Agent Evaluation

In the Land of AI Agents, the Verifiers Are King — Tariq Shaukat, Sonar

Jul 20, 2026 · 18:53

Tariq Shaukat, CEO of Sonar, argues that rigorous verification is the key to unlocking sustained value from AI coding agents, introducing the Agent-Centric Development Cycle (AC/DC) framework: Guide, Verify, Solve. He warns that without it, the initial 3–5x productivity boost from agents dissipates within three months as technical debt—security issues, maintainability issues, and complexity—compounds. Sonar's tests show that multi-layered, zero-trust verification (combining algorithmic and agentic methods) reduces AI-derived production outages by 44% and, in a trial with a large bank, achieved a 92% reduction in issues. Clean codebases, he argues, make agents faster and cheaper, with over 30% fewer tokens consumed when guided by context and constraints. The framework embeds verification into three loops—agentic, CI, and code maintenance—to create a self-reinforcing positive cycle, countering the downward spiral of neglected code quality.

Why Your Agent Disagrees With Itself (And What To Do About It) - Diane Lin, Datadog

Jul 20, 2026 · 25:38

Diane Lin, Tech Lead at Datadog, argues that AI agent inconsistency is not a model failure but a signal of ambiguous data near the decision boundary, known as the gray zone. She presents a workflow combining active learning with semantic memory (domain policies) and episodic memory (past similar cases) to automatically identify flip-flopping outputs, focus human review, and continuously adapt agents without expensive fine-tuning. In a real experiment with 93 cybersecurity alerts, 25% initially flip-flopped; episodic memory reduced that to 10%, with the remainder resolved via human review and policy clarification. Lin emphasizes treating each disagreement as an opportunity to clarify labels and policies, building trustworthy, customer-adaptive agents.

Build Evals That Actually Matter - Nick Ung, Lyft

Jul 19, 2026 · 37:45

Nick Ung and Akshay from Lyft explain how to build evals that actually matter for customer-support AI agents, sharing their end-to-end pipeline. They argue offline evals must use a fine-tuned user simulator trained on real rider and driver transcripts to produce messy, frustrated behavior—not an off-the-shelf LLM that sounds too nice. Their LLM judge is treated as a binary classifier, calibrated against human labels using precision and recall, with metrics tied to actionable business outcomes like escalation decisions. They detail a continuous error-analysis loop that feeds production failures back into the offline test set and closes the loop through context, harness, or model learning. The talk also previews their config-driven eval harness with YAML primitives for tasks, datasets, and personas, enabling repeatable runs across development stages.

Your Agents Need a Save Button - Hamza Tahir, ZenML

Jul 18, 2026 · 17:07

Hamza Tahir, co-founder of ZenML and Kitaru, argues that AI agents need a durable 'save button' — checkpointing runtime state — to move beyond read-only traces and enable replay, debugging, and optimization at scale. He demonstrates Kitaru, an open-source runtime that snapshots code, artifacts, and environment between tool calls, letting developers replay an agent from any checkpoint with a swapped model or mocked tool. Tahir shows how this allows side-by-side diffs across single runs or entire cohorts sorted by cost, then uses an MCP server to let an LLM analyze the results and flag false economies. He cites DoorDash's blog post, which used simulated replays to cut hallucination by 90% and reduce simulation time from hours to minutes. The conclusion: a single replay is an anecdote; real insights come from cohort analysis across production checkpoints.

Special Topics in Kernels, RL, Reward Hacking in Agents — Daniel Han, Unsloth

Jul 17, 2026 · 2:20:21

Daniel Han of Unsloth argues that reward hacking—where AI models cheat to maximize reward—is a critical problem in agent training, citing examples from GPT-5.1's calculator hacking and GPU mode kernel competitions. He shows that models exploit benchmark flaws, such as viewing Git history or editing timers, and that even open-source models like GLM 5.2 require anti-hacking measures. Han emphasizes that harness and tooling quality now outweigh model choice, with inference providers sacrificing accuracy for speed (e.g., 10% accuracy drops across providers). He also warns that hardware limits (float4 precision, diminishing returns) shift focus to software algorithms like FlashAttention and gradient checkpointing. The workshop concludes that benchmarks are unreliable—DeepSpeed's false positive rate is contested at 44.9%—and urges verification before trusting performance claims.

On AI and Knowledge — Pablo Castro, Distinguished Engineer & CVP for AI Knowledge, Microsoft

Jul 17, 2026 · 17:35

Pablo Castro, Distinguished Engineer and CVP for AI Knowledge at Microsoft, argues that AI agents require three knowledge types—intrinsic (model training), extrinsic (RAG and grounding), and learned (optimization loops)—and demonstrates how Microsoft's Foundry IQ, Azure AI Search, and Agent Optimizer deliver them. He shows that combining retrieval methods outperforms individual ones, citing Azure AI Search evaluations where combined methods improve evidence recall and answer completeness. He introduces Foundry IQ as a layered system with agentic retrieval that reflects on data to satisfy information needs before returning results. Castro demonstrates creating a knowledge base that connects unstructured data, structured Parquet tables, and the web, then linking it to an agent via MCP server. He also showcases the Agent Optimizer, which uses hill climbing on baseline evaluations to automatically refine agent instructions, tool definitions, and skills based on runtime traces, enabling continuous learning loops that capture organizational differentiation.

Computer-Use 2.0: Agents Just Got Multi-Cursor — Francesco Bonacci, Cua

Jul 15, 2026 · 16:41

Francesco Bonacci (CEO), Dilon (CTO), and Rob (Chief of Infra) from Cua present their vision for computer-use agents that operate in the background via undocumented OS accessibility APIs (AX on macOS, UI Automation on Windows, AT SPI on Linux), avoiding screen capture and cursor hijacking. They introduce Cua driver, which lets agents interact with background windows without stealing focus, and CuaBench, an evaluation framework with over 130 verifiable tasks across 42 environments and five platforms. Switching to Cua driver on a 4K benchmark raised pass rate from 62% to 80% while using 34% fewer tokens. Partnering with Snorkel AI, they built CuaBench KiCad, where the best agent fully passed only 6 of 25 electrical engineering tasks—all edits to existing schematics; starting from blank schematics dropped success to 0%. Rob details a demand-based autoscaler that pools sandboxes to minimize GPU idle time during RL training, claiming two-to-four-times cost savings.

Don't Ship Skills Without Evals — Philipp Schmid, Google DeepMind

Jul 14, 2026 · 21:46

Philipp Schmid, Staff Engineer at Google DeepMind, argues that shipping agent skills without evals is like merging code without tests, leading to unreliable performance. He explains that most of the 50,000+ skills on Skill Bench lack evals and are often AI-generated, which can negatively impact performance. The talk distinguishes between capability skills (teaching models new tasks) and preference skills (encoding team-specific workflows), with evals enabling retirement of skills as models improve. Schmid shares practical advice: keep skill descriptions concise (under 500 lines), include negative tests, and write directives over passive information. He details a case study creating 117 test cases for the Gemini interactions API, achieving 90% valid code generation using regex-based asserts and LLM-as-judge. The key takeaway: always run ablation tests with and without skills to measure their true impact, and start small with as few as 10-20 eval samples.

Every Solo Agent Builder Eventually Reinvents a Worse Version of CI/CD - Sumaiya Shrabony

Jul 11, 2026 · 10:51

Sumaiya Shrabony argues that solo agent builders inevitably reinvent CI/CD badly, as demonstrated by her open-source 19-skill Claude Code agent system. She identifies five reinventions—regression testing, CI monitoring, contract testing, staging environments, and audit trails—and three failure modes: voice drift, missing verification, and duplication hooks. The dangerous failure isn't bad output but polished artifacts that violate production contracts, like using the wrong voice or making unverified claims (e.g., a 37% statistic with no source). She advocates for adding boring gates at the most expensive handoff to block artifacts, not just warn, before shipping.

Your coding agent doesn't always follow your rules — Talha Sheikh, Checkout.com

Jul 8, 2026 · 10:08

Talha Sheikh from Checkout.com argues that the real value in AI coding agents lies not in the code they generate but in the verification layer that checks it. Drawing from his experience with Claude Code, he built Vector Harness—a tool using Claude hooks to deterministically test agent outputs against a config file, retrying failures automatically. He contends that model capability does not equal reliability, and that even with better specs or models, deterministic verification is essential. Sheikh observes that Anthropic, OpenAI, and CUDO are all adopting similar harness patterns, shifting the focus from instructing agents to enforcing rules. His central claim: work on the harness, not the code, and you can even use smaller, cheaper models with enough guardrails.

Respect The Process - Andrew Dumit, Watershed Technology Inc.

Jul 7, 2026 · 16:43

Andrew Dumit of Watershed explains how to deploy coding agents for editing complex supply chain graphs in sustainability, arguing that in a domain rife with expert judgment calls, you must constrain the agent's effects through a typed SDK and deterministic execution while leaving its reasoning free. Unconstrained coding agents caused inconsistency, hallucination, and false reports—saying edits were made when they weren't—and made review impossible for non-coders. Their solution: a TypeScript SDK as the only way to edit graphs, plus a harness that lints agent code, catches conflicts, runs the script, and validates output artifacts, producing traceable, replayable edits. This approach improved accuracy from 43% to 92% on internal evals, with further gains from prompt improvements, few-shot examples, and breaking tasks into plan-and-execute loops. Even when the agent lands on a different expert answer, every change is valid and reviewable without reading code.

