Google, yeni sıkıştırma algoritması TurboQuant ile büyük dil modellerinin (LLM) bellek kullanımını 6 kat azaltabiliyor

Google TurboQuant

Google TurboQuantGoogle’ın resmi olarak “TurboQuant” adını verdiği yeni yapay zeka odaklı sıkıştırma algoritması, büyük dil modellerinin (LLM) bellek kullanımını 6 kat azaltabiliyor. Ses getiren çalışması için yaptığı açıklamada, “Yeni sıkıştırma algoritmamız yapay zeka verimliliğini yeniden tanımlıyor. Büyük dil modellerinin (LLM) anahtar-değer (KV) önbellek bellek kullanımını en az 6 kat azaltan bu teknoloji, doğruluktan ödün vermeden 8 kata kadar hız artışı sağlıyor.” ifadelerini kullanan şirket, algoritmanın yapay zeka işlemlerindeki önbellek darboğazlarını gidermek adına vektör kuantizasyonu kullandığını belirtiyor. Bu yöntem yapay zekanın daha az alan kaplayarak ve doğruluğu koruyarak daha fazla bilgi hatırlamasına olanak tanıyor. Yeni algoritma, birçok kişinin aklına doğrudan HBO’nun çok sevilen “Silicon Valley” dizisini ve dizinin merkezinde yer alan girişim Pied Piper’ı getirdi. Pied Piper’ın televizyon dizisindeki çığır açan teknolojisi, neredeyse kayıpsız sıkıştırma ile dosya boyutlarını önemli ölçüde azaltan bir sıkıştırma algoritmasıydı. So Google TurboQuant is basically Pied Piper and just hit a Weismann Score of 5.2 https://t.co/WievkwijjD pic.twitter.com/4rirvu2YyV — […]

Google, yeni sıkıştırma algoritması TurboQuant ile büyük dil modellerinin (LLM) bellek kullanımını 6 kat azaltabiliyor yazısı ilk olarak Teknoloji haberleri – LOG üzerinde yayınlandı.

Samsung Browser tarayıcının Windows sürümü betadan çıkarıldı

Samsung Browser

Samsung BrowserEn son bir isim değişikliğiyle gündeme gelen (daha önce Samsung Internet Browser olarak geçiyordu) Samsung Browser tarayıcının Windows sürümü bugün itibarıyla betadan çıkarıldı. Uzun yıllardır Galaxy cihazlarda yer alan tarayıcı, Windows’a spesifik olarak 30 Ekim’de taşınmıştı. Windows 10 (1809 ve üzeri) ile Windows 11 PC’lerde kullanılabilen ve ARM işlemcili PC’lere de destek veren tarayıcı, açılan sayfaların özetlerini çıkarabilen ve çeviri yapabilen faydalı yapay zeka özellikleri barındırıyor. PC ile telefonlar arasında sekme senkronizasyonu yapabilen sürüm, Samsung Pass desteğine de sahip ve bulut tabanlı yedekleme yapabiliyor. Küresel olarak çıkan tarayıcı buradan ücretsiz olarak indirilebiliyor.

Samsung Browser tarayıcının Windows sürümü betadan çıkarıldı yazısı ilk olarak Teknoloji haberleri – LOG üzerinde yayınlandı.

