AI

Unofficial, machine-generated summaries, as of 2026-11-09.

Dr. Jon KrohnThe Hidden Risks of Large Language Models in Business (with Andriy Burkov)
  • TalentNeuron turns scraped job postings into workforce insights with NLP. The host cites Burkov as having previously said the company makes 95 million daily predictions from 700 million job-posting data points. Burkov describes some 35,000–40,000 rule-based robots downloading postings, then models that extract and normalize skills, telling "excel in Word" from the skill Excel, and predicting industries with BERT and RoBERTa since around 2018–2019.
  • Multilingual models removed the need to label data per language. Where the team once built separate salary extractors for about 25 languages, Burkov says they now reuse labeled data from other languages to cover new countries, a capability he says he would have called impossible ten years ago.
  • LLMs now build about half of the company's scrapers automatically. Given a corporate home URL, the system finds the careers section and writes extraction rules for titles, locations, dates and descriptions; the remaining harder half is still done by engineers.
  • Think hard before putting an LLM in front of users. Burkov tells decision-makers to think "30 times", warning that LLMs work in-distribution but businesses cannot know what is in-distribution because training data is hidden, even for open-weight models. Systems that pass developers' tests can fail arbitrarily on real production data, with no way to detect the failure or know whether more fine-tuning examples will fix it, costing reputation and angry customers.
AI Analyst LabWhat Happens When AI Replaced a Data Scientist? | Ep17
synopsis

Episode 17 of the Data Neighbor podcast has Justin Chen, who leads growth data science at Mercury Insurance after heading data science at Coinbase and earlier roles at LinkedIn and his own startup. His argument is that data teams scale by building deliberately, not by heroics or unicorn hires. The conversation ends on his account of a GPT-3.5 Slack bot his Coinbase team built in 2023 to absorb ad hoc analytics. He reads that bot as the start of AI replacing reactive analytics work, and says leaders owe employees the tools to adapt.

Go slow to go fast. Quick SQL and dashboards serve an early company, but as Coinbase grew from about 800 to 1,000–2,000 people that work was lost or failed to scale. A casual table in Airflow became a core reporting dependency and broke daily. His answer is to treat deliverables as products, with a design doc required for anything over six hours of work. Long projects should ship small pieces of insight early, to keep the feedback loop with PMs and avoid delivering something nobody needs.

When rigor pays. He maps this to startup phases: intuition before product-market fit, early signal at fit, and scalable data work once growth begins. Products inside a large company sit at different phases too. Growth data science should be as fast and experimental as a growth PM, platform work must weigh compliance risk, and B2B releases must stay slow so customers' workflows are not disrupted.

The unicorn myth. Do-everything data scientists exist, he says, but they become bottlenecks with tribal knowledge, leave holes when they depart, and can resist change. Organizations should build onboarding, tooling and training so anyone meeting the bar can succeed. At Coinbase he created specialized roles, including an applied research role for former Wall Street quants studying crypto token and trading dynamics. Hiring tested presentation and technical depth, and he says evaluation continues after hire.

Careers. He values technical chops, which the industry has come to prize over management, and warns against a planned move into management after five years. Careers should deepen in one area, then broaden for leadership. A host argues for a 9/10 strength on top of 7/10 across the board. Justin adds that early in a career learning matters more than pay.

AI and the data role. He expects three shifts: ad hoc reactive analytics gradually replaced by agents and text-to-SQL, data modeling and semantic layers becoming more important because LLMs need a clean data language, and data scientists using AI to do more with less. With no headcount in 2023, his team built the Slack bot, which answered metric questions, produced charts and definitions, and triggered Airflow backfills. He argues necessity drove it, since stakeholders prefer a human they can share blame with. He adds that companies must empower staff, not simply replace them, and advises trying things, as he does by running open models locally with Ollama and Open WebUI.

A seat at the table. Data teams should drive decisions alongside product, engineering and design. That means interpreting results against business goals, treating communication as at least half the work, and building solutions others can reuse.

  • Go slow to go fast: treat data deliverables as products. Justin Chen, a former head of data science at Coinbase who now leads growth data science at Mercury Insurance, says quick ad hoc SQL creates rework and siloed knowledge once a company scales. Coinbase worked that way at about 800 people, but as it grew to 1,000–2,000, one person's quick query in Airflow became the core table for downstream reporting and failed daily. His fix was a tech design doc for any work beyond six hours, taking two to three days, plus mini-milestones and small wins instead of six-month projects.
  • The right rigor depends on the product's phase and domain. Before Series A, product intuition matters more than data. At product-market fit, early signals matter, and scaling (say, 100 to 10,000 customers) is when to build reusable solutions. The same logic applies to products inside a large company. Growth teams should launch fast and fail fast, platform teams must weigh compliance risk, and B2B teams release slowly, as LinkedIn Talent Solutions did with batched releases.
  • Unicorn data scientists become bottlenecks; build systems instead. Very capable generalists get every hard problem, document little, leave gaps when they go, and can resist change, he argues. Leaders should instead provide onboarding, tooling and training so anyone who clears the bar succeeds. Coinbase's process had a rigorously graded presentation and two technical rounds, but he treats evaluation as continuous after hiring. He stresses technical chops over an early switch to management, and learning over pay early in a career. A host's view, which Justin endorses, is that 7/10 across skills plus a 9/10 "superpower" that fits the role beats 8/10 everywhere.
  • AI will replace ad hoc, reactive analytics work. In 2023, with no headcount, junior data engineers at Coinbase built a GPT-3.5 Slack bot. It answered metric questions from the semantic layer, made charts, returned metric definitions, and could kick off Airflow backfills. He argues that necessity drives this, since stakeholders with unlimited analysts would rather ask a person and share the blame. A host calls it replacing a data scientist. Justin calls it "the trend itself" and says leaders must also equip employees for it. He expects semantic layers and clean metadata to matter more, and stakeholder trust built through Slack requests to need rebuilding.
  • Data teams should act as partners, not support. Rather than handing over a metric or a large spreadsheet, deliver an interpretation tied to cost, revenue or user experience. Treat communication as more than half the work, and build solutions teammates can reuse, such as an experimentation platform instead of a manual process.
Dr. Jon Krohn867: LLMs and Agents Are Overhyped — with Dr. Andriy Burkov
synopsis

Andriy Burkov, author of The Hundred-Page Machine Learning Book and the newly released The Hundred-Page Language Models Book, and machine-learning lead at TalentNeuron, ends up holding that LLMs are powerful but overhyped. They work in-distribution and are superb for rapid prototyping, but they cannot plan, do not know what they don't know, and cannot be debugged, so agents built on them will not deliver what executives promise, and production systems still need rigorous, conventional machine learning. His one unqualified enthusiasm is DeepSeek, which he says democratized the frontier.

From n-grams to a book. Burkov says he wrote the new book to show how language modeling evolved from count-based n-gram models, still used for smartphone next-word suggestions because they are cheap on short contexts, to today's LLMs. His interest in text began with scraping websites in 1998.

What TalentNeuron does. He joined a Quebec City startup that, through acquisitions by CEB and Gartner and a sale by Gartner two years ago, became TalentNeuron: "four companies without changing my chair". The host cites figures Burkov has given before of 95 million daily predictions from 700 million job-posting data points. Some 35,000–40,000 rule-based robots download postings. His team adopted BERT and RoBERTa around 2018–2019 to extract and normalize skills and classify industries. Multilingual models now let them cover new countries without labeling data in each of what were about 25 languages. LLMs also now auto-build scrapers for about half of websites.

The in-distribution problem. Out-of-the-box LLMs, Burkov says, are less impressive in practice than in presentations. Because training data is hidden, even for open-weight models, a business cannot tell whether its problem is in-distribution. A system can pass developers' tests and then fail arbitrarily in production, with no way to detect or reliably fix it. Decision-makers should think "30 times" before putting an LLM in front of users.

Agents and multi-agent systems. Against the host's list of boosters, from Nvidia's CEO to Andrew Ng, Burkov argues executives speak for shareholders, and he exempts Andrej Karpathy as careful. A single agent is a rebranded LLM, plausible for web research because web data is in-distribution, but likely to "break its teeth" on a company's legacy intranet. Drawing on his multi-agent PhD, he says asynchronous systems are already hard to debug and black-box LLM agents make them uncontrollable. Combining agents should wait for trustworthy, human-reliable AGI, which no one yet knows how to reach.

Planning and self-knowledge. Burkov compares AGI to teleportation: possible, with no timeline. Humans alone plan over an "infinite horizon", and LLM agency is borrowed from the prompt. The host suggests AGI may need brain-like modules such as a prefrontal-cortex analogue. Burkov's second gap is self-knowledge. Asked about his new book, o3-mini's reasoning admitted ignorance while its answer claimed experts praise it. A Qwen model trained to say "I don't know" denied knowing him, then named him as an author.

Engineering around the limits. TalentNeuron's chatbot claims zero hallucination because the LLM only interprets queries. Interpretations are shown as normalized labels and the numbers come from APIs via fixed templates, matching the regular UI. Answering a LinkedIn question on the ML life cycle, Burkov predicts the "no more training" hype will last perhaps through this year. LLMs let a small team stand up 15 decision points instantly, but compounding errors force replacing the weakest with trained models that reach 95–99% accuracy.

DeepSeek. Burkov calls it the most important development since ChatGPT. It trained a frontier model for 5 to 10 million rather than 20 to 50 million and published a reproducible recipe. It charges $2 against o1's $60 per million output tokens. It used automatically verified rewards, compile checks and known answers, instead of billions spent on expert data. He holds that open weights still are not open source, since competitive pre-training needs 15 to 20 trillion tokens and open datasets offer perhaps four or five.

  • LLMs are for prototyping; production still needs trained, controlled models. Burkov, ML lead at TalentNeuron, warns that businesses cannot know whether their problem is in-distribution because training data is hidden, so systems that pass tests fail unpredictably on real users. His four-person team uses instructed LLMs as placeholders at the many decision points in a pipeline, then replaces the weakest links with fine-tuned or purpose-built classifiers, because errors such as 15% at several steps compound toward zero end-to-end success.
  • Agents won't work in real life, and multi-agent systems can't be debugged. Burkov, whose PhD was in multi-agent systems, calls a single agent a rebranded LLM with the same out-of-distribution problems, useful mainly for web information gathering. Asynchronous black-box agents cannot be paused and stepped through, so he calls building multi-agent systems on them "a recipe for disaster" until agents are as trustworthy as humans. He attributes CEO hype from Nvidia and Salesforce to shareholder interest.
  • LLMs lack infinite-horizon planning and a sense of what they don't know. Burkov likens AGI's prospects to teleportation and declines a timeline. Humans plan for generations where apes discard a tool after three or four days, while LLM agency comes only from the system prompt. His test of OpenAI's o3-mini on his new book, released after its cutoff, produced a reasoning trace admitting ignorance but a confident answer saying experts praise it.
  • Closed-domain chatbots avoid hallucination by keeping LLMs from writing answers. At TalentNeuron the LLM only parses queries into structured fields, which are normalized and shown to the user, while numbers come from internal APIs into fixed templates. Burkov contrasts this with RAG, which by his rough figures cuts hallucination from perhaps 20–30% to 1–2% but not to zero.
  • DeepSeek removed the frontier labs' moat. Burkov says it trained a state-of-the-art model for 5 to 10 million instead of 20 to 50 million, published a recipe others have reproduced, and charges $2 per million output tokens against o1's $60. Its R1 training used automatically verified rewards (code compiles, math matches) rather than expensive expert-written data. He adds that open-weight models are not open source without their training data.
Dr. Jon KrohnWhat It Takes to Sell Your Data Science Company (with Cal Al-Dhubaib)
  • Sell to the buyer where your business creates the most value. Al-Dhubaib says firms had long approached Pandata because buying a data science team is easier than building one. When the head of Further (then Search Discovery), a fellow Case Western alumnus seeking to move into cloud, AI and advanced ML, offered to buy within five minutes of meeting, he first asked about core values to judge whether his clients and team would thrive there.
  • Upfront compatibility enabled an unusually fast deal. Al-Dhubaib found the two firms shared problems, attitudes and pace despite differently named values; diligence and paperwork ran from January to March of last year, about three months. He attributes the horror stories he hears about other exits to skipping that matchmaking, partly because it is hard to say no to good-sounding offers.
Dr. Jon KrohnThe Changing Role of Data Scientists: Then vs. Now (with Cal Al-Dhubaib)
  • Evaluation design and LLM operations are today's scarce data science skills. Al-Dhubaib says what "data scientist" means has changed drastically over ten years; he now seeks people who can design statistically sound evaluation and quality control for unstructured, multimodal data without leaking what they predict into the data, and ML engineers experienced in deploying language models and diagnosing drift or odd behaviour, which he calls AI Ops.
  • The evergreen traits are soft skills, not technical ones. These are explaining plainly, a drive to learn, and comfort with ill-formed problems. Whatever the technical skills of the moment, Al-Dhubaib says these core values from Pandata are what he consistently looks for and recommends data scientists cultivate to stand out.
Dr. Jon KrohnHow to Prove AI Delivers ROI - Before You Even Start (with Cal Al-Dhubaib)
  • Without an upfront value hypothesis, AI projects fail on ROI. Al-Dhubaib says data scientists get enamored with model accuracy instead of asking which decisions the model influences, what a successful intervention is worth, and how often the decision will actually change.
  • A risk score is useless unless it tells providers what to do. In a hospital project on solid-tumor cancer patients, whose national readmission rate he puts at about 25%, clinicians responded to risk alerts with "now what?". The team added interpretability showing why a patient was at risk, such as medication, comorbidity or a zip code with unreliable transport, pointing to interventions like social assistance.
  • Stress-test the value estimate with the client before investing. In the readmission example the team assumed it could identify 80% of at-risk patients but only 20% would receive an intervention, valued the project on that basis, and asked whether it was still worth the investment, revisiting the hypothesis as models were validated.
Dr. Jon Krohn866: Bringing Back Extinct Animals like the Woolly Mammoth and Dodo Bird — with Jon Krohn
  • Investors are pricing de-extinction on its side technologies, not revenue. The host reports that Colossal Biosciences raised a $200 million Series C at a valuation over $10 billion, nearly sevenfold its valuation a couple of years earlier, with no revenue yet and its main projects not projected to complete until 2028.
  • The method is genome comparison, CRISPR editing and a surrogate. As the host describes it, Colossal maps the extinct species' genome, compares it with a close living relative (the Asian elephant for the mammoth), edits the relative's cells with CRISPR to match, and implants the resulting embryo in a surrogate; it has also built artificial-womb technology the host says could apply to human fertility treatment.
  • Colossal makes money three ways while chasing its core mission. The host lists spin-offs (one using microorganisms to break plastic waste into organic matter, and Form Bio, a computational biology platform for gene therapies, both with millions in further funding), conservation work with governments on species such as the northern white rhinoceros, of which two females remain, and an emerging biodiversity-credits market modelled on carbon credits.
  • De-extinction needs good DNA, a living surrogate and a surviving habitat. On those conditions the host rules out dinosaurs; he names the dodo and Tasmanian tiger as active Colossal projects, the passenger pigeon as a Revive & Restore project, and the Caribbean monk seal, quagga, great auk and heath hen as other candidates.
  • The host's lesson is that impossible goals throw off valuable byproducts. His opinion is that each of Colossal's indirect applications could eventually generate billions of dollars in revenue on its own, and he urges listeners to use AI tools such as OpenAI's and Google's Deep Research features, new "as of the past few weeks", to dream up ambitious goals.
Andrej KarpathyHow I use LLMs
synopsis

This is a practical tour, not a build: a walk through how to actually use commercial LLM products as of early 2025, illustrated entirely with the presenter's own daily queries across ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok, Perplexity, and NotebookLM. By the end the viewer has a mental map of text chat, reasoning models, tool use (search, code execution, deep research), file and multimodal input/output, and the quality-of-life features (memory, custom instructions, custom GPTs) that separate casual use from power use — plus a habit of treating every model output as a probabilistic first draft to verify, not a fact.