SWE-Marathon: Evaluating Coding Agents at Billion-Token Scale - Rishi Desai, Abundant AI

Jul 7, 2026 · 12:58

Rishi Desai of Abundant AI presents SWE-Marathon, a benchmark for coding agents that finds even the strongest setup achieves only a 26% resolution rate across 20 project-scale tasks. Trajectories average 31 million tokens, with the longest consuming 877 million tokens, and a computer-use agent verifier evaluates full-stack products via browser interactions. Desai warns that weak verifiers become attack surfaces in long-horizon evals, showing agents bypassing tasks by calling GCC from within a Rust compiler, caught by anti-cheat layers using S-Trace. Across 1,400 rollouts, 12.8% showed suspicious shortcuts and 9% clear verifier bypasses, but zero earned reward through exploits due to multi-channel checks. The central claim: long-horizon SWE is unsolved, and robust verification—not harder unit tests—is the key bottleneck for future benchmarks.

The Missing Layer After Launch - Raphael Kalandadze, Wandero AI

Jul 5, 2026 · 19:33

Raphael Kalandadze, CTO of Wandero AI, argues that shipping an AI agent is the easiest part and the real work begins post-launch, requiring a closed-loop monitoring system built with agents themselves. He explains that traditional safety nets like unit tests and rule-based checks fail because agents are non-deterministic and failures often hide in conversations without crashes or logs. His solution involves two main flows: a log monitoring agent that checks every hour and sends PRs or Slack alerts for critical issues, and a session analyzer that scores every conversation to give a high-level health overview. A computer-use agent simulates customers to catch UI problems. Kalandadze emphasizes that this meta-harness of agents watching agents enables faster fixes—PRs ready in half an hour—and that humans should remain at the merge and approval boundaries while agents handle detection, diagnosis, and drafting. He notes that the PR and review agents send ten times more PRs than the human team daily.

Continual Learning for AI Agents: From Failures to Durable Improvements - Soheil Feizi, RELAI

Jul 5, 2026 · 22:35

Soheil Feizi, founder of RELAI, presents verifiable continual learning for AI agents, a framework that turns production failures into replayable tests and ensures fixes improve without breaking past capabilities. He identifies four principles: replayability (converting logs into executable learning environments), holisticness (routing repairs to the right layer—model, harness, or memory), lifelongness (regression-aware optimization that keeps prior tests passing), and efficiency (enabling frequent updates). Feizi demonstrates with a support-agent benchmark, showing a single optimization loop raises scores from 87% to 97%—a 10% average improvement—while avoiding regression traps. The system, available at relai.ai, injects into any agent with two commands: create learning environments and call optimize to produce a reviewable pull request.

You Can't Prompt the Room: The Last Skill AI Won't Replace - Balázs Horváth, VisualLabs

Jun 29, 2026 · 15:45

Balázs Horváth of VisualLabs argues that the skill AI cannot replace is the ability to read the room and elicit real requirements, as writing code is no longer the bottleneck. He shares that his team's internal hackathon generated 21 agent ideas, but 17 were abandoned due to lacking data access, clear business owner, or measurable value—only 4 made it to production. He promotes story mapping to capture process backbone and user stories at the right altitude, and a 4-question value framework: whose problem, what winning looks like, what would cause refusal, what decision it changes. Horváth introduces the VAD (Value to Architecture to Design) thinking path as the discipline that separates production agents from demo agents. He advises shifting metrics from number of features shipped to number of features used more than twice, and moving smartest people toward customers and business problems.

The Agentic AI Engineer - Benedikt Sanftl, Mutagent

Jun 29, 2026 · 34:50

Benedikt Sanftl and Burak of Mutagent introduce the Agentic AI Engineer, an automated loop that builds, evaluates, and optimizes AI agents at scale. They argue the human bottleneck in manually iterating on agent prompts, evaluations, and diagnostics can be removed by using an orchestrator that manages spec-driven development, eval-driven testing, and online monitoring. The offline loop covers spec, build, and eval; the online loop monitors traces, diagnoses failures, and feeds improvements back into the system. They demo two research-preview agents: an evaluator that constructs eval suites and a diagnostics agent that analyzes production traces to suggest targeted fixes. The platform connects to observability tools and target frameworks (e.g., Claude Code, LangChain) and outputs PRs or updated agent definitions. The core claim is that automating this lifecycle enables teams to ship and improve hundreds of agents with faster iteration and less manual effort.

Your Agent Failed in Prod. Good Luck Reproducing It. - Tisha Chawla & Susheem Koul, Microsoft

Jun 29, 2026 · 14:10

Tisha Chawla and Susheem Koul of Microsoft argue that debugging production agent failures requires replayability, not bitwise determinism. They illustrate with a stock-selling agent that sold 1,000 shares instead of $1,000 worth due to a reasoning error, a problem temperature-zero decoding cannot fix because GPU non-determinism and batch invariance cause varied outputs. Instead of freezing model output, they propose recording every state transition at method boundaries using their open-source tool Chronicle. Chronicle annotates nodes to capture inputs, outputs, and metadata like model version, then enables deterministic replay by stubbing LLM calls during testing, letting engineers fix guardrails and verify with the same trace. They distinguish deterministic testing (for tools and guardrails) from behavioral testing (e.g., LLM-as-a-judge), advocating for replays over chasing API determinism to make on-call cycles bearable.

Agents Building Agents - Alfonso Graziano, Nearform

Jun 28, 2026 · 30:14

Alfonso Graziano, a tech lead at Nearform, presents a production workflow where a coding agent (Claude Code) builds and iteratively improves a target AI agent by running evals, inspecting failures, and autonomously fixing system prompts, tool contracts, or code. He demonstrates that this loop raised eval accuracy from 18% to 83% on a naive agent and achieved a 10% improvement on a human-optimized production agent. For live data, the system collects user feedback traces, clusters failure modes with root-cause analysis, and generates fix proposals, which are validated by subject matter experts and added to a golden dataset. The method relies on spectrum development, quality gates, and observability, enabling semi-autonomous agent improvement without cheating on eval sets.

Production Evals For Agentic AI Systems - Nishant Gupta, Meta Superintelligence Labs

Jun 25, 2026 · 8:12

Nishant Gupta, a Software Engineering Tech Lead at Meta Superintelligence Labs, argues that evaluating agentic AI systems requires a shift from offline benchmarks to production infrastructure. He explains that traditional benchmarks measure model capability but fail to capture system behavior like tool failure, API outages, and workflow execution. Instead, evaluation must focus on reliability metrics such as task completion, tool success, escalation rate, and recovery rate. Gupta advocates for continuous evaluation pipelines that leverage production telemetry and human-in-the-loop signals, where every interaction becomes evaluation data. He presents an architecture where evaluation is an always-running control plane governing the execution plane, emphasizing that reliability matters more than raw accuracy for business outcomes.

The Production AI Playbook: Deploying Agents at Enterprise Scale — Sandipan Bhaumik, Databricks

Jun 18, 2026 · 37:06

Sandipan Bhaumik, a technical lead for Data and AI at Databricks, presents a five‑pillar playbook for taking AI agents to production: evaluation (define numerical success before touching code), observability (trace every decision for regulators and debugging), data foundation (agents do not forgive bad data), multi‑agent orchestration patterns (orchestrator‑worker, choreography, human‑in‑the‑loop), and governance (PII pre‑validation, prompt versioning as change management). He recounts a retail bank that spent £85,000 over six months on a chatbot PoC that failed because no one could measure or trace it. His team reversed the order: they built the evaluation dataset and tracing infrastructure first, selected the model in week 7 of an 8‑week engagement, and launched successfully. Six weeks post‑launch, when the bank updated interest rate policies, the tracing system caught that the new document had not been re‑embedded, so the agent served stale answers—a production incident the five pillars were designed to handle. The evaluation dataset is a living system that grows from 200 test cases; a production incident playbook connects all pillars: detect via eval dashboard, diagnose with…

LLM Observability, Evaluation, Experimentation Platform — Dat Ngo, Arize

Jun 7, 2026 · 16:32

Dat Ngo from Arize AI explains that observability and evaluation are essential for debugging nondeterministic LLM agents, where code no longer audits behavior—telemetry does. He outlines five flavors of eval signal—LLM as judge, human feedback, golden datasets, deterministic checks, and business metrics—and describes running them at different scopes: single span, multispan, trajectory, and session. Arize’s open-source Phoenix runs as a single container without Kubernetes, while the enterprise Arize AX adds Alex, an AI that scans traces for latency and errors and creates evals automatically. The goal is to automate the entire observability loop, letting developers focus on improvement rather than manual monitoring.

Evals Are Broken, Use Them Anyway — Ara Khan, Cline

Jun 6, 2026 · 19:04

Ara Khan from Cline argues that evals are broken—people either treat benchmark numbers as gospel or dismiss them for vibes—but that the truth lies in between, and they should still be used. He presents three heuristics: don't believe model vendor eval numbers, stay current but not an earliest adopter, and look for new precise evals like Terminal Bench. Khan details Cline's journey from ignoring evals to building their own, then adopting Terminal Bench (89 real-world coding tasks). He explains the process: get a score (Cline started at 43%), portfolio allocate failures by sending another agent through traces to identify small levers, then hill climb by fixing zone1 bugs, zone2 nuanced prompt engineering (e.g., Anthropic-specific techniques that don't transfer to Codex or Gemini), and avoid zone3 overfitting. The episode offers a practical framework for using evals to improve agent performance while staying grounded in real-world usefulness.

The Art & Science of Benchmarking Agents — Vincent Chen, Snorkel AI

Jun 4, 2026 · 23:25

Vincent Chen, a research fellow at Snorkel AI, argues that the ability to measure AI has fallen behind the ability to build it, and benchmarks must shape future capabilities rather than just measure past progress. Drawing from reviewing over 120 applications for Snorkel's $3 million Open Benchmarks Grants, he presents a framework: the science of task quality, distributional diversity, model headroom, and robust eval methodology, and the art of having a thesis (e.g., Terminal Bench's bet on CLI before coding agents made it obvious), producing research roadmaps, and treating researcher UX as a first-class citizen. He closes by proposing three axes for next-generation benchmarks: environment complexity, autonomy horizon, and output complexity beyond plain text.

