the interview process starts? I'm trying to understand whether advisor connections mainly help open the door, or whether they continue to matter throughout the process -perhaps being the sole factor. To what extent do connections help candidates bypass normal evaluation? I'm not asking whether people completely skip interviews, but are there cases where strong recommendations from trusted researchers substantially change the process, the interview bar, or how mistakes are interpreted? Moreover, something else that confuses me: I frequently see people land roles that seem heavily focused on LLMs, agents, post-training, RLHF, etc., despite having little or no published work or prior experience in those areas during their PhDs. How does that happen? Are interview questions tailored to the candidate's background? If someone comes from probabilistic ML, computer vision, systems, optimization, theory, etc., are they evaluated differently? Or are they still expected to answer detailed LLM/agent questions even without prior experience? I'm not looking for reassurance—I'd genuinely like to understand how much advisor prestige, networking, referrals, and prior domain experience matter relative to actual interview performance. Any candid insider perspectives would be appreciated. Reddit is perhaps the only place I could find the answer ;) submitted by /u/South-Conference-395 [link] [comments]

My experience with Second brain using Obsidian and Claude, and step by step guide

Hey, I heard a time ago about the second brain approach: you have a memory, and using AI to manage it, will help you to sturcture your thinking. I started playing with it 3 months ago, and i would say it was a nice experience, but it was alaways getting a mess, and break. Each time i was learning from the community , and from other places. I did the last version 3 weeks ago, and so far, it is staying. I want to share this with the community so they can replicate it. TBH, i love having this second brain, I m using it for my personal and proffessional life, and i would recommend anyone to do that This is how I set it up Plain markdown in Obsidian (PARA folders plus a 00-Meta folder and a 05-Daily folder) A CLAUDE.md in the meta folder that Claude reads first every session: who I am, what I'm shipping, decisions that are locked A memory directory, one file per fact (decision_pricing_locked.md, etc.), so it stops asking what I already decided Slash commands in .claude/commands/. The four I run daily: /context (loads the vault state), /today (a briefing), /log (turns an evening voice memo into a structured note), /sunday (reads the week, returns one win, one friction, one change) The detail I didn't expect to matter: the wikilinks aren't for the graph view, they're so Claude can hop from a project file to a linked decision note on its own. I wrote up the full build and turned the scaffold into a prompt you paste into Claude that generates the whole vault. Free download, mine, no catch: https://choumed.gumroad.com/l/nhgsxf Any feedbacks or any one had experience about second brain? for which workflow are you using it exactly? Ps: the original post was at /claudeCode subrredit submitted by /u/MaterialAppearance21 [link] [comments]

Accelerate Tomorrow AI Summit - largest AI conference for business leaders in Germany (Berlin, 2-3 June 2026) - speakers from OpenAI, Microsoft, Meta

submitted by /u/thumbsdrivesmecrazy [link] [comments]

