▲ 7 r/AIsafety+1 crossposts

Vercel Ship 26 (NYC) Opened My Eyes to the Future of Autonomous AI Agents and the Risks That Come With Them

The Vercel Ship 26 event in New York City this past Tuesday was genuinely one of the most useful technology events I have attended, but for more than just networking purposes, as it revealed something important to me...

As AI infrastructure shifts from supporting basic chatbots toward enabling increasingly autonomous work, the focus can no longer remain entirely on making underlying models more intelligent. Just as important to this are the systems that allow agents to execute tasks, operate with in controlled environments, show users what they are doing, and act accountable to the humans using them.

_____

The event brought together founders, developers, investors, and product teams, with sessions involving companies such as Anthropic, Slack, Notion, Stripe, Supabase and countless others. Although the networking, venue (The Glasshouse, Manhattan), workshops, and demonstrations were all great, what interested me most was the repeated focus on the infrastructure required to make AI agents useful in practice: sandboxed code execution, controlled environments, real-time visibility, and human oversight prior to consequential actions being taken.

_____

My biggest takeaway from these sessions was how effective products that utilize AI can truly become when sandboxes are leveraged. The systems behind them are quite complex, but I was given this simple analogy when I was first introduced to the concept that made it much easier to grasp.

“Cleaning your house manually with a broom is like not using AI at all. It is the most manual, but least efficient process.

Cleaning your house with a vacuum is like using AI chatbots. The task becomes quicker and more effective, but it still requires a manual operator.

Cleaning your house with a Roomba is like using an AI agent with a sandbox. Not only does it have the full power of a vacuum, but it can also understand your home’s layout, move autonomously, and recharge when needed.”

This understanding makes it clear why so many companies are constantly adopting AI systems, as they can reduce the amount of time spent on repetitive tasks and allow employees to focus on tasks of greater importance.

_____

However, it goes without saying that this also presents countless risks. I think many of those risks will create new jobs for humans in oversight, law, compliance, technical architecture, security, and product design, which inherently combats the commonly presented issue of AI taking away jobs.

You could have thousands of AI agents constantly cross-checking one another, but the core problem persists as none of them actually understand concepts in the same way a human does. Having them verify one another can be like taking an exam while a room full of your own clones checks your answers, because every clone may still be limited by the same studying, assumptions, and gaps in understanding.

That limitation is critical in high-stakes use cases where people’s finances, legal representation, medical treatment, and other serious decisions are involved, which I could personally attest to having legitimate experience in such myself. Despite the shared consensus that AI is ruining the job marke (which I agree with to some degree) I think we will eventually come to accept where things are going and how many tasks are becoming more efficient. The focus will begin shifting toward ensuring that this efficiency is not achieved at the cost of accuracy, security, or accountability.

_____

I understand that the analogies above are oversimplifications and that output-validation agents already exist, but my counter to that would be:

at what point does it become more cost-effective to have countless agents checking one another compared with having one human review the output of an AI?

Runtimes continues to be one of the biggest bottlenecks in AI advancement, as capability is beginning to outpace scalability because of compute costs. Adding more agents to verify the work of other agents may improve reliability, but it also increases the amount of infrastructure, time, and compute required to complete what may have originally been a relatively simple task.

_____

You may be wondering how any of this connects back to Vercel beyond the opening paragraphs, but that was exactly what made the event so interesting.

Vercel was not simply discussing what agents could theoretically become. A major focus was eve, its new open-source frame work for building / operating production AI agents. Eve packages together an agent’s instructions, tools, workflows, sandboxed execution, subagents, evaluations, and approval requirements into a single space, providing the infrastructure needed for agents to execute code, work autonomously inside controlled environments, and most importantly, remain visible to the humans overseeing them. In the simplest way possible; it does all of the work but prior to acting it presents its exact plan to the human operator so as to avoid drifting into harm's way or out of scope.