Nothing Phone (4a) ve Phone (4a) Pro, 27 Mart’ta Türkiye’de satışa sunulacak

Nothing Phone (4a) ve Phone (4a) Pro resmi olarak tanıtıldı

Nothing Phone (4a) ve Phone (4a) Pro resmi olarak tanıtıldıYapılan resmi doğrulamaya göre kısa süre önce tanıtılan Nothing Phone (4a) ve Phone (4a) Pro modelleri 27 Mart’ta Türkiye’de satışa sunulacak. Arka tasarımlarıyla dikkat çeken telefonlardan Phone (4a) Pro, metal çerçeve üzerine kuruluyor ve IP65 sertifikasıyla geliyor. Phone (4a) modelinin arkasına 63 mini LED’den oluşan 7 parçalı bir “Glyph Bar” konumlandıran Nothing, Phone (4a) Pro’da ise Glyph Matrix isimli, 137 farklı mini LED’den oluşan nokta/piksel bazlı yuvarlak bir ekrana yer veriyor. Phone (4a), teknik olarak baktığımız zaman 6,78 inç “30–120 Hz” AMOLED ekranla donatılmış ve 32 megapiksellik selfie kamerası taşıyor. Gücünü Snapdragon 7 Gen 4 işlemciden alan telefonda 50W şarj destekli 5.400 mAh’lık batarya kullanılıyor. Telefonun arkasında ise 50 megapiksel geniş açı (Samsung GN9), 50 megapiksel 3,5x periskop telefoto (Samsung JN5 / 70x’e kadar dijital/hibrit zoom) ve 8 megapiksel ultra geniş açı (Sony IMX355) kameralar bir araya getiriliyor. Phone (4a) Pro ise 6,83 inç “30–144 Hz” AMOLED ekranla donatılmış ve […]

Nothing Phone (4a) ve Phone (4a) Pro, 27 Mart’ta Türkiye’de satışa sunulacak yazısı ilk olarak Teknoloji haberleri – LOG üzerinde yayınlandı.

Meta, 1.000’e yakın çalışanını işten çıkarıyor

Meta LOG Tasarım

Meta LOG TasarımFacebook, Instagram, WhatsApp ve fazlasının çatı şirketi Meta, aktarıldığı kadarıyla 1.000’e yakın çalışanını işten çıkarıyor. Reality Labs başta olmak üzere beş farklı departmana yayıldığı aktarılan yeni işten çıkarma süreci, yalnızca ABD’deki çalışanları da kapsamıyor. 31 Aralık itibarıyla 79 binden fazla çalışana sahip olduğu belirtilen şirket, geçtiğimiz hafta yakında 15 binden fazla kişiyle yollarını ayırabilir haberleriyle gündeme gelmişti. 2022’nin sonunda tam 22 bin kişiyi etkileyen devasa bir işten çıkarma sürecine başlayan şirket, son dönemde tüm odağını yapay zeka tarafına çevirmiş durumda.

Meta, 1.000’e yakın çalışanını işten çıkarıyor yazısı ilk olarak Teknoloji haberleri – LOG üzerinde yayınlandı.

Stop writing Python glue code for your AI Agents. Use YAML instead

Every time I wanted to build a multi-agent workflow—like having one AI write code and another review it—I hit a wall.

Existing frameworks are powerful, but they all forced me to write a massive amount of Python glue code. I had to define nodes, edges, state schemas, and classes just to get two agents to talk to each other.

I wanted something simpler. I wanted to say, “Agent A hands off to Agent B, and if the quality check fails, go back to Agent A,” all without touching a single .py file.

So, I built aqm.

What is aqm?
aqm is an open-source orchestrator that lets you define complex AI pipelines in a single YAML file and run them directly via CLI.

No SDKs, no complex environment setups, and most importantly—no API keys required if you already have your favorite AI CLIs (like Claude or Gemini) configured.

Why YAML?
When you use YAML, your AI pipeline becomes portable. You can share a single file with a teammate, and they can run the exact same workflow instantly. It turns “code” into “configuration.”

Key Features that save my sanity:
Multi-LLM Native: Use Claude for coding and Gemini for security reviews in the same flow.

Quality Gates: Built-in logic to auto-evaluate output. If the result is “Bad,” the system triggers a retry or sends it back to a previous agent.

Token Optimization: I implemented 5 different context strategies that saved me 55-85% on token costs by only showing agents what they actually need to see.

Session Nodes: Perfect for “design meetings” where agents discuss back and forth until they reach a consensus.

A Quick 30-Second Example
Here is a simple pipeline where a developer agent writes code and a reviewer agent checks it. If the reviewer rejects it, it goes back to the developer.

YAML

agents:
  - id: developer
    runtime: claude
    system_prompt: "Implement: {{ input }}"
    handoffs: [{ to: reviewer }]

  - id: reviewer
    runtime: gemini
    system_prompt: "Review for security: {{ input }}"
    gate:
      type: llm
      prompt: "Is this production-ready?"
      max_retries: 3
    handoffs:
      - { to: deployer, condition: on_approve }
      - { to: developer, condition: on_reject }

You can run this entire flow with one command:
aqm run “Create a login form with JWT”

Give it a try!
I’ve made aqm entirely open-source (MIT License). I’m looking for fellow developers to break it, critique it, and tell me what’s missing.

