命令、搜索代码、获取网页内容，也能为并行任务生成 subagents；Kimi Work 则面向本地工作流，可以挂载本地文件夹，通过 WebBridge 浏览网页，运行 Python，执行定时任务，并在修改文件或运行代码前要求用户确认。 过去很长一段时间，Kimi 给普通用户留下的印象就是「长文本」。读论文、读财报、读几十页 PDF、整理一大堆网页材料，这些本来就是 Kimi 最容易被用户感知到的能力。到了 Agent 阶段，Kimi 要做的事情也很自然：不只是读完材料回答问题，而是继续帮用户处理文件、跑脚本、改代码、生成结果。 如果说 Claude Code 和 Codex 的强项在于代码任务闭环，Kimi 更值得关注的，是它在试图把「长文本阅读」的优势变成「长程任务」的优势。 同时在 Kimi Code 和 Work，Agent 集群也是一个绕不开的设计。按照官方说法，应对复杂问题时，Kimi 可以自动协调多个专业智能体，同时分解并解决多层次任务。 另外为了吸引金融用户，Kimi Work 还预集成了 A 股、港股和美股的深度数据源。而这些，可以说都构成了 Kimi Code 和 Work 的差异化体验。 阿里 Qoder 有点特殊，它不是一个从零开始冒出来的新产品，而是从一个 AI IDE 产品（通义灵码），经过几轮迭代逐渐转变成新的 Agent 产品，并衍生出了 Qoder Desktop、QoderWork、QoderWake、Qoder CLI、Cloud Agents 等系列。 核心还是 Qoder Desktop 和 QoderWork 两个产品。 Qoder Desktop 面向软件开发场景，更接近 Claude Code；QoderWork 面向日常工作，处理文件整理、数据处理、文档生成、浏览器自动化、桌面控制、定时任务这类日常工作任务，定位接近 Claude Cowork。 QoderWork 把 Agent 能力从代码搬到普通工作里。作为一款桌面端智能工作助手，QoderWork 可以通过自然语言完成文件整理、数据处理、文档生成，也能连接办公工具、操控浏览器和电脑；它还支持定时任务，适合每天拉数据、写周报、整理月度材料这类重复但不能漏的工作。 从产品设计来看，QoderWork 除了「通用」模式，还专门给出了「设计」「幻灯片」「写作」模式，在面向实际用户场景上明显有所侧重。但除此之外，还没看到太多的特色和优势。 和前面几家一样，MiniMax 分别推出了 MiniMax Code 和 MiniMax Agent 两个产品。值得一提的是，随着 6 月新一代大模型 MiniMax M3 的发布，MiniMax Code 也迎来了一轮大更新。按照官方的说法，是专为 M3 设计、并与 M3 一起训练的 Agent 产品。 简单来说，MiniMax Code 能够充分发挥 M3 在长上下文、Coding/Agentic、原生多模态方面的能力，是搭配 MiniMax-M3 的首选 Agent。 体现到长程任务上，MiniMax Code 会将任务拆成 Workflow，由 Agent 集群协作，通过 Producer + Verifier 的对抗式 Harness 循环自主运行。 事实上，Claude Code 也推出了类似策略的 Dynamic Workflows（动态工作流），但 MiniMax Code 会更聚焦「深度反思与持续纠错」，Agent 会根据任务进展实时调整方案和优先级，用户也可以随时介入，追加需求或修正方向。 至于 MiniMax Agent，实际更早就尝试挑战长程任务，在 5 月更新中上线了 Mavis 模式，利用多 Agents 协作的方式，包括和 Codex 类似随时介入 Agent 思考和工作的设计，可以说是 6 月 MiniMax M3 发布和 MiniMax Code 更新之前的预演。 不过也要说明，这条路也最容易出现演示和真实体验之间的落差。长上下文不等于真的理解全局，多 Agent 协作也不等于结果一定更稳。角色越多、链路越长，中间任何一步跑偏，最后都可能放大成错误。 