The human-in-the-loop (aka. HITL) approach that eve is built around addresses one of my biggest concerns with agentic systems. Rather than blindly assigning an agent a goal and hoping the final result matches what you intended, approval steps allow users to understand what the agent is planning to do before consequential actions are taken. I still believe drift can occur once the agent begins implementing that plan, but keeping the human on the same page as the system creates a much stronger balance between autonomy and accountability.

______

TL;DR: The most important thing I took away from Vercel Ship 2026 was not simply what individual companies are building, but how AI infrastructure is changing as the industry moves from chat-based assistance toward increasingly autonomous work.

The next stage of AI development is not just about making models more intelligent, it's about building the infrastructure that allows agents to execute code, operate inside controlled sandboxes, stream their work in real time, and pause for human approval before taking consequential actions.

My biggest takeaway was that human oversight may not be a temporary limitation that disappears as agents improve. In high-stakes use cases involving finances, law, healthcare, security, and other serious decisions, a human-in-the-loop (aka. HITL) approach may be what allows greater autonomy to remain practical, secure, and accountable in the first place.

The event gave me a much clearer understanding of how companies such as Vercel, Anthropic, and others are approaching the balance between capability, scalability, security, and human control.

Beyond the formal sessions, being in NYC made the experience even more valuable because I had the opportunity to speak with founders, venture capital professionals, developers, and people working across several areas of technology. Those conversations gave me new perspectives on building products, raising capital, managing risk, and understanding where the industry may be heading next.

___

❓ QUESTION ❓

With that said, I’m curious to hear the opinions of others in this subreddit and where they think AI is headed.

What issues do you foresee becoming the biggest blockers?

Whether it is compute costs, RAM shortages, a plateau in its capability progression , the security and accountability risks discussed above, or an entirely different concern, I’d be interested to hear what you think.

--

*[*p.s. no this was not made with AI, I took a lot of time in writing as much detail as possible to get my actual opinion and thoughts on this topic across instead of making a slop post]

reddit.com
u/person-person12 — 4 days ago
▲ 88 r/ai_trading+2 crossposts

I spent 8 months and $40K+ developing an AI trading platform: quant research, backtesting, live strategy automation, indicators, and more

In my experience as a trader, almost every AI tool, site, and piece of software in this space only does one thing in my workflow. I kept running into the same issues, asking the exact same question as thousands of other traders…

"Why am I paying for a dozen different tools for a dozen different things?"

-----

The answer I wanted was one platform that does all of it, for a fraction of the cost;

i) An AI-powered hub that researches, backtests, and automates strategies live (or to TopStep) across 10,000+ instruments and with 10+ years of multi-timeframe history included, no coding experience or data required.

ii) An AI model that builds any custom TradingView indicator in Pine Script v6.

iii) Professionally built indicators for popular concepts: OTE/STDV, Bookmap-style order flow proxies for TradingView, and Volume Profile (AMT).

iv) Real-time news, intraday GEX levels, sector overviews, and order flow feeds.

v) Advanced stock screening: earnings, key metrics, fundamentals, analyst opinions, TradingView charting, and live news.

vi) Daily, weekly, and monthly pre-market AI stock picks, performance-tracked, built from thousands of factors in a custom database.

vii) A 100% free, start-to-finish, beginner-to-expert course packed with structured learning paths, interactive lessons + exercises, and a full glossary, that I wish I had when I first started.

viii) Dedicated local-execution software for TopStep that abides by their API rules and includes custom charting, economic calendars, volume standard-deviation gauges, and more.

ix) a hub to connect to a live brokerage, analyze positions, model long-term portfolios, and monitor my algorithms.

And most importantly, ONE AI agent that can actually do all of it.

-----

Because nothing like this existed, I spent eight months relentlessly researching and developing my platform (with the help of the best professional developers I know) to make my dream a reality.

WealthLearn.ca brings every feature above into a single platform for a fraction of the cost, so you can stop tangling together scattered tools and paying for a dozen separate subscriptions.