GitHub: https://github.com/aqm-framework/aqm

Quick Install: pip install aqm

I’d love to hear your thoughts:

Does a YAML-only approach fit your workflow?
What’s the one feature you wish your current agent framework had?

Tasker Vs Droidrun: Rule based automation vs Agentic AI system

Mobile automation has been around for quite some time with tools like Tasker and MacroDroid. But the landscape of Android automation has evolved dramatically over the past few years. In this blog, I will examine two distinct paradigms in mobile automation technology.

Tasker enables users to perform custom actions based on contexts such as time, location, application state, and events. The platform has continuously evolved to adapt with Android’s changing ecosystem.

Droidrun, by contrast, launched in 2025 as an open-source mobile AI agent framework specifically designed to enable natural language control of Android and iOS devices. The framework represents a shift from programmed automation to agent-based control.

Tasker vs Droidrun: Approach

Tasker: Rule-Based Automation

Tasker works as a rule-based automation engine for Android. Users create profiles (trigger conditions) that activate tasks (sequences of actions). This model provides precise automation:

Profiles: Define when something should happen. It looks for contexts such as time-based triggers, location changes, application launches, system states, or custom events.

Tasks: Define what should happen when a profile is triggered for Eg. Modifying system settings, launching applications, manipulating files, sending network requests, or controlling hardware.

Apart from this Tasker supports variables, which makes it very flexible. It can also create custom interfaces like popups, buttons, menus etc.

This architecture grants users granular control over Android’s operating system, without requiring root access for most operations. Users can also extend capabilities through JavaScript, shell scripts, and Java code execution.

Droidrun: Agent-Based Control

Droidrun uses large language models to understand and execute tasks written in natural language. Rather than pre-programmed rules, the system uses AI reasoning to complete objectives:

Natural Language Commands: Users describe what they want to achieve in natural language command.
UI Understanding: Vision models and accessibility tree parsing enable dynamic interface comprehension
Multi-Step Planning: LLMs decompose complex objectives into sequential actions
Cross-Application Workflows: Agents can navigate between applications to complete integrated tasks.

This removes the need to write code, letting you automate things just by texting. But it can sometimes behave unpredictably because it relies on AI-generated responses.

Feature Comparison

Dimension Tasker Droidrun
Core Approach Rule-based (IF → THEN) AI-driven (intent → execution)
Triggers Built-in (time, app, events, system) No native triggers (manual / external)
Actions Predefined (400+ actions) Decided dynamically by AI
UI Automation Limited (via plugins) Strong (native, vision-based)
Ease of Use Hard to learn Easy to use (after setup)
Setup Simple Complex (Python, ADB, APIs)
Execution Deterministic (predictable) Non-deterministic (can vary)
Speed Fast (milliseconds) Slower (seconds)
Adaptability Low (breaks on UI change) High (adapts to UI changes)
Platform Android only Android + iOS (limited)
Internet Needed No Yes (usually)
Privacy Fully local Cloud-dependent
Best For System automation, routines UI automation, complex workflows

Tasker and Droidrun address fundamentally different automation paradigms, making direct comparison challenging.

Criteria Choose Tasker if you… Choose Droidrun if you…
Automation Type Need deterministic, repeatable automation Need flexible, adaptive automation
Operation Mode Prefer fully offline operation Are okay with internet/API dependency
Control Level Need precise system-level control Need UI-level control across apps
Ease of Use Can learn structured logic Prefer natural language commands
Use Case Automate device settings, routines Automate app workflows, UI tasks
App Dependency Work with system features/APIs Work with apps without APIs
Adaptability Can manually fix broken automations Need automation that adapts automatically
Cost Preference Want one-time cost Okay with ongoing API costs
Platform Only need Android Need Android + iOS support

For many users, the tools are complementary rather than competitive. Tasker excels at system automation and trigger-based actions, while Droidrun addresses UI navigation and adaptive workflows. The optimal approach may involve both: Tasker for predictable system control, Droidrun for intelligent application interaction.

The broader question is rather more philosophical: Should mobile automation require users to program specific behaviors, or should AI agents interpret human intent? Tasker represents the former; Droidrun explores the latter. Both approaches have merit, and the mobile automation landscape is richer for their coexistence.