按照官方介绍，TRAE Work 提供 Web、Desktop 和 Mobile 多端入口，兼顾本地与云端任务，且不依赖于 TRAE IDE 运行。 用户在桌面端发起任务之后，Agent 可以在云端或者本地继续运行，多个任务也可以并行推进；离开电脑之后，用户还可以在手机上查看进度、审查结果、继续调整方向。 另外一提，TRAE Work 还分成 Work 和 Code 两种模式，你可以简单理解为字节的 Codex，将 Code、Work 两个 Agent 产品合二为一。 Code 模式继续处理开发任务，Work 模式则面向更通用的工作场景，比如资料整理、项目推进、网页操作、文件处理和内容生成。不同的是，Codex 是真正的合二为一，TRAE Work 则是以两种模式运行，需要从不同模式入口进入。 这也很字节。相比腾讯 WorkBuddy 借助微信、文档、会议这些生态上下文，TRAE Work 更像一个面向个人和小团队的效率入口。它不一定要求用户先进入一套办公生态，而是先把「任务」变成核心单位：你只要把需求交给它，它就负责拆解、执行、反馈进度，用户在过程中随时介入。 另外，TRAE 还有一个值得注意的动作是开源 Trae Agent。按照 GitHub 页面介绍，Trae Agent 是一个面向软件工程任务的 LLM Agent 工具包，支持文件编辑、bash 执行、结构化思考和任务完成，也能接入多种模型供应商。 相比其他家，智谱的路线要更集中一些。它没有急着把自己包装成一个通用办公 Agent，而是明确先做开发者场景，推出了智谱 ZCode，但和 Kimi、MiniMax 一样瞄准了长程任务的难点和场景。这其实和很多国产 Agent 产品的思路不太一样。腾讯、阿里、Kimi、字节都在做 Code 和 Work 两条线。 值得一提的是，上月智谱发布惊艳行业的 GLM-5.2 时， 还同步升级了 ZCode 3.0，全面切换自研 ZCode Agent 内核，并深度适配 GLM-5.2，针对长程推理、工具调用和大型工程执行链路做了优化。 ZCode 3.0 还围绕实际开发体验做了一些补强，比如分组式任务工作区、Zread 项目知识库、可视化 Git 分支图谱等功能。这些听起来没有多 Agent 协作、长上下文那么性感，但都和 Code Agent 的稳定性有关：Agent 要接手一个工程任务，首先得看懂项目、记住上下文，也要让用户看得清它改了什么、走到哪一步。 这条路的优势是目标清楚，短板也很明显。ZCode 的用户盘子暂时不会像 WorkBuddy 或 TRAE Work 那么大，想象空间也更集中在开发者场景。但如果它能在复杂代码库、长程任务和工程验证上真正跑稳，反而更容易建立专业用户信任。 把这些产品放在一起看，国产 Agent 并不是在用同一种方式替代 Claude Code、Claude Cowork 和 Codex。 阿里 Qoder、字节 TRAE 和腾讯 Buddy 系列，大公司都做学 Anthropic 和 OpenAI 在 Code + Work，但产品路径和重心明显不一样。作为百模大战中活下来的大模型创业公司，Kimi、MiniMax 以及智谱都更注重技术优势，尝试攻克「长程任务」这个 Agent 必经之路，也都在强调从模型到 Agent 的垂直整合。 但最终看下来，国产 Agent 追的也不只是 Claude Code、Claude Cowork 或者 Codex 某一个产品，也是一种全新的工作方式：用户不再只问 AI 一个问题，而是把一件事交给 AI，再在过程中审查、修正、接管、继续指挥。 相比海外产品，国产 Agent 的优势首先是更贴近本土工作流。 Claude Code、Claude Cowork、Codex 的产品完成度更高，开发者心智也更强，但它们毕竟更围绕海外用户的软件生态、办公环境和订阅体系展开。国内用户每天使用的工具和系统，很多时候是微信、腾讯会议、腾讯文档、钉钉、飞书、本地文件、国产模型和企业内部知识库。Agent 如果接不住这些上下文，再强也容易停在演示和尝鲜阶段。 这也是

