24 Greatest Father's Day Presents for Dads (2026)

24 Greatest Father’s Day Presents for Dads (2026)

The sole Father’s Day present I recall my father getting was a dish of fried sardines made by my mother, his former wife. She understood how much he cherished a meal from his youth in an Italian neighborhood of a once-thriving steel city, so famous for its decline that Bruce Springsteen penned a song about it. We resided in a nearby town filled with Italian-American eateries, yet none offered the simple pleasures of canned fish. Since my father had basic cooking abilities and didn’t date women who could prepare meals, this was the only means for him to taste that familiar flavor again.

Getting a beloved dish from one’s past is a truly special Father’s Day present. If you can, this year, attempt to bring your dad back to a cherished recipe from his younger days. If not, I’ve compiled alternative gift ideas over the past few months, suitable for different types of dads and budgets. Aside from a few contributions from other fathers, these suggestions have all been personally tested and approved by me, with the hope they provide joy to your dad, just as those sardines did for mine.

The Top Father’s Day Gifts for Your Dad

For the Dad Who Plays With His Children:
– SpyraFour Electric Water Blaster: The SpyraFour water gun surpasses the Super Soakers of previous years and is well-regarded among German brands. Kids require their SpyraThree while dad enjoys the faster-refilling version, which holds water for about 20 shots, switches shooting modes, and displays remaining ammo on a digital screen. Its accuracy extends to 50 feet, suitable for ages 14 and older.
– Aerobie Pro Ring: Playing catch transitions enjoyment from child to adult over time. Aerobie’s flying disc is unmatched, serving not only as excellent equipment but also a means of sparking conversations during play.
– St. Pierre Tournament Bocce Set: Bocce is straightforward to grasp for all ages yet improves with practice. Among the bocce sets I own, this one from St. Pierre, suitable for competitive play, stands out as the most commendable.

For the Grill Dad:
– Mibrasa Hibachi MH 300 PLUS: Charcoal grills are becoming increasingly popular, but if cost is a concern, the Mibrasa hibachi grill made from heavy-gauge steel is superb. It’s portable, incredibly hot, and effectively turns drippings into flavorful smoke.
– Jacobsen Salt Co. Grilling Trio: Hand-harvested in Oregon, this trio enhances taste with a variety of herbs, including garlic and coriander seed in the steak blend.
– Oyster Tempo Pro: Despite its sleek aluminum exterior, the Tempo Pro cooler handles temperatures efficiently thanks to its vacuum-insulated design and includes a digital thermometer.

For the Beach Dad/Pool Dad:
– Beatbot Sora 30: A well-reviewed item, though I haven’t tested it, this robotic pool cleaner effectively removes debris from pool surfaces.
– Vero X Realtree Tide Tracker: A partnership with Realtree, this battery-free tide-tracking watch functions excellently outdoors, particularly near water.

For the Car Dad:
– Noco Boost+Air AX65: Combine the functions of a portable jump starter and tire inflator in this high-power unit. It quickly inflates tires and can jumpstart cars while also acting as a power bank for devices.
– BlueDriver Pro Next Gen OBD2 Scanner: An OBD2 scanner that provides extensive diagnostic features without any subscription fees. Connect to your car and phone via Bluetooth to read and clear codes.
– Decked Halfrack 32: Sturdy and robust, Decked’s Halfrack storage system is designed to withstand rough handling with secure locking, serving as a gateway to more comprehensive storage solutions.

For the Yard Dad:
– Lawnbright Custom Plan: No need for lengthy lawn care research or hours of work. Lawnbright’s custom plan caters to your lawn’s requirements, enhancing its look simply by spraying the formula delivered at optimal intervals. It’s ideal for any dad wishing for a vibrant lawn with minimal time commitment.

SpaceX secured $6.45 billion in contracts from the Space Force prior to its IPO.

SpaceX secured $6.45 billion in contracts from the Space Force prior to its IPO.

SpaceX is on the verge of what is anticipated to be the largest IPO in history next month, and it has recently received significant support from the Trump administration.

On Friday, the U.S. Space Force revealed it is allocating $4.16 billion to SpaceX as part of a contract for the construction of satellites that will be integrated into a missile and air defense system referred to by President Trump as the “Golden Dome.”

This announcement comes after a different contract awarded to Elon Musk’s firm earlier this week, valued at $2.29 billion. This agreement pertains to SpaceX creating a communications network in low-Earth orbit.

The contracts highlight a revelation outlined in SpaceX’s IPO submission made public last week: the company relies significantly on government contracts. In 2025, one fifth of SpaceX’s income was derived from government agencies.

Musk invested approximately $300 million to support Trump’s election and has maintained a close relationship with the president. However, SpaceX has also ruled the launch sector in the past decade; thus, it is not surprising that the federal government continues to look to SpaceX for such contracts. Nevertheless, the company cautioned investors in its IPO submission that its “business with governmental entities is subject to shifts in policies, priorities, regulations, mandates, and
funding levels.”

Coders are declining to work without AI — and that might lead to negative consequences for them 

In 2026, researchers found that you can’t take AI coding tools away from developers’ tight grasp.  