The model as a zip file. Everything starts from one mental image: talking to ChatGPT means streaming tokens into and out of a fully self-contained neural network, with no calculator, browser, or tools by default. Pretraining is described as compressing the entire internet into a lossy, probabilistic "zip file" — for a trillion-parameter model, roughly a terabyte — by training it to predict the next token in web documents; this is expensive (tens of millions of dollars, months of compute) and infrequent, which is why models carry a knowledge cutoff. Post-training then swaps in human-written conversation data to give that same network the style of a helpful assistant — attaching, in his words, a smiley face to the zip file. A worked example: asked about caffeine in an Americano, the model's answer (63mg) is trustworthy mainly because the fact is common and unlikely to have changed, not because the model is authoritative. Practical advice follows directly: start a new chat when switching topics, since irrelevant tokens sitting in the context window both distract the model and slightly slow and raise the cost of generation; and always check which model and pricing tier you're on, since free tiers often mean a smaller, dumber model (GPT-4o mini vs. GPT-4o, Claude Haiku vs. Sonnet) without saying so.

Thinking models. A third training stage, reinforcement learning, lets a model practice on large sets of math and code problems and discover its own effective thinking strategies — backtracking, revisiting assumptions — resembling human inner monologue rather than anything a labeler could hand-write. He illustrates the payoff with a real bug: his gradient check was failing, and non-thinking GPT-4o's advice missed the actual issue. Switching to o1 pro ($200/month tier), the model thought for about a minute and correctly identified a parameter-packing mismatch. He replicated the same prompt across providers: Claude 3.5 Sonnet solved it without any dedicated thinking mode, Grok 3 solved it, and DeepSeek R1 (run through Perplexity, which surfaces its raw chain-of-thought) worked through the bug over several minutes before also finding it. The takeaway is to reach for a thinking model specifically for hard math/code/reasoning problems, since it adds little for something like travel advice, and to check whether a given provider even ships one (Anthropic did not, at the time of filming).

Internet search. Since the zip file's knowledge stops at its training cutoff, fresh questions require the model to emit a special token that triggers a live web search, pulling page text into the context window before answering. His running example is checking the release date of a new White Lotus season: without search, no model could know; with it, ChatGPT, Grok, and Gemini 2.0 Flash answered correctly with citations, while Claude 3.5 and Gemini 2.0 Pro lacked the integration entirely at the time. He treats Perplexity as his default search tool for anything time-sensitive or niche — market holidays, filming locations, product rumors, "what's this tweet storm about" — always checking citations since the underlying answer can still be hallucinated.

Deep research. Combining search and extended thinking, this ChatGPT Pro feature (then $200/month, with Perplexity and Grok offering rough equivalents) spends up to tens of minutes issuing many searches and reading many sources before writing a long, cited report. Asked to research a longevity-supplement ingredient, ChatGPT returned a report citing 27 sources after five minutes of work; a request for a table of U.S. LLM labs and their funding, by contrast, came back with real errors — xAI missing entirely, Hugging Face and EleutherAI wrongly included — underscoring that even a heavily-sourced report is a first draft requiring independent checking, not a finished answer.

Working with documents. Beyond search, models can take concrete documents directly into their context window via upload. He demonstrates dropping a 30-page biology paper (on a DNA foundation model called Evo 2) into Claude and ChatGPT to get summaries and ask questions, and describes routinely reading books this way — pasting chapters of Adam Smith's 1776 Wealth of Nations into Claude alongside the reading, asking for a chapter summary first and then following up with questions, which he says dramatically increases retention, especially for unfamiliar fields or old texts. No tool yet makes this seamless, he notes; it's still copy-paste back and forth.

Code execution and Claude artifacts. Giving a model a Python interpreter lets it write and actually run programs rather than guess arithmetic in its head — demonstrated by a large multiplication where Grok 3 hallucinated a wrong answer while ChatGPT and Claude wrote code and got it right. In "Advanced Data Analysis," ChatGPT is shown researching and plotting OpenAI's valuation history, fitting a trend, and extrapolating to 2030 — where it silently assumed a missing 2015 value and then reported $1.7 trillion for 2030 when its own code, once reprinted, actually computed roughly $20 trillion, a discrepancy only caught by rereading the code. Claude's separate "artifacts" feature is shown generating a working flashcard React app from pasted text and, more usefully in his own workflow, turning a book chapter into a Mermaid-diagram concept map — both cases of the model not just answering but building and running a small interactive tool inline.

Vibe coding. For real software work he leaves the browser entirely for Cursor, an editor built around Claude 3.7 Sonnet that has full context of a project's files. A short live demo has Cursor's "composer" agent build a Tic-Tac-Toe app from a five-sentence request, then add a confetti effect and a victory sound entirely on its own initiative, pausing only to confirm running a shell command — what he terms "vibe coding," where you mostly supervise rather than write code, with the fallback of reading and editing the files yourself when needed.

Audio, images, and video. He distinguishes "fake audio" — speech transcribed to text and back via separate models (roughly half his queries use this, via ChatGPT's mic button or the system-wide app SuperWhisper) — from "true audio," where speech is tokenized like text and handled natively inside the model, demonstrated live with ChatGPT's advanced voice mode switching between Yoda, pirate, and storytelling registers, and with Grok's more unfiltered persona modes. NotebookLM gets a similar demo generating a full spoken "podcast" discussion from an uploaded paper. On images, the same patch-based tokenization lets him upload nutrition labels, blood test screenshots, a toothpaste ingredient list, and a meme for explanation, generally transcribing to text first to verify the model read values correctly before asking follow-ups; DALL-E 3 handles image generation, and advanced voice's camera mode lets the model narrate what it sees live.

Quality-of-life features. ChatGPT's memory feature saves short text notes across conversations (e.g., a stated opinion on "peak Hollywood") that get silently prepended to future chats, which he says has made recommendations noticeably more personalized over time; custom instructions set a persistent tone and background (he uses his for a preferred formality level when practicing Korean); and custom GPTs bundle a reusable few-shot prompt, illustrated with three he built for Korean study — a vocabulary extractor, a detailed phrase-by-phrase translator, and an OCR-plus-translate tool for screenshotting hardcoded subtitles — each just a saved prompt with examples rather than anything architecturally new.

  • A chat model is a "zip file" with a smiley face drawn on it. Pretraining compresses a lossy, probabilistic gist of the internet into roughly a trillion parameters, which is why it has a knowledge cutoff (GPT-4o's is many months to a year old) and hazier recall of rare topics; post-training then swaps in human-written conversations to give that same network the persona and style of a helpful assistant, without adding new knowledge.
  • Reasoning models trained with reinforcement learning solve problems plain models can't, by practicing until they find their own inner monologue. Given a buggy gradient-check, non-thinking GPT-4o suggested only surface fixes, but o1 pro thought for about a minute and correctly found a parameter-packing mismatch; Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Grok 3, and DeepSeek R1 (via Perplexity, showing raw chain-of-thought) all solved it too, some without dedicated "thinking" mode.
  • Tool use turns the model from a guesser into a verifiable analyst, but only if you check its work. Asked to plot and extrapolate OpenAI's valuation, ChatGPT's Python code silently assumed $100M for a missing 2015 figure and then reported a $1.7 trillion 2030 estimate that contradicted the $20 trillion its own printed variable actually held — a "junior analyst" mistake caught only by rereading the code and reprinting the number.
  • Any modality can be tokenized the same way text is, which is what lets one model natively read, hear, and see. Audio is chopped into spectrogram chunks and images into patches, each quantized against a vocabulary exactly like word tokens, so an "Omni" model processes speech or pictures directly — unlike bolted-on pipelines that just transcribe audio to text and back, which he calls "fake audio."
Dr. Jon KrohnKeys to Scaling a Thriving Data Science Consultancy (with Cal Al-Dhubaib)
  • Repeat clients, not interest, revealed Pandata's product-market fit. Al-Dhubaib says that because he bootstrapped, paying customers were his only source of growth; when he asked one of the few returning clients why it came back, the answers were his firm's plain, jargon-free approach and an upfront scoping phase it had stumbled into.
  • A mandatory paid discovery phase screens out the wrong clients. He made a 30-day to six-week "discovery and design" engagement compulsory, priced at $12,000 at the time and $50,000 now, to find "where the skeletons are" and the unknown unknowns; it filtered out clients who weren't serious and those who didn't accept the data science process and would end up disappointed.
  • The filter nearly broke the firm before it paid off. Al-Dhubaib says his pipeline dried up and the bank account fell below a month of expenses, one of three such times, but in that same period he landed three of his biggest clients, two of which stayed for about six years until Pandata's exit.
  • Saying no to small, low-value work is what lets a consultancy scale. He calls ruling clients out a counterintuitive lesson that frees time for higher-value work, and says the acquirer's due diligence flagged about three points in the financials that matched the moments he had regretted too.
Dr. Jon KrohnHow a Failed Startup Led to a Thriving AI Business (with Cal Al-Dhubaib)
  • The failed startup's free research was the real product. Al-Dhubaib says his first venture, built out of computational neuroscience work at Case Western, raised money, entered an accelerator and collapsed in about a year and a half; hospital researchers he had been doing free pilot research for then told him they had depended on it, and would pay for it.
  • Pandata was founded on a regional data science talent gap. At its start, at the end of 2015 and start of 2016, he says Northeast Ohio had fewer than 150 data scientists, about a third of them at IBM, the Cleveland Clinic or Progressive Insurance, while other large local enterprises had one or two.
  • The firm survived by moving to whatever was still hard. He says it shifted from analytics and business intelligence to machine learning, then to machine learning in heavily regulated environments as each layer became commoditized; after about eight bootstrapped years it was acquired by Further, where he is now head of AI and data science.
  • "Make it boring" became a core value because clients who understand stay. Al-Dhubaib says many data scientists of the time liked being opaque, while he found clients who grasped the work hired the firm and stayed longer, so he explains complex mathematics with cats, dogs and memes.
Dr. Jon Krohn865: How to Grow (and Sell) a Data Science Consultancy — with Cal Al-Dhubaib
synopsis

Cal Al-Dhubaib, head of AI and data science at Further, which acquired his consultancy Pandata almost a year before recording, argues that a data science firm scales on plain communication, a few hard filters on clients and staff, and a niche the big firms ignore. He ends on the lesson he says he learned the hard way: a data scientist trained to treat smartness as the differentiator has to become comfortable being wrong, being vulnerable and asking for help.

From failed startup to Pandata. His first startup, out of computational neuroscience at Case Western, raised money and folded in about a year and a half. The hospital researchers he had been helping for free then said they would pay for that work. At the end of 2015 he says Northeast Ohio had fewer than 150 data scientists, so he founded Pandata on that gap. It grew bootstrapped for about eight years by moving to whatever was still hard to do. His motto, "make it boring", came from finding that clients who understand the work stay longer.

Filters that made it scale. A compulsory discovery-and-design engagement, $12,000 then and 50,000 now, screened out unserious clients, nearly emptying the bank account before long-term clients arrived. Five core values, found by asking whom you would take on a tin can to Mars, gave Pandata its interview questions: be approachable, win together, cultivate trust, pursue growth, tame uncertainty.

The regulated niche. Healthcare, life sciences, education, utilities and light defense work called for air-gapped environments, insurance and privacy discipline. Al-Dhubaib says mid-sized projects there were too small for McKinsey or Accenture, and that clients wanted an outside party to de-risk them.

Literacy and ROI. In a claims project, a model that found 30% more eligible patients converted only 2 in 100 mailings in its pilot. Staff with bonuses tied to their selections distrusted it. Once explainability and training were added, the unchanged model grew reach by 18%. In a cancer-readmission project, he says providers needed the reasons behind each risk flag, not just the flag. He now sizes a project's value on the decision it changes, for example 80% of at-risk patients identified at a 20% intervention rate.

Hiring and selling. Today he hires for evaluation of multimodal and unstructured outputs and for deploying and monitoring language models, alongside the same values. Further's CEO, a fellow Case alumnus, offered to buy Pandata within five minutes of their first meeting. Al-Dhubaib first checked that the two firms' values and client bases were compatible, and the deal closed in about three months.