I talk about mobile app automation. Follow me on Linkedin.

测试文章1DEV.to专属

测试文章1DEV.to专属这篇文章将只发布到DEV.to平台## 内容特点- 针对DEV.to社区的技术文章- 使用直接内容模式- 包含代码示例

javascriptconsole.log('Hello DEV.to!');

适合开发者阅读的技术内容

GPT-5, Claude, Gemini All Score Below 1% – ARC AGI 3 Just Broke Every Frontier Model

Three system types compared on ARC-AGI: Reasoning Systems (models like o1/o3 tested at varying thinking levels, showing diminishing returns as reasoning time increases), Base LLMs (single-shot inference from standard models, no extended reasoning), and Kaggle Systems (competition submissions optimized under a $50 compute budget, purpose-built for ARC). Key insight: purpose-built Kaggle systems outperform both base LLMs and reasoning-augmented models despite far less compute.

Three system types compared on ARC-AGI: Reasoning Systems (models like o1/o3 tested at varying thinking levels, showing diminishing returns as reasoning time increases), Base LLMs (single-shot inference from standard models, no extended reasoning), and Kaggle Systems (competition submissions optimized under a $50 compute budget, purpose-built for ARC). Key insight: purpose-built Kaggle systems outperform both base LLMs and reasoning-augmented models despite far less compute.

ARC-AGI-3, launched just yesterday on March 25, 2026, represents the most radical transformation of the ARC benchmark since François Chollet introduced it in 2019 — abandoning static grid puzzles entirely in favor of interactive, video-game-like environments where AI agents must discover rules, set goals, and solve problems with zero instructions.

The competition carries over $2 million in prizes across three tracks. Early preview results: frontier LLMs like GPT-5 and Claude score below 1%, while simple CNN and graph-search approaches reach 12.58%. The gap between human performance (100%) and the best AI agent remains enormous.

From grid puzzles to game worlds: what changed

Can you build an agent to beat this game?

ARC-AGI-3 is not an incremental difficulty upgrade — it is a fundamentally different benchmark. Previous versions (ARC-AGI-1 and ARC-AGI-2) presented static input-output grid pairs where systems inferred transformation rules and applied them. ARC-AGI-3 instead drops agents into turn-based game environments with no stated rules, no instructions, and no win conditions. Agents observe a 64×64 grid with 16 colors, take actions (move, click, reset), and must figure out both what to do and how to do it through pure interaction.

The benchmark comprises 1,000+ levels across 150+ handcrafted environments, each game containing 8–10 levels that progressively introduce new mechanics. Three preview games illustrate the range: ls20 requires navigating a map and transforming symbols, ft09 involves matching patterns across overlapping grids, and vc33 tasks agents with adjusting volumes to hit target heights. Scoring uses action efficiency — how many actions the agent needs compared to a human baseline — rather than binary pass/fail. A perfect 100% means the AI matches human efficiency across all games.

The evolution across versions tells a clear story of escalating challenge:

Feature ARC-AGI-1 (2019) ARC-AGI-2 (2025) ARC-AGI-3 (2026)
Format Static grid puzzles Static grid puzzles (harder) Interactive game environments
Instructions Input-output demo pairs Input-output demo pairs None — discover through interaction
Best AI score ~90%+ (saturated) 24% (competition) 12.58% (preview)
Human baseline ~85% ~60% average 100%
Scoring Binary accuracy Accuracy + cost-per-task Action efficiency vs. humans
Tasks ~400 training + 100 eval 1,000 training + 120 eval per split 1,000+ levels, 150+ environments

ARC-AGI-1 became effectively saturated by 2025, with frontier models hitting 90%+ through brute-force engineering. ARC-AGI-2 introduced harder compositional tasks — symbolic interpretation, contextual rule application, multiple interacting rules — that dropped the best competition score to 24%. ARC-AGI-3 tests four entirely new capabilities: exploration (actively gathering information), modeling (building generalizable world models), goal-setting (identifying objectives without instructions), and planning with execution (strategic action with course-correction).