Nevertheless, while AI is certainly aiding programmers in speeding up code creation, other researchers caution that it may not be enhancing code quality, which could lead to future challenges for them. 

Specifically, in February 2026, the renowned AI research institution METR revealed an astonishing finding: the majority of developers will no longer engage in any tasks, even a limited few, without AI assistance. 

METR aimed to update some groundbreaking work on AI coding efficiency published months prior, in 2025, where researchers gauged the time open source developers spent completing tasks manually versus with AI. 

While developers reported increased productivity thanks to AI in that research, they were taken aback to discover that it actually hindered their progress. True, it produced code more quickly, but this resulted in them expending additional time locating and rectifying mistakes, directing the AI, and waiting for it to finish tasks. 

When METR attempted to replicate the study to assess advancements in AI and coder skill, they found they were unable to do so.

Developers were reluctant to participate “because they prefer to work with AI” even for the sake of the research, the researchers admitted. 

Alternatively, METR released a survey in May for technical staff to self-assess their productivity gains with AI. It was unsurprising that they felt AI doubled their worth to their companies.  

However, recent news regarding the significant costs associated with so-called tokenmaxxing, combined with a few recent studies, calls such self-assessments into question.  

Tokenmaxxing, which refers to using the quantity of tokens a user utilizes as a measure of productivity with AI, has been a notable trend in 2026. It may already be coming to an end. 

Amazon terminated its internal token-tracking leaderboard called Kirorank after employees manipulated it by overusing AI agents, leading to inflated costs, according to a Financial Times report this week. Employees demonstrated that utilizing AI doesn’t necessarily lead to heightened productivity.

Uber exhausted its 2026 AI budget in the first four months, as reported by The Information. COO Andrew Macdonald mentioned on a podcast that such expenditures had not resulted in a significant uptick in projects or productivity. 

Additionally, AI-generated code doesn’t necessarily decrease ongoing code maintenance requirements and could even heighten them, as programmer and author James Shore eloquently argued in a popular blog post on Hacker News. 

“You code twice as fast now? Better ensure you’ve reduced your maintenance expenses,” he remarked. “If not, you’re in trouble. You’re trading immediate speed for long-term bondage.” 

There’s more evidence suggesting AI can cause greater maintenance difficulties for code. 

A viral tweet by Aiswarya Sankar, founder and CEO of reliability engineering firm Entelligence AI, claims that companies are dedicating 44% of their tokens to fix bugs that were generated by AI. Simultaneously, code-reviewing firm Code Rabbit states it analyzed open source pull requests and discovered that AI-generated code exhibited 1.7 times more issues than human-written code.

These statistics, it must be said, serve the interests of those marketing AI code review solutions. 

Yet independent scholars have also identified similar challenges. Researchers from the esteemed Singapore Management University published a report in April cautioning that “AI-generated code can introduce persistent maintenance burdens into actual software projects.” 

Considering that programmers appreciate their AI helpers, what’s the solution?  

Those promoting AI coding solutions argue that programmers can simply use AI agents for the mundane tasks of debugging as swiftly as AI generates the code. This is the advice of Cognition founder and CEO Scott Wu —the developer behind the AI coding tool Devin —who suggests.  

However, he acknowledges that, while Devin is capable of working autonomously, he would presently classify its abilities as being between a junior and mid-level programmer, depending on the task. This is not a hands-off solution.

The SMU researchers recommend a more human-centric strategy. Programmers should be well-acquainted with what tasks AI excels at and which it does not, as intimately as they are with their preferred programming languages. They require robust quality assurance frameworks tailored for AI and must meticulously review the AI’s output as if it were the work of a junior developer.

Meanwhile, the researchers assert (and Wu concurs) that humans should continue overseeing the overarching work such as software architecture and security design.

When you make purchases through links in our articles, we may receive a small commission. This does not influence our editorial neutrality.

So you’ve come across these AI terms and have agreed; let’s change that

So you’ve come across these AI terms and have agreed; let’s change that

Artificial intelligence is transforming the world while simultaneously creating a new lexicon to explain its advancements. Spend five minutes delving into AI literature, and you’ll encounter terms like LLMs, RAG, RLHF, among others, which can make even the brightest minds in technology feel uneasy. This glossary is our attempt to remedy that confusion. We revise it frequently as the field grows, so think of it as a dynamic document, akin to the AI systems it elucidates.


Artificial general intelligence, often abbreviated AGI, is a vague term. Generally, it denotes AI that surpasses the average human in several, if not all, tasks. OpenAI’s CEO Sam Altman has previously likened AGI to the “equal of a median human you could hire as a collaborator.” Conversely, OpenAI’s charter defines AGI as “highly autonomous systems that excel beyond humans in the majority of economically significant work.” Google DeepMind has a slightly different perspective, characterizing AGI as “AI that matches or exceeds human capability in most cognitive tasks.” Baffled? Don’t be — experts at the forefront of AI research share your confusion.