WorkBuddy、QoderWork、TRAE Work 的机会。它们未必一开始就比 Claude Cowork 更聪明，但如果能更顺手地进入国内用户已经熟悉的办公、沟通和文件环境里，就有机会先把使用频率做起来。 另一方面，国产 Agent 普遍更愿意接入不同模型，也更愿意把能力开放给开发者和企业改造。 对个人用户来说，这意味着可以在效果和成本之间切换；对企业来说，则意味着可以接自己的工具、权限、数据和业务流程。Agent 不是一个单纯的聊天产品，它天然需要接工具、接文件、接系统、接工作流。越往真实业务里走，这种可控性越重要。 用户第一次打开 Agent，可能是因为好奇。但用户第二天、第三天还愿意打开它，一定是因为它真的省事。 本文来自微信公众号 “雷科技AGI” ，作者：三七二十一，36氪经授权发布。 该文观点仅代表作者本人，36氪平台仅提供信息存储空间服务。

The UK’s generational tobacco ban might not work. I’m supporting it anyway.

Tobacco bans are starting to look a lot less radical, despite a lack of evidence. As the parent of two little girls, I often think about how their childhood is different from mine. The seven-year-old is learning about AI at school. The five-year-old is given internet-based homework every week. And they are both absolutely repulsed by the idea of smoking. That was not the prevailing sentiment when I was young. My parents smoked. The customers at our family’s restaurant smoked. Cartoon characters smoked. My friends and I would buy little cigarette-box-shaped packets of sugary white sticks and pretend to smoke in the playground. Smoking was a central part of our culture. Which is why the UK’s recent passing of a generational sales ban on tobacco products feels like such a big deal. As part of the Tobacco and

Vapes Act 2026 , retailers are prohibited from selling tobacco products to anyone born after January 1, 2009, in perpetuity. It doesn’t matter when those people turn 18—or 38 or 68, for that matter. It will always be illegal to sell to anyone born after that date. This is what’s described as an “endgame” approach. While many tobacco control strategies—such as taxation or gory imagery—aim to reduce consumption, policies like the UK’s are designed to eliminate it entirely . It’s a new approach, and no one knows whether it will work. The Maldives was the first country to implement a generational smoking ban, in November last year. It’s too soon to say how that has panned out. Nor do we know if these laws will even last. In 2022, New Zealand passed a similar generational sales ban as part of a broader anti-smoking law. But it was never enacted—the law was repealed by a new government in February 2024. In the UK, both major parties support the ban. But Nigel Farage, whose right-wing party has seen a recent surge in support, has promised that “the generational smoking ban will not last long if Reform gets the chance to start rebuilding our mismanaged country.” Chris Bostic, an attorney and former policy director for the advocacy group Action on Smoking and Health, says he and his colleagues began promoting the idea of a generational ban in the United States 11 years ago. Back then, they struggled to win support, even from major health charities. “People said we were crazy … [and] that this was impossible,” he says. Opponents argued that bans would infringe on personal freedoms. “The public health argument is: Well, what about freedom from addiction?” says Britta Matthes, a tobacco control researcher at the University of Bath in the UK. Most people who smoke began when they were teenagers, want to quit , and wish they’d never started . Tobacco is arguably the most harmful consumer product of all time. It will kill half its users who don’t quit, according to the World Health Organization. It also kills people who don’t smoke. Of the 7 million who die from tobacco every year, 1.6 million are nonsmokers who were exposed to secondhand smoke, according to the WHO. Generational sales bans are a long-term strategy that will only protect future smokers. Most experts agree that people who already smoke should be a main consideration for any policy, and that a multipronged approach is probably the best way to go. Janet Hoek at the University of Otago, who has explored tobacco control policies in New Zealand, believes that enforcing very low limits on nicotine levels and banning filters—an environmental scourge that does not make smoking safer, as many people believe—might be a “powerful combination,” for example. But preventing teenagers from starting to smoke in the first place is an enticing prospect, even among the majority of people who smoke . And it’s starting to look a lot less radical. The US has quietly been making progress on a smaller scale. Since 2021, Brookline, a town in the Boston area, has banned the sale of tobacco products to anyone born after January 1, 2000. The idea has spread. Today there are 23 towns in Massachusetts with similar bans, says Bostic. Nine towns across Minnesota, New York, and California have implemented other endgame policies. The UK law has normalized the idea more than ever, he adds. His colleagues are already fielding calls from health agencies around the world. “People [are] saying, Wow I can’t believe the UK