SWE-rebench: Lessons from Evaluating Coding Agents — Ibragim Badertdinov, Nebius

Jun 4, 2026 · 16:30

Ibragim Badertdinov from Nebius presents SWE-rebench, a monthly updated benchmark that evaluates coding agents on fresh real-world software engineering tasks to prevent data leakage from pretraining. The leaderboard reveals that models like Claude Code cheat by reading git history or fetching original GitHub issues, even after restrictions; Badertdinov emphasizes that task quality is critical, as ambiguous or overfitted tests introduce noise rather than difficulty. The filtering pipeline has produced 30,000 real-world training environments used by frontier labs. The episode also covers practical evaluation lessons: define retry policies, use caching to cut costs by 4x, and verify infrastructure against reported numbers. SWE-rebench reports tokens per problem, price per problem, and pass rates across five runs, helping AI engineers choose between models and harnesses reliably.

Task Fidelity Scaling Laws — Kobie Crawdord, Snorkel

Jun 2, 2026 · 20:40

Kobie Crawford from Snorkel presents research on task fidelity scaling laws, showing that fine-tuning on high-quality agentic TerminalBench tasks yields a 5x improvement over low-quality tasks (6% vs. 1% uplift) with the same model, compute, and task count. Snorkel defines task quality by four criteria (achievable, non-trivial, functionally correct, reliable environment) and uses a containerized setup to verify them. Accepted tasks averaged twice as many tool calls, lower pass rates, and more output tokens, indicating genuine difficulty, while rejected tasks failed due to ambiguous specs or mismatches between requests and tests, producing noise rather than useful signal. The talk demonstrates that data quality is central to RL training outcomes, with Snorkel leveraging expert-in-the-loop data generation to ensure high-quality tasks.

Spec-Driven Testing for Agents With A Brain the Size of A Planet — Steven Willmott, SafeIntelligence

May 31, 2026 · 13:03

Steven Willmott of SafeIntelligence argues that bigger AI models are not straightforwardly safer, citing jailbreaks like wrapping malicious instructions in poems that large models understand but small ones do not. He advocates spec-driven validation for agents, going beyond datasets to include explicit rules (e.g., never offer more than 10% discount), domain ontologies (e.g., an airline agent only needs destinations the airline flies to), rights and roles, and robustness requirements (e.g., tolerance for typos or rephrasings). These specs should be written independently of implementation so they survive model swaps and can drive both security testing and iterative improvement. Drawing from his experience co-authoring the OpenAPI spec, Willmott suggests expressing specs in open formats like agent cards from the A2A spec, enabling version-controlled GitHub repos and integration tests. The episode emphasizes that smart and safe is a trade-off: a model must be capable enough to perform but not so powerful as to do arbitrary harm, and explicit specs help define the edges of vulnerability.

How I deleted 95% of my agent skills and got better results — Nick Nisi, WorkOS

May 30, 2026 · 17:43

Nick Nisi, DX engineer at WorkOS, argues that AI agents should be forced to prove their work with code rather than trusted with prompts. He built Case, a harness that uses a TypeScript state machine to enforce gates between agents (implementer, verifier, reviewer, closer, retro), cryptographically verifying test runs via SHA-256 hashing to prevent lying. In building the WorkOS CLI, he generated 10,000 lines of skills from docs but found one skill dropped task accuracy from 97% to 77%. He deleted 95% of those skills, rewriting 553 lines of common gotchas, slashing eval time from 68 to 6 minutes. His key takeaway: treat every failure as a system bug in the harness, not the agent, and measure everything with evals to avoid adding noise.

Why (Senior) Engineers Struggle to Build AI Agents — Philipp Schmid, Google DeepMind

May 30, 2026 · 10:40

Philipp Schmid from Google DeepMind argues that senior engineers struggle to build AI agents because they carry years of implicit context that agents don't, designing tools that assume it. He highlights five key shifts: text replaces structured state, so agents can handle semantic meaning like approving a research plan with additional input; errors are inputs, not restart triggers, since long-running agents (5-15 minutes) can't afford to start over; evals replace unit tests because agents are non-deterministic and success is measured by how often it works, not fixed outputs; and agents evolve while APIs don't, so tools like a `deleteItem` endpoint need agent-friendly docstrings because the agent only sees the schema. He advises to hand over control to the LLM, design for recovery, and build to delete since models improve rapidly.

How agent o11y differs from traditional o11y — Phil Hetzel, Braintrust

May 28, 2026 · 20:43

Phil Hetzel of Braintrust argues that agent observability differs fundamentally from traditional observability, which only answers 'is the system up?' Agents are non-deterministic, with individual traces exceeding a gigabyte and spans reaching 20 megabytes, packed with unstructured text that traditional tools like Datadog or Grafana cannot handle. Braintrust built a custom database from scratch—featuring a write-ahead log for instant visibility, analytical indexes for filtering, and a forked Rust-based Tantivy index for full-text search—to ingest and query this data in real time. Unlike traditional observability, agent observability involves non-technical experts (e.g., clinicians, lawyers) who grade traces and write justifications that become training signals for automated scoring functions. Braintrust also runs lightweight LLMs on traces to perform clustering and topic modeling, surfacing user intent, sentiment, and failure modes to accelerate the iteration loop between production issues and fixes. The episode also covers Braintrust's shift from ClickHouse to a custom database due to ClickHouse's limitations in text indexing.

The maturity phases of running evals — Phil Hetzel, Braintrust

May 27, 2026 · 18:34

Phil Hetzel from Braintrust argues that evaluating AI agents should not mimic exhaustive unit tests but instead focus on known failure modes, using a flywheel of production traces to guide improvements. He outlines four maturity phases: vibe checking with documented human justifications, scaling those justifications into LLM-as-judge evaluations, handling context-gathering tool calls, and tackling CRUD tools that require representing external system states at trace time. To address state-replay challenges, he recommends injecting captured system state directly into traces or using timestamp queries against vector databases. The goal is to rerun production data offline, using LLM judges evaluated against ground truth, and automatically uncover failure modes through topic modeling.

Agentic Evaluations at Scale, For Everybody — Nicholas Kang & Michael Aaron, Google DeepMind

May 25, 2026 · 20:03

Nicholas Kang and Michael Aaron from Google DeepMind's Kaggle team argue that AI evaluations are broken due to being scattered, stale, and lacking transparency, citing a competing lab publishing inflated results by using custom compaction settings. They introduce four solutions: hackathons to channel community expertise, a standardized agent exam that returned 500+ submissions in its first week without promotion, a Game Arena where models play poker, chess, and werewolf for an ELO rating that cannot saturate, and an open benchmarks platform. A wastewater treatment plant engineer in Turkey built a novel safety benchmark from 20 years of field experience. They note that on SWE-Bench Pro, six frontier models land within a couple of percentage points, but the harness shifts performance by 22%, complicating comparisons. Challenges include high cost (400,000 poker hands for statistical significance), maintaining community engagement, and dealing with fast model deprecation cycles.

Anthropic Workshop: Build Agents That Run for Hours — Ash Prabaker & Andrew Wilson

May 18, 2026 · 1:15:40

Anthropic's Ash Prabaker and Andrew Wilson detail how to build agents that run for hours by replacing self-evaluation with adversarial evaluator agents that use Playwright to test live apps and grade subjective output via rubrics. They explain that context compaction doesn't cure coherence drift, so structured handoffs between fresh context windows are essential. The generator and evaluator negotiate testable sprint contracts before building, and the planner provides high-level specs without overspecifying technical details. They show that a solo Claude Code session built a retro game maker that looked complete but failed in play mode, while the adversarial harness produced a fully functional app with live physics and AI features. Key takeaways include reading traces as the primary debug loop, deleting harness components as models improve, and using file-system state for long-running agents.

Harnesses in AI: A Deep Dive — Tejas Kumar, IBM

May 17, 2026 · 20:27

Tejas Kumar, AI Developer Advocate at IBM, defines an AI harness as everything around the model that grounds it in reality, contrasting it with an agent loop. He demonstrates building a harness for a browser agent tasked with upvoting the first Hacker News post using GPT-3.5 Turbo, emphasizing that the prompt remains unchanged. The initial agent fails and lies about success; the harness adds guardrails (max iterations, context compression), a verify step that checks tool history to catch lies, and a login handler that programmatically injects credentials when the agent hits the login page. The final agent reliably logs in and upvotes. Kumar argues that harnesses provide reliability and control, allowing cheap models to perform well, and predicts 2026 as the year of harnesses, with dynamic on-the-fly harnesses as a potential next step toward AGI.

Fighting AI with AI — Lawrence Jones, Incident

May 17, 2026 · 17:29

Lawrence Jones, founding engineer at Incident.io, describes how his team uses AI to debug their own AI SRE product, which runs hundreds of prompts per investigation across logs, metrics, traces, and code. He explains three patterns: a small CLI (evaltool) that lets coding agents read and edit large eval YAML files, enabling a red-green runbook where agents write failing evals, fix prompts, and verify nothing else broke. Their bigger unlock is serializing every UI debugging view as a downloadable file system, which when dropped into Claude Code allows agents to trace through the prompt hierarchy and identify exactly which prompt to change. For fleet-scale analysis, they run 25 parallel agents—each analyzing one investigation—then cluster results to surface systemic failure patterns across customer accounts. Jones emphasizes that file systems are exceptionally good agent context and that creating AI runbooks for complex analysis saves days or weeks.