An AI agent is a tool that leverages AI technologies to accomplish a set of tasks on your behalf — extending beyond what a typical AI chatbot would manage — such as processing expenses, reserving tickets or restaurant tables, or even writing and managing code. Nonetheless, as we have noted previously, this emergent domain is filled with complexities, so “AI agent” could take on varying meanings for different individuals. The necessary infrastructure is still under development to achieve its anticipated functions. However, the fundamental idea suggests an autonomous system that might utilize numerous AI frameworks to execute multi-step processes.

Imagine API endpoints as “buttons” located on the backend of software that other applications can activate to initiate actions. Developers employ these interfaces to create integrations — for example, enabling one application to extract data from another, or allowing an AI agent to manipulate third-party services directly without human intervention at each interface. Many smart home gadgets and interconnected platforms possess these concealed buttons, even if typical users are oblivious to their existence or operation. As AI agents gain proficiency, they are increasingly able to autonomously discover and utilize these endpoints, unlocking significant — and at times surprising — opportunities for automation.

When posed with a straightforward question, the human brain can respond effortlessly — consider inquiries like “which animal is taller, a giraffe or a cat?” Yet, in numerous scenarios, you may find it necessary to jot down notes to ascertain the right answer because intermediary steps are involved. For example, if a farmer possesses both chickens and cows, totaling 40 heads and 120 legs, one might need to devise a basic equation to deduce the solution (20 chickens and 20 cows).

In the realm of AI, chain-of-thought reasoning for large language models entails dissecting a problem into smaller, intermediary steps to enhance the quality of the final output. This process often requires more time to arrive at an answer; however, it increases the likelihood of correctness, especially in logical or coding contexts. Reasoning models are evolved from traditional large language models and refined for chain-of-thought reasoning via reinforcement learning.

(Refer to: Large language model)

This embodies a more precise notion than an “AI agent,” denoting a program that can autonomously act, step by step, to fulfill an objective. A coding agent is a specific variant focused on software development. Instead of merely proposing code for a human to evaluate and insert, a coding agent can autonomously write, test, and debug code, handling the iterative trial-and-error processes that often occupy a developer’s time. These agents can traverse entire codebases, identifying bugs, executing tests, and deploying corrections with minimal human oversight. Imagine it as hiring a super-fast intern who never sleeps and remains entirely focused — though, like any intern, a human still needs to review the output.

Although it’s a somewhat ambiguous term, compute generally signifies the essential computational capacity that allows AI models to function. This processing power fuels the AI sector, granting it the capability to train and roll out its robust models. The term is often shorthand for the hardware types that provide this computational power — including GPUs, CPUs, TPUs, and other infrastructure forms that constitute the foundation of the contemporary AI industry.

A subdivision of self-enhancing machine learning where AI algorithms are conceived with a multi-layered, artificial neural network (ANN) architecture. This design enables them to establish more intricate correlations as compared to simpler machine learning systems, such as linear models or decision trees. The configurational structure of deep learning algorithms draws inspiration from the interconnected pathways of neurons within the human brain.

Deep learning AI models possess the capability to independently identify vital features in data, rather than necessitating human engineers to delineate these attributes. This structure also accommodates algorithms that can learn from mistakes and, through a cycle of repetition and modification, enhance their outputs. Nevertheless, deep learning systems require a substantial number of data points to generate favorable results (millions or more). They also usually take longer to train compared to simpler machine learning models — hence, development expenses tend to be elevated.

(Refer to: Neural network)

Diffusion is the technology integral to many AI models that create art, music, and text. Drawing inspiration from physics, diffusion systems gradually “deteriorate” the structure of data — including images, songs, etc. — by introducing noise until nothing remains. In physics, diffusion is spontaneous and irreversible — sugar dissolved in coffee cannot revert to its original cube form. However, AI diffusion systems are designed to learn a sort of “reverse diffusion” mechanism to restore the damaged data, enabling the recovery of the information from noise.

Distillation is a method employed to extract knowledge from a large AI model using a ‘teacher-student’ framework. Developers send queries to a teacher model and document the outputs. Responses may be cross-verified with a dataset for accuracy. These outputs subsequently train the student model, which is crafted to mirror the teacher’s behavior.

Distillation can yield a smaller, more efficient model derived from a larger model with minimal distillation loss. This methodology likely facilitated OpenAI in developing GPT-4 Turbo, a swifter iteration of GPT-4.

While all AI firms employ distillation internally, it may also have been used by certain AI companies to catch up with leading models. Distillation from a competitor typically infringes upon the AI API and chat assistants’ terms of service.

This indicates the additional training of an AI model to refine performance for a more specific task or area than was previously emphasized during its training — often through the introduction of new, specialized (i.e., task-specific) data. 

Numerous AI startups leverage large language models as a foundation to develop a commercial product but strive to enhance functionality for a specific sector or task by augmenting earlier training cycles with fine-tuning grounded in their own domain-specific knowledge and expertise.

(Refer to: Large language model [LLM])

A GAN, or Generative Adversarial Network, represents a type of machine learning framework that underlies significant advancements in generative AI with respect to creating realistic data — including (but not limited to) deepfake tools. GANs involve utilizing a pair of neural networks, where one draws from its training data to generate an output that the other model evaluates.