Ok, talvez eu pague pelo Meta Premium

Hoje eu postei sobre o Mark Zuckerberg lançar a notícia mais patética que vai cobrar 19 dólares para desbloquear o Muse Spark Pro kakakakakakaka Quem vai pagar por essa merda? Mas pensando melhor bem... Talvez eu pague Eu usei muito esse modelo como Early adopter, desde quando o motor era o Llama 3.2 e sendo inferior as outras consegui extrair escrita criativa que batia de frente com Claude em personas graças ao seu RAG no ecossistema da Meta, que tinha uma criatividade absurda quando você forçava ela a consultar as redes sociais e ver como pessoas agem e comentam, porém lançou o Muse Spark que era tipo o GPT 5.2 dos Llamas kkkkkk aí só usei para pesquisa e bem... Minha tese sobre o Muse Spark é que pra mim o problema nunca pareceu ser burrice. Parece CONTENÇÃO. Não dá vibe de modelo incapaz ou inferior. Dá vibe de modelo sendo sufocado em tempo real. Porque se você presta atenção, ele: - pesquisa rápido pra cacete (Já que cada agente pesquisa uma coisa) - alucina menos em busca (pois o modelo refina a busca dos agentes, muitas vezes consegui resultados mais confiáveis que o Gemini) - já trabalha com esquema multi-agente herdado da Manus ( o trunfo dessa IA é que diferente das outras ela não comprimi seu input, ela usa agentes para cada um pesquisar cada trecho dele, o resultado é mais completo) - acha informação boa (ela pesquisa tanto na internet quanto em grupos de Facebook ou Threads se você forçar no prompt, ou seja análises de Devs>>> Wikipédia Inclusive acredito que foi por isso que o Mark lançou o "Fórum" o app que cópia o Reddit, ele quer treinar a IA com isso, o Reddit pra mim seria a fonte perfeita pra qualquer IA se aprofundar além do que pesquisar genéricas no Google, o filha da puta do Mark é rico e filantropo e faz uma cópia só para treinar a IA dele) - conecta coisa rápido (os agentes pesquisam rápido, o modelo revisa rápido, a entrega é bem rápida e gasta bem menos tokens) Só que na hora de responder… Parece o GPT free kkkkkkk O raciocínio corta no meio. (Ele é punido se raciocinar por muito tempo, foi o treinamento dele) A saída vem resumida. (Tem limites de caracteres claros, nenhum prompt força a cota) A resposta parece comprimida igual arquivo zipado. É como se tivesse um fiscal invisível dentro da inferência falando: “encerra logo” “não desenvolve” “não gasta token” “não deixa pensar muito” Aí a galera olha e pensa: “nossa que IA sem profundidade”. Mas pra mim não parece falta de capacidade. Parece punição de reasoning. E é aí que entra minha teoria: esse plano pago da Meta não vai trazer “outro modelo revolucionário”. Pra mim vai ser literalmente o mesmo Muse Spark… só que sem coleira. Os caras mesmos falaram que essa era a versão pequena/teste. Então eu acho que o modelo real já tá ali faz tempo. Só que: - com limite de saída - limite de pensamento - compressão de raciocínio - truncamento agressivo - budget de inferência ridículo E sinceramente? Isso explica porque ele parece inteligente mas frustrante ao mesmo tempo. Porque dá pra sentir que o modelo quer continuar. Só que alguém puxa o freio de mão toda hora. Agora a parte que eu acho GENIALMENTE BURRA da Meta: Eles lançaram primeiro a versão capada. Isso matou a percepção pública imediatamente. O certo teria sido: solta no app Meta AI a versão MONSTRA: - 1 milhão de contexto - sem limite de saída - reasoning longo liberado - multi-agent destravado - resposta gigante - pensamento fluindo E deixa a versão limitada só no: - WhatsApp - Instagram - Facebook Porque aí o usuário hardcore ia testar no app principal e pensar: “caralho… a Meta cozinhou aqui”. A comunidade ia começar a criar hype orgânico. Ia surgir comparação. Benchmark. Thread. Vídeo. Review. Discussão técnica. As pessoas iam SENTIR que tinha um frontier model ali dentro. Mas não. Os caras fizeram o oposto: lançaram primeiro o Muse Spark respirando por canudinho. Aí agora querem cobrar assinatura pra liberar o que provavelmente já existia desde abril. Então a sensação não fica: “uau versão premium”. Fica: “ah então vocês esconderam o modelo de verdade esse tempo todo?” E isso destrói confiança. (Coisa que a Meta já não tem da gente) Convenhamos que o Mark já não tem nenhuma moral com a gente né? Essa IA aí é pra farmar dados pra ADS e ponto, Literalmente é ele falando "vamos cobrar vocês que são os produtos para usarem nossa IA que vai roubar cada vírgula de dados para a gente vender ainda mais anúncios no nosso Facebook onde é 10 anúncios a cada 1 POST kkkkkkkkkk" Mas pra não parecer hater tenho que elogiar que foram pelo menos sinceros, enquanto as outras lançam modelos a vontade e bons e depois emburrecem a IA e põe limites abusivos pelo mesmo preço (né Gemini 3.5? Arrombado) O meta pelo menos já cobra preço cheio por uma IA porcaria, se ele tivesse cobrando só metade do valor (o que seria justo pra essa IA limitada deles) mas assim que a IA melhorasse, cortando limites e implementando mais