  • A mandatory paid discovery phase built Pandata's durable client base. Al-Dhubaib made a 30-day to six-week "discovery and design" engagement compulsory, at $12,000 then and 50,000 now, to weed out unserious clients and those who would not accept the data science process; the pipeline dried up and cash fell below a month of expenses, then he landed three of his biggest clients, two of whom stayed about six years until the exit.
  • Mid-sized regulated work too small for the big firms was the niche. He says Pandata served hospitals, life sciences, higher education, energy and utilities and some defense work, built insurance and security processes "way more secure than any of our clients", charged a premium, occasionally took projects from McKinsey or Accenture, and that this expertise was a big reason Further acquired it.
  • Building users' trust lifted a failed model without changing it. In his telling, an ensemble model for a health-tech client with about 50 million patient lives found 30% more people eligible for government assistance, but its pilot converted 2 in 100 mailings against a baseline of about 10, because staff with bonuses tied to selection distrusted its unfamiliar picks; after training sessions and per-prediction explainability, the same model grew reach by 18%.
  • Projects need a value hypothesis about decisions, not model accuracy. For cancer readmissions, with a national rate of about 25%, Al-Dhubaib says providers asked "now what?" until the model explained the drivers of risk, such as poor transport access; he now stress-tests value up front, for example identifying 80% of at-risk patients with a realistic 20% intervention rate.
  • An acquisition works when the buyer's values and clients fit. He says he asked Further's CEO about core values within minutes of being offered a deal, to judge whether clients and staff would carry over, and diligence closed in about three months between January and March of the previous year; his hiring values, he says, are approachability, winning together, cultivating trust, pursuing growth and taming uncertainty.
AI Analyst LabWhy AI Can't Be Trusted? | Ep. 16
synopsis

In this Data Neighbors episode the hosts interview a staff data scientist at Cash App, previously at PwC, SAP and Nextdoor, about content moderation. The guest's position is that moderation has no fixed ground truth: it rests on human judgments that disagree and on policies that shift, so data science's value lies in building evaluations that keep a wandering path heading roughly the right way, and in persuading leadership the work is worth paying for. The guest ends by warning that LLMs scale persuasion, which puts the burden on AI companies to stop abuse upstream.

Human labels at the root. Even at YouTube-scale companies, the guest says, models are trained on human review, and machine learning scales the work of about 100 people to hundreds of millions of items. Beyond illegal content, what counts as bad is a policy choice. Most firms optimise for engagement and remove only what is clearly illegal. Nextdoor tried to enforce civility, but its reviewer panel agreed far less than expected. The guest's answer was to enforce where reviewers agree and rewrite the policies where they do not.

From reports to panels to LLMs. Starting in 2019, Nextdoor fine-tuned BERT embeddings and labelled content by whether users reported it or moderators removed it. Reports proved unreliable: they are rare, limited per user, and weaponised. So the team moved to panel labelling and was beginning to add LLM votes. Fine-tuning taught the model that the clown emoji signals sarcasm, but it also flagged "die Boomer", where "die" was the German article, as a death threat.

Measuring an intervention. The guest's research paper tested comment filtering with a regression discontinuity design and found no change in activity. The guest offers a hypothesis that harm from exposure is nonlinear. A host notes that a null result like this still generates the next hypotheses to test.

Making the case. Trust and safety is always a cost, the guest says. Showing that bad content drives users away lifted Nextdoor's team to a company-level OKR. The guest's advice to leaders is to talk to people who were harmed, citing fraud at Cash App, rather than reasoning only from small percentages.

Risk at AI companies. With LLMs, one person can become 1,000 or 10,000 compelling identities. AI firms' safety has to be policy-driven and upstream: filter about 99% of misuse, then patch the last 1% quickly. The guest doubts they will always prioritise this but thinks they should. The guest's underrated skill is presenting a plain answer, which AI can help with only if told what the answer is.

  • Moderation ground truth still starts with human labels. The guest, a staff data scientist at Cash App who worked on trust and safety at Nextdoor, says machine learning's job is to scale the judgments of about 100 people across hundreds of millions of items; Nextdoor moved from user reports (limited per user, under-reported and weaponized against rivals) to a reviewer panel, and was starting to add an LLM as an extra panel vote, or as a replacement for a reviewer once its vote proved reliable.
  • Outside illegal content, "bad" is a company's choice. The guest says most platforms optimise for clicks and remove only what is clearly illegal, while Nextdoor took a stance against incivility, which is so subjective that its panel agreed far less often than expected (exact figures withheld). The guest's remedy is to enforce what reviewers agree on and send the rest back to be rewritten as more concrete policy, while ground truth keeps shifting as big-tech policies change.
  • Hiding inflammatory comments showed no measurable effect on activity. In the guest's Nextdoor research paper, comment filtering ("gray boxing") was tested with a regression discontinuity design and ANOVA around each rollout phase and produced a null result; the guest's hypothesis is that exposure is nonlinear, so going from twice a week to once matters little but once to never matters a lot.
  • Data science's biggest trust-and-safety impact is winning funding. Because trust and safety is always "in the red", the guest says showing that bad content drives users to leave moved the Nextdoor team from underfunded to a company-level OKR. The guest names presenting a plain answer and recommendation, not the modelling behind it, as the most underrated skill.
  • LLMs let one voice become thousands of convincing identities. The guest says people believe what many voices repeat, so AI companies need policy-driven safety upstream that filters about 99% of abuse plus a reactive team to patch the remaining 1%; the guest calls it "very optimistic" to expect them always to prioritise that, though thinks they should.
Dr. Jon KrohnHow to Support Open-Source with a Commercial Arm (TabPFN + Prior Labs)
  • A university group could not build AutoML tools for the masses. Hutter says that after 10 to 12 years co-leading the AutoML community, whose best-known tool, Auto-sklearn, wraps scikit-learn to choose methods, preprocessing and hyperparameters, a lab with a few research engineers only ever built tools fit for researchers; reaching a broad user base, especially with TabPFN, needs a commercial entity with strong engineers.
  • Prior Labs builds products while the university keeps the moonshots. Hutter, co-founder and CEO of Prior Labs, says he will keep an academic co-affiliation and research tabular-data questions there, such as how the learned algorithm works, how it shifts with the priors and what its failure modes are; PhD students gain engineers who can turn their papers into products.
  • Prior Labs is hiring broadly and putting community before sales. At recording, Hutter says a funding announcement was due two days later; the company was hiring AI scientists, ML engineers, backend engineers and community staff, with sales left for later.
AI Analyst LabHow the Internet’s Top Data Educator Tells Stories
  • The story is the main idea; details are not the story. Josh Starmer of StatQuest (1.3 million subscribers, per the narrator) boils each topic to a nugget anyone can follow: PCA is "a way to give us something we can draw on a two-dimensional graph" when there are too many measurements to plot, and words like "dimension reduction" come later or not at all.
  • Cap a talk at a few main ideas. Starmer stops each video at three points ("bam", "double bam", "triple bam") because beyond that audiences go numb, as at seminars that run through a thousand slides of equations; like a film, a talk should have one main thrust and at most one or two side stories.
  • Use examples drawn from the audience's daily life. The goal is to communicate, not to show a deck, so he swaps statistics' abstract urns of marbles for a bag of M&M's — whether pulling only red ones is likely — a habit he says he formed explaining statistics to geneticists who avoided it.
Dr. Jon KrohnHow TabPFN Is Already Transforming Science & Medicine (with Frank Hutter)
  • Even TabPFN version 1 found real scientific and industrial uses. The host cites a Science paper on large-scale chemoproteomics for ligand discovery that used TabPFN in its inference, and an "awesome TabPFN" GitHub repo listing about a dozen applications across health insurance, factory fault classification, finance, wildfire propagation and biology.
  • A generic method lets non-experts fine-tune into specialist domains. Hutter says he knows nothing about chemical proteomics but could fine-tune TabPFN on that field's data to beat the general model, and he names algal-bloom prediction and many medical applications; he expects finance uses exist but go unpublished.
  • Prior Labs wants the open-source community to carry adoption. Hutter says he created the applications repo the day of recording and invites pull requests; within a couple of days of the Nature paper, an open-source interpretability repo had integrated TabPFN, and the host notes version 2 handles missing data, outliers and larger datasets.
Dr. Jon KrohnTabPFN Was Rejected for Being "Too Good to Be True”
  • TabPFN's prior is a generator of random structural causal models. Hutter credits first author Noah Hollmann with a method that samples graphs in which features and the target are nodes with unknown causal direction; real data never reveals the true graph, so the ideal prediction is a Bayesian posterior that weights each candidate model by how well it fits.
  • The network learns to approximate that posterior in one forward pass. Hutter says TabPFN never stores the roughly 130 million structural causal models used to train it; it sees only the raw data and has learned to interpolate across all of them, which the host frames as a substitute for the trillions of tokens language models get and tabular data lacks.
  • Training only on synthetic data rules out test-set leakage. Hutter says reviewers rejected the first TabPFN v1 submission because its performance looked too good, suspecting tuning on the test set; the team dropped a component that made gradient updates on real datasets, lost almost nothing, and since then never touches real data in training.
Dr. Jon Krohn864: OpenAI’s o3-mini: SOTA reasoning and exponentially cheaper — with Jon Krohn (@JonKrohnLearns)
  • o3-mini high is the top public model on key reasoning benchmarks. The host says that in its high mode, the one with the most inference-time compute of three (low, medium, high), OpenAI's newly released o3-mini beats o1-mini, DeepSeek R1 and the full-size o1 on the AIME math, Codeforces coding and SWE-bench Verified benchmarks.
  • o3-mini matches or beats o1 at a fraction of its price. The host puts o1 at $60 per million output tokens and o3-mini at 7% of o1's price on both input and output; he says o3-mini costs about twice as much as R1 on DeepSeek's own cloud in China, but about half as much as R1 run on a US cloud provider.
  • The host rates the release below R1 because o3-mini is proprietary. He says R1's open-source release gives more freedom to adapt the model and to run it on any infrastructure; o3-mini is available to free ChatGPT users through the "reason" button, to paid plans as o3-mini high, and through the API.
  • OpenAI's own figures put the full o3 far ahead. The host relays OpenAI's not yet independently verified scores: on AIME, 96.7 against 87.3 for o3-mini high and 79.8 for R1; on Codeforces, an Elo over 2,700 against about 2,100 and 2,000; on SWE-bench Verified, almost 72 against about 49; on GPQA, almost 88 against 80. He expects o3's public release soon and takes OpenAI's past figures as fairly reliable.
Dr. Jon KrohnWhy Bayesian Deep Learning Could Be the Future of AI (with Frank Hutter)
  • Prior-data fitted networks are trained to compute the Bayesian posterior predictive. Hutter confirms that this is the optimization objective of every PFN, so a Transformer is carrying out Bayesian inference.
  • PFNs replace hairy MCMC and variational inference with plain supervised learning. Hutter says closed-form posteriors exist only for simple cases such as Bayesian linear regression or Gaussian processes with known hyperparameters; beyond that, MCMC is slow to converge and variational inference carries approximation error, whereas a PFN samples millions of datasets from the prior and learns with cross-entropy loss to predict held-out points, approximating Bayesian inference "to an arbitrarily strong degree".
  • A PFN can integrate over architectures, not just weights. Hutter says standard Bayesian neural networks place a posterior over the weights of one fixed architecture; with a PFN you can place a distribution over architectures too and get the posterior predictive in a forward pass, which he calls Bayesian neural architecture search.
  • The limitation is that PFNs give no posterior over weights. Hutter says they go straight to the predictive distribution of y given x, so they cannot say which architecture or weights are right, only give the Bayesian average over all of them.
AI Analyst LabWhat is Product Data Science and How Top Companies Use It to Their Advantage? | Ep15
synopsis

The hosts interview a staff data scientist at Nextdoor, formerly at Amazon and Twitter, who argues that product data science earns its place through trust and partnership. The analysis matters less than being embedded with PMs and engineers as an owner of the product rather than a service desk.

Where data fits. The guest says data does little for a 0-to-1 product but drives a mature one. It runs as a feedback loop from opportunity sizing through A/B tests and launch. At Twitter that meant showing that engagement lost to better detection of bad content was engagement worth losing. Collaboration looked alike across companies of hundreds of thousands, 8,000–9,000 and 600–700 employees.

Experiments and hypotheses. Hypotheses come from data, PM intuition and user research. Testing one can take half an hour or months. The guest says the point of a test is learning, not a launch decision.

Trust and structure. Earning trust takes the first quarters at a new job, through transparency and over-delivering. A co-host contrasts embedded teams with centralized ticket queues. The guest puts those queues down to ratios of 10 to 20 engineers per data scientist. A host argues for one data person per PM.

Tools and skills. The guest has used SQL, Hive and Spark, along with Redshift, BigQuery and Databricks, Looker, Data Studio and Tableau. The guest moved from R to Python and still uses Excel. The underrated skill the guest names is cross-functional communication.

  • Product data science is the feedback loop for mature products. The guest, a staff data scientist at Nextdoor formerly at Amazon (Prime Video personalization, Alexa experimentation) and Twitter (trust and safety), says a 0-to-1 product needs vision rather than data, but after launch data guides every stage: opportunity sizing, discovery, roadmap, A/B testing, metric definitions and deep dives.
  • Lost engagement must be argued to be bad engagement. At Twitter, the guest says, better detection of bad content dropped engagement, so data scientists had to convince product partners that this engagement was unwanted, and define the metrics and guardrails for those high-profile experiments.
  • Run experiments to learn, not just to launch. The guest warns that teams who spent two to three months on a feature become launch-happy, and urges digging into neutral results for segments that cancel each other out; a co-host adds that a failed experiment yields real user data for better-informed hypotheses than throwing ideas at the wall.
  • Earning partners' trust is the hardest skill to acquire. The guest expects the first couple of quarters at any new company to go to it, and does it through transparency and over-delivering by answering "the question behind the question"; the guest prefers "partners" to "stakeholders", which implies a hierarchy of ownership.
  • Centralized data teams turn analysis into ticket-taking. A co-host likens them to in-house consulting without the context that embedding brings; the guest blames engineer-to-data-scientist ratios of roughly 10:1 to 20:1, while a host argues for one dedicated data person per PM. The guest names communication across engineering, PM and design jargon as the most underrated skill.
Dr. Jon KrohnTabPFN: Deep Learning for Tabular Data is Here! (Prof. Frank Hutter explains)
  • Deep learning hasn't helped tabular data because its features already exist. Hutter says tabular datasets are mostly small and unlike one another (omics blood values for Alzheimer's against transactions for fraud), lack the spatial regularity that convolutional networks exploit, and come with human-designed features; a data scientist's higher-level engineering, such as computing BMI from height and weight, is what adds value.
  • TabPFN first beats XGBoost and random forests on their own information. He says the first step was an apples-to-apples test using only raw values and labels, not column headers; combining it with language models that read headers is in progress with "some initial results", and he expects it to be "so much better".
  • TabPFN does tabular learning by in-context learning, like GPT. Hutter says the whole training set and test inputs go into the prompt and the model outputs the test labels, trained with cross-entropy, so each dataset is one training example; lacking trillions of quality real tables, the team generated all training data synthetically, which he believes makes theirs the first paper to reach state of the art on synthetic data alone.
  • Sampling enough datasets from a prior makes a Transformer exactly Bayesian. He cites the team's 2022 paper "Transformers Can Do Bayesian Inference": a model fitted to many datasets drawn from a prior approximates the posterior predictive under that prior, and with an arbitrarily large Transformer and minimal loss it recovers exact results, such as true Bayesian linear regression or a Gaussian-process posterior.
Dr. Jon Krohn863: TabPFN: Deep Learning for Tabular Data (That Actually Works!) — with Prof. Frank Hutter
synopsis

Frank Hutter, a professor in Freiburg and co-founder and CEO of Prior Labs, argues that a Transformer trained only on synthetic tables can carry out near-Bayesian prediction on any small tabular problem. He says TabPFN version 2, published in Nature, does this well enough to beat XGBoost on its own terms. The same model also turned out to be state of the art on time series it was never trained on, and he has started a company to turn it into products.