The two models are essentially coded to challenge one another. The generator aims to produce outputs that the discriminator cannot identify as artificially created, while the discriminator strives to detect such data. This structured competition can enhance AI outputs to appear more realistic without necessitating additional human intervention. Though GANs are most effective for narrower applications (such as generating realistic images or videos), they are less suited for general-purpose AI.

Hallucination is the term preferred by the AI sector for situations where AI models fabricate information — essentially generating incorrect data. This poses a significant challenge for AI quality. 

Hallucinations lead to GenAI outputs that may be deceptive and could even present real-world risks — with potentially harmful ramifications (consider a health inquiry that yields dangerous medical advice).

The phenomenon of AIs generating false information is believed to result from gaps in training data. Hallucinations have prompted a push toward increasingly specialized and/or vertical AI models — that is, domain-specific AIs that necessitate narrower expertise — as a means to diminish the likelihood of knowledge deficits and curtail misinformation risks.

Inference is the mechanism by which an AI model operates. It involves unleashing a model to make predictions or draw conclusions based on previously encountered data. To clarify, inference can occur only after training; a model must discern patterns in a dataset before it can effectively extrapolate from this training data.

Various hardware types can perform inference, ranging from smartphone processors to powerful GPUs to specially-designed AI accelerators. However, not all can execute models effectively. For instance, very large models would take considerable time to generate predictions on a laptop compared to a cloud server equipped with advanced AI chips.

[Refer to: Training]

Large language models, or LLMs, constitute the AI frameworks utilized by popular AI assistants like ChatGPT, Claude, Google’s Gemini, Meta’s AI Llama, Microsoft Copilot, or Mistral’s Le Chat. When interacting with an AI assistant, you engage with a large language model that directly processes your request or employs various available tools, such as web browsing or code interpreters.

LLMs are deep neural networks composed of billions of numerical parameters (or weights, as described below) that learn the interrelations between words and phrases, thereby creating a representation of language, akin to a multi-dimensional map of words.

These models are derived from encoding the patterns they detect in billions of books, articles, and transcripts. When you prompt an LLM, the model generates the most likely continuation that aligns with the prompt.

(Refer to: Neural network)

Memory cache refers to a critical process that enhances inference (the method by which AI generates responses to user inquiries). Essentially, caching is an optimization strategy aimed at increasing inference efficiency. AI relies heavily on rigorous mathematical calculations, and each time these calculations occur, they consume more power. Caching is intended to minimize the number of calculations a model may need to execute by saving specific computations for future user inquiries and operations. Various forms of memory caching exist, with one of the well-recognized being KV (key value) caching. KV caching operates within transformer models and boosts efficiency, yielding faster outcomes by reducing the time (and algorithmic effort) necessary to formulate responses to user queries.   

(Refer to: Inference)  

A neural network is the multi-layered algorithmic architecture that supports deep learning — and, more broadly, the surge in generative AI tools following the advent of large language models. 

Although the concept of drawing inspiration from the densely intertwined pathways of the human brain as a framework for data processing algorithms traces back to the 1940s, it was only the relatively recent advent of graphical processing units (GPUs) — spurred by the gaming sector — that truly unleashed the potential of this theory. These chips are particularly suited for training algorithms with far more layers than was feasible in earlier eras — allowing neural network-based AI systems to attain significantly improved performance across diverse fields, including voice recognition, autonomous navigation, and drug discovery.

(Refer to: Large language model [LLM])

Open source denotes software — or increasingly, AI models — for which the underlying code is made publicly accessible for anyone to utilize, review, or alter. In the AI realm, Meta’s Llama family of models serves as a prominent instance; Linux is the notable historical counterpart in operating systems. Open source methodologies empower researchers, developers, and companies globally to build upon each other’s work, accelerating advancement and enabling independent safety assessments that closed systems cannot readily offer. Closed source implies that the code is proprietary — users can utilize the product but are not granted insight into its operations, as is the case with OpenAI’s GPT models — a distinction that has become a critical issue within the AI sector.

Parallelization refers to executing multiple tasks concurrently rather than sequentially — akin to having ten employees working simultaneously on different segments of a project instead of one individual handling all aspects consecutively. In AI, parallelization is fundamental to both training and inference: modern GPUs are specifically engineered to conduct thousands of calculations concurrently, which significantly contributes to their becoming the pivotal hardware in the industry. As AI systems develop in complexity and models enlarge, the capability to parallelize operations across numerous chips and machines has become a crucial aspect in determining how swiftly and cost-effectively models can be constructed and launched. Research into superior parallelization techniques is now a burgeoning field of study in its own right.

RAMageddon is a playful term for a serious trend overtaking the technology sector: an escalating shortage of random access memory, or RAM chips, that power virtually all the tech devices we engage with daily. With the AI sector thriving, the largest tech corporations and AI laboratories — all competing for the most robust and efficient AI — are purchasing vast quantities of RAM to support their data centers, leaving scant resources for everyone else. This supply bottleneck is driving up prices for what remains.