It connects directly with TradingView, live brokerages (Wealthsimple, Moomoo, Kraken, Coinbase, Webull, and more), and TopStep... having two clear goals;

1) Bring the benefits of quant and algo trading to retail traders, WITHOUT the coding, complexity, or the institutional price tag.

  1. Unify every tool needed, from day trading to macro investing, into one ecosystem, instead of a dozen expensive, single-purpose tools.

--

I really don't want this to feel like a pitch, but there's so much low-effort vibe-coded stuff going around right now that I thought something I've poured this much real work into could actually be useful to people. have a look at the video above for a glimpse of what we've built, and if you don't want to spend anything, there's a free trial so you can see exactly what I'm talking about.

Happy to answer anything and everything in the comments. Whether it be about the platform, its tech stack, my team's development experience, or trading in general, feel free to* ask away.

>DISCLAIMER: As always, Educational software and tools designed for non-personalized analysis and deterministic execution , not financial advice. Trading is extremely high risk and is not suitable for every investor.

💬🚨 UPDATE SINCE POSTING:

I want to thank all of you for your support, questions, feedback, and comments. I've done my best to respond to each and every one of them in as much detail as possible.

I'll be flying out to NYC tomorrow to attend the Vercel's Ship 26 event as well as a few scheduled meetings for seed funding, but I hope to continue to respond to all new replies in the coming days when available.

Best,
The WealthLearn Team

u/person-person12 — 8 days ago

Every morning, this free AI model makes pre-market stock picks and records its performance. Here's how it works, and how to access...

Bit of an experiment; I got tired of "AI stock pick" accounts that only screenshot their winners, so I built the opposite.

Every morning AI Stock Hub publishes a pre-market direction call (long or short) list, containing its highest confidence stocks, then it logs the performance by the end of day. Wins and losses both stay on the board, everything stay as visible and transparent. It also does the same on a weekly and monthly basis.

--

The model is powered by Claude Opus 4.8 which analyses WealthLearn's custom live database across these core market factors:

  • Global macro: rates, inflation prints, dollar strength, risk-on/risk-off tone
  • Sector and industry trend (relative strength vs the broad market)
  • Earnings: recent results, surprises, forward estimate revisions
  • Price action and momentum across multiple timeframes
  • Relative volume and participation
  • Volatility regime (expanding vs contracting)
  • Valuation context (where it sits vs its own range and peers)
  • Recent news headlines and catalyst flow
  • Market breadth and correlation to the index

--

Here is where it actually stands, not some make-believe stats;

It's running a 47% win rate...

... but a hit only counts as the stock closing in the direction it was called, regardless of how far it moved. 

I've attached a video example so you could see what I mean by this

Summary: June 22nd - Market Hour Change

  • LULU, Bearish, $111.38 → $105.43 (-5.34%)
  • MU, Bullish, $1196.21 → $1211.38 (+1.27%)
  • INSM, Bearish, $95.82 → $98.61 (+2.91%)
  • NKE, Bearish, → $43.19 (-3.20%)
  • SNDK, Bullish, $229.. → $2273.73 (-0.85%)
  • MSTR, Bearish, $116.21 → $109.46 (-5.81%)
  • COIN, Bearish, $164.94 → $164.84 (-0.06%)

TLDR: The model could still be net profitable even at a 20% win rate, as long as the losers are constrained in percentage and winners continue to be large gains.

The point of the project was never "trust the robot." It was to have a public, gradeable track record instead of cherry-picked wins. The board and the screener are fully free to look at to try out.

--

Curious what this sub thinks: when you judge a model like this, do you weight the win rate or the average size of the moves it catches? I keep going back and forth on the best way to sum it up.

Educational software and analytical tools, not financial advice.

u/person-person12 — 10 days ago

OTE + STDV TradingView Buy/Sell Indicator | 43.8% Win Rate | 1.5:1 R:R

I’ve been building a 1,000-plus-line Pine Script system for OTE and standard deviation traders who are tired of constantly redrawing Fibonacci levels and debating which swing or dealing range should be used.

