34 projects, 24 contributors, 65 minutes: Hacks/Hackers held a vibe coding show & tell, and journalists shipped fact-checkers, salary surveys, power grid monitors, and a Discord clone.

A young reader got so frustrated with the FT’s news product that she built her own using Claude Code. She’s paying for a subscription, she wants personalized news, and she couldn’t figure out how to get it. (Jodie Hopperton, INMA)

The information ecosystem has four new rules: production is cheap, machines are the audience, content is liquid, and intention beats attention. Shuwei Fang buries the current publishing model, and somehow ends up optimistic: journalism needs to stop protecting the article and start selling the process. (Reuters Institute)

“Not ‘how do I get paid for my articles by AI’ but ‘how do I architect my knowledge so it can reach customers I’ve never had access to before'”: A three-layer AI monetization framework, with O’Reilly as proof of concept. (Florent Daudens, AI in the News)

Which AI to use: Free users don’t get the good AI, and even if you pay, you have to pick thinking mode. Once you’ve done that, the model matters less than the harness. For newsrooms: curated archive retrieval, a system prompt encoding editorial voice, CMS integration, verification. (Ethan Mollick, One Useful Thing)

An Ars Technica story about an AI agent writing a hit piece on a human contained AI-fabricated quotes attributed to the human. The author was sick, rushing, and used ChatGPT. The article was pulled. (Emanuel Maiberg, 404 Media)

Time put “The People vs. AI” on its cover and profiled nine Americans fighting data centers, chatbot harms, and AI in hospitals. A companion essay argues AI policy has left the wonk phase and entered kitchen-table politics, but neither party in the U.S. knows what to say about it yet. (Andrew R. Chow / Rebecca Lissner)

“In 2026, it’s a scary time to work for a living.” That’s how the Guardian launches Reworked, a yearlong series on AI and the future of the job. The same technology that’s making software engineers nervous is making them realize they have more in common with warehouse workers than with their CEOs. (Samantha Oltman)

Paul Ford (who wrote a legendary 38,000-word piece on “What Is Code”) on his new obsession with vibe coding: He’s building apps on the subway that he’d once have billed clients $350,000 for. “It stings to be made obsolete, but it’s fun to code on the train, too.” (New York Times)

Substack hosts, algorithmically promotes, and takes a revenue cut from newsletters openly pushing Nazi ideology, Holocaust denial, and white supremacy. (Geraldine McKelvie, The Guardian)

There’s no neat technical fix for that: The more useful an agent is, the more access it needs, and the more access it has, the riskier it gets. Yes, it’s about the Moltbot/OpenClaw agent craze, but also, it’s not. (Dan Hon, Things That Caught My Attention)

Moltbook, the viral “social network for bots,” looked like a glimpse of the AI agent future. It wasn’t. And some of it was humans shitposting. (Will Douglas Heaven, MIT Technology Review)

What is Claude? Anthropic doesn’t know either. Gideon Lewis-Kraus spent months inside the company, watching researchers try to understand their own AI. A good example of how to write about this technology without falling for the hype or waving it all away. (The New Yorker)

Why authenticity labels and AI watermarks are failing: Verge reporter Jess Weatherbed explains on the Decoder podcast why media authentication standards like C2PA are going nowhere. And why watermarking AI content isn’t working either.

Your AI agent is a snitch: We’re chatting on Signal, enjoying encryption, right? But your DIY productivity agent is piping the whole thing back to Anthropic. (John Scott-Railton, X)