Preview leaderboard reveals LLMs’ interactive reasoning gap

The competition literally launched yesterday, so the official Kaggle leaderboard has no entries yet. However, a 30-day developer preview preceding the launch produced highly informative results from 12 submissions (8 tested on private games):

Rank Team Approach Score Levels Solved
1st StochasticGoose (Tufa Labs) CNN + RL action-learning 12.58% 18
2nd Blind Squirrel State graph exploration + ResNet18 6.71% 13
3rd Explore It Till You Solve It Training-free frame graph 3.64% 12
— Best frontier LLM agent LLM-based <1% ~2–3
— Human players Human cognition 100% All

All three top systems used non-LLM approaches. StochasticGoose, built by Dries Smit at Tufa Labs, employed a CNN-based action prediction model with simple reinforcement learning and sparse rewards (only level completion signals). It stored frame transitions in memory for off-policy training, used hash tables to avoid duplicate states, and iteratively retrained its model between levels. The team explicitly avoided LLMs because the observation complexity — hundreds of interaction steps — would generate millions of tokens.

The third-place system, documented in an arXiv paper (Rudakov et al., 2512.24156), used a completely training-free graph-based exploration method, building state graphs and systematically exploring them. It solved a median of 30 out of 52 levels across 6 games but was limited by computational scaling with state space size.

Frontier LLMs’ sub-1% performance is perhaps the most significant data point. The interactive format — requiring sustained sequential reasoning, state tracking across hundreds of steps, and learning from environmental feedback — exposes a fundamental limitation of current language models that static benchmarks never tested.

$2 million across three tracks with strict open-source requirements

The ARC Prize 2026 splits its prize pool across three parallel competition tracks, each hosted on Kaggle:

ARC-AGI-3 Track — $850,000 total:
The grand prize of $700,000 goes to the first agent scoring 100% on evaluation (carries over if unclaimed). A guaranteed $75,000 top-score award distributes $40K/1st, $15K/2nd, $10K/3rd, and $5K each for 4th–5th. Two milestone prizes totaling $75,000 reward early progress: $25K/$10K/$2.5K at each milestone (June 30 and September 30).

ARC-AGI-2 Track — ~$1 million: The $700K grand prize for scoring 85% on ARC-AGI-2 remains unclaimed from both 2024 and 2025, and continues into 2026 alongside separate score awards.

Paper Prize Track: Awards for research papers advancing understanding of strong ARC-AGI performance.

Critical competition constraints shape viable approaches. All winning solutions must be open-sourced under permissive licenses (CC0 or MIT-0) before receiving private evaluation scores. Kaggle evaluation runs with no internet access — meaning no API calls to OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, or any cloud inference endpoint. Teams must either use open-weight models running locally or build entirely non-LLM systems. The ARC-AGI-3 toolkit is open-source (MIT license, pip install arc-agi) and runs at 2,000+ FPS locally, but requires an API key from arcprize.org.

What approaches are competitors likely to pursue

The preview results and historical ARC competition patterns suggest several viable research directions for ARC-AGI-3:

Reinforcement learning with lightweight neural networks is the proven frontrunner. StochasticGoose’s CNN + sparse RL approach dominated the preview. Simple action prediction models that learn which actions cause meaningful state changes, combined with systematic exploration, appear far more effective than sophisticated language understanding.

Graph-based state exploration offers a training-free alternative. Building explicit state graphs, pruning loops, and systematically mapping environment dynamics worked surprisingly well (6.71% for Blind Squirrel). This approach trades compute for algorithmic efficiency but scales poorly with state space size.

Meta-learning and curiosity-driven RL are natural fits given ARC-AGI-3’s requirement for rapid adaptation to novel environments. Methods like BYOL-Hindsight and intrinsic motivation were discussed during the preview period but proved finicky with short timeframes and sparse rewards.

World models (Dreamer family, latent dynamics models) could learn environment physics in imagination before acting, but are limited by ARC-AGI-3’s sparse reward signal — only level completion provides feedback.

For the continuing ARC-AGI-2 track, the dominant paradigm from 2025 was synthetic data generation combined with test-time training — NVARC’s winning approach used Qwen3-4B fine-tuned on 103K synthetic puzzles plus 3.2M augmented samples. Other strong directions include masked diffusion models (ARChitects), evolutionary program synthesis (SOAR), and minimum description length approaches (CompressARC).