The idea was to turn the entire process into one consistent indicator that can be tested across different instruments and timeframes without changing the underlying rules every time.

It combines automatically calculated OTE zones with VWAP-based standard deviation bands that expand and contract with current volatility.

It also uses the higher-timeframe PO3 candle to provide directional and structural context for the lower-timeframe setup. This allows the indicator to evaluate where price is trading within the broader accumulation, manipulation and distribution structure instead of treating every OTE retracement in isolation.

Once a valid setup forms, the indicator automatically displays:

• Directional bias
• Higher-timeframe PO3 candle (right side of current price)
• Accumulation, manipulation and distribution structure
• Equilibrium
• OTE high and low
• Entry zone
• Invalidation
• T1, T2 and T3 Take Profit Targets
• Stop Loss
• VWAP and sigma regions
• Current setup state
• Historical signal performance

The screenshots show NQ on the five-minute chart using one-hour higher-timeframe context.

Current sample:

• 13 total signals
• 12 completed
• 7 wins and 5 losses
• 58.3% win rate
• 1.53R average winner
• -1R average loser
• Approximately +5.7R across the completed signals

This is the fourth separate sample I’ve tested using the same rules.

Across the different samples so far, the system has remained between roughly a 50% and 65% win rate, with average winners ranging from 1.35R to 2.75R. Some ticker and timeframe combinations have exceeded 3R average winners.

The main purpose is not to claim that one Fibonacci anchor is objectively correct. It is to create a repeatable framework where the same higher-timeframe PO3, OTE, volatility, entry, invalidation and target logic can be tested consistently.

I’m also adding more detailed live MFE, MAE and signal-age tracking so each setup can be evaluated beyond simply whether it won or lost.

I’ve also built separate indicators for Bookmap-style order-flow overlays, volume profiles, inferred delta and other market-structure tools. This entire library has taken a ridiculous amount of time to research, code and test, especially with Pine’s limitations.

You can access the OTE + Standard Deviation indicator and the rest of the indicator library here: https://www.wealthlearn.ca/indicators

u/person-person12 — 12 days ago

I posted this free, open-source TradingView indicator for Opening Range + Session Windows + Volume Profile (1.4k+ boosts in TradingView Community)

Hey everyone, I wanted to share a free, open-source community indicator I published to the TradingView community, who have upvoted this project over 1,400 times since posting.

I set out to solve a clear problem while leveraging three distinct strategies/concepts:

  • Volume Profile
  • Session Killzones
  • Standard Deviations (Volume Z-Scores)
  • Opening Range breakouts

I found that these strategies shared a lot of overlap in their underlying concepts, so combining them into a custom indicator seemed like a great project to release publicly.

It includes visual context and plotting for each major kill zone and a distinct opening range, along with a bottom_right oscillator (table) designed to visualize the standard deviation volume relative to the active session. It fires signals in the form of labels when "volume surges", which is defined as three standard deviations or more from the relative session mean. It additionally includes a histogram for session volume profile and plots current session and previous session value lines to see where significant volume has been previously transacted.

The reason I combine all of these is quite simple:

• I use the 15-minute NY opening range as a clear reference point from which price can expand, reject, and/or diverge throughout the session.

• I treat the high-volume and low-volume nodes as potential price targets or reaction areas, since unusually concentrated volume can indicate significant market participation at those levels.

• I use the oscillator to measure buying and selling pressure before a signal is triggered, which helps me understand the volume context behind the setup.

• I then compare that pressure with key areas such as session highs and lows, volume nodes, and the opening range itself.

• The goal is to determine whether price is approaching an important level with enough participation to support a breakout, rejection, continuation, or reversal.

• The HUD brings everything tgether in one place by showing the current market state, trend, opening-range position, chop conditions, magnet bias, key profile levels, and buy/sell impulse counts without needing to interpret each component separately.

• Combined, the opening range provides structure, the volume profile identifies likely areas of interest, and the oscillator helps confirm whether the price action around those levels has meaningful participation behind it.