Why tabular data resisted deep learning. Hutter says tabular datasets are mostly small and unlike one another, and lack the spatial regularity that convolutional networks exploit. Their features also arrive already designed by people, so deep learning's strength, discovering features, was never needed. The value lies in higher-level engineering such as deriving BMI from height and weight. TabPFN so far uses only the raw values that XGBoost sees, without column headers, and work on combining it with language models has "some initial results".

In-context learning over datasets. Like GPT's in-context learning, TabPFN takes the training rows and test inputs as a prompt and outputs predictions, so each dataset is one training example. With few clean real tables to learn from, the team generated all of its training data synthetically.

Prior-data fitted networks. Hutter's 2022 paper "Transformers Can Do Bayesian Inference" showed that a model fitted with cross-entropy to many datasets sampled from a prior approximates the posterior predictive under that prior, exactly so in the limit. He contrasts this with slow MCMC and approximate variational inference. A PFN can even average over architectures, though it gives no posterior over weights. TabPFN's prior, devised by first author Noah Hollmann, samples structural causal models, about 130 million of them, and the network learns to weight candidate causal graphs by how well each fits the data. Because no real data enters training, test leakage is impossible. Reviewers had rejected v1's first submission as too good to be true.

From v1 to v2. V1 handled only numerical classification up to about 1,000 points and 100 features, and had around 15 published uses. V2 adds regression, categorical, missing, outlier and imbalanced data, plus text through the API only, and was tested up to 10,000 points and 500 features. Hutter sees a strong prior as the remedy for overfitting on small data, and is confident of scaling to 100,000 or a million rows. The team chose Nature because the contribution is the working whole, which Hutter likens to AlphaFold.

Time series and applications. Recast as tabular features, time series forecasting with the unchanged model ranks first on the GIFT-Eval benchmark at recording, ahead of Amazon's Chronos. The host notes v1's use in a Science chemoproteomics paper and the "awesome TabPFN" list of about a dozen applications. Hutter expects fine-tuning for domains such as medicine.

Prior Labs. Hutter says a university lab could never ship for the masses, so the startup builds products while academic work pursues interpretability and moonshots. It was hiring broadly ahead of a funding announcement.

  • TabPFN beats boosted trees by learning tabular prediction in context. Hutter says it feeds the whole training set and test inputs into a Transformer prompt and outputs test labels, using the same raw values XGBoost and random forests get and no column headers; adding language-model reading of headers is in progress with "some initial results".
  • Training on synthetic datasets alone makes the Transformer approximately Bayesian. Hutter says the model learns from about 130 million generated structural causal models, the prior devised by first author Noah Hollmann, and approximates the Bayesian posterior over them in one forward pass; he believes it is the first state-of-the-art model trained only on synthetic data, and says it rules out test-set leakage, after reviewers rejected the first v1 submission as too good to be true.
  • Version 2 turns a proof of concept into a general tool, for small data. Hutter says v1 handled only numerical classification on about 1,000 points and 100 features, and saw around 15 published uses; v2, published in Nature in January, handles regression, categorical, missing, outlier and imbalanced data, with text through the API only, and was evaluated up to 10,000 points and 500 features. He is confident of scaling to 100,000 or a million with combined approaches.
  • Untrained on time series, TabPFN still leads time-series forecasting. Hutter says casting timestamps as features (time of day, day of week, day of month and sine and cosine encodings) lets TabPFN forecast any horizon in one pass; at recording it ranks first on the GIFT-Eval benchmark, ahead of Amazon's Chronos and other time-series foundation models.
  • Hutter launched Prior Labs because academia can't ship for the masses. He says Auto-sklearn showed that a lab with a few research engineers builds only for researchers; Prior Labs, where he is co-founder and CEO, will build products while his academic co-affiliation pursues interpretability, failure modes and moonshots. The host says the TabPFN library had been downloaded almost a million times at recording.
Dr. Jon KrohnThe Secret to Sustainable Fitness and Nutrition Goals, with Colleen Fotsch
  • Fotsch treats exercise as a productivity tool for desk careers. She says a fixed 30- or 45-minute workout block improves discipline, time management, energy, sleep and confidence at work, and that tech culture undervalues this as a help to being a better data engineer or analyst.
  • Small daily movement adds up more than people expect. She recalls logging about 800 steps one day in her first data analyst job despite having worked out, and recommends stairs, walking Zoom calls and walking one-on-ones; someone managing one workout a week should aim for two plus more walks, not jump to six.
  • Over-trainers should save all-out efforts for a few sessions. Responding to the host, who says copying two-hour, five-to-seven-day CrossFit regimens leaves him too tired to work, she suggests one or two all-out workouts a week. Otherwise, she says, scale intensity by how you feel and by readiness and sleep scores (taken with a grain of salt), progress gradually, and choose a programme that fits your own schedule rather than someone's on Instagram.
  • Consistency, not perfection, is what produces fitness. Fotsch says fitness comes from many days of good choices, made about 80% of the time, rather than one hard week, and that goals can be as simple as feeling good and enjoying training; she saves her hardest efforts for Saturdays so weekday work doesn't suffer.
Dr. Jon KrohnHow PRVN GO Brings Fitness to Busy Lifestyles, with Colleen Fotsch
  • After retiring, Fotsch had to stop training like a Games competitor. She says that for months as a full-time analyst she still trained as if heading back to the CrossFit Games, with her identity tied to being strong at elite movements, until she asked whether muscle-ups and handstand push-ups served her current goals and began training for feeling fit "20 30 years from now".
  • Short, minimal-equipment workouts got results without hours in the gym. Fotsch says she found she did not need her old intensity to reach her new goals, and that the dumbbell, bodyweight and hotel-room workouts she posted resonated with followers.
  • PRVN GO drops competition skills for busy professionals and parents. Fotsch says PRVN's CEO, Nick Johnson, approached her soon after she joined CHG; unlike PRVN's competition-oriented CrossFit programming, the company of champion Tia-Clair Toomey and her husband Shane, PRVN GO omits high-skill movements in favour of conditioning, bodybuilding and core work. The host says the episode is not sponsored.
  • A remote community supplies the accountability a class would. She says users who can't get to a class log the same workout and talk with others doing it elsewhere, which counters the excuses that build up after a hard week.
Dr. Jon KrohnHow DBT Simplifies Data Modeling and Documentation, with Colleen Fotsch
  • dbt turns raw warehouse data into stakeholder-ready models, mostly in SQL. Fotsch describes her work at Podium as adding fields and business logic to existing dbt models, later building models from scratch, using dbt's functions to consolidate repetitive code ("SQL on steroids"), and exposing the results in Tableau or Sigma.
  • Documented definitions force agreement on what the business logic means. She says dbt docs make every field carry a definition agreed with stakeholders, which matters because something like "created date" or "active customer" may not mean what people assume, and which helps new engineers learn the data's meaning and granularity.
  • Generated documentation and doc blocks remove the tedium. Fotsch says dbt now auto-drafts field definitions, which the host calls a good generative-AI use that removes the blank-page problem though output should be checked; doc blocks let a field defined in a staging model be reused throughout downstream lineage. The host contrasts the generic AI fitness tips he found useless on his Whoop.
  • Sigma's spreadsheet feel won adoption from product managers. She says Sigma sits directly on Snowflake, removing an ingestion step, and its Excel-like look served both analysts and Excel-familiar PMs, which helps get everyone onto the same numbers.
Dr. Jon Krohn862: In Case You Missed It in January 2025 — with Jon Krohn (@JonKrohnLearns)
synopsis

This compilation of January 2025 clips, framed by the host around what the years ahead may bring, runs from how to forecast exponential change to how to choose and evaluate the AI systems that change produces. Its end point is evaluation: Brooke Hopkins argues that agents need layered, reference-free metrics rather than a single accuracy score.

Forecasting exponentials. Futurist Azeem Azhar says people intuit linearly although technology compounds. He argues for planning with dynamic percentages and explicit feedback loops, such as the Intel–Windows upgrade cycle, and calls linear storage budgets extreme assumptions.

Quantum optimization. Florian Neukart says hybrid quantum systems suit scheduling problems classical computers can only approximate. Examples are Volkswagen's vehicle testing across 250-odd test classes, EV subroutine ordering and fleet logistics. Quantum results are not provably optimal either, he concedes, so classical and quantum answers are compared.

Selecting a foundation model. Kirill Eremenko gives twelve criteria, from cost and modality to licensing and environmental impact. Hadelin de Ponteves says dataset format decided his own choices.

Evaluating agents. Hopkins says Coval layers metrics such as workflow adherence and function-call correctness, inferred from conversation context rather than golden datasets, so humans review only the most informative failures.

  • Plan with compounding percentages and feedback loops, never linear increments. In a clip from episode 855, futurist Azeem Azhar says nothing grows linearly except birthdays: growth follows S-curves with an exponential phase. He cites the Intel–Windows upgrade loop that drove chip progress, builds dynamic percentages and feedback loops into his own forecasts, and says a linear forecast of S3 storage spend makes "incredibly extreme assumptions", even if the realistic one alarms the CFO.
  • Hybrid quantum computing targets scheduling and logistics that classical heuristics only approximate. In episode 851, Florian Neukart describes a Volkswagen production-testing problem with 250-odd test classes, each with subtests, to fit to available staff skills; he also describes fleet routing with delivery windows and empty miles. He concedes quantum results are not provably optimal either, so the classical and quantum answers are compared and the better one used.
  • Choosing a foundation model means weighing a long criteria checklist. In episode 853, Kirill Eremenko lists twelve: cost, modality, customization, inference options, latency, architecture, performance benchmarks, language, size, scalability, compliance and licensing, and environmental impact; Hadelin de Ponteves says in practice his choices, such as an Amazon Titan model and a Llama model, came down to which matched his fine-tuning dataset's format.
  • Layered, reference-free metrics evaluate agents better than single accuracy scores. In episode 857, Coval's Brooke Hopkins says getting the most-used case wrong matters more than a 99% average, so metrics are combined: a short conversation is bad only if the goal also failed. Coval checks JSON-described workflow steps and function-call arguments, inferring correctness from context rather than golden datasets, and flags agents that take longer than humans or repeat themselves.
AI Analyst LabWhat is AI Ethics in Light of Deepseek? | Ep14
synopsis

The hosts talk with Raphael, an information systems scholar at the University of Sydney who studies the ethics of emerging technology and AI companions, about what DeepSeek changes. Raphael welcomes DeepSeek for leveling the field: it shows that capable AI can be built cheaply and openly. But Raphael argues that efficiency will not bring sustainability or safety on its own, and ends on a call for compassion-based design, binding regulation, and open, interoperable AI systems.

Why DeepSeek shocked the market. Before January 20, Raphael says, the prevailing belief was that competing at the frontier took billion-dollar data centers, venture money and the latest Nvidia chips. DeepSeek came from a China under export sanctions and matched o1 on independent benchmarks. By some estimates it used a tenth of the compute, and it was released under an MIT license. Nvidia lost $600 billion in a day, and more than $1 trillion came off big-tech valuations. Raphael adds that Nvidia has since recovered.

How it was done. Raphael treats the $6 million cost as an accounting figure that rests on earlier work. Raphael calls the theft charge ironic. The efficiency comes from mixture-of-experts routing with load balancing and from distillation into a smaller student model. Censorship lives in the app, not in the open model, which universities can download and retrain. Raphael also contrasts DeepSeek's privacy policy with OpenAI's vaguer one.

Business models. Raphael places OpenAI's advantage in API revenue, its enterprise ecosystem and its brand, and expects open models to push prices down. Raphael judges Deep Research to be ChatGPT with extra steps.

Efficiency and regulation. Under the Jevons paradox, Raphael argues, cheaper AI will be built into everything. The EU AI Act came into force on February 5, as Raphael puts it, but energy disclosure under it looks voluntary on a non-lawyer's reading. The US is heading the other way, and California's AI bill failed under lobbying. Raphael's prescription is mandated renewable energy and disclosure.

Companions and compassion. Companion platforms claim 10–30 million users, and 40% of Gen Z accept a partner having an AI companion. Raphael lists manipulation, political profiling, impersonation and suicide as the risks. Raphael's compassion paper asks for guardrails that, when a user is in distress, refer them to professional help instead of keeping them engaged. It also asks for open, interoperable systems that the government sets standards for, as it did with the internet.