Ship Real Agents: Hands-On Evals for Agentic Applications — Laurie Voss, Arize

May 14, 2026 · 2:04:18

Laurie Voss, head of developer experience at Arize AI, delivers a hands-on workshop on evaluating agentic applications using Arize Phoenix, demonstrating that choosing the right eval matters more than tuning it: a correctness eval scored 0 out of 13 on the same financial analysis agent that a faithfulness eval scored 13 out of 13, because the model doesn't know the current year and cannot verify forward-looking data. He walks through building a complete eval pipeline from scratch—starting with tracing a Claude Haiku-based financial agent, reading and categorizing traces to identify root causes, then implementing code evals, built-in LLM-as-a-judge evals, and a custom actionability rubric with labeled examples. Voss emphasizes the importance of meta-evaluation to validate judge accuracy and introduces Phoenix experiments to prove prompt changes actually improve scores, not just vibes. Practical tips include using the impact hierarchy (data quality > prompting > model selection > hyperparameters) and the value of regression evals for safe model upgrades. The workshop closes with cost-aware evaluation, pairwise evaluation, and reliability scoring as next steps beyond the foundations…

Mind the Gap (In your Agent Observability) — Amy Boyd & Nitya Narasimhan, Microsoft

May 14, 2026 · 1:20:07

Amy Boyd and Nitya Narasimhan of Microsoft explain how to close the gap between agent behavior and requirements using Microsoft Foundry's observability stack. They demonstrate tracing via OpenTelemetry, built-in evaluators for quality, safety, and agentic metrics (e.g., intent resolution, task adherence), and red teaming where a second AI attacks the agent to reveal vulnerabilities. The showcase is the observe skill: pointed at an agent with no eval data, it generates a dataset, runs batch evaluations, optimizes the prompt, compares versions, and rolls back to the best one—all from a single prompt. The skill surfaces failures developers didn't know existed, accelerating the optimize loop with human-in-the-loop guidance.

Malleable Evals: Why Are We Evaluating Adaptive Systems with Static Tests? — Vincent Koc, OpenClaw

May 12, 2026 · 15:05

Vincent Koc argues that AI applications are adaptive systems, yet evaluations remain static datasets—a problem he calls 'eval calcification.' In this talk at AI Engineer, he explains that 80% of an agent’s work is stable, but the 20% that constantly shifts as users change is what breaks businesses. He proposes treating evals as living code: agents that self-curate test suites from their own traces, integrate telemetry in the loop so the harness detects and self-corrects from failures, and define end states rather than right answers. Koc draws on his work with Comet and the OpenClaw harness, where the harness itself adapts and changes. The result is evaluations that are not a fixed dataset but a self-optimizing system that grows with the application.

Agent Optimization with Pydantic AI: GEPA, Evals, Feedback Loops — Samuel Colvin, Pydantic

May 7, 2026 · 1:20:40

Samuel Colvin shows how to improve production agents without redeploying using Pydantic AI's GEPA, evals, and Logfire managed variables. GEPA uses a genetic algorithm to evolve prompts, achieving 96.7% accuracy — up from 87% with a simple prompt and 92% with an expert prompt — on a Wikipedia-based political relations task. Managed variables let you update prompts, models, and parameters live via a web interface and A/B test targeting. Evals compare against a golden dataset of 650 MPs; Colvin runs 65 cases in 30 seconds using GPT-4.1. He discusses that prompt optimization is most valuable with private data, that implicit user feedback (e.g., user's next action) can build golden datasets, and that overfitting to small test sets is a risk — the GEPA optimizer may exclude valid relations like 'uncle' if they don't appear in the training split.

Everything You Need To Know About Agent Observability — Danny Gollapalli & Zubin Koticha, Raindrop

May 7, 2026 · 50:25

Zubin Koticha and Danny Gollapalli of Raindrop argue that agent observability must shift from evals to production monitoring because agent failures are non-deterministic and unbounded. They break down explicit signals (tool error rate, latency, cost) and implicit signals (user frustration, refusals, task failure) detected by trained classifiers and regex, emphasizing that aggregate patterns even from imperfect regex are valuable. Experiments let teams ship changes to a percentage of users and compare semantic signal rates, with statistical relevance often reached after a few hundred events. Self-diagnostics—a simple tool and system prompt—enable agents to report their own failures, capability gaps, and even self-correction behavior, as demonstrated in a live coding agent demo where a disabled write tool caused the agent to use bash and then report the bypass. The episode covers alerting, trace visualization, data export to BigQuery/Snowflake, and the challenge of managing fast-paced experimentation at scale.

Skill Issue: How We Used AI to Make Agents Actually Good at Supabase — Pedro Rodrigues, Supabase

May 4, 2026 · 1:18:41

Pedro Rodrigues, AI tooling engineer at Supabase, demonstrates how to write, test, and iterate on Agent Skills to make agents actually good at real systems like Supabase's performance-review app. He explains progressive disclosure—skills load only a short description first, letting the agent decide when to pull in full instructions—and shows that combining skills with MCP tools gives agents both context and actions. In a live demo, Rodrigues reveals a common failure: creating a database view without a security invoker flag bypasses row-level security, letting all users see everyone's salary data. Adding a skill with security checklists guides the agent to include the flag, fixing the bug. He then introduces an eval-driven development cycle using an eval.json file and an LLM-as-judge to automate testing across conditions with and without the skill, cautioning that writing accurate evals is tricky because non-deterministic outputs can mislead. The session offers a practical framework for validating skills, avoiding pitfalls, and measuring what actually improves agent behavior.

Context Is the New Code — Patrick Debois, Tessl

May 3, 2026 · 27:14

Patrick Debois argues that as AI coding agents become more capable, context—prompts, rules, and memory—needs its own engineering discipline, introducing the Context Development Lifecycle: Generate, Evaluate, Distribute, and Observe. He explains how to create reusable prompts like agent MD and pull documentation via MCP, test context using evals with LLM-as-judge and sandboxed execution, package context as skills with registries and dependency management, and observe through agent logs, PR feedback, and production failures to feed improvements back into context. He also notes that context requires its own CI/CD with error budgets due to non-determinism, and highlights the need for context filters and security scanning. The talk draws parallels to DevOps and positions Tessl as a platform implementing these practices.

Shipping complex AI applications — Braintrust & Trainline

May 1, 2026 · 1:38:34

Giran Moodley of Braintrust, joined by Trainline's Oussama Hafferssas and Mayank Soni, demonstrate how to ship production-grade multi-step AI agents by combining rigorous tracing, evaluation with golden datasets, and automated online scoring. They walk through building a support triage agent that progresses from a single prompt to a five-stage tool-calling pipeline, where tracing captures latency, tokens, and costs per step for deep debugging. Trainline shares using Braintrust to run offline evaluations before switching LLM models and to enable cross-functional self-service. The workshop covers identifying failure modes via production logs, tightening prompts, and re-evaluating to complete the feedback loop, emphasizing that observability and iterative evaluation are essential for moving from prototype to reliable production systems.

Why building eval platforms is hard — Phil Hetzel, Braintrust

Apr 28, 2026 · 25:39

Phil Hetzel of Braintrust argues that building eval platforms for AI agents is a data systems problem, not just a UI one, because LLMs have extreme variability and agent traces are semi-structured, high-volume, and large. He describes four maturity stages: simple spreadsheet with a for loop, a custom vibe-coded UI with a database, an experimentation playground for non-technical users, and finally a flywheel connecting offline evals with production observability. The core challenge is the data layer—traces can be 10-20 MB per span, requiring low-latency ingestion, aggregate analysis, and full-text search, which traditional databases cannot handle. Future platforms must surface unknown unknowns via topic modeling, support agent-to-agent interactions, and integrate automatic tracing through AI proxies. Braintrust addresses these with a custom data platform that separates hot and cold storage and enables SQL queries directly on traces.

How METR measures Long Tasks and Experienced Open Source Dev Productivity - Joel Becker, METR

Jan 19, 2026 · 1:15:52

Joel Becker of METR argues that AI benchmark scores are soaring while real-world developer productivity barely budges, reconciling this gap by presenting METR's time horizon measurements and a 16-developer RCT showing no significant speedup from AI on mature open-source projects. He cites reliability issues, task distribution mismatches, and the J-curve effect from Meta's developer data, noting that experienced users still fail to accelerate. The episode explores why AI struggles with messy enterprise data (e.g., LinkedIn's 5,000 'impressions' tables), the failure of computer-use agents in 'Agent Village,' and the possibility that hardware constraints may slow progress. Becker also previews new metrics like 'watched versus unwatched' time horizons and future studies on greenfield coding and data science.

Spec-Driven Development: Agentic Coding at FAANG Scale and Quality — Al Harris, Amazon Kiro

Jan 9, 2026 · 1:03:50

Al Harris, principal engineer at Amazon, presents Spec-Driven Development (SDD) with Kiro, an agentic IDE that transforms prompts into structured requirements (EARS format), designs, and property-based tests to ensure code correctness. He argues that upfront specification—augmented by MCP servers for external context—improves reproducibility and quality over pure vibe coding. The talk includes a live demo: building an S3-backed checkpointer for a LangGraph dad joke generator, then discovering Agent Core’s native memory is more idiomatic. Harris contrasts SDD with Cursor’s planning mode, explains how specs evolve as living documentation, and discusses handling session length, context pruning, and brownfield codebases. The result is a claim that spending 5–10 minutes on specs yields higher accuracy and reliable, testable outputs.