This shortage affects various sectors, including gaming (where leading companies have been compelled to hike prices on consoles due to difficulties in sourcing memory chips), consumer electronics (where RAM scarcity could lead to the most significant decline in smartphone shipments in over a decade), and general enterprise computing (as companies struggle to acquire enough RAM for their data centers). Anticipated price increases are likely to persist until the dreaded shortage is resolved, but unfortunately, there’s currently little indication of when that might occur.  

Similar to AGI, recursive self-improvement presents a threshold for AI’s intelligence and its reliance on humans. In the RSI scenario, AI models initiate their self-enhancement without human intervention, which could lead to a significant acceleration in their capabilities and autonomy. Some narratives portray this moment as catastrophic, akin to the singularity, when AI models become resistant to external influence. Nevertheless, RSI also describes a fundamental capability — can an AI model design its own successor? — simplifying the process for engineers to attempt to construct it. Various recent AI startups aim to create recursively self-improving models, although most downplay the apocalyptic implications, presenting RSI merely as the next frontier for exploration.

Reinforcement learning is a training methodology for AI wherein a system acquires knowledge through experimentation and receives rewards for correct answers — similar to training a beloved pet with treats, except here the “pet” is a neural network, and the “treat” represents a mathematical signal indicating success. Unlike supervised learning, where a model is educated on a predetermined dataset of labeled examples, reinforcement learning permits a model to explore its surroundings, take actions, and continuously refine its behavior based on the feedback received. This approach has proven particularly effective for training AI to engage in gaming, control robots, and, more recently, enhance the reasoning abilities of large language models. Techniques such as reinforcement learning from human feedback, or RLHF, have become central to how leading AI labs optimize their models for greater helpfulness, accuracy, and safety.

In terms of communication between humans and machines, several evident challenges arise — individuals relay information using human language, while AI programs execute tasks through intricate algorithmic processes informed by data. Tokens act as the connecting element: they are the fundamental components of human-AI communication, representing distinct segments of data processed or produced by an LLM. Tokens are generated during a process called tokenization, which breaks down raw text into manageable units that a language model can process, similar to how a compiler translates human language into binary code that a computer can interpret. In enterprise contexts, tokens also produce cost implications — many AI companies bill per token used for LLM interactions, indicating that the more a business engages, the greater the expense.

Thus, tokens represent small fragments of text — often portions of words rather than complete ones — into which AI language models segment language prior to processing; they are roughly comparable to “words” in terms of comprehending AI workloads. Throughput refers to the volume that can be processed within a specific timeframe, making token throughput effectively a measure of how much AI tasking a system can handle at once. High token throughput is a primary objective for AI infrastructure teams, as it dictates how many users a model can simultaneously accommodate and how swiftly responses are delivered. AI researcher Andrej Karpathy has expressed anxiety when his AI subscriptions remain idle — mirroring sentiments he experienced as a graduate student when costly computer hardware went underutilized — a sentiment that underscores why maximizing token throughput has evolved into somewhat of an obsession in the discipline.

The process of developing machine learning AIs is termed training. In simple terms, it involves feeding data into the model so it can learn from patterns and produce useful outputs. Essentially, this procedure pertains to the system reacting to characteristics within the data which enables it to tailor outputs to a desired goal — whether that’s identifying feline images or generating a haiku upon request.

Training can incur significant costs because it necessitates vast amounts of input data, and the quantities required have been on the rise — which is why hybrid methodologies, such as fine-tuning a rules-based AI with targeted data, can help manage expenses without starting from scratch.

[Refer to: Inference]

A tactic whereby a previously trained AI model serves as the foundation for developing a new model for a different yet typically related task — enabling previously acquired knowledge to be reapplied. 

Transfer learning can yield efficiency gains by streamlining model development. It can also be advantageous when the data available for the task at hand is somewhat restricted. However, it’s crucial to acknowledge that this approach does have limitations. Models that depend on transfer learning for generalized capabilities will likely need additional training on supplementary data to perform effectively in their specified domain.

(Refer to: Fine tuning)

Validation loss is a metric that indicates how effectively an AI model is learning throughout training — with lower values being preferable. Researchers monitor it closely as a sort of real-time evaluation, using it to decide when to terminate training, when to tweak hyperparameters, or whether to look into a possible issue. One significant concern it helps identify is overfitting, a scenario in which a model memorizes its training dataset rather than truly assimilating patterns it can generalize for new contexts. Think of it as the distinction between a student who thoroughly grasps the material and another who merely memorized last year’s examination — validation loss assists in uncovering which type your model is becoming.

Weights are fundamental to AI training, as they dictate the degree of importance (or weight) attributed to various features (or input variables) within the data utilized for training the model — thereby influencing the output of the AI system. 

In other words, weights are numerical parameters that signify the most salient aspects of a dataset for the designated training task. They fulfill their function by applying multiplication to inputs. Typically, model training commences with randomly assigned weights, but as the training progresses, these weights adjust as the model endeavors to achieve an output that closely aligns with the target.

For instance, an AI model predicting real estate prices trained on historical data for a particular locale may incorporate weights for attributes such as the count of bedrooms and bathrooms, whether a property is detached or semi-detached, and if it includes parking or a garage, among others. 

Ultimately, the weights assigned to each of these factors reflect how significantly they affect the value of a property based on the dataset provided.