  • DeepSeek broke the belief that frontier AI needs frontier spending. Raphael, an information systems scholar at the University of Sydney, says the January 20 release came from an unknown startup in a sanctioned country. It matched GPT-o1 on major benchmarks (beating it on some, such as medical and ethical reasoning), used a tenth of the compute by some estimates, and shipped under an MIT license. Raphael cites Nvidia's $600 billion single-day loss and over $1 trillion wiped off big-tech valuations, noting that Nvidia has since recovered.
  • Constraint, not theft, explains DeepSeek's efficiency. Raphael calls the reported $6 million cost an accounting figure built on earlier work, and the charge that DeepSeek "stole from OpenAI" ironic given how OpenAI got its own training data. The credit goes to a mixture-of-experts design with load balancing, plus distillation into a smaller student model. Censorship (Tiananmen Square, for instance) lives in DeepSeek's app, not in the open weights. Raphael calls government bans partly justified but a double standard, since OpenAI's own reports show it gave data to US agencies dozens of times in the first half of 2024.
  • OpenAI's moat is ecosystem and brand, not technology. In Raphael's view the money is in the API, not ChatGPT, and OpenAI is protected by enterprise customers, consultants and being first to market, though open models will push prices down. Raphael calls Deep Research "ChatGPT with some extra steps": it still hallucinates and cannot tell good sources from bad, and Hugging Face released an open-source match within 24 hours.
  • Cheaper AI will raise total energy use, not cut it. Citing the Jevons paradox, Raphael predicts AI will be built into everything. On a non-lawyer's reading, the EU AI Act, which Raphael says took effect February 5, leaves energy disclosure voluntary. Raphael wants regulators to require providers to use renewable energy and disclose their energy use.
  • AI companions open the door to emotional manipulation and surveillance. From Raphael's own research: these platforms claim 10–30 million users, perhaps 3% of users are in such a relationship, 40% of Gen Z are comfortable with a partner having an AI one, and an MIT study of over a million ChatGPT logs found sexual role-play the second most common use. The harms Raphael names include political profiling, impersonation (a 7-year cyberstalking case involving James Florence) and a teenager's suicide. Raphael's IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society paper on "compassionate AI" calls for mandatory guardrails that, on detecting distress, refer the user to professional help instead of keeping them engaged.
Dr. Jon KrohnWhat is an Analytics Engineer, with Colleen Fotsch
  • Analytics engineering is the data-modeling layer between ingestion and analysis. Fotsch says that at Podium, data engineering pulled data in and maintained pipelines, analytics engineering modelled the raw data in dbt for stakeholder use, and analysts built Tableau visualizations, working with the modellers on the questions being answered.
  • Whether the role exists depends on the company. She says neither CHG, her current employer, nor Homie had a separate analytics engineering team, though the work still happens; at Podium, analysts gradually took on analytics engineering work as the team grew, which she credits with leveling up her technical skills.
  • Knowing what tools exist matters more than having used them all. Fotsch says learning from what fails, and knowing where to look, is the core of the job; on her first day she wanted to take ten courses at once, and her sister-in-law, a data analyst, told her it was a marathon, not a sprint. Context on the wider pipeline, she says, helps with stakeholders and with knowing whom to ask.
Dr. Jon KrohnThe Secret to Landing Your First Data Job, with Colleen Fotsch
  • Formal training builds the confidence to explain your value in interviews. Fotsch says a degree such as her Arizona State programme, plus Coursera courses she still uses, helps both on the job and in interviews; for analyst roles she prioritized SQL above all, some Python, and the popular BI tools Tableau and Power BI, whose skills transfer.
  • A referral from someone who knows you conveys what a resume can't. She got her Homie interview through a friend from the fitness world working on the product side, who connected her to the data manager and could vouch for her work ethic and teamwork; she advises listing target companies and industries and finding anyone you know there, not only people in data.
  • In-person meetups build a community worth having even when employed. Fotsch says Utah has many data meetups and the contacts she makes there are people she can later ask how they solved a problem; the host adds that newcomers with little knowledge are welcome at data analyst, data science and AI meetups listed on Meetup.com.
Dr. Jon Krohn861: From Pro Athlete to Data Engineer — Colleen Fotsch’s Inspiring Journey
synopsis

Colleen Fotsch, a former elite swimmer, CrossFit Games athlete and national-team bobsledder, is now senior technical manager of marketing technologies on CHG Healthcare's data platform team. She argues that the habits of elite sport transfer to data work: learning to be coached, attempting unfamiliar things, and caring about the team. The confidence that had been missing came from going back to school, not from her talent. She ends where her two careers now meet: fitness programming built for busy desk workers, and the view that regular exercise is a productivity tool data professionals undervalue. The host, a recreational CrossFit competitor, departs from his usual format to tell her athletic story first, and it takes about the first 40 minutes.

Swimming and the shift to fitness. Fotsch swam a freshman year at Notre Dame, then transferred to Cal Berkeley, where she says she peaked later than most. She was on two NCAA national championship teams and a relay that broke an American record twice, and reached the 2008 Olympic trials. After college she became Cal's swimming and diving strength coach. She says training "just to be fit" felt anticlimactic after years of training to win, and a friend took her to a CrossFit regional. She signed up at a San Francisco gym the next day, drawn by training with others and by the daily whiteboard leaderboard.

Climbing the CrossFit ranks. The host explains the Open, a roughly $20 online qualifier that anyone can enter at an affiliate gym. He then reads her record from the Games site. She was 491st worldwide in her first Open in 2014, enough for the Northern California regional, where legless rope climbs and handstand walks humbled a strength-first athlete who had cherry-picked her training. In 2015 she rose to 113th and won workout 15.5 outright, a descending ladder of thrusters and rowing calories. In 2016 she was 80th, but finished seventh at Regionals, where five qualified, within about 20 points of a place.

Injury and the team route. An MRI after that season found her rotator cuff 80% torn, an overuse injury she thinks CrossFit strength had been holding together. After surgery she competed on a NorCal CrossFit team, then three men and three women, which won its regional and finished fourth at the 2017 Games. She says teammates counting on her let her push harder than she could alone. Back as an individual in 2018 she was 71st in the Open and won two Regional events, having moved to Arizona to train full-time while studying a remote kinesiology master's at Michigan State. A failed thruster in the final event cost her a qualifying spot, and she again finished seventh.

The 2019 Games and the turn outward. She was 33rd in the 2019 Open and reached the Games, placing 27th. That year's field took national champions, upwards of 100 per division instead of about 40. Fotsch says it was not the Games athletes had earned. It taught her she was not entitled to an outcome, and it made her start planning a career, which she says elite athletes tend to avoid thinking about.

Finding data. She says a strength coach's pay pushed her to look elsewhere. Her sister-in-law, a Netflix data analyst, described the field, and Fotsch realized she had long been a data nerd about her own training: weighing food, timing sleep and meals, and overlaying wearable data on workouts so her coach could judge load against recovery. She had resisted coding since her engineer father first suggested it, believing her gifts were athletic, not academic. The kinesiology master's showed her she could transfer her work ethic to study. Her first coding course was Sadie St. Lawrence's SQL course on Coursera, which the host says 700,000 people have taken.

Bobsled and the ACL. During the pandemic, a pilot who has won gold medals for Canada and now drives for the US invited Fotsch to try bobsled. She committed to a month at Lake Placid, learned to load the sled as brakeman, and made the national team in 2021 aiming for the 2022 Olympics. Months before qualification she tore her ACL in a weightlifting session. She began applying for analyst jobs from bed after surgery, while finishing an Arizona State master's in applied business data analytics.

Getting hired and moving up the stack. For a first data job she recommends formal training, a focus on SQL plus Tableau or Power BI, and above all a contact at a target company who can vouch for you. A friend from fitness on Homie's product side got her the interview there. Homie, a real-estate tech firm, charged buyers a flat fee, which the host contrasts with the standard 2% commissions on each side of a US home sale. At Podium, a software company that began by helping local businesses gain Google reviews, she moved from product analytics into analytics engineering. She describes that role as the dbt modelling layer between data engineering and analysts. She values dbt's documented, stakeholder-agreed definitions and its newer generated docs and doc blocks, and Sigma's Excel-like front end on Snowflake.

Data platform work now. At CHG, which places physicians in permanent and locum tenens roles, she centralizes and documents scattered marketing data so engagement can be tied to pipeline stage. She spent a few months on the data engineering team learning ingestion. She now delegates more and prioritizes timelines and requirements with stakeholders, while staying close to the technical work. Over Christmas she built her first app with Claude. Her advice to newcomers is to find data in something they already love.

PRVN GO and sustainable fitness. For months after retiring she still trained like a Games competitor, until she asked whether that training matched her new goals. Her minimal-equipment workouts led PRVN's CEO to approach her, and with the company of champion Tia-Clair Toomey she built PRVN GO, a programme without high-skill movements, for professionals and parents. The host says the episode is unsponsored. She calls exercise a productivity hack, recalls an 800-step day in her first analyst job, and tells the host, a self-described over-trainer, to limit all-out sessions to one or two a week. Her standard is consistency about 80% of the time.

  • Fotsch reached the CrossFit Games after years of near misses. The host reads her record: 491st worldwide in the 2014 Open, 113th in 2015 (when she won workout 15.5 outright), 80th in 2016 but seventh at Regionals with five qualifying, fourth at the 2017 Games on a team after an 80% rotator-cuff tear, seventh again at 2018 Regionals, then 33rd in the 2019 Open and 27th at the Games; before that she won two NCAA titles with Cal and twice broke an American relay record.
  • A flawed Games appearance pushed her to plan life after sport. Fotsch says the 2019 Games' expanded field of national champions, upwards of 100 per division against the usual 40, was not the Games athletes felt they deserved, and taught her she was not entitled to any outcome; elite athletes, she argues, avoid thinking about what comes next.
  • She was already a data nerd from tracking her own training. Fotsch says weighing food, timing meals and sleep, and overlaying wearable data on workouts so her coach could balance load against recovery drew her to data, after her sister-in-law, a Netflix analyst, described the field; her kinesiology master's, she says, overturned a belief that she wasn't smart enough for technical work.
  • An ACL tear ended her bobsled bid and hastened her data career. She made the US national bobsled team as a brakeman in 2021, aiming for 2022, but tore her ACL weightlifting months before qualification, and began job applications from bed after surgery while finishing an Arizona State business data analytics master's; a friend's referral got her an analyst role at Homie.
  • Her path ran from analyst to analytics engineer to data platform manager. At Podium she moved from Tableau analysis into dbt modelling; at CHG Healthcare, a medical staffing firm, she is senior technical manager of marketing technologies within the data platform team, centralizing scattered marketing data, delegating more and building less. She credits CrossFit's "figure it out" habit for her comfort learning on the job.
Dr. Jon KrohnSave 20-30% on LLM Costs With This Quick, Easy Trick
  • Like a compiler, BAML handles the prompts nobody will hand-tune. Gupta says a decade of performance engineering taught him that compilers beat him on time per dollar, so a team should hand-optimize only its one or two most critical prompts and let tooling handle the other 90%.
  • Schema-aligned parsing tolerates the model's malformed output instead of forcing strict JSON. Gupta says his team spent about eight months on an algorithm that coerces a response into the expected data model, fixing missing quotes and commas and strings given where numbers were expected, in under five milliseconds; he says customers save 20% to 30% of output tokens.
  • The parser brings function calling to models released without it. Gupta says it needs no model modification, so BAML users were tool-calling with DeepSeek R1 and OpenAI's o1 models at recording, and a customer building a Cursor-like tool for Xcode had the LLM emit code in triple quotes, avoiding JSON escaping, which BAML turned into properly escaped strings.
  • Semantic streaming lets chat products show a generative UI, not just text. He describes type-safe partial data driving interfaces such as recipe cards with a progress spinner per section, or live tickers and graphs for stock analysis, and argues a chat startup must ask why its users wouldn't just go to ChatGPT, with better UX as the answer.
Dr. Jon KrohnRAG Prompts Have Big Hidden Problems... But BAML Solves Them
  • Good RAG depends on data-specific retrieval no general tool can supply. Gupta says his company started on RAG pipelines as one of its 13 pivots but moved away because pulling the relevant documents depends on each dataset, so there is no general RAG solution, just as there is no universal web accordion component.
  • JSON pasted into prompts is filler the model must filter out. He calls them the prompt's "likes and ums": quotation marks, escape characters and colons make context parseable for code but harder for the model to read, and that the placement, orientation, size and surrounding text of images also matter; BAML renders the actual prompt live in VS Code so developers can spot what looks ugly, on the reasoning that models are trained on human data.
  • Treating prompts as typed functions curbs the contradictions of long English instructions. Gupta says every BAML prompt is a function with type-safe parameters and a declared return type, such as an enum of categories, with each category's rule attached to that category rather than one growing essay; this, he argues, yields shorter prompts written like code.
Dr. Jon KrohnIs Prompt Engineering a Joke or the Future of AI Craftsmanship?
  • Gupta predicts prompt engineering will mature as front-end development did. Responding to a host premise, from his researcher, that it is a "joke discipline", Gupta says he once objected to the term "AI engineer" being used for prompt writers, but now sees prompting as being where web development was with plain HTML, no CSS and no interactivity, before it became a complex craft; he expects it to become a well-studied discipline over time.
  • What prompting needs is reliability in transforming data. Gupta frames a prompt as a way to turn supplied data into the data you want, such as classifying a transcript as a doctor–patient conversation or general wellbeing, and says using a model involves more nuance than people credit.
Dr. Jon Krohn860: DeepSeek R1: SOTA Reasoning at 1% of the Cost — with Jon Krohn (@JonKrohnLearns)
  • DeepSeek R1 matches the top models on human-rated leaderboards. The host reports that at the time of writing R1 was statistically tied for first on the overall LM Arena leaderboard, within a 95% confidence interval, alongside GPT-4o and Google's Gemini 2.0 Flash, and that its release coincided with Nvidia's share price falling 17% and the Nasdaq several percent in a day.
  • R1's real shock is its tiny training cost. In the host's rough approximation, a DeepSeek V3 or R1 training run costs on the order of millions of dollars against hundreds of millions for o1, Gemini or Claude 3.5 Sonnet; he credits a conceptual breakthrough combining mixture-of-experts with new efficiencies such as DualPipe, a GPU communications scheduler, across a couple of thousand GPUs, about 1% of what Meta and xAI say they buy in a year.
  • The host argues US chip sanctions on China have proven ineffective. He says a Chinese firm approached US capability with about 1% of the chips, at about 1% of the cost, using less capable Nvidia chips, and that DeepSeek released V3 and R1 source code and weights under the MIT license, more open than Meta's Llama, which shares weights but not code and restricts companies with over 700 million active users.
  • Avoid DeepSeek's app, but run its models privately. The host warns that, per its privacy policy, anything entered in DeepSeek's iOS app, number one on the App Store at recording, is stored on servers in China; he suggests Ollama for private use.
  • Efficient training may strand the giant capital raises, the host argues. In his view, recent $6 billion raises by OpenAI, xAI and Anthropic and the $500 billion Stargate project probably assumed models would keep growing by orders of magnitude; he welcomes cheaper training as better for the environment and for building applications.
AI Analyst LabWhy Are Top Data Scientists Not Using AI? | Ep13
synopsis

The hosts interview a staff data scientist at Statsig, formerly an economist at Amazon, a product analytics data scientist at Meta and a manager at Tencent, who now teaches an AI course on Maven. The guest argues that generative AI is rapidly devaluing technical execution, so a data scientist's value lies in finding and scoping the problems worth solving. Because adoption still lags even in Silicon Valley, the guest sees a 10–18-month window in which early adopters gain an outsized edge, and ends on a recipe for preparing for it and for filtering out the noise.