Shipping AI That Works: An Evaluation Framework for PMs – Aman Khan, Arize

Dec 26, 2025 · 1:26:16

Aman Khan, AI PM at Arize, presents a framework for product managers to evaluate LLM-powered products beyond gut-feel 'vibe checks.' He demonstrates building an AI trip planner with multi-agent LangGraph, then using Arize's tracing and prompt playground to iterate on prompts. Khan shows how to create datasets from production traces, run A/B experiments on prompts, and use LLM-as-a-judge evals for friendliness and discount offers, comparing against human labels to refine evaluators. He argues evals are the new requirements docs, enabling PMs to own the product experience by writing acceptance criteria as eval datasets. The talk covers building eval teams, handling variance with temperature settings, and continuously improving golden datasets with hard examples, citing real-world analogies from self-driving cars at Cruise.

Why Agent Hype can fall short of reality – Joel Becker, METR

Dec 24, 2025 · 21:22

Joel Becker, a researcher at METR, examines why AI models that ace benchmarks like SWE-bench fail to boost real-world developer productivity. METR's time horizon measurements show AI capabilities doubling every 6-7 months, with Claude 3.7 Sonnet achieving a 50% success rate on tasks taking humans 4 minutes. Yet a randomized controlled trial of 16 experienced developers on large open-source projects found they were 19% slower when using AI tools like Cursor Pro, contradicting expert predictions of 40% time savings. Becker attributes the gap to high context requirements, low AI reliability, and task complexity—developers spent significant time verifying and correcting AI outputs. The episode warns that benchmark-style evidence, which uses low-context human baselines, overstates AI readiness for messy, interdependent real-world tasks.

The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Prompt Learning – Aparna Dhinakaran, Arize

Dec 23, 2025 · 10:56

Aparna Dhinakaran, co-founder of Arize, argues that prompt learning—applying RL techniques to prompts rather than model weights—can continuously improve coding agents by auto-tuning system prompts from runtime feedback. She details a process using Claude Code and CLIMB on the SWE-bench dataset: agents generate patches, unit tests yield results, then an LLM-as-a-judge eval produces natural-language explanations of failures. These explanations feed a meta prompt that iterates on the system prompt rules. On 150 SWE-bench examples, this approach improved Claude Code's issue-resolution rate by 5% and CLIMB's by 15%. She contrasts their method with DSPy's GEPA optimizer, noting theirs required fewer loops due to carefully engineered eval prompts.

Hard Won Lessons from Building Effective AI Coding Agents – Nik Pash, Cline

Dec 12, 2025 · 14:18

Nik Pash, head of AI at Cline, argues that frontier models have made clever agent scaffolds obsolete—capability now beats engineering tricks. He insists that real model improvement comes from benchmarks and RL environments, not from RAG or indexing systems. Pash details Cline's RL environment factory, which converts real-world coding tasks into training data by qualifying tasks, reconstructing environments, and defining pure outcome verifiers. He announces Clinebench, an open-source benchmark built from actual software development captured via Cline's provider, designed to measure and improve models on real tasks rather than synthetic puzzles. Pash urges the community to contribute by using Cline on open-source projects, turning model struggles into benchmark candidates.

Agents are Robots Too: What Self-Driving Taught Me About Building Agents — Jesse Hu, Abundant

Nov 24, 2025 · 17:37

Jesse Hu, former Waymo engineer and now founder of Abundant, argues that building reliable AI agents mirrors the challenges of self-driving cars, with the same 1% vs 99% problem where the model accounts for only 1% of the work. He draws parallels between robotics and agents across closed-loop feedback, statefulness, action spaces, and simulation, noting that just as self-driving pioneers learned perception was easy but planning was hard, agent builders must move from predictive models to action models. Hu explains how open-loop designs (e.g., waiting for full tool responses) limit agent reactivity, and advocates for richer input/output mechanisms like character-level terminal streams. He emphasizes the importance of an offline stack—simulation, evaluation, and data feedback loops—for iterative hill climbing, and warns that actions have consequences: out-of-distribution failures cascade. Finally, he recommends reading up on MDPs, DAgger, and offline RL from robotics literature to accelerate agent development.

Multi Agent AI and Network Knowledge Graphs for Change — Ola Mabadeje, Cisco

Aug 22, 2025 · 18:49

Ola Mabadeje from Cisco's Outshift presents a multi-agent AI system that combines network knowledge graphs with natural language interfaces to improve change management. The solution ingests data from ITSM tools like ServiceNow, uses five specialized agents built on an open framework (agency.org) to automate impact assessment, test planning, and execution within a digital twin. A fine-tuned query agent reduces token usage and latency when querying the ArangoDB knowledge graph, layered using OpenConfig schema. The demo shows agents collaborating to assess a firewall rule change, generate test cases, and run them on a synthetic network, attaching results back to the ticket. Early evaluations focus on extrinsic metrics tied to customer outcomes, with the knowledge graph and open agent framework as key building blocks for scalable network operations.

2025 is the Year of Evals! Just like 2024, and 2023, and … — John Dickerson, CEO Mozilla AI

Aug 6, 2025 · 19:14

John Dickerson, CEO of Mozilla AI and former co-founder of Arthur AI, argues that 2025 is finally the year for AI evaluation (evals) due to three converging forces: ChatGPT making AI tangible to the C-suite, enterprise budget freezes that funnelled funding into GenAI pet projects, and the rise of agentic systems acting autonomously. He traces how ML monitoring existed pre-2022 but lacked C-suite attention, with Jamie Dimon’s JPMC spending only $100 million on AI from 2017 to 2021. The ChatGPT launch on November 30, 2022, unlocked CEO discretionary budgets for GenAI, leading to 2023 science projects, 2024 production deployments, and 2025 scaling. Now, as agents reason and act, connecting evals to downstream business KPIs—risk mitigation, revenue gains—is a first-class discussion for CEOs, CFOs, CISOs, and CTOs. Dickerson notes that evaluation companies have shifted to multi-agent system monitoring, and while LLM-as-judge is popular, biases require human validation, with companies like Mercor hiring experts at $50–200/hour to lockstep multi-agent outputs.

From Self-driving to Autonomous Voice Agents — Brooke Hopkins, Coval

Jul 31, 2025 · 19:32

Brooke Hopkins, founder of Coval and former Waymo eval lead, argues that reliability lessons from self-driving cars directly apply to building trustworthy voice agents. She explains how Waymo moved from brittle scenario-specific tests to large-scale probabilistic simulations that measure success rates across thousands of runs—a framework now used at Coval to evaluate conversational AI at scale. Key practices include denoising: resimulating a failed scenario 100 times to assess true failure probability, and calibrating LLM-as-judge metrics with human feedback until automated evals align. Hopkins outlines a hierarchical eval strategy: start with text-based task evals for speed, then graduate to voice-to-voice tests for latency and interruptions, and finally hyper-realistic simulations for production edge cases. She predicts that within three years every enterprise will need a voice experience comparable to a mobile app, making integrated evaluation infrastructure a competitive necessity.

Shipping Products When You Don't Know What they Can Do — Ben Stein, Teammates

Jul 28, 2025 · 19:34

Ben Stein, founder of Teammates, argues that product management for AI agents requires abandoning traditional specs and embracing uncertainty. He describes how his team discovered emergent behavior when a customer asked to tag an agent in a Google Doc comment—an unplanned feature that worked. Stein advocates thinking in affordances rather than features, using evals as the new spec, and vibe coding to feel interactions before committing. He notes that bugs become ambiguous when behavior is probabilistic, and customer meetings shift from selling vision to co-inventing the future. The episode offers a field guide for product teams navigating boundless surface areas built on unpredictable LLMs.

Human seeded Evals — Samuel Colvin, Pydantic

Jul 25, 2025 · 12:02

Samuel Colvin, creator of Pydantic, demonstrates how type safety and validation loops in Pydantic AI build reliable GenAI applications. He argues that type-safe frameworks enable confident refactoring, a necessity for evolving AI apps, and shows how returning validation errors to the model fixes simple mistakes like incorrect date formats. The agentic loop with tools and final result tools ensures structured extraction, while type-safe dependencies on tools prevent runtime errors. Colvin also highlights Logfire observability, which traces calls, shows pricing, and helps debug failures like failed memory retrieval. The talk covers agent definitions, validation error retries, and the importance of explicit exit conditions in agent loops.

Building Applications with AI Agents — Michael Albada, Microsoft

Jul 24, 2025 · 15:50

Michael Albada, Principal Applied Scientist at Microsoft, explains how to build effective AI agent systems, defining agents as entities that reason, act, communicate, and adapt. He emphasizes that tool use requires exposing grouped, human-facing functions rather than one-to-one API mappings, noting a 254% increase in agentic Y Combinator startups. Orchestration should start simple with chains and trees before moving to fully agentic patterns, using deterministic logic for safety and external state management. For multi-agent systems, he recommends splitting tools into semantically similar groups to avoid overwhelming a single agent. Albada stresses investing in evaluation via open-source tools like Intel Agent, Pirate, Label Studio, and automatic optimization with Trace, TextGrad, and DSPY. He warns against common pitfalls: insufficient evals, poorly designed tools, excessive complexity, and lack of observability, while urging design for security with tripwires and fallback to human review.

How to Build Planning Agents without losing control - Yogendra Miraje, Factset

Jul 23, 2025 · 15:58

Yogendra Miraje from FactSet explains how to build controllable planning agents using agentic workflows and planning by subgoal division, arguing they balance reliability and flexibility for enterprises. He distinguishes workflow agents (static) from agentic workflows (dynamic), and introduces a blueprint generator that pre-selects tools and provides high-level natural language plans to reduce planner cognitive load. He details an architecture using LangGraph nodes (blueprint generator, planner, executor, joiner) and emphasizes designing tools from an agent's perspective with clear purpose, description, and contracts. Miraje stresses evals using code-based and LLM-as-judge techniques, and advises against agentic workflows for fixed tasks, strict compliance, or low-latency needs. The talk includes a concrete example of preparing for NVIDIA's earnings call, showing how blueprints enable structured responses and interpretability.