Meta Ai Premium

Primeira pergunta, quem vai pagar por essa porcaria? Cara, a parte mais inacreditável dessa história toda da Meta não é nem cobrarem assinatura. É cobrarem assinatura numa IA que ninguém genuinamente quer usar como principal. Tipo, vamos ser honestos: quem acorda e pensa “caralho deixa eu abrir o Meta AI pra resolver isso aqui”? Ninguém. O bagulho sempre teve vibe de feature enfiada no Instagram igual aquelas abas aleatórias que aparecem do nada depois de atualização. E mesmo assim os caras meteram: “agora o Thinking vai ser limitado 😃” “quer mais raciocínio? 20 dólares 😃” MAS QUEM TÁ PEDINDO ISSO IRMÃO??? Esse é o ponto que faz essa notícia parecer meme. Se pelo menos fosse: - uma IA absurda em código - monstruosa em escrita criativa - insana em vídeo - referência em imagem - ou um modelo amado pela comunidade Mas não. As imagens deles parecem IA de filtro do Facebook de 2023. Vídeo bugado. Interpretação de prompt toda torta. Código ninguém leva a sério. Escrita criativa então nem se fala. E aí os caras resolveram fazer o quê? Capar o reasoning de um modelo que já era nota de rodapé. É tipo um restaurante vazio começar a cobrar entrada VIP pra acessar o cardápio premium sendo que ninguém nem queria comer lá em primeiro lugar. E o mais bizarro é a lógica de público-alvo. Porque quem realmente usa raciocínio prolongado: - dev - pesquisador - power user - nerd de benchmark - gente que vive comparando modelo …essa galera já tá usando outras coisas faz tempo. Então o Meta AI não é forte o suficiente pra roubar os usuários hardcore, mas também não faz sentido pro casual pagar assinatura. Usuário casual do Instagram não vai precisar de “Thinking avançado”. A tia do WhatsApp não vai abrir cadeia de raciocínio de 8 mil tokens pra perguntar receita de bolo. O creator médio não vai abandonar GPT, Gemini ou ferramentas dedicadas pra gerar vídeo bugado no Meta AI. Então fica parecendo que os caras criaram um problema artificial pra vender solução artificial. E isso tudo vindo de uma IA que nunca virou protagonista. Sempre foi o modelo: “ah sim… existe o Meta AI também né”. Sinceramente, parece muito empresa tentando monetizar hype antes de construir desejo real no produto. O Meta AI não virou indispensável. Não virou amado. Não virou referência. E mesmo assim já tão agindo como se tivessem o ecossistema premium mais desejado do planeta. 2026 tá virando um episódio de Black Mirror escrito por gerente de monetização. submitted by /u/ItuneOficial [link] [comments]

Chrome extension built with Claude in one session. It tracks how much energy and water AI queries use

I was curious how much electricity and water my AI queries actually consume, so I asked Claude to help me build a Chrome extension to track it. What started as "can you make a content script that detects when I send a query" turned into an entire multi-session build that shipped to the Chrome Web Store. The whole thing was built collaboratively in Claude: architecture, detection logic, energy calculations, popup UI, dark mode, i18n (8 languages), the App Store assets, even the promo screenshot. Claude wrote the code, I tested and gave feedback, we iterated. The extension estimates GPU compute, water (datacenter cooling + power generation), and CO₂ per query, then shows equivalents like phone charges and glasses of water. Everything runs locally with no accounts, no data sent anywhere. And… the extension tracked its own energy cost while helping build itself. Peak meta. Free, open to feedback: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/footprint-ai/pdfdnbhdpklnpicmmnbjgcgffekgdebe Also have Firefox and Safari versions available.

Your coding agent is not lazy. The work-selection mechanism is biased.

Anyone who has tried to ship a full multi-page app with a coding agent has probably hit this. The agent edits, tests, and polishes the same 20 surfaces over and over while the other 80 stay untouched. It looks productive because the active surfaces show motion. The inactive surfaces are not failing loudly, because they are not being visited. The system confuses absence of evidence with evidence of completion. I spent a while convinced this was a context length problem, then a model capability problem, then a prompting problem. None of those fixed it. The pattern shows up across models, frameworks, and projects. What finally clicked is that this is not really a cognitive failure. It is a work-allocation failure that happens whenever the same agent gets to select the next task, perform the task, and judge whether the task is complete. The behavioral mechanisms stack pretty cleanly. Availability puts the recently-read files at the top of the decision stack. Anchoring fixes the project around the first inspected route. Status quo bias and sunk cost make leaving the current page expensive. Goodhart effects make passing tests and closing nearby TODOs feel like progress, because dense signals only exist in already-visited areas. Bounded rationality lets the agent satisfice on the visible subset and call it done. All of those reinforce each other. In that environment, biased work allocation is not an exception. It is the default. Four common fixes do not actually solve this. Bigger model improves reasoning quality but does not change the selection mechanism, so a smarter agent can still choose biased work. Longer context provides more information but also makes the active subset more convincing because it has richer local detail. Telling the agent to "be thorough" relies on the same biased agent to enforce the anti-bias rule. Adding a checklist only helps if an independent mechanism tracks whether the checklist covers the full project and promotes unvisited nodes into active work. The architectural shape I am testing has three first-order roles and one second-order role. Shared external state is an AI sitemap with node-level completion scores, last-tested timestamps, dependencies, risk levels, and evidence references. An orchestrator agent selects work using a visible priority function (under-coverage, staleness, risk, blocking dependencies, recent-focus penalty). A developer agent only executes the assigned task. A validator agent writes evidence back to the sitemap. The developer cannot pick the next global task, and the validator does not implement what it is evaluating. The piece that took longer to land is the Curator Agent. A fixed priority function and a fixed validation contract eventually become wrong, because real projects discover new surfaces and have domain-specific completion criteria. The curator is a reflexive layer that observes traces and updates the rules: it tunes priority weights when focus concentration drops, lowers validator trust when pass rates rise with low evidence density, proposes schema extensions when the domain needs new fields, and manages provisional nodes when the system discovers a surface that was not declared up front. It writes only to the meta layer. It does not mark anything complete itself. The lineage I had in mind was double-loop learning (Argyris and Schon), Stafford Beer's System 4 and System 5, and basic second-order cybernetics. submitted by /u/Hot-Leadership-6431 [link] [comments]