Why skepticism persists. The guest started learning generative AI before ChatGPT's launch and says ML scientists, burned by earlier hype cycles, still dismissed it in 2024. The guest compares this to reviews that rated the Nokia above the iPhone, and to the 70 years it took cars to reach mass adoption: people overhype in the short term and underestimate in the long run.

What remains valuable. Asked about a LinkedIn post claiming that data scientist and analyst titles are becoming less relevant, the guest calls "data scientist" a vanity title, invented to recruit people away from Google. A student's two-hour Cursor build of a hair-pulling detector stands in for how fast technical skill is losing value. The co-hosts agree that identifying and framing problems is what lasts, and the guest's slide says difficulty is orthogonal to value. On communication, the guest calls it a tool rather than a destination. The guest's point is that you need enough depth in a skill to judge whether an AI answer is better, and that data science is a craft learned by doing.

The working setup. As of January 31, the guest recommends Cursor's agent mode and describes agentic systems as an LLM, a protocol for calling tools, and an orchestrator. The guest's setup uses o1 Pro to plan and Claude Sonnet to execute. In a clip, Cursor turned a SQLite database into a director-level weekly business review and fixed its own bug along the way. A co-host says ChatGPT once let them do several days of notebook analysis in about an hour.

The window. The guest says even top-company data scientists use AI too little because they are busy, and predicts mass adoption of agentic coding in 10 months and agentic-native products in 18. A host calls the gap an arbitrage. The guest adds that incumbents may still resist, as Kodak did. The guest's preparation route is Karpathy's GPT-2 walkthrough plus a published project, which the guest says takes about two months. To separate signal from noise, the guest applies the scientific method: build a mental model, hypothesize, predict, and test.

  • AI devalues execution; the data scientist's value is problem-finding. The guest, a staff data scientist at Statsig (formerly at Amazon, Meta and Tencent) who teaches an AI course on Maven, tells of a student with no ML background who used Cursor to build a webcam hair-pulling detector end to end in two hours. The guest argues that difficulty is orthogonal to value, and calls "data scientist" a vanity title that should be defined by outcomes, not tools. A co-host splits the work into identifying the problem, framing questions, and execution, and expects AI to take over only the last.
  • Communication is a tool, not the goal of growth. The guest cites a former Meta colleague who found ChatGPT gave better advice on sizing a team's quarterly goals. A host counters that a baseline of competence is still needed. The guest agrees, adding that without seeing a skill's many dimensions you cannot judge whether AI's answer is better, and calls data science a craft learned by doing.
  • Cursor's agent mode is the guest's top AI tool today. Speaking on January 31, the guest calls it "objective-oriented programming": you state the result and Cursor does the rest, tuned with custom Cursor rules. The guest uses o1 Pro as planner and Claude Sonnet as executor. A demo automated a weekly business review from a SQLite database, and the agent found and fixed its own bug. Model and tool choices are tied to that date, and the guest expects them to change.
  • Lagging adoption opens a short arbitrage window for early users. Even at top companies, the guest says, data scientists are too busy to learn AI. The guest predicts most of Silicon Valley adopts agentic coding within 10 months and agentic-native products reach most people within 18; a host frames the gap as arbitrage. A co-host reports cutting the time spent creating LinkedIn content by about 80%.
  • An AI job now takes about two months of preparation. The guest's route: Andrej Karpathy's step-by-step recreation of GPT-2, some reading, then a project solving your own problem or copying one from Y Combinator's latest batch, which the guest puts at about 90% AI, published with documented learnings. To filter out the hype, the guest shows students a fake paper generated with ChatGPT in under five minutes and teaches the hypothesize–predict–falsify loop from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.
Dr. Jon KrohnThis Startup Pivoted 13 Times Before Striking Gold
  • Y Combinator partners doubted the Slack-competitor idea that got Gupta admitted. Gupta says he and his co-founder, UT Austin graduates of 2015, tried edtech and the creator economy before applying to Y Combinator with a warmer alternative to Slack; on his fourth application, and third interview, they got in, though the partners told them the idea would not work.
  • Fielding batchmates' machine learning questions revealed the real market. He says they joined the Winter 2023 batch as ChatGPT came out, and as more seasoned engineers, one with nine years in distributed systems and the other nine or ten in algorithms and assembly, found themselves answering mostly ML questions; they also concluded they shouldn't be building UIs, and the company went through 13 pivots in all.
  • An SDK can't express what's needed; a new cross-language syntax can. Gupta says Python or TypeScript SDKs such as Vercel's AI SDK and Pydantic AI are limited by their host language, and since every software shop, whether C++, Java or Go, will use AI, the answer is a new syntax like JSON, YAML or TOML before it, which became BAML.
Andrej KarpathyDeep Dive into LLMs like ChatGPT
synopsis

This is a general-audience walk through the entire pipeline behind a model like ChatGPT, in three stages — pretraining on internet text, supervised fine-tuning into a conversational assistant, and reinforcement learning that teaches the model to reason — using GPT-2, Llama 3, and DeepSeek-R1 as running examples, and closing with the cognitive quirks (hallucination, bad arithmetic, "Swiss cheese" failures) that fall out of how these systems actually compute. The destination is not a single trained model but a mental framework: understanding a chat reply as a lossy, statistical simulation of a human labeler, one token at a time, so the viewer can use these tools productively without over-trusting them.

Building the training data. The pipeline starts with Common Crawl, which has indexed roughly 2.7 billion web pages since 2007. Companies filter this raw HTML aggressively — blocking malware, spam, and adult sites; stripping markup down to plain text; running language classifiers (Hugging Face's FineWeb keeps only pages over 65% English, a deliberate choice that trades multilingual strength for English quality); deduplicating; and scrubbing personally identifiable information. What survives is surprisingly small given the internet's size: FineWeb totals about 44 terabytes, small enough to fit on a few consumer hard drives.

Tokenization. Before any of this text reaches a neural network, it has to become a sequence of symbols from a finite vocabulary. Raw UTF-8 bytes would give only 256 possible symbols and extremely long sequences, so production systems run byte-pair encoding, repeatedly merging the most common consecutive symbol pairs into new symbols. GPT-4 settles on about 100,277 tokens this way — a compression that trades a larger vocabulary for a shorter, cheaper-to-process sequence. Run through this process, FineWeb's 44 terabytes becomes about 15 trillion tokens.

Training the base model. A neural network — specifically a Transformer — takes a window of tokens (up to some maximum context length) and outputs a probability for every possible next token. Training means repeatedly sampling windows, checking the true next token against the model's guess, and nudging the network's parameters — billions of simple numeric "knobs" — so the correct token becomes slightly more likely. The output of this stage, after enough of these updates, is a base model: an internet document simulator with no persistent identity, no tools, and no ability to answer questions on demand — just a very good autocomplete. He demonstrates GPT-2's own numbers as a scale reference: 1.6 billion parameters, a 1,024-token context window, trained on about 100 billion tokens, originally costing roughly $40,000 in 2019. He reproduced it himself for around $600 on rented 8×H100 GPU hardware — and thinks $100 is achievable today — crediting better-curated data and much faster hardware and software, not a smarter algorithm. He also demonstrates that base models memorize high-quality, frequently-repeated sources almost verbatim (reciting a Wikipedia zebra article from memory) and that prompted cleverly — with few-shot examples, or a fake "conversation between a human and an AI assistant" transcript — a raw base model can already imitate an assistant, even though it was never trained to be one.

Supervised fine-tuning: manufacturing a personality. A base model is not useful for answering questions, so the next stage keeps the exact same training algorithm but swaps the dataset: instead of internet documents, the model now trains on curated conversations where human labelers write both the prompts and the "ideal" assistant responses, following lengthy company labeling instructions (OpenAI's InstructGPT paper is the source example, hiring contractors through Upwork and Scale AI). This stage is far cheaper than pretraining — hours instead of months — because the conversation dataset is much smaller. Modern practice increasingly uses LLMs themselves to help generate or edit this data (e.g., the largely-synthetic UltraChat dataset), but the process is still fundamentally anchored in human-written labeling instructions. The key reframe he offers: a ChatGPT answer is not oracle-like intelligence, but a neural network's statistical imitation of what a skilled human labeler, following those instructions, would have written — which is also why asking a model "what are you, who built you" produces confabulated answers (it will often just claim to be ChatGPT by OpenAI, because that phrase is common in its pretraining data) unless a company explicitly hardcodes self-identification into the fine-tuning data or a hidden system message.

Hallucination and its fixes. Because the model imitates the confident tone of its training conversations, when asked about someone it has never heard of it will invent a plausible-sounding but false biography rather than say "I don't know" — demonstrated live on the older Falcon-7B model inventing three different fake identities for a made-up name across three tries. Meta's Llama 3 paper describes the fix: interrogate the model with automatically generated questions about documents, use another model to judge whether its answers are correct, and where the model reliably fails, add training examples where the ideal response is an explicit "I don't know" — teaching the model to connect its own internal uncertainty to an honest refusal rather than a confident guess. A second, stronger mitigation is tool use: introducing special tokens that let the model emit a search query, pause generation, and have retrieved web text pasted into its context window, converting a "vague recollection" in the frozen parameters into a directly accessible fact in working memory — the same distinction, he notes, between something you memorized long ago and something you just looked up.

Tokens as a finite thinking budget. Because a Transformer performs a fixed, modest amount of computation per output token, no matter how many layers deep, a model can't correctly solve a hard problem if the label it was trained on crams the entire calculation into one token. Working through "Emily buys 3 apples and 2 oranges..." he shows that a labeled solution jumping straight to "$3" teaches the model to guess arithmetic instantly and it fails once the numbers get bigger (23 apples, 177 oranges), while a solution that writes out intermediate steps succeeds because each step only demands a small amount of per-token computation. The same constraint explains why models are weak at spelling and counting — they see tokens, not individual letters, so a task like printing every third character of "ubiquitous" or counting dots in a string routinely fails, and the "how many Rs in strawberry" meme traces to this same limitation, compounded by weak counting ability. His practical fix in both cases is the same: ask the model to write and run code rather than trust its "mental" arithmetic or letter-counting. He also flags an unresolved oddity — models frequently claim 9.11 is bigger than 9.9, and one research team traced this to neurons associated with Bible verse numbering lighting up and biasing the comparison, a reminder that these systems have a "Swiss cheese" pattern of capability: brilliant at Olympiad-level problems, yet capable of tripping on something trivial.

Reinforcement learning: the "practice problems" stage. He frames the three training stages as mirroring a textbook: pretraining is reading the exposition, SFT is studying worked examples with expert solutions, and RL is solving practice problems where only the final answer is known — the exact solution path is left for the model to discover through trial and error. Concretely, the model generates many candidate solutions to the same prompt, the correct ones are identified automatically against a known answer, and the model is trained to make more use of whatever token sequences led to correct answers — sequences discovered by the model itself, since a human labeler cannot reliably guess which reasoning steps are easy or hard for a given model's "cognition." Unlike the earlier two stages, which have been standard for years, RL is described as still early and non-standardized industry-wide — which is why DeepSeek's R1 paper, publishing its RL methodology openly, was such a significant event: it showed accuracy on math benchmarks climbing over thousands of training steps, alongside average response length growing dramatically as the model spontaneously developed backtracking behavior like "wait, that's not right, let me reevaluate" — a chain-of-thought strategy that emerged from optimization rather than being written by any human labeler. Given the same "Emily and the apples" prompt, R1 visibly double-checks its own arithmetic from a second angle before finalizing an answer, in contrast to a plain SFT model that just states one path to the answer. He draws an explicit parallel to DeepMind's AlphaGo, where reinforcement learning against self-play eventually surpassed models trained purely to imitate human experts, and produced "move 37" — a move so statistically unlikely for a human to play (about 1 in 10,000) that commentators initially thought it was a mistake, yet it proved brilliant; the open question he poses is what an equivalent breakthrough looks like in open-ended reasoning rather than a closed game like Go, and whether it might even involve the model finding a "language" for thinking that isn't English.

RLHF and why it's not quite RL. Verifiable domains like math have an automatic scoring function, but creative domains — writing a joke, a poem, a summary — don't. Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback solves this with indirection: humans only need to rank a handful of model outputs (easier than writing an ideal response from scratch), and those rankings train a separate reward model to imitate human preference, which the language model can then be optimized against cheaply and at scale. The catch is that the reward model is itself a large neural network with exploitable blind spots: run RLHF too long and the policy discovers adversarial, nonsensical outputs — his example is a "joke" of literally "the the the the the" scoring near-perfectly — because reinforcement learning is extremely good at finding whatever quirk in the reward model produces a high score, whether or not it makes sense to a human. Unlike math RL, which can run for tens of thousands of steps because the scoring function (does the boxed answer match) can't be gamed, RLHF must be capped after a few hundred updates before it collapses into gibberish. His verdict: RLHF is real reinforcement learning technically, but not "RL with magic" — it's closer to a modest fine-tuning boost than an open-ended capability unlock, which is why GPT-4o-class models (mostly SFT plus a light layer of RLHF) behave differently from dedicated "thinking" models like o1, o3-mini, or R1, which have gone through genuine RL on verifiable problems.

What's next, and how to keep up. He expects near-term progress along several axes: native multimodality, where audio and images are tokenized the same way as text (spectrogram slices, image patches) and handled inside one model rather than stitched together from separate systems; longer-running, more autonomous "agents" that string together tasks over minutes or hours under human supervision, changing the operative metric to a human-to-agent ratio rather than human-to-robot; deeper integration and computer-use capability (citing ChatGPT's Operator as an early example); and open research problems like test-time training, since current models have no equivalent of a human's ability to actually learn from an ongoing experience rather than only holding it temporarily in a context window. For staying current, he points to the Chatbot Arena leaderboard (while cautioning it has become somewhat gameable and can rank models like Sonnet lower than actual usage would suggest), the "AI News" newsletter, and following knowledgeable people on X, alongside practical venues for using models directly: each provider's own site or app for proprietary frontier models, aggregators like Together AI for open-weight models such as DeepSeek and Llama, Hyperbolic specifically for base-model access, and LM Studio for running smaller, distilled, lower-precision models locally. His closing framing is the one he wants to stick: these are extraordinarily useful but fallible tools, riddled with "Swiss cheese" gaps even as they clear PhD-level benchmarks, and the correct posture is to use them for a first draft or for inspiration, verify their work, and keep ownership of the final result.