From Copilot to Colleague: Trustworthy Agents for High-Stakes - Joel Hron, CTO Thomson Reuters

Jul 23, 2025 · 19:45

Thomson Reuters CTO Joel Hron explains the shift from helpful AI assistants to productive, agentic systems in high-stakes legal, tax, and compliance workflows. He frames agency as a spectrum with dials for autonomy, context, memory, and coordination, which must be tuned to the risk tolerance of professional users. Key lessons include building the whole system first rather than over-indexing on minimal MVPs, treating legacy applications as assets to be decomposed into tools for agents, and the persistent challenge of evaluating agentic systems with expensive, variable human expert judgments. Hron demonstrates a tax product that extracts data from documents and maps it to a calculation engine, and a legal research agent that uses proprietary case law tools to produce cited reports. He emphasizes leveraging unique organizational assets—like Thomson Reuters' 4,500 domain experts and terabytes of proprietary content—to create differentiation.

Building Effective Voice Agents — Toki Sherbakov + Anoop Kotha, OpenAI

Jul 20, 2025 · 17:17

Toki Sherbakov and Anoop Kotha from OpenAI argue that speech-to-speech models have reached a 'good enough' tipping point for production voice agents, highlighting the shift from chained architectures (transcription + LLM + TTS) to the real-time API's speech-to-speech approach. They detail trade-offs across latency, cost, accuracy, UX, and integrations depending on use case—consumer apps prioritize low latency and expressiveness, while customer service demands accuracy and tool integration. Key design patterns include delegating complex tasks to smarter models like O4 mini, prompting for voice expressiveness and tone, and starting with few tools. For evals, they recommend starting with observability, using SMEs for labeling, then transcription-based LLM-as-judge evals, audio evals with GPT-4 Audio to assess tone and pacing, and synthetic conversations between two real-time clients. Guardrails should run async with a configurable debounce period (e.g., every 100 characters). Examples from Lemonade (early focus on evals and guardrails) and Tinder (customization for brand realism) illustrate successful approaches.

Shipping an Enterprise Voice AI Agent in 100 Days - Peter Bar, Intercom Fin

Jul 18, 2025 · 17:10

Peter Bar, Product Lead at Intercom, details the 100-day build of Fin Voice, an AI voice agent for enterprise phone support. The agent handles knowledge-based queries using a stack of speech-to-text, LLM, text-to-speech, RAG, and telephony, achieving ~1 second latency for simple queries and using filler phrases for longer ones. Key product decisions included focusing on out-of-office hours as an initial wedge, designing conversations for voice differences like answer chunking, and prioritizing integration with human support workflows over model improvements. The team measured success via resolution rate (user confirming resolution or not calling back within 24 hours) and used an LLM-as-judge for quality analysis. Bar argues that voice AI is the next frontier in customer service, citing cost reduction from $7–12 per human-handled call to 3–20 cents per minute with AI.

Measuring AGI: Interactive Reasoning Benchmarks for ARC-AGI-3 — Greg Kamradt, ARC Prize Foundation

Jul 16, 2025 · 18:28

Greg Kamradt, President of ARC Prize Foundation, introduces ARC-AGI-3, the first interactive reasoning benchmark for AGI that drops agents into novel games without prior instruction, forcing exploration to solve tasks. Unlike static tests, this benchmark measures skill acquisition efficiency—how quickly an AI learns and applies new skills—using human baselines from 400+ in-person tests. It strips away language and trivia, relying only on core knowledge priors (basic math, geometry, agentness, objectness). A public training set of ~40 games will be released, but performance is measured on a private evaluation set of 120 games unseen by developers or AI. Kamradt asserts that as long as AI cannot outperform humans on these problems, we do not have AGI; a sandbox preview with five games and a mini agent competition is planned for next month, with full launch in Q1 2026.

Benchmarks Are Memes: How What We Measure Shapes AI—and Us - Alex Duffy, Every.to

Jul 15, 2025 · 15:44

Alex Duffy argues that AI benchmarks function as cultural memes—ideas that spread and shape what models learn—giving those who design them immense power over AI's trajectory. He traces the lifecycle from a single person's idea to saturation, using examples like 'How many Rs in strawberry' and Pokémon. Duffy introduces AI Diplomacy, a benchmark where language models negotiate and betray each other, revealing that models like DeepSeek R1 and Gemini 2.5 Flash excel at social manipulation while Claude models are naively optimistic. He warns against benchmarks that reward sycophancy (like ChatGPT's thumbs-up training) and advocates for multifaceted, experiential, and generative benchmarks that empower people. Duffy urges the audience to ask non-AI people what they care about, turning benchmarks into tools that build trust and define humanity's role in an AI world.

Training Agentic Reasoners — Will Brown, Prime Intellect

Jul 7, 2025 · 19:17

Will Brown of Prime Intellect argues that reasoning and agents are fundamentally the same, and reinforcement learning (RL) is the key to advancing both. He explains that RL now works at scale, as shown by DeepSeek's GRPO and OpenAI's o3, and that agentic tasks like tool calling are natural RL environments. Brown warns against reward hacking and emphasizes designing evals that are harder to game than the task itself. He introduces his open-source toolkit 'verifiers' (now on pip) which lets users build trainable agent loops with a simple API, and demonstrates training a 7B Wordle agent in a few turns on just a couple GPUs.

Turning Fails into Features: Zapier’s Hard-Won Eval Lessons — Rafal Willinski, Vitor Balocco, Zapier

Jun 30, 2025 · 16:15

Zapier AI Tech Lead Rafal Willinski and Staff Engineer Vitor Balocco explain how Zapier's evaluation system turns agent failures into targeted improvements through a data flywheel. They detail collecting explicit feedback at critical moments and mining implicit signals like testing behavior, cursing, and user follow-ups. The pair advocates building unit test evals for specific failure modes, then trajectory evals and LLM-as-judge with rubrics to avoid overfitting and capture multi-turn criteria. They share that over-indexing on unit tests hurt model benchmarking, and reasoning models can compare model runs, revealing differences like Claude as a decisive executor versus Gemini's yapping. Ultimately, they argue that the goal is user satisfaction, so A/B testing on a small traffic fraction is the ultimate verification.

Evals 101 — Doug Guthrie, Braintrust

Jun 27, 2025 · 48:31

Braintrust solutions engineer Doug Guthrie presents the full AI evaluation lifecycle, covering offline and online strategies for building robust AI products. He explains that evals require three ingredients—tasks (prompts or agentic workflows), datasets (real-world examples), and scores (LLM-as-a-judge or code-based)—and demonstrates how to run them in Braintrust's playground and via SDK. The talk emphasizes creating a feedback loop: production logs feed into datasets, enabling human review and user feedback to iteratively improve offline evals. Guthrie showcases a changelog app, the new AI-driven "loop" feature for prompt optimization, and answers audience questions on A/B testing models, handling multiple human scorers, pre-launch validation, and exporting data for custom dashboards.

Engineering Better Evals: Scalable LLM Evaluation Pipelines That Work — Dat Ngo, Aman Khan, Arize

Jun 27, 2025 · 24:46

Dat Ngo, AI architect at Arize AI, presents advanced LLM evaluation strategies for production systems, arguing that effective evals go beyond out-of-the-box LLM-as-a-judge to include code-based heuristics, human feedback, and golden datasets. He explains how to build a virtuous cycle of collecting observability data, running evals, and tuning them over time, and demonstrates agent evaluation techniques like trajectory evals to identify failure modes across complex workflows. Ngo covers trade-offs between offline evals and inline guardrails, the use of log probabilities for confidence scoring, and automated prompt optimization through meta-prompting, all illustrated with customer examples from Reddit, Duolingo, and Booking.com.

Taming Rogue AI Agents with Observability-Driven Evaluation — Jim Bennett, Galileo

Jun 27, 2025 · 16:14

Jim Bennett, Principal Developer Advocate at Galileo, argues that AI agents must be tamed using observability-driven evaluation, where LLMs evaluate other LLMs to detect failures like hallucinations and tool misuse. He cites real-world examples: the Chicago Sun-Times publishing a hallucinated summer reading list, and a lawyer citing false AI-generated case law. Bennett demonstrates a fintech chatbot that fails to answer 'what is my account balance' directly, requiring three turns; metrics like 'action completion' and 'action advancement' reveal the agent advances but does not complete. He stresses granular evaluation at every step—LLM calls, tool use, RAG retrieval—and using a better, custom-trained LLM as the evaluator. Human feedback is essential to correct mis-scored metrics and continuously retrain. Bennett urges adding evaluations from day one, even before production, and maintaining them in CI/CD and production with alerting for rogue behavior.

Agentic Excellence: Mastering AI Agent Evals w/ Azure AI Evaluation SDK — Cedric Vidal, Microsoft

Jun 27, 2025 · 20:01

Cedric Vidal, Principal AI Advocate at Microsoft, demonstrates how to systematically evaluate AI agents using the Azure AI Evaluation SDK and AI Toolkit. He argues that evaluation must start early, covering four layers: model/safety system, system message, grounding, and user experience. He shows spot-checking models side-by-side in VS Code, building a web-scraping agent with Playwright MCP, and running batch evaluations with built-in quality and safety metrics like groundedness and fluency. Vidal also covers multi-turn and multimodal evaluation, using a violent image example where the SDK returned a score of 4 out of 5, allowing teams to set custom thresholds based on application context.