Once again, this is a fully open source project, so feel free to provide comments, feedback, or any questions regarding the source code itself, along with suggestions for either this specific indicator or a future public project. Feel free to access my profile to see other work as well.

u/person-person12 — 12 days ago

OTE+STDV - Buy/Sell Indicator (~60% Win-Rate 1.5R:R, Backtested) [5m, Multi-Ticker]

This 1000+ plus-line system is built for OTE and standard deviation traders who are tired of arguing over which Fibonacci levels, anchors and deviations to use and want a complete system packaged into one indicator.

It works across multiple timeframes and instruments, automatically generates the full setup and provides:

• Direction
• Entry zone
• Invalidation
• T1, T2 and T3 take profit targets
• Higher-timeframe context
• Live signal tracking
• Historical performance tracking

The screenshot is NQ on the five-minute chart using one-hour higher-timeframe context.

Current sample:
• 13 total signals
• 12 completed
• 7 wins / 5 losses
• 58.3% win rate
• 1.53R average winner
• -1R average loser
• Approximately +0.48R expectancy per completed signal

This is the fourth separate sample I’ve tested. Across all four, the system has consistently fallen within:

• 50% to 65% win rate
• 1.35R to 2.75R average winner
• Several timeframe and ticker combinations exceeding 3R average winners

The purpose is not to claim that one Fibonacci level is objectively correct. The system creates a consistent framework so the same rules can be tested across different instruments and timeframes without manually redrawing or interpreting every setup.

I’m still expanding the live MFE, MAE and signal-age tracking, but the core system and performance engine are functioning.

Try it today and many more at https://www.wealthlearn.ca/indicators

Not financial advice, designed for analysis purposes. Make your own decisions responsibly.

u/person-person12 — 13 days ago

“Trading Bot is Actually Working!!!”….

To anyone with legitimate experience in development, you'll understand why it's so infuriating to see the countless posts in the subreddit claiming to have “profitable bots” and, “profitable backtests” with some type of course or Whop as a funnel from that same post.

I wanna preface this by stating I'm not generalizing this community as I actively read through and enjoy many of the posts in this subreddit, but across the entirety of the trading industry, there has been a major influx in LARPs who pretend to be these high-level quantitative developers who likely have not advanced past any high school education.

AI coding tools have made development extremely efficient at the professional level, but it has also came with its downsides, as with accessible building becomes low barrier to entry. And with low barriers to entry becomes people rushing to the scene to make money by any means necessary. Once again, this does not apply to all developers or even the majority out there. However, there is an undeniable trend of people lately who are somehow “senior quantitative developers” with the experience required to releasing systems that either connect to live capital.

My problem with this is not people building. I am in full support of creative freedom and trying to learn new things, but what I am deliberately against is people releasing financial products that are either completely against legal regulations, have no understanding of in terms of code or system architecture, and/or are simply looking to make quick money with using naive people and scummy Reddit marketing.

Now on to the more important point. In the event that you purchase one of these bots, or even consider making and selling one yourself, please, for the love of God, STOP creating/using systems that give AI discretionary trading capabilities. This is explicitly warned against by effectively every AI provider, including OpenAI.

The unfortunate reality is that many people are lazy and love to hear buzzwords online that insinuate an AI agent is capable of doing all of the work hands-free on their behalf which is why so many of these posts show up, But nonetheless, it is dangerous and can easily lead to losses when hallucinations, data fidelity, reconciliation, or other similar issues arise.

For clarity, I'm making this post because I can't even open Reddit anymore without seeing another fake SEO claim funneling to a repackaged AI-Slop generated course PDF on whop. If anybody would like to see my personal credentials and background in development, then please feel free to reach out. I'd also like to note that my company literally owns a deterministic style agent capable of producing user-approved strategy rules for automation, (so to not be AI discretionary), but I genuinely refuse to name it in this post because I want it to be sincere in highlighting a major issue and not be promotional.

reddit.com
u/person-person12 — 13 days ago