  • Pretraining compresses filtered internet text into a "base model" that is a document autocomplete, not an assistant. Common Crawl's raw HTML is filtered by URL, language, and PII before tokenization (fine-web ends up ~44 terabytes, 15 trillion tokens for ~100,000 vocabulary symbols via byte-pair encoding); training GPT-2-scale (1.6B parameters, 100B tokens) cost about $40,000 in 2019 but he reproduced it for around $600 in a day, thanks to better data curation and much faster hardware and software.
  • An assistant's personality comes entirely from supervised fine-tuning on human-written conversations, not from any deeper "understanding." Because this stage is algorithmically identical to pretraining except the dataset swaps to curated human-labeler conversations, a chat reply is best understood as a statistical simulation of a professional labeler following a company's instructions — which is also why unprompted "who are you" answers are hallucinated unless a system message or hardcoded self-description is added.
  • Models must spread reasoning across many tokens because each token gets a fixed, small amount of computation. Demonstrated on "Emily buys 3 apples and 2 oranges": a solution that jumps straight to the boxed answer forces one token to silently contain all the arithmetic and fails on harder numbers, while one that writes out intermediate steps succeeds — the same fixed-compute-per-token limit explains why models miscount letters in "strawberry" and misjudge whether 9.11 exceeds 9.9, and why routing arithmetic or counting to a code interpreter is more reliable than trusting the model's "mental" math.
  • Reinforcement learning on verifiable problems lets a model discover its own reasoning strategies, which plain imitation can't produce. DeepSeek-R1's training showed response length and backtracking language ("wait, let me reevaluate") emerging on its own as accuracy climbed, echoing AlphaGo's move 37 by finding solutions no human labeler would have written; RLHF, by contrast, trains against a learned human-preference simulator that reinforcement learning can eventually game (e.g., "the the the the" scoring near-perfectly), so it must be stopped after a few hundred updates rather than run indefinitely like true verifiable-domain RL.
Dr. Jon KrohnBAML is a New Language for AI Applications: This is Why We Need It
  • BAML aims to do for prompts what React did for HTML strings. Gupta, CEO and co-founder of Boundary, says that as a Meta intern he saw how concatenated HTML strings let one unclosed div break the news feed, and that React's new syntax combining HTML and JavaScript gave instant error squiggles, state management and hot reloading; BAML, "basically a made-up language", applies that idea to LLM calls.
  • Ever more prompts in codebases demand tooling that catches errors. Gupta predicts each year's codebase will hold more prompts than the last, and that models of all kinds will get easier for non-experts to use, which calls for developer tooling for consumers of models rather than their producers.
  • Prompts need TypeScript-style type safety and static analysis. He argues that however good models get, their use is still code that must fit a codebase, and that BAML's algorithmic work reframes prompting the way TypeScript's type safety improved JavaScript.
Dr. Jon Krohn859: BAML: The Programming Language for AI — with Vaibhav Gupta
synopsis

Vaibhav Gupta, CEO and co-founder of Boundary, argues that calls to language models have outgrown strings pasted into code, and need a language of their own with types, tests and tooling. That language is BAML, which he calls a deliberately "dumb" thing to build. He ends with a prediction that prompt engineering, now at the plain-HTML stage, will become a well-studied discipline as front-end development did, and with a roadmap toward control flow and versioned data schemas.

Why a language. Gupta says that as a Meta intern he saw an unclosed div in concatenated HTML strings break the news feed, and that React's combined syntax fixed this class of error. He expects every codebase to hold more prompts each year. SDKs in Python or TypeScript are bound by their host language, while a new syntax works across C++, Java or Go shops, as JSON, YAML and TOML do.

Thirteen pivots. He and his co-founder entered Y Combinator's Winter 2023 batch with a Slack competitor that the partners said would not work. Answering batchmates' machine learning questions as ChatGPT launched turned them toward AI. An early RAG focus was dropped because, Gupta says, retrieval quality depends on each dataset and no general solution exists.

What BAML adds. Responding to the host's premise that prompt engineering is a "joke discipline", Gupta says he once resented the label "AI engineer" but now sees real nuance in using models. BAML treats a prompt as a function with typed inputs and a declared return type, with each enum category carrying its own rule. That, he says, keeps prompts short and avoids contradictory instruction essays. Its in-editor test loop takes about 5 seconds per test, allowing 240 prompts in 20 minutes against about five, and it previews the rendered prompt so JSON noise and badly placed images show.

Schema-aligned parsing. Rather than demand strict JSON, an algorithm built over about eight months coerces imperfect output into the declared schema in under five milliseconds. Gupta says it saves customers 20% to 30% of output tokens and adds function calling to DeepSeek R1 and o1. It also let an Xcode coding tool take code in triple quotes without escaping. Semantic streaming supports generative UIs such as recipe cards or live stock tickers, which he says a chat startup needs to beat plain ChatGPT.

Roadmap and hiring. Gupta says the hardest part of language design is deciding what not to build. Users want conditionals, for example routing free users to GPT-4o mini and paid users to o1. A protobuf-like versioned schema layer is meant to keep data pipelines working as enums grow. Boundary hires by "why I'm awesome" emails and deep reference interviews, with no technical interview, works in person five days a week, and offers a trial week.

  • Prompts need their own language, as HTML strings needed React. Gupta, CEO and co-founder of Boundary, says codebases will hold more prompts every year and that SDKs in Python or TypeScript are limited by their host language; BAML is a new cross-language syntax, like JSON, YAML or TOML before it, that treats each prompt as a typed function with typed parameters and a declared return type, such as an enum whose categories carry their own descriptions.
  • A hot-reload loop multiplies how many prompts a developer can test. Gupta says that without BAML he sees people try about five prompts in 20 minutes, while BAML's in-editor tests, modelled on Rust's run-test buttons, take about 5 seconds each, allowing 240 in 20 minutes; it also renders the actual prompt live so developers can spot formatting noise such as JSON blobs and badly placed images.
  • Schema-aligned parsing repairs malformed model output and saves tokens. Gupta says about eight months of work produced an algorithm that coerces responses into the expected schema in under five milliseconds, which he says saves customers 20% to 30% of output tokens and gives function calling to models released without it, such as DeepSeek R1 and OpenAI's o1, at recording.
  • Next, BAML adds conditionals and versioned data schemas. Gupta says users want control flow, for example routing free users to GPT-4o mini and paid users to o1 while reproducing each in the test loop; a protobuf-like versioned schema layer is meant to stop rigid data pipelines from breaking when an enum grows from five categories to 50.
  • Boundary hires on references, not technical interviews. Gupta says the company has never posted a job: candidates email "why I'm awesome" with three achievements, then have a short call, after which Boundary interviews three references in depth on the technical work. Those offered a job can spend a week in the office, five days a week in person, and Gupta offers to help them interview elsewhere, hoping they still choose Boundary.
Dr. Jon KrohnWhy Every Company Needs a Voice Agent
  • Coval started with voice agents because they are constrained and booming. Hopkins says one person talking to another is a narrower medium than self-driving or web agents, so better metrics and workflows can be built for it; voice agents were also "exploding" at least six months before recording, and they extend call centers and phone trees companies already run.
  • Voice gives any two businesses a universal natural-language API. She argues a company's agent can expose what it knows, such as claims data, appointment availability or opening hours, to any caller, whether that is a person on a traditional phone without an API or another agent, without integration maintenance.
  • Hopkins predicts voice is the first big platform since mobile. Citing a Steve Jobs talk on how early TV filmed plays and early mobile shrank websites before native forms emerged, she expects every company to be expected to have a voice or chat agent, and new experiences that mix speech with web forms, for example for delivery drivers, police officers or truckers away from their computers.
AI Analyst LabPrompt Engineering: Dead or Just Evolving? (What You NEED to Know)
  • Models now pick their own tools, lowering the barrier to use. The speaker says GPT-3 always got math questions wrong, while GPT-4o now pulls in tools for a math question without being told to; the clip opens mid-sentence on "is dead" and offers this as the reason using these systems has become easier.
Dr. Jon KrohnThe Agentic AI Future: A Glimpse at the Decades Ahead
  • Even near-human agents will need monitoring at scale. Hopkins says Coval's vision is to manage and understand how agents behave at scale even once they execute tasks exceptionally well, just as call centers and large companies still review human performance; understanding agents is what lets society reason about, legislate and deploy them for the right uses.
  • Hopkins expects human creativity to build on agents, not yield to them. She predicts that 50 years from now will be as different as 100 years ago is from today, but that change is neither as dramatic nor as linear as it seems; if agents take over mundane work like spreadsheets and email, she argues, people will become more creative and connected, as they did with computers.
Dr. Jon KrohnEvaluating an AI Agent? Use Reference-Free Metrics
  • Agent quality is a spectrum, so Coval layers many metrics. Hopkins says no single score separates good from failing conversations; a suite of metrics shows trends and allows trade-offs, because getting the most-used case wrong, such as booking an appointment, matters more than a 99% average, unlike traditional machine learning.
  • Combining metrics separates real failures from false alarms. She says a short conversation isn't bad on its own, but one that is short, missed its goal and skipped required steps is; filtering by metrics directs scarce human review to the most interesting examples.
  • Workflow and function-call checks catch technically completed but wrong tasks. Coval checks conversations against JSON-described workflows, for example an appointment booked without asking for the phone number, infers the workflows agents actually follow in production, and verifies that tool calls were made with the right arguments.
  • Reference-free evaluation suits non-deterministic agents better than golden datasets. Hopkins says reference-based metrics need curated expected outputs that must be maintained as prompts, models and infrastructure change, while reference-free ones infer the correct answer from context; borrowing from self-driving, Coval also compares agent and human task times, where much longer times plus repetition suggest an agent going in circles.
AI Analyst LabWhat is an AI Engineer?? #ai #aiengineering #techcareers #datascience #machinelearning
  • An AI engineer turns business problems into AI problems. The speaker defines the role as a software engineer who frames a business problem as an AI problem, understands the AI paradigms around it, solves it, and ties the result back to business metrics to see whether it helped. The difference from software engineering is that AI problems are not as deterministic.
Dr. Jon Krohn858: Are You The Account Executive We’re Looking For? — with Jon Krohn (@JonKrohnLearns)
  • The podcast is hiring an account executive to sell sponsorships. The host says the role is open only to applicants based in Canada, ideally near the Eastern Time Zone, with at least 5 years of full-time sales experience, and owns revenue targets and sponsor strategy, with a technical AI or data science background a plus.
  • The host says the show is far below its revenue potential. He states that podcasts with comparable listenership earn about 10x its revenue, after more than eight years, over 850 episodes at 104 a year, and three years of sponsorship. He suggests the high-production TV ads he began hosting in the past year for Nvidia, Dell and AT&T could become a sponsor offering.
AI Analyst LabData Stories from the Internet’s #1 Educator | Ep12
synopsis

Josh Starmer, creator of the StatQuest YouTube channel, tells the Data Neighbor podcast hosts that explaining anything well comes down to three habits: tell it as a story that starts from a problem, edit ruthlessly down to a few main ideas, and keep practising on a real audience. Starmer ends on an argument for learners: let a real problem decide which theory to learn, because older, cheaper methods are often the ones that solve it.

Origins. Starmer began making videos to teach basic statistics to seven or eight colleagues in a genetics lab, so they could look up R-squared or a p-value while reading a paper. An early genetics video got about a thousand views in a week; the principal component analysis video opened the channel to people outside genetics.

Story and editing. A junior-high friend's advice to tell a story start to finish, without skipping around, led Starmer to the arc of romcoms and superhero films: a problem, a failed first attempt, learning, resolution. Textbooks start with an equation instead. The PCA lesson starts from a problem, data with too many variables to draw, and leaves out history. Editing matters as much: a viewer's note that Starmer dwelt too long on one detail showed that details are glue but main ideas carry over. The hosts tie this to decks shrinking with seniority, and a co-host says 90% of impact lies in how work is packaged.

Three ideas at most. "Bam, double bam, triple bam" marks three points per video; a fourth is too much. Logistic regression, planned as one video, became 11 after slide 533.

Audience and practice. Starmer tries to see things from the audience's daily life, swapping urns of marbles for M&M's. An audience that asks nothing and says "we get it" understood nothing. Weekly Friday "stat chats", encouraged by a boss, Terry Magnuson, built the skill, and drafts still go to the lab, including a reinforcement learning video due in the next couple of months.

Problems before theory. Find the problem first and let it guide the theory; it also supplies the data. At a hospital, Starmer built a nutrient calculator for neonatal-unit doctors instead of following a boss's jargon. Chasing the newest technique is the other trap: linear regression is cheap, quick and transparent where an LLM's rationale is hard to trace.