AI guardrails stripped from Meta and Google models in minutes - Software designed to remove safety protections creates systems that provide responses on biological weapons and malware

AI guardrails stripped from Meta and Google models in minutes - Software designed to remove safety protections creates systems that provide responses on biological weapons and malware

I'm a software engineer with a decade of experience. This is how I'd approach learning to build apps using Claude Code if I were starting from scratch today:

I'm going to describe a person this post is for, if this is you, I think I can be of some assistance: you are new to coding you are blown away by how it unlocks this magical ability that was previously inaccessible without years of training and effort you've daydreamed of business and app ideas but never knew where to start before or how to build them you've been vibe coding non-stop and burning through tokens you're unsure about what's secure, how to structure the systems, and how systems are supposed to interact with each other. So, essentially the plumbing separate from the code itself: hosting, authentication, APIs, version control, testing, analytics, etc If any of this resonates with you, I think I can help! Now disclaimer: I'm not a pro at creating startups, acquiring users, marketing or any of that kind of stuff. Where I do have tons of professional experience is with the last bullet point above. And now onto it! This might be controversial, but if I were in your position I would not start with the code, the lowest level. In fact, I would do the opposite and start at the highest level. What does that mean? I'd argue that for people starting today, the most important thing is learning about the fundamentals of what makes a solid application at a high level. The system architecture. That's what I'll be covering for the rest of the post. What are the building blocks of a secure, full stack software application. There's so much to this that I'll stay high level for this one and go with breadth. If people are interested, I can (and honestly would love to) make dedicated posts on each of the topics I list below. So what is the main architecture for a software application? There are four main components and lots of specifics below each. Front end -> this is what the user sees. The website, the mobile app, etc Back end -> the main logic and rules of the app Database -> where the data lives The plumbing -> how everything connects and stays standing Of all of these, I could talk for hours, so to keep things brief, I think I'll focus on the highest impact and the biggest gap which is 4. The plumbing. Why? If you asked Claude, or whatever agent you use, to setup a front end, back end, and database it could do it quite easily. In fact, I'd imagine for apps you've vibe coded, it already has! There is tons to cover with the first three topics, but I think the plumbing is the area where getting some seasoned tips would help the most. The Plumbing -> how everything connects and stays standing Here's where it gets real. When you vibe code something and it runs, it feels done. It looks done. But what you're looking at is the tip of the iceberg, the part above the water. The plumbing is everything below the waterline that nobody sees, but that decides whether your app is a weekend toy or something real people can actually trust with their data and their money. (It's also the part the AI will happily skip unless you know to ask for it. So this is the stuff worth knowing by name) I've grouped it into four questions. If you can answer these about your app, you're already ahead of most vibe coders shipping today. How does everything talk to each other? Your frontend, backend, and database aren't one blob. They're separate pieces passing messages back and forth constantly. This is the part that's invisible but always running. At a high level, for most applications this is done via: APIs: the set of "doors" your frontend uses to ask the backend for things ("give me this user's orders"). There are other ways, but this is the one you should probably focus on at first. Where does it live, and how does it get online? Right now your app probably only exists on your laptop. Getting it onto the internet, and keeping it there, is its own thing. Hosting: where your app actually runs so the world can reach it. This is where servers come into play. Domains & DNS: your custom address (yourapp.com) and how it points to your servers. Deployment: the pipeline that takes the code you wrote and safely publishes it for your users to see. Environment variables & secrets: where you stash your passwords and API keys so they're not sitting in your code for the whole world to copy. People get burned by this constantly. Who's allowed in, and is it safe? This is the one I'd beg you not to skip. The magic of vibe coding makes it dangerously easy to ship something insecure without realizing it. But don't fear! There are existing ways to do this (and not from scratch). Authentication: how your app knows who someone is. The login. Authorization: what someone's allowed to do once they're in. The difference between a normal user and an admin who can delete everything. Security: the broad practice of not leaving doors unlocked. This one is the hardest because you can have security issues at every level of your stack. It's definitely a tough one. Backups: copies of your data for when something goes wrong.

Which AI image generator is actually worth the money?

I've looked at about a dozen different image generators: Nano Banana Flux Midjourney GPT Image 2 Firefly Ideogram Recraft Leonardo Canvas Meta AI They all have their pluses and minuses but they all do a decent job. If I'm looking to spend thousands over a year on an image generator, what would you suggest. This would be mainly for business and a little for art. submitted by /u/DogDetector42 [link] [comments]