Earned my Professional Certificate in Designing & Building AI Products and Services from MIT.
The course pushed beyond theory; practical frameworks for turning AI concepts into real products, from ML algorithms to human-machine interfaces to org-level business cases.π
Multi-agent systems fail in production 41-87% of the time. The model is rarely why. ~79 percent of failures trace to coordination, not capability. Each handoff is a lossy compression step; the agent downstream treats a degraded summary as ground truth.
https://t.co/NbQr1nRnel
Don't pick your AI model carefully while splitting your agents carelessly. The split is the real decision. Every boundary you draw between agents is a seam where context leaks and work collides. Default to one agent broad enough to hold the whole task.
https://t.co/NbQr1nRnel
AI has shifted the bottleneck from writing code to understanding it. The engineer who inherits that codebase six months later pays suffers the comprehension debt that accumulated silently.
Read about the mechanism and the fix.
https://t.co/Xq5U0Pzwaq
AI amplifies your judgment. It does not supply it.
Experts using AI see ~45% gains. Novices with the same tools see 20%. The difference is not the model. It is the human directing it.
The ceiling is set by the quality of judgment behind the prompt.
https://t.co/WMJTQn7C89
Traditional software announces its failures. AI does not. Thrown exceptions tell you where to look. When an AI returns a confident answer that is factually wrong, nothing rings. Measurement is not optional.
New post - Evaluate Outcomes, Not Vibes:
https://t.co/ReW22bcOKG
Narrower scope produces more focused output. When you define what an AI cannot do, what it does accomplish improves.
Part 7 of First Principles of AI Usage.
https://t.co/EiU7ROohWx
77% of AI-using engineering teams see minimal productivity gains. Carnegie Mellon's Self-Refine research shows iteration alone improves output by 20%, same model, zero upgrades. The model is not the constraint. The process is.
Iterate, Don't Orate: https://t.co/y1xXC9k3T7
I asked AI to build a procedural terrain system in one shot. It ran. Unmaintainable. I decomposed the same task into research, proof-of-concepts, and review gates. The delta in quality was substantial.
Monolithic delegation commonly wastes AI capability
https://t.co/4eId4bdFVx
The Amazon Kiro agent deleted a production environment. Not a malfunction; it had permission. The question is never how much to trust AI. The question is whether you've correctly priced the door.
New post on calibrating autonomy to stakes:
https://t.co/E5RZJ4TMaB
AI cannot own its output. You can.
Part 3 of First Principles of AI Usage - Why accountability doesn't shrink when you hand work to an agent; it scales with what the agent can reach.
https://t.co/kdHEr09YV0
AI does not know what is true. It knows what is statistically probable. Fluent, confident wrong answers are more dangerous than obvious hallucinations. They reach stakeholders before anyone questions them. Your judgment is not optional.
https://t.co/VMoORtqg8U
You are not just writing prompts. You are constructing the informational environment the AI reasons within. The ceiling on output quality is set before you type a single word.
Context is the product. Part 1 of my First Principles series:
https://t.co/16M3XW4ykk
I use Claude Code for my more advanced works with AI. However, a friend recently has been talking a lot about Codex.
What's your take on when to use either?