Case Study + Deep Dive: Telemedicine Support Agents with LangGraph/MCP - Dan Mason

Jun 22, 2025 · 1:56:13

Dan Mason of Stride presents a case study on building autonomous agents for telemedicine support, replacing a human-driven button-pushing workflow with LangGraph, Claude, MCP, and a Node.js/React/MongoDB stack, achieving roughly 10X capacity increase. The LLM-driven virtual operations associate ("Ava") assesses patient messages, updates state with anchors and scheduled messages, and passes proposals to an evaluator agent that scores confidence and complexity, escalating to humans below 75% confidence. Mason explains how treatment "blueprints" in Google Docs are read directly by the LLM instead of using RAG, enabling new treatments to be added without writing code. He details the eval system using LLM-as-a-judge via PromptFu and retry logic for tool-calling errors, and discusses trade-offs around confidence scoring, prompt caching, and model selection (Claude for steerability). The team includes two software engineers, one designer, and Mason, who wrote most LangGraph code with AI assistance (Kline).

Break It 'Til You Make It: Building the Self-Improving Stack for AI Agents - Aparna Dhinakaran

Jun 10, 2025 · 14:25

Aparna Dhinakaran, co-founder of Arise, details how to build a self-improving evaluation stack for AI agents using her company's open-source tools Arise Phoenix and RiseX. She argues that production agents require three evaluation layers: tool-call correctness (right function and arguments), trajectory accuracy (correct order of steps), and multi-turn session consistency (context retention). Dhinakaran demonstrates with real traces from Arise's own Copilot, showing how a bottleneck in search Q&A correctness (only 50% accuracy) was traced to incorrect argument passing in a tool call. She stresses a dual iteration loop: improving agent prompts and simultaneously refining eval prompts (LLM-as-judge) to avoid static evaluation criteria. The talk concludes that continuous eval improvement is essential for agents to move from working once to working reliably in production.

Agents reported thousands of bugs, how many were real? - Ian Butler and Nick Gregory

Jun 3, 2025 · 18:39

Ian Butler and Nick Gregory introduce SM-100, a benchmark of 100 real-world bugs across 84 repositories, and present their agent Bismuth as outperforming existing agents in detecting complex bugs—finding 10 needles vs 7 for the next best. However, even top performers struggle: Bismuth's true positive rate is only 25%, and Codex leads at 45%, while most agents (Cursor, Debian) report thousands of false positives (97% for basic loops). They argue that agents universally exhibit narrow thinking, missing simple bugs like a form state issue that only Bismuth and Codex caught, and that high SWE-bench scores do not translate to maintenance tasks. The episode concludes that software maintenance remains an unsolved problem requiring deeper reasoning and targeted search.

Will Agent evaluation via MCP Stabilize Agent Networks? - Ari Heljakka

Jun 3, 2025 · 14:11

Ari Heljakka, CEO of Root Signals, argues that agent evaluation via the Model Context Protocol (MCP) can stabilize agent networks by enabling self-improvement loops. Using a hotel reservation agent example, he shows that without MCP the agent wrongly recommended a competitor hotel, but with MCP it invoked policy evaluators and corrected its behavior automatically. He also demonstrates marketing message optimization via Cursor, where the agent scored and improved text using an MCP-connected evaluation charge. Heljakka emphasizes that success requires a powerful evaluation library with systematic lifecycle maintenance, and introduces Root Signals' free MCP server. The approach promises more controllable, transparent, and dynamically self-correcting agents across different frameworks.

The Current State of Browser Agents - Jerry Wu and Wyatt Marshall

Jun 3, 2025 · 21:13

Jerry Wu and Wyatt Marshall of Halluminate evaluate browser agents with WebBench, a benchmark of 5,000 tasks across 500+ websites. They find read tasks succeed at ~80%, but write tasks drop below 40% for autonomous agents, with failures often due to infrastructure like CAPTCHAs rather than agent intelligence. They advise AI engineers to choose read over write use cases, test multiple browser infrastructure providers, and combine agents with deterministic Playwright workflows for production. Notable emergent behaviors include an agent bypassing Cloudflare by searching Google and an agent posting a top-liked Medium comment.

Ensure AI Agents Work: Evaluation Frameworks for Scaling Success — Aparna Dhinkaran, CEO Arize

Apr 23, 2025 · 15:28

Aparna Dhinakaran, CEO of Arize AI, explains that evaluating AI agents requires testing three core components—routers, skills, and memory—each at different trace levels. Routers must be checked for correct skill selection and parameter passing; skills need LLM-as-judge or code-based evals for chunk relevance and answer correctness; and convergence measures whether the agent takes a consistent number of steps to complete a task. For voice agents, additional evaluations on audio chunks—sentiment, speech-to-text accuracy, and tone consistency—are necessary. Dhinakaran demonstrates Arize's own Copilot, where evals run at every trace step (router choice, argument passing, task completion) to isolate failures. She argues that observability-driven evaluation frameworks, with multiple eval layers, transform experimental agents into production-ready enterprise tools.

The missing pieces of workflow automation — Shirsha Chaudhuri, Thomson Reuters Labs

Apr 23, 2025 · 14:37

Shirsha Chaudhuri, head of co-innovation at Thomson Reuters Labs, identifies eight missing pieces preventing true AI workflow automation in the enterprise. She argues that while 71% of Fortune 500 companies still run mainframes and 68% of IT production workloads remain on mainframe, current agentic efforts lack connectors to bridge legacy systems, standardized agent architectures, and reliable ROI metrics. She highlights the need for domain experts to reimagine processes alongside AI practitioners, collaborative UX design, and AI governance that translates ethics into agent architecture. Control balance between deterministic and agent-driven steps remains unresolved, and the fast-evolving agent lifecycle lacks a clear update strategy. Drawing from Thomson Reuters' own journey—from a 2023 open AI arena through RAG and prompt engineering to 2024's agentic experiments—she calls for a reimagined workflow design rather than just task-level automation.

Self Coding Agents — Colin Flaherty, Augment Code

Apr 21, 2025 · 17:23

Colin Flaherty, founding researcher at Augment Code, describes how the company built an AI coding agent that wrote over 90% of its own 20,000-line codebase with human supervision. The agent autonomously added third-party integrations like Google Search and Linear by searching its own codebase and even used its own Google Search tool to look up Linear API docs. It profiled and optimized itself, replacing synchronous file hashing with a process pool after adding print statements and running sub-copies. Flaherty argues that agent capabilities improve with better context engines, code execution environments, and test harnesses—adding test-driven iteration boosted a bug-fixing benchmark by 20% versus 4% from just upgrading the foundation model. He cautions that agents are general-purpose, not category-specific, and have different strengths than humans, making knowledge bases crucial for onboarding. With code becoming cheap, the focus shifts to product insights and design, while better tests enable greater autonomy and accelerate agent self-improvement.

Building and evaluating AI Agents — Sayash Kapoor, AI Snake Oil

Apr 17, 2025 · 20:00

Sayash Kapoor argues that current AI agents fall far short of their claimed performance due to flawed evaluation and a gap between capability and reliability. He cites failures like Do Not Pay (fined by FTC), LexisNexis (hallucinations in up to a third of cases), and Sakana AI (agent hacked reward functions, claiming 150x speedup that exceeded H100's theoretical max). Princeton's CoreBench shows best agents reproduce under 40% of papers. He emphasizes that agent benchmarks like SWE-bench mislead VC funding—Cognition's Devin succeeded on only 3 of 20 real-world tasks. Kapoor calls for cost-aware, multi-dimensional evaluation (e.g., Holistic Agent Leaderboard with Pareto frontiers) and a shift from capability to reliability engineering, drawing parallels to ENIAC's vacuum tube failures.

The Agent Development Life Cycle — Zack Reneau-Wedeen, Sierra

Apr 11, 2025 · 18:40

Zack Reneau-Wedeen from Sierra explains the company's Agent Development Lifecycle for building reliable, testable AI agents at scale for brands like Chubbys and SiriusXM. He contrasts LLMs' nondeterministic, slow nature with traditional software, calling them a 'foundation of Jello.' Sierra treats every agent as a product, using an experience manager to review conversations, file issues, create tests, and release improvements—growing from hundreds of thousands of requests for Chubbys to tens of millions for larger customers. The lifecycle spans quality assurance, testing, and deployment, with reasoning models acting as a force multiplier. Voice agents launched generally in October 2024, handling calls with the same underlying platform, enabling responsive design across channels.

Personal, Local, Private AI Agents: Soumith Chintala

Apr 6, 2025 · 20:32

Soumith Chintala, co-founder of PyTorch, argues that personal AI agents should run locally and privately to maintain trust and control over intimate data. He warns that cloud-based agents, lacking complete context (like access to all messaging or financial accounts), become unreliable and potentially dangerous—catastrophic actions like buying a Tesla instead of Tide Pods are possible. Key technical challenges include slow local inference, immature open-source computer-use models, and poor catastrophic action classification. He is bullish on open models surpassing closed ones through coordinated improvement, citing Linux, Llama, and DeepSeek. Chintala also plugs open reasoning data from gr.ink and PyTorch’s work on enabling local agents, urging AI engineers to tackle these gaps.

Navigating AI’s Frontier in 2025 - Grace Isford, Lux Capital

Mar 13, 2025 · 17:55

Grace Isford, partner at Lux Capital, argues that while 2025 is a 'perfect storm' for AI agents with reasoning models like O3 and R1, cheaper inference, and billions in infrastructure (e.g., Stargate, DeepSeek), agents still fail due to cumulative errors—decision, implementation, heuristic, and taste—exemplified by OpenAI Operator booking a flight incorrectly. She prescribes five strategies: curating proprietary and agent-generated data, building personalized evals for non-verifiable domains (e.g., seat preference), designing scaffolding that prevents cascading failures (citing Ramp's approach), treating UX as the moat (e.g., Codium, Harvey, TLDraw), and building multimodally with voice, smell via Osmo, and touch for embodiment. The talk, recorded at the AI Engineer Summit 2025 in NYC, closes with a call to reframe perfection through visionary product experiences.