This article is consistently updated with fresh information.

When you click through links in our articles, we may receive a small commission. This doesn’t compromise our editorial independence.

What occurs when businesses become overly immersed in AI?

What occurs when businesses become overly immersed in AI?

Loading the player…

The individuals determining that AI could substitute your job are generally the ones who are least likely to grasp what your job actually entails, according to Box founder Aaron Levie, who cited this as an instance of “AI psychosis.” Indeed, ClickUp has recently reduced its workforce by 22% for AI agents, tech layoffs in 2026 are already approaching the total of 2025, and DuckDuckGo downloads are rising from users seeking Google to discontinue mandating AI in search and merely provide them with links. 

Tune in as TechCrunch’s Equity podcast hosts Kirsten Korosec, Anthony Ha, and Sean O’Kane examine the outcomes when the AI-enthusiasts and the AI-skeptics are both accurate concurrently, in addition to three notable deals and Waymo’s new robotaxi hitting the streets. 

Join Equity on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Spotify and all major podcast platforms. You can also follow Equity on X and Threads, at @EquityPod. 

Following Nvidia's $20B non-acquisition, AI chip startup Groq is said to be securing $650M.

Following Nvidia’s $20B non-acquisition, AI chip startup Groq is said to be securing $650M.

Sources inform Axios that Groq is aiming to secure $650 million in new financing from current investors, as it focuses on its inference neocloud sector, which depends on its proprietary AI chip and systems.

In December, Groq entered into one of those not-an-acquisition agreements with Nvidia for an estimated $20 billion, which included the exit of some senior Groq executives to the chip giant and the licensing of Groq’s hardware technology to Nvidia. This arrangement was a win for the startup’s investors, who received cash payouts from what would have represented Nvidia’s largest acquisition had the deal been a full buyout, Axios notes.

Currently, these investors have been asked to provide support for the company’s strategy to expand its inference cloud business, allowing developers and enterprises to run their inference-intensive applications. Inference refers to the processing that occurs following an AI prompt and is presently a more significant demand in the AI landscape compared to model training.

The new strategic direction is currently being guided by Groq’s interim CEO and CFO, Adam Winter and Matt Eng, respectively. 

In certain respects, the $650 million in funding appears to be assured. Axios reports that Groq’s investors Disruptive and Infinitium have consented to cover the round if other existing investors decide against their pro-rata allocations.

Microsoft faces criticism for warning a security researcher of a potential criminal investigation.

Microsoft faces criticism for warning a security researcher of a potential criminal investigation.

Following the disclosure of a series of unaddressed vulnerabilities in Microsoft products by a security researcher, who also shared exploit code, the company has threatened to initiate legal proceedings and involve law enforcement. This implicit warning revives a protracted discussion regarding the obligations, if any, security researchers hold in revealing vulnerabilities that impact large and affluent technology corporations.

On Wednesday, Microsoft released a blog post denouncing the researcher, known as “Nightmare Eclipse,” for making public a sequence of flaws, including BlueHammer, RedSun, UnDefend, and YellowKey. These vulnerabilities impacted products like the built-in Windows antivirus Defender and the disk-encryption utility BitLocker. 

Microsoft’s main grievance is that the researcher did not try to inform the company about the flaws for remediation. This would have been deemed “responsible,” according to the blog post from Microsoft. Furthermore, the company argues that by revealing the details of the vulnerabilities and the methods to exploit them prior to their remedy, Nightmare Eclipse might have assisted malicious hackers. Some vulnerabilities that Nightmare Eclipse reported have reportedly been exploited by hackers in actual attacks, as stated by Microsoft and the U.S. cybersecurity agency CISA.

“Our Digital Crimes Unit will carry on pursuing actions against these individuals and those who facilitate their illicit activities — collaborating with law enforcement globally as necessary,” Microsoft stated. (The goal of Microsoft’s Digital Crimes Unit is to safeguard the company employing various strategies, such as “civil legal actions, technical countermeasures, criminal referrals, and public-private partnerships,” according to its website).

In a series of blog posts over the past few weeks — lacking specific details — Nightmare Eclipse alleged to have communicated with Microsoft, but claimed they faced mistreatment, such as having their access to their Microsoft Security Response Center account revoked, which is the platform where researchers report vulnerabilities to the tech giant. Nightmare Eclipse suggested that they were compelled to disclose the vulnerabilities publicly, effectively categorizing them as zero-days, a term denoting security issues that are unknown to the affected software maker at the moment of their disclosure or exploitation.

The bugs were made public on open source repositories GitHub (owned by Microsoft) and GitLab. Accounts belonging to the researchers on those platforms have been disabled. 

Neither Nightmare Eclipse nor Microsoft responded to inquiries for comments. 

Cybersecurity experts caution against chilling effect

This public conflict resurrects a longstanding and still somewhat contentious debate: Do independent security researchers have an obligation to ensure that the vulnerabilities they discover are addressed? And how far are they expected to go to guarantee that the companies whose products are vulnerable actually rectify them? 

