Hey {{first_name | there}},

I spent the last few months testing every AI coding tool I could find. Forty-three of them, to be exact. 

Everything from Google’s new free agentic IDE to mobile app builders that work from text prompts.

Here’s the thing: most of them are remarkably similar under the hood. Same models, slightly different interfaces. 

But a handful are genuinely different in how they approach the problem.

Those are the ones worth knowing about.

Here’s my guide to what actually works.

Speaking of tools and cost, there's been some interesting movement in the AI coding space this week that directly impacts your wallet.

Claude Code costs up to $200 a month. A new tool Goose, does the same thing for free.

Block released Goose as an open-source AI coding agent that runs locally. Same capabilities as Claude Code, terminal access, context awareness, multi-file editing. 

Zero subscription fee. You bring your own API keys, use whatever model you want.

The catch? You need to manage it yourself. 

But in my opinion, if you're already paying $200/month for Claude Code and hitting usage limits, that trade-off is looking pretty good.

What this actually means: When free alternatives match paid features, pricing power evaporates. Expect aggressive responses from Anthropic and others.

On one side we’re getting all these new amazing AI tools, and on the other AI hiring tools are now facing a lawsuit over FCRA compliance in the Eightfold case.

The issue: AI tools that screen job candidates might be creating "consumer reports" under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. It’s a US law that regulates how information is collected and used to make decisions about people.

Most AI hiring platforms didn't build with this in mind. They're selling "productivity tools" and "candidate ranking," not "consumer reports." But if courts say the output functions like a background check, the entire category needs compliance overhauls.

If true, they need to follow the same rules as background check companies, accuracy requirements, dispute resolution, candidate disclosure.

Why you should care: If you're building AI tools that make decisions about people like hiring, lending, insurance, whatever, this case is setting precedent. The "it's just an AI assistant" defense might not hold up. Plan accordingly.

Meanwhile, Humans, a three-month-old AI startup founded by former researchers from Anthropic, Google, and xAI, just raised $480 million in their seed round at a $4.5 billion valuation.

Their pitch?
"AI that empowers people, not replaces them."

Here's what's interesting: They're backed by Nvidia, Google Ventures, and Jeff Bezos. That's not just money, that's compute power, cloud infrastructure, and retail distribution in one cap table.

But the real story is the valuation. $4.5 billion pre-product, in a market where AI startups are supposed to be struggling with funding. 

Someone believes the "human-centric AI" positioning is worth betting big on.

My take: This either signals a new wave of AI companies focused on augmentation over replacement, or it's the last gasp of seed-stage mega-rounds before reality sets in. Watch what they actually ship.

The AI coding tool market is bifurcating. Premium tools need to justify their pricing against capable free alternatives. The answer will be either exclusive model access, enterprise features, or integrated workflows that free tools can't match.

Meanwhile, funding is still flowing to AI startups with the right story and team. But only at the extremes, mega-rounds for frontier labs, modest seed rounds for focused tools. The middle is getting squeezed.

And regulation is coming faster than most founders expected. If your AI makes decisions about people, you need a compliance strategy, not just a product roadmap.

The tools are here. The money is moving. The rules are forming. You can either react after everyone else has figured it out, or you can move now while there's still advantage to be had.

Your call.

- Aashish