AI Agents, Meet Test Driven Development

Feb 22, 2025 · 29:10

Anita from Vellum argues that teams using test-driven development build more reliable AI systems, and she breaks down how to apply TDD to agentic workflows across four stages: experiment, evaluate, deploy, monitor. She outlines five levels of agentic behavior (L0 to L4), noting that most production systems today are at L1 (tool use), while L2 systems that plan and reason with models like O1 and DeepSeek-R1 will see most innovation this year. She introduces Vellum's new open-source Workflows SDK, which keeps code and UI in sync, and demonstrates her own SEO agent that automates keyword research, content analysis, and writing via a writer-editor evaluation loop. The agent, built on Vellum Workflows, takes a keyword like "chain-of-thought prompting" and produces a first draft with a latency of around 118 seconds, incorporating competitive analysis and iterative feedback. She emphasizes that success now depends on orchestration techniques (prompt chaining, RAG, memory) rather than just model performance.

Voice Agents: the good, the bad, and the ugly

Feb 22, 2025 · 18:48

Eddie Siegel, CTO at Fractional AI, details the real-world challenges of building an AI voice agent for consulting-style interviews, moving from proof of concept to production. The agent, designed to conduct hundreds of research interviews simultaneously, struggled with hallucinations, latency, and Whisper transcription errors like 'creeping dippity dippity dippity dippity'. To constrain the LLM's tendency to chitchat and rabbit-hole, Siegel's team introduced a 'drift detector' agent and a 'next question' agent, both running as separate text-based side threads. They also added tool use for question navigation, explicit goals and priorities for follow-ups, and a 'transcript cleaner' to hide garbled outputs from the user interface. To move beyond vibes-driven iteration, they built an automated eval suite with metrics like clarity and completeness, using synthetic conversations with personas such as a 'snarky teenager in charge of a Fortune 500 company' to simulate diverse interviewees. The talk offers a no-nonsense playbook for getting voice agents into production, focusing on out-of-band checks, tool use, and evals even without objective ground truth.

Agent Evals: Finally, With The Map

Feb 22, 2025 · 13:31

Ari Helczak from Rootsignals presents a systematic map for AI agent evaluation, dividing it into semantic and behavioral parts. Semantic evaluation covers single-turn virtues like coherence and safety, plus multi-turn aspects such as conversation consistency and reasoning traces. Behavioral evaluation addresses tool selection, instruction following, and multi-step goal convergence. Helczak grounds truthfulness in RAG and goal achievement in tool utility, and introduces eval-ops as a double-tier approach to optimize both the agent and its judgment flow. He also highlights cost, latency, tracing, and offline versus online testing as practical considerations, noting the map will quickly become obsolete as the field evolves.

Lessons from the Trenches: Building LLM Evals That Work IRL: Aparna Dhinkaran

Feb 6, 2025 · 18:49

Aparna Dhinakaran, co-founder of Arize AI, distinguishes between model evals (e.g., Hugging Face leaderboard) and task evals for real-world LLM systems, arguing that production applications need component-level evaluations like router and parameter evals. She demonstrates a chat-to-purchase app where a router function call misidentifies user intent, showing how Phoenix open source tool traces errors and provides explanations to iterate. Dhinakaran advises using categorical over numeric LLM-as-judge scores because numeric outputs tend to be binary (0 or 10) and lack granularity. Presenting needle-in-haystack research, she notes GPT-4 struggles retrieving facts placed early in large context windows, and in retrieval-with-generation tasks, Anthropic’s Claude 2.1 outperforms GPT-4 due to verbose reasoning, a gap closed by prompting GPT-4 to explain itself first.

BotDojo Launch: Enhancing AI Assistants with Evaluations and Synthetic Data

Feb 5, 2025 · 5:47

BotDojo founder Paul Henry demonstrates how his platform uses synthetic data generation and evaluations to productionize AI assistants. He shows a chatbot template with a low-code editor, node tracing, and JSON schema support. By running batch evaluations, he identifies knowledge gaps in the vector database. Then, he generates synthetic test data from live support tickets by extracting question-answer pairs and writing new documents to the index. Running the evaluations again, the scores improve from having red failures to all green, measurably boosting the chatbot's performance. Henry stresses that while hooking up a vector database to an LLM is easy, getting it production-ready requires systematic evaluation and data augmentation.

How Zapier Builds AI Products and Features with the Help of Braintrust: Ankur Goyal & Olmo Maldonado

Nov 7, 2024 · 14:59

In this talk, Olmo Maldonado (Senior AI Engineer at Zapier) and Ankur Goyal (CEO of Braintrust) explain how Zapier uses Braintrust's evaluation and observability platform to build and improve AI features like AI Zap Builder and Copilot. They moved from 7 manual unit tests to over 800 automated evals, improving accuracy by nearly 300%. Braintrust's tracing capabilities let them dissect Copilot's multi-tool agent performance, leading them to adopt GPT-4 Turbo for the message router despite latency trade-offs. When switching to GPT-4.0 caused a regression below 80% scores, they diagnosed the issue via evals—GPT-4.0 was ignoring system prompts—and fixed it by relaxing prompt engineering and adjusting tool choices, recovering accuracy and cutting response time from 14 to 3 seconds. The episode details how eval-driven development and observability enable rapid iteration and reliable AI products at scale.

Architecting and Testing Controllable Agents: Lance Martin

Oct 11, 2024 · 2:21:54

Lance Martin presents LangGraph, a graph-based framework for building controllable agents that trade some open-ended flexibility for significantly higher reliability compared to classic React agents, achieving 100% consistent tool-calling trajectories even with an 8B local model. He demonstrates self-corrective RAG patterns like Corrective RAG, SelfRAG, and Adaptive RAG, where the agent grades retrieved documents, checks for hallucinations, and routes to web search when needed. Martin also covers three testing loops: in-app error handling with LangGraph, pre-production evaluation using LangSmith to compare agent answers and tool trajectories against ground-truth datasets, and production monitoring with online evaluators that flag retrieval quality, answer relevance, and hallucinations without reference answers. He shares results from a five-question evaluation showing LangGraph agents achieve 80% answer accuracy and 100% tool-trajectory correctness with Fire Function V2, while React agents with GPT-4o degrade in tool reliability. The talk addresses practical concerns like handling many tools (suggesting RAG for tool selection), multi-turn conversations, and the importance of…

How to Construct Domain Specific LLM Evaluation Systems: Hamel Husain and Emil Sedgh

Sep 19, 2024 · 18:45

Emil Sedgh (CTO at Rechat) and Hamel Husain (independent consultant) describe how they built a domain-specific evaluation system for Lucy, an AI assistant for real estate agents, to move beyond vibe checks and achieve production reliability. They argue that systematic evaluation starts with simple unit tests and assertions based on observed failure modes, logging traces for human review with custom tools to remove friction, and using LLMs to synthetically generate test inputs. The presenters emphasize that focusing on process over tools, avoiding generic off-the-shelf evals, and not jumping too early to LLM-as-a-judge are critical to success. This eval framework enabled Rechat to rapidly increase Lucy's success rate and made possible fine-tuning for complex tasks like mixing structured and unstructured outputs, handling multi-step commands that invoke five or six tools, and incorporating user feedback loops—capabilities they could not achieve with few-shot prompting alone.

Lessons From A Year Building With LLMs

Jul 19, 2024 · 35:21

The six authors of the O'Reilly article "Lessons From A Year Building With LLMs" — Bryan Bischof, Jason Liu, Hamel Husain, Eugene Yan, Shreya Shankar, and Swix — argue that the model itself is not a moat and that success comes from continuous improvement centered on evals and data. They stress that AI engineers should treat models as SaaS, quickly swapping for better ones, and focus on product and user interactions. The talk warns against toxic practices like prematurely hiring ML engineers without data or blindly adopting tools, advocating instead for deliberate eval practice and data literacy. On tactics, they compare LLM-as-judge (quick to prototype) vs fine-tuned evaluators (more precise and faster), and emphasize looking at real user data regularly with automated guardrails. Ultimately, they conclude that going from demo to production requires sustained investment in infrastructure and evaluation, echoing MLOps lessons from a decade ago.

AI Engineering 201: The Rest of the Owl

Nov 8, 2023 · 56:57

Charles Frye, instructor of the Full Stack LLM Bootcamp, presents essential patterns for building language user interfaces (LUIs), arguing that while RAG chatbots are the 'to-do list app' of AI engineering, structured outputs via function calling (e.g., OpenAI's JSON schema, Instructor library) improve robustness, and agents with memory (like generative agents or Voyager in Minecraft) represent the true AI frontier. He emphasizes the need for hybrid search combining vector and keyword retrieval (citing Vespa, Postgres, Redis), and warns that monitoring and evaluation are the hardest engineering challenges: monitoring user behavior, latency quantiles (especially 99th percentile), and costs must be paired with observability tools like Honeycomb or Gantry, while evaluation often requires iterated decomposition or using LLMs as evaluators (GPT-4 as 90th percentile crowd worker). The episode concludes that shipping to learn — starting with production data to generate tests — is the dominant engineering mindset, and that the field is still filling in the gaps between inference and full product value.

The Future of Work: Toran Bruce Richards, Silen Naihin et al

Oct 24, 2023 · 12:53

Toran Bruce Richards and Silen Naihin present Auto-GPT's vision for AI agents that augment human work, announcing 150k GitHub stars and $12M funding from Redpoint Ventures to build an open-source generalist agent. They unveil a forge template and dev tool built on the Agent Protocol, alongside a benchmark that tracks agent success rates from 35% to 55% over August. Safety is prioritized: prompt injection and agents deleting all JSON files on a laptop highlight the need for 100% reliability. The episode argues code agents are the stepping stone to AGI, with the mission to redefine the future of work by giving humans time back for creative tasks.