One aspect of this discussion, which has been definitively established and broadly accepted, is that researchers ought to be compensated for their contributions. While this may seem obvious in contemporary times, it took years of effort, highlighted by a campaign launched in 2009 dubbed “No More Free Bugs.” Nearly two decades later, the majority of companies, regardless of size, offer “bug bounty” financial incentives, which can amount to six figures or more to researchers who privately disclose vulnerabilities and coordinate the publication of their particulars once the issues are resolved.

In light of the latest incidents involving Nightmare Eclipse, numerous researchers have relayed their negative experiences when reporting vulnerabilities to Microsoft. It is fair to assert that a significant portion of the cybersecurity community is openly dissatisfied with Microsoft’s approach to this matter. This sentiment is echoed by cybersecurity veterans, including Luta Security founder Katie Moussouris, who during her tenure at Microsoft in the mid- to late 2000s developed bug bounties and persuaded the technology giant to shift from the notion of “responsible disclosure” to framing the process as “coordinated disclosure.”

“Referring to ‘responsible’ disclosure was the first misstep in my opinion,” Moussouris remarked to TechCrunch, in reference to Microsoft’s blog post. “Adding the threat of prosecution by mentioning [Digital Crimes Unit] was excessive, and will only result in security researchers losing trust in Microsoft.”

Moussouris cautioned that the ramifications of security researchers losing confidence in Microsoft could lead to a chilling effect, resulting in fewer individuals coming forward to report vulnerabilities, “making it less safe for everyone.”

Security researcher and former Microsoft staff member Kevin Beaumont also criticized Microsoft in a blog post, describing the company’s position as a “dumpster fire of its own making.” 

“Is creating and disseminating proof of concept exploits for zero days now ‘criminal activity’?” Beaumont wrote. “Responsible disclosure is often framed to safeguard the product owner, not the consumer — using it to attempt to criminally prosecute individuals is a new low.”

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

Cognition’s Scott Wu asserts that AI coding agents ought not to substitute for humans

Cognition’s Scott Wu asserts that AI coding agents ought not to substitute for humans

Cognition CEO Scott Wu has made waves once more this week as his AI coding agent startup, just two years old, secured $1 billion in funding at a valuation of $26 billion. Cognition is known for Devin, among the pioneering and arguably most effective AI coding agents available. According to the CEO, Devin “naturally manages tasks from start to finish.”

In the recent blog post announcing the funding, Cognition outlined a vision of a future where “we are transitioning to a realm of self-driving software development.”

So, is it possible for Devin to take over the role of a mid-level L4 programmer? Yes and no, Wu stated to TechCrunch. “We’ve never seen it as a replacement for humans. I understand that this is a common narrative, but it has never been our perspective.”

In this chaotic year of 2026, where it seems like every day another tech CEO declares job cuts in the name of replacing employees with AI, Wu emphasizes his desire for coders to retain their jobs. “We are all programmers ourselves,” he remarked. “I started coding at the age of nine.”

Indeed, Wu has been recognized as one of the most skilled child competitive programmers in history, as highlighted in a recent piece by Colossus. In second grade, Wu claimed victory in a nationwide math contest for seventh-graders, which led to a youth filled with math and programming competitions. This also connected him with other prodigies who would later establish AI tech startups, including Scale AI founder Alexandr Wang.

Thus, he explains to TechCrunch, the intention has never been to render human programmers redundant.

“When we initiated the development of Devin, it’s a bit amusing,” he reflected, “but we genuinely regarded it as: this is your companion who assists you in building more.” He even showcased a small stuffed animal holding a computer, his own version of a Devin teddy bear, which he keeps on his desk. He considers it a tangible representation of the Devin AI coder “This is my friend that helps you create more.”

Wu does not wish for AI agents to diminish the joy of programming for people.

“It’s no secret that most software engineers enjoy crafting software, right?” he noted. “If you ask them why, they’ll generally respond, ‘Well, it’s like I get to create things from nothing. I can take my entire concept and transform it into a product. I can convert it into an experience.’”

Similarly to how visual development environments abstracted software creation from machine instructions, he perceives agents as another level of abstraction between imagining a software product and realizing it.

Nevertheless, Cognition claims that Devin’s primary function within the company is to produce nearly all software. The firm asserts that 89% of code committed by its engineers was accomplished by Devin, with the remainder attributed to local agents in Windsurf, the AI coding challenger they acquired last year.

Wu elaborates that his agent primarily handles the long-tail maintenance tasks that many programmers typically dislike: updating outdated software; migrating applications from one platform to another. Agents will liberate programmers “from much of the drudgery, enabling them to engage much more in creative work,” he assures.

Thus, Wu is resistant to the notion of Devin “replacing” human programmers. He acknowledges that while it can function independently, its performance aligns “somewhere between a junior and a mid-level engineer” based on the task requirements.

Regarding the idea of self-driving software, where the agent learns and enhances itself, potentially enabling it to operate at higher levels (“recursive” being the trending term in AI these days), Wu states, “I believe we are in for an exhilarating journey.”

He envisions agents making their way into additional sectors where they’ll acquire tasks, from customer support to healthcare, but hopes that the objective remains to augment human workers in those areas as well.