Key dates and competition timeline

Date Milestone
March 25, 2026 Competition opens on Kaggle
June 30, 2026 ARC-AGI-3 Milestone #1 ($37,500 in prizes)
September 30, 2026 ARC-AGI-3 Milestone #2 ($37,500 in prizes)
November 2, 2026 All submissions due
November 8, 2026 Paper track submissions due
December 4, 2026 Results announced

During the competition, Kaggle leaderboard standings reflect scores on a semi-private dataset. Final rankings and prize eligibility use a separate private dataset, following the same anti-gaming structure as previous years. Human calibration data was collected from 1,200+ players across 3,900+ games during the preview, with a controlled study of 200+ participants establishing production baselines.

Try it yourself

ARC-AGI-3 toolkit is open-source and runs locally:

pip install arc-agi

You’ll need an API key from arcprize.org to access the environments. The toolkit runs at 2,000+ FPS locally.

Full competition details and submission: ARC Prize 2026 on Kaggle

Conclusion

ARC-AGI-3 is not merely a harder test — it measures a fundamentally different kind of intelligence. The shift from static pattern recognition to interactive exploration and goal discovery exposes capabilities that current AI systems, including frontier LLMs, demonstrably lack. The preview data is unambiguous: simple RL and graph search at 12.58% versus frontier LLMs below 1% suggests that the path to solving ARC-AGI-3 runs through novel algorithmic ideas rather than model scaling.

With $850K on the line for the interactive track alone and milestone prizes creating incentives for early progress, the next eight months should produce significant advances in adaptive AI reasoning — all of which, by competition rules, will be open-sourced for the broader research community.

Are you planning to compete? What approach would you try? Drop your thoughts in the comments.

We’re CodePawl — an open-source-first firm building tools for developers. Follow us on X or join our Discord.

Claude Code vs Antigravity?

Who you got? Claude or Antigravity? I read Claude is good for the frontend, Antigravity for the backend. Is that true? What are your thoughts?

Gemini is the best AI for deep research and the worst for actually using the output

Hot take. Hear me out.

Gemini 3.1 Pro with Deep Research is the most powerful tool I’ve used for synthesizing complex technical information. I’ve used it to produce architecture documents, LLM pipeline specs, and competitive research that would have taken days manually.

But the moment the research is done, the experience falls apart completely.

The Input Experience: 10/10

Gemini’s Deep Research is genuinely outstanding:

  • 2M+ token context window
  • Multi-step autonomous research
  • Structured synthesis across dozens of sources
  • Excellent at technical architecture and system design

You can hand it a problem and come back 20 minutes later to a structured, cited, accurate research brief.

This is legitimately state-of-the-art.

The Output Experience: 2/10

Now try to actually USE that research:

Copy-paste into Google Docs?
All formatting gone. Bullet points become paragraph soup. Tables disappear.

Screenshot it?
A 3,000-word research brief becomes 18 images. Unsearchable. Unusable.

Paste into Notion?
Broken. Every. Single. Time.

Share with a colleague?
You’re either sharing a screen or copy-pasting chaos into Slack.

There’s no native export. No “Save as PDF.” No “Download as Markdown.” Nothing.

For a product that costs $20/month (Gemini Advanced), this is embarrassing.

Why This Gap Exists

I think Google treats Gemini as a conversation product, not a knowledge work product.

Conversation products don’t need exports. Knowledge work products absolutely do.

Claude has artifacts. ChatGPT has memory and export. Gemini has… a copy button.

The irony is that Gemini’s research quality is excellent enough that people WANT to preserve the output. That’s a good problem to have. But Google hasn’t solved it.

What I Did About It

I got tired of the workarounds and built Gemini Export Studio — a free Chrome extension that adds one-click export to Gemini:

  • PDF, Markdown, JSON, CSV, Plain Text
  • No account, no server, 100% local
  • Works on any Gemini conversation

https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/gemini-export-studio/oondabmhecdagnndhjhgnhhhnnninpagc

The Real Question

Do you agree that the output/export experience of AI tools is the next big UX frontier?

We obsess over prompting, context windows, model benchmarks. But nobody talks about: once the AI generates something brilliant, how do you actually use it in your real workflow?

Would love to hear what export/integration pain points you’re hitting with your AI tools of choice.