just did this—can we do this here? ” he says. Norms change. Like many other millennials, I vividly remember my first night out after a ban on indoor smoking took effect. My clothes didn’t stink! My hair still felt clean! And my throat wasn’t scratchy the next morning! Now that’s just normal. I hope a tobacco-free world can be the new normal for my kids. The country wants to become a global leader in brain implants. Strong government support is expected to help accelerate that process. Researchers are decoding how signals move between body and brain, with implications for how we understand and treat conditions from obesity to anxiety. The next step in the youth quest is a technology called chemical reprogramming. In an early step towards artificial wombs, a biotech company claims it’s developed a “fully artificial” chicken egg. Discover special offers, top stories, upcoming events, and more. Privacy Policy Thank you for submitting your email! It looks like something went wrong. We’re having trouble saving your preferences. Try refreshing this page and updating them one more time. If you continue to get this message, reach out to us at customer-service@ with a list of newsletters you’d like to receive.

Godot says bye bye AI, bans vibe-coded contributions

'We can’t trust heavy users of AI to understand their code enough to fix it,' say maintainers who previously called the flood of vibe-coded pull requests 'demoralizing' Vibe coders apparently don't understand what their AI servants write - at least that’s what the team behind open-source game engine Godot seems to be implying with a new policy that cracks down on AI-generated contributions. The Godot team announced on Tuesday that they were in the process of rewriting their contribution policy to prohibit almost all use of AI from contributors, citing an overwhelming number of pull requests that have poured in, many of which appear to be AI-generated. Nor, the maintainers suggested, can many heavy AI users be relied on to respond meaningfully to review feedback. “AI cannot take responsibility, and we ca

n’t trust heavy users of AI to understand their code enough to fix it,” the Godot maintainers said in their announcement. The maintainers described AI pull requests as “demoralizing” for the Godot team, echoing comments made earlier this year when maintainer Rémi Verschelde said AI pull requests were increasingly draining and demoralizing wastes of time. AI PRs, one game studio that uses Godot noted earlier this year, are largely garbage, come from users who don’t understand what they’re proposing, and are largely “a total shitshow.” The Godot team said that it now recognizes the problem isn’t going away, so it’s time to do something about it. “Accordingly, we are in the process of updating our contribution policies, including adding a stricter policy on AI contributions,” they said. For starters, new contributors (defined as anyone with three or fewer merged pull requests) will be required to get explicit permission from maintainers if they want to submit new features or significant refactoring to Godot's codebase. This, the team said, is a bid to exclude vibe coders and AI agents and nurture a group of contributors who understand the Godot codebase and are willing to communicate with the team to learn more about it. On that note, contribution discussions will be required to remain human-to-human, too: No AI agents or bots clogging up the comms channels, unless they're being used to translate between languages. “We need to ensure that people who choose to review PRs feel their time is well spent,” the Godot maintainers explained. As for AI code itself, any autonomous agent-authored contributions or vibe-coded garbage will continue to result in an auto-ban from the team’s GitHub repo, and the team is extending that ban on AI code to include a prohibition on the use of AI to generate any substantial piece of code. “AI assistance should be limited to menial things (like code completion, regex, or find and replace),” the team explained. “If you do use AI in some capacity to author code, you must disclose it in the PR discussion.” The policy has yet to be formally amended, and the Godot maintainers didn’t say when exactly they’d release the update. Needless to say, vibe coders and AI agents aren’t welcome even now, so don’t push your luck. Vibe coding has shown other signs of falling out of favor lately as horror stories about deleted databases and wiped drives continue to pile up. Just last week, the chairman of IT consulting service Infosys predicted that vibe coding wasn’t something professionals should be worried about as there’s more to writing good software than coding. “Given that AI is a much larger and disruptive technology transition than ever before, the questions are louder and the doubts are more insistent,” Nandan Nilekani said in a speech at the company’s AGM last week. “While we will embrace the best coding tools and improve our productivity, there is much more to do in the software development life cycle.” Context, Nilekani said, is paramount in software development. Based on the vibe-coded disaster that Godot has dealt with, AI doesn’t seem quite capable of grasping that important element. ®