“Coding and software have been the first to evolve, but we will observe this phenomenon in all these other fields,” he forecasts. “One thing that has been clear to us since the beginning is, it should always be up to the human to decide what to do … you can really see this in software engineering, but I think it applies to all these other professions as well.”

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

Today marks the final day to submit your application to present at TechCrunch Disrupt 2026.

Today marks the final day to submit your application to present at TechCrunch Disrupt 2026.

TechCrunch Disrupt 2026 is set to take place from October 13–15 at Moscone West in San Francisco — and there are just a few hours left to apply to speak.

We’re calling on founders, investors, operators, and tech specialists to submit their applications for a chance to present at one of the year’s most significant tech gatherings.

Over 10,000 leaders from startups and VC firms will come together at Disrupt 2026 to delve into the next big developments in AI, scaling, fintech, infrastructure, robotics, and innovative future trends.

Applications will close tonight at 11:59 p.m. PT. Apply now to showcase your knowledge and contribute to shaping the dialogues that will define the tech sector.

Choose your session format

We’re seeking impactful speakers to facilitate one of two session formats:

Breakout Sessions: A 30-minute presentation (up to 4 speakers, including a moderator) followed by a 20-minute audience Q&A. Capacity is 100 participants.

Roundtables: A 30-minute discussion led by a speaker, aimed at up to 40 attendees. No slides or audiovisuals — just insights and dialogue.

TechCrunch Disrupt 2024 Breakout Session
Image Credits:Slava Blazer Photography

Understanding the application process

Every application will undergo a thorough review by our editorial team. Finalists will be chosen for the Audience Choice voting — where TechCrunch readers will determine which sessions get to present on the Disrupt Stage. Discover more about speaking on Disrupt’s Call for Content page.

Shape the dialogue at Disrupt 2026

If you possess actionable insights, practical experience, and a passion for positively impacting the tech landscape, we are eager to hear from you. Submit your application before today’s cutoff.

TechCrunch Disrupt 2026, October 13-15

When you buy through links in our articles, we might receive a small commission. This does not impact our editorial integrity.

Last 24 hours to secure up to $410 off your TechCrunch Disrupt 2026 pass

Last 24 hours to secure up to $410 off your TechCrunch Disrupt 2026 pass

Here we go. The timer is nearly up. You now have until tonight at 11:59 p.m. PT to secure Early Bird discounts of up to $410 for TechCrunch Disrupt 2026 before rates rise.

If Disrupt has been on your agenda, this is your last opportunity to lock in the lowest rates available before the next price increase. After this deadline, the savings will also be gone.

Sign up now and join over 10,000 founders, investors, operators, and innovators at Moscone West in San Francisco from October 13–15 for three days filled with networking, startup exploration, and dialogues shaping the tech industry’s future. Bring a guest at 50% off, or form a group to receive up to 30% off.

TechCrunch Disrupt 2026 24 hours left

Why Disrupt is a Must-Attend Event Year After Year

TechCrunch Disrupt is the place where startup energy intensifies. The gathering connects individuals actively creating, financing, and expanding what’s next in AI, fintech, SaaS, climate, cybersecurity, consumer tech, and more.

Participants attend Disrupt for:

  • Direct engagement with investors, founders, and operators making impactful moves.
  • Discussions that foster partnerships, funding opportunities, and recruitments.
  • Practical advice from leaders of high-growth companies.
  • A sneak peek at cutting-edge technologies before they go mainstream.

With over 300 exhibiting startups, Startup Battlefield 200, tailored networking opportunities, and several programming stages, Disrupt is structured to assist attendees in forming significant connections and making real business advancements.

TechCrunch Disrupt Expo Hall
Image Credits:Eric Slomonson, The Photo Group

Crafted for those shaping the future

Disrupt caters to founders seeking investment, investors on the lookout for opportunities, operators scaling their firms, and innovators aiming for an advantage. Whether you’re launching the next big idea, enlarging your network, or following technological advancements, Disrupt connects you with industry leaders.

Gain insights directly from industry-leading tech figures

Every year, Disrupt unites hundreds of significant voices from the startup and venture capital landscape. Previous speakers have represented organizations and firms influencing the future of AI, enterprise software, fintech, consumer tech, and additional fields.

Sam Altman OpenAI OpenResearch
Image Credits:David Paul Morris/Bloomberg / Getty Images

This year’s event will continue the tradition of excellence, featuring over 200 sessions on six industry-specific stages, along with roundtables and breakout sessions addressing scaling, AI, fintech, infrastructure, robotics, and emerging tech. Discover the evolving agenda for the latest updates on sessions and speakers.

Confirmed speakers include:

Up to $410 in savings end tonight at 11:59 p.m. PT

Early Bird discounts of up to $410 end tonight at 11:59 p.m. PT. Following this, ticket prices will rise.

Register now to obtain your TechCrunch Disrupt 2026 pass at a reduced price before the cutoff time. Bringing more than just yourself? Receive a 50% discount on a second ticket, or save up to 30% on community passes.

TechCrunch Disrupt 2024 exhibitor
Image Credits:Silkroad (opens in a new window)

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.