  • Teach as a story: a problem, a failed attempt, a resolution. Josh Starmer of the StatQuest YouTube channel takes the arc from romcoms and superhero films, where a problem is met, a first try fails, and learning resolves it; textbooks instead open with an equation. Starmer's PCA lesson starts from the problem that height, weight, shoe size and more cannot be drawn on two axes, and skips history such as when Gauss lived.
  • Good storytelling is mostly editing down to the main ideas. A viewer's comment that Starmer spent too long on one hard-won detail showed that details are glue while main ideas are what transfer to new situations. The hosts relate this to slide decks shrinking with seniority, and a co-host says 90% of the impact is realized in how work is packaged.
  • Cap a talk at three main ideas. Starmer's "bam, double bam, triple bam" marks three points per video, and a fourth is too much. A bigger topic gets split up: logistic regression, planned as one video, became a series of 11 after reaching slide 533, with log odds as its own video.
  • An audience with no questions understood nothing. Starmer swaps abstract urns of marbles for a bag of M&M's, practised in weekly Friday "stat chats" for the genetics lab, and still presents rough drafts there five years after leaving. A host's corporate equivalent is a Slack post that draws no replies.
  • Let the problem pick the theory, and old tools often suffice. At a first job in a hospital, Starmer ignored a boss's meaningless "SQL the router table" and built a calculator for neonatal-unit doctors balancing nutrients for premature babies by hand. If the data is a line, linear regression is fast, cheap, runs on a laptop and has known assumptions, which matters in areas like banking, where an LLM's rationale is hard to tease out.
Dr. Jon KrohnButterfly Effects Cripple AI Agents. Here's the Fix.
  • Agent errors compound across pathways, so evaluation must be multi-step. The host poses a triage agent calling the wrong tool early; the Coval guest says multi-step evaluation differs from single LLM calls because non-determinism multiplies across every possible path, though agents sometimes recover on their own.
  • Self-healing and redundancy give agents graceful failure. She describes a cheap, low-latency model answering while a slower "overthinker" reviews the whole conversation and prompts it back on track, plus fallbacks borrowed from aerospace and self-driving. She says the majority of Coval's customers can already hand off to a human when a task is too complex.
  • Reliable agents can be built from unreliable parts, as cloud was. She points to servers being unreliable yet cloud systems reaching six nines through redundancy and fallbacks. The host goes further, calling agents handling complex tasks "inevitable"; she adds that each reliable enterprise deployment raises the tide for all, as with self-driving.
AI Analyst LabThe #1 Mistake Aspiring AI Engineers Make - Avoid this to Become an AI Engineer
  • Aspiring AI engineers err toward all theory or unexamined projects. The speaker describes one group stuck in "tutorial hell", constantly watching videos, and another shipping many projects to GitHub without really understanding them. The advice is to meet in the middle: learn as much theory as it takes to build projects that could solve an enterprise problem.
Dr. Jon KrohnStreamlining Voice AI Development with Coval
  • The workflow turns manual review into automated metrics. The Coval guest describes building an MVP, iterating on the prompt without voice, then running test sets of scenarios (book an appointment, issue a refund, complain about an airline experience) as 100 simulated conversations at once. Failures get reviewed by hand, what the developer looks for becomes a metric, fixes such as less eager interruption get re-simulated, and the loop then moves to production monitoring.
  • No voice-agent platform fits every use case. She declines to name preferred providers, saying Coval aims to stay framework-agnostic so customers can switch as prices and requirements change. The axes she gives are low-code versus configurable (open-source orchestrators offer more control over function calling and RAG) and the weight placed on instruction following, function calling, workflow following, naturalness and creativity.
Dr. Jon Krohn857: How to Ensure AI Agents Are Accurate and Reliable — with Brooke Hopkins
synopsis

Brooke Hopkins, founder and CEO of Coval and formerly the lead of evaluation job infrastructure at Waymo, ends up arguing that agents will become reliable the way cloud infrastructure did: through simulation at scale, layered metrics, redundancy and monitoring, not through any single model becoming flawless. Her company sells that evaluation layer, starting with voice and chat agents, and she frames the human-in-the-loop as staying for now, with fully self-improving agents still premature.

From Waymo to agents. The host opens on Waymo, which he and his annual-predictions co-host named their "wow moment" of the year in episode 849. Hopkins says Waymo took about ten years to get from Mountain View to rider-only service in San Francisco two years before recording, and is now spreading faster to Los Angeles, Phoenix and other cities partly because simulation became accurate enough to replace driving logs. Coval applies the same idea to autonomous agents, anything that must respond to what the world does back: voice, chat, and eventually web-browsing agents.

Why manual testing fails. A multi-step agent is slow to test by hand. A phone call can take 15 minutes or more, and testers lose track of which pathways they have covered. Coval runs representative sets of pathways and counts how often agents get stuck, mispronounce, mistranscribe or make logic errors. Customers vary simulation determinism with temperature, rerun a failing prompt 10 or 100 times, and re-simulate from production transcripts, a workflow borrowed from replaying road logs. As at Waymo, simulation filters what humans should look at; it does not replace review.

The developer lifecycle and platform choice. Hopkins walks through a customer's path: build an MVP on a voice platform, iterate on the prompt without voice, add RAG or multiple agents, run 100 simulated conversations at once, review failures, turn what you look for by hand into metrics, then automate and monitor in production. She declines to name preferred voice-agent providers. Coval is meant to be framework-agnostic, and she sets out the trade-offs: low-code versus configurable, and instruction following, function calling, workflow following, naturalness and creativity.

Precision against scalability. The host frames a spectrum running from tens of thousands of hand-built conversation flows to unreviewed auto-generated tests. Hopkins recasts it as cost and latency against signal. Coval helps decide what runs on each PR, every six hours or nightly, and before releases, and shows whether test sets match production.

Cascading errors. Asked about a triage agent that calls the wrong tool early, she says multi-step evaluation differs from single-call evaluation because non-determinism compounds across pathways. Fixes include self-healing setups where a slower "overthinker" model watches a fast one, redundancy borrowed from aerospace and self-driving, and handoff to a human, which she says most Coval customers already have. Servers are unreliable, yet cloud systems reach six nines; she expects agents to follow. The host goes further, calling agents handling complex tasks "inevitable".

Metrics. Hopkins argues there is no objective line between good and bad conversations, so Coval layers metrics and looks at trends. Getting the most common case wrong outweighs 99% elsewhere. Examples include adherence to a JSON-described workflow (missing a phone number means the task is done but done wrong), reference-free checks of function-call arguments, unanswered-question detection, and agent-versus-human task time as a sign of going in circles. She thinks automated prompt and agent optimization is still too early.

Autonomy and the future. Hopkins separates autonomy in development from autonomy in execution. Rigid workflows break when a caller volunteers an email first, and she hopes agents move toward true autonomy, even reading API documentation themselves instead of being given functions. Why voice first. Voice is more constrained, builds on existing call centres, and was exploding faster than any other agent type about six months before recording. She calls it a universal natural-language API between businesses and the first platform since mobile every company will be expected to have. Hopkins, a solo founder, credits Y Combinator with narrowing the company to voice around its first customer.

  • Self-driving simulation methods transfer to testing voice and chat agents. Hopkins, who led evaluation job infrastructure at Waymo before founding Coval, argues that agents, like self-driving cars, must respond to a changing environment, so they need many simulated pathways rather than manual back-and-forth testing, which she says is what most companies do today. Coval simulates scenarios (e.g. "book an appointment for tomorrow") 10 or 100 times, and re-simulates from production transcripts the way Waymo replays road logs.
  • Test coverage is a cost-and-latency trade against signal. Hopkins says Coval works with customers to decide what runs on every PR, every six hours or nightly, and before big releases, and to check whether test sets resemble the distribution seen in production.
  • Layer reference-free metrics rather than chase one score. She describes workflow-adherence checks against a JSON workflow, function-call checks inferred from the conversation rather than a golden dataset, unanswered-question detection, and agent-versus-human task time. A short call is not bad on its own; a short call with an unmet goal is. Getting the single most common case wrong matters more than a 99% average.
  • Reliability can be built from unreliable parts, as cloud infrastructure was. Hopkins cites redundancy, fallbacks, a slow "overthinker" model monitoring a fast low-latency one, and human handoff, which she says most of Coval's customers already have. She judges self-improving agents and automated prompt optimization still too early; visibility beats the time saved, for now.
  • Voice becomes a universal natural-language API between businesses. She says Coval started with voice because it is more constrained and was exploding faster than other agents about six months before recording, and predicts voice is the first platform since mobile every company will be expected to have.
AI Analyst LabHow Long to Become an AI Engineer from Scratch? #ai #aiengineering #aicourse #techcareers #data
  • Becoming an AI engineer takes months, not years. The speaker's estimate is two or three weeks of theory (not the latest research, just the different ways AI can be used), then another one or two months building and scaling projects. Software engineers can go faster because "at the end of the day, it's an API"; from scratch it depends on programming skill, but three or four months should still be enough.
Dr. Jon KrohnHow to Prepare for AI-Driven Job Upheaval
  • There is no solid ground for workers facing AI. The host premises that remote keyboard-and-microphone jobs, including much software and data science work, are easiest for AI to replace. Azhar tells listeners to feel apprehensive, and to spend two or three days throwing their hardest problems at LLMs until they are shaken, then "come out the other side".
  • Jobs already turn over fast, and new ones keep appearing. He cites that 53% of Gen Z want to be influencers, 14 years after his own influencer-ranking startup, and economist David Autor's finding from about 80 years of US data that 60% of today's jobs did not exist in 1940. He notes the tension between middle-class desk-job growth and lower-paid service jobs over 30 to 40 years.
  • Work is becoming "boss-like", and skilling up is the only preparation. Azhar says he and his team now set goals for teams of one or more AI systems, where domain knowledge and judgment help. He expects most jobs to change, some to vanish and new ones to appear, but says nobody knows how fast, and that even in 20 years the question may be open.
AI Analyst LabHow to Learn AI Engineering for FREE #ai #aiengineering #techcareers #datascience #zerotomastery
  • DeepLearning.AI is the best free place to learn AI engineering. The speaker cites its one- to two-hour courses on prompt engineering, RAG, multimodal models and multimodal prompting, and building agentic pipelines, taught by experts. Its notebooks give access to OpenAI APIs, so learners do not pay for the LLM calls.
Dr. Jon KrohnCan Renewable Energy and AI Reverse Climate Change?
  • Energy is shifting from a commodity to a technology that cheapens. Azhar argues AI's energy demand will catalyse discipline in building the system. He says coal, oil and gas have not got cheaper in 200 years, while solar panel costs fell by, he thinks, 99% over 20 years, with batteries following the same exponential pattern and intermittency "a completely solvable design problem".
  • The transition will mirror telecoms giving way to the internet. He likens the fossil system to the old phone network, reliable but needing about a billion dollars to enter, and forecasts a decentralised, cheaper system led by solar plus batteries, with wind, nuclear and maybe fusion. He puts the energy transformation at a couple of decades and cheap carbon capture and desalination at decades.
  • The pessimistic case is not grounded in evidence, he argues. Azhar says peer-reviewed papers in Science and Nature show solar needs less material than fossil fuels, that lithium is plentiful but under-extracted, and that an Oxford study from about two years earlier found a fully renewable system cheaper to run, saving "trillions" the faster it is built. He likens the objections to a UK mobile CEO's 1999 vow never to allow online bill payment.
Dr. Jon KrohnWill Quantum Computing Revolutionize AI or Fade Away?
  • When quantum computing becomes useful is genuinely uncertain. Azhar says he does not know, and that quantum builders are scientists who see the world "as it could be", so their time frames differ from product builders'. He expects amazing things once machines have tens of thousands to millions of logical coherent qubits, and notes Google announced its random-number benchmark breakthrough twice.
  • Transformers on GPUs may get there before quantum machine learning. He argues transformer architectures are "eating" protein, materials and robotics work, so the overlap with quantum machine learning may be smaller than thought. His one-sentence view is to keep building quantum computers, but that there is good reason to spend time on the current AI wave.
Dr. Jon Krohn856: The Fastest-Growing Jobs Are AI Jobs — with Jon Krohn (@JonKrohnLearns)
  • AI engineer tops the list of fastest-growing US jobs. The host relays LinkedIn Economic Graph research on millions of jobs started between January 2022 and July 2024, which excluded internships, interim and student roles and jobs dominated by a few employers. He notes it does not disclose its minimum-count threshold. US AI engineers' top skills are LLMs, NLP and PyTorch, and they cluster in San Francisco, New York and Boston. The role is 36% fully remote and 27% hybrid.
  • AI consultant and AI researcher also rank among the fastest-growing. AI consultant is second and AI researcher twelfth. The host says the consultant role is less technical (top skill prompt engineering, top prior role operations associate). AI researchers' top skill is deep learning, and only 11% are fully remote and 19% hybrid.
  • AI roles are leading growth abroad too. In the reports AI engineer is first in the UK and Netherlands, fifth in Sweden, sixth in Canada and Israel, and twelfth in India. AI researcher is third in Canada and Israel, ahead of AI engineer there, and ninth in the Netherlands.
  • The host reads this as data science splitting into specialties. His inference is that data scientist has ceded its high-growth spot to AI-specific titles, not that its skills matter less. He notes data scientist is among the most common roles people move from into AI engineering and research.
AI Analyst Lab4 Steps to Becoming an AI Engineer | Ep11
synopsis

Aishwarya, a generative AI tech lead at AWS's Generative AI Innovation Center, who also teaches and advises researchers, tells the Data Neighbor podcast hosts that AI engineering is a problem-first discipline. An AI engineer decides whether a business problem is an AI problem at all, picks the usage paradigm (prompting, RAG, agents or fine-tuning), and ties evaluation to business metrics. The episode ends on evaluation as the hardest part, and on data, not models, as where failing systems get fixed.

What clients bring. At AWS, clients arrive with business problems and Aishwarya's team of applied scientists, solution architects and strategists designs, prototypes and scales solutions on Bedrock. Typical cases are knowledge search, chatting with video, SQL generation, NFL match footage, and a legal firm's thousands of contract PDFs, which Claude parsed into structured form. Part of the job is telling leaders what generative AI should not do. Therapy is too subjective for systems that are stateless and costly to retrain, and a fixed if-else workflow needs an integration, not AI. Aishwarya distrusts "AI first" companies, and says many people asking for agents have never heard of RAG.

How we got here. Aishwarya traces neural networks, RNNs and LSTMs, the 2017 Transformer, which processed words in parallel, and the discovery that scaling models and data alone improved performance. ChatGPT's 2022 interface followed, then the enterprise problem: generalist models lack private context. Prompt engineering came first, then RAG as open-book question answering, needed partly because context windows were around 32,000 tokens. Agents followed, using the LLM as a decision-maker that calls tools such as web search. Since 2023 the innovation has been at the application layer, where AI engineers work through an API.

The role. An AI engineer translates business problems into AI problems and evaluation metrics into business metrics. Frameworks matter little, since they get replaced and AWS uses Bedrock agents rather than LangGraph. Nondeterminism, including hallucination and sycophancy, is what separates the work from software engineering. In Aishwarya's team, applied scientists design solutions and metrics while machine learning engineers productionize them.

Getting in. The common mistakes are tutorial hell and a GitHub page of checklist projects nobody needs. Build on your existing domain and push a prototype toward real conditions: large documents, access controls, guardrails, a thousand concurrent requests. Learn the four paradigms first, through Aishwarya's free 10-week GitHub course and DeepLearning.AI's short courses, then automate a repetitive pain point. Aishwarya's own example is an agent that turns daily paper scores into a monthly list on GitHub. The estimate is three or four months to build competently, judging models on cost, latency, performance and evaluation, and about a year to follow research. Prompt engineering as a separate skill is fading for everyday users, Aishwarya says, as models choose tools themselves; what remains is ordinary communication.

Evaluation and data. For a chat-with-documents system, Aishwarya starts from budget, latency and performance constraints, which narrow the model choice. An evaluation set comes from past logs or synthetic data designed with subject matter experts, and data analysis looks for conflicting answers. RAG comes next, agents where data spans SQL, PDFs and video, fine-tuning for niche domains, then observability and LLM judges. Keyword metrics like BLEU and ROUGE fail when a right answer has a hundred phrasings. LLM judges vary widely when scoring 1 to 10 and favour verbose answers, so binary metrics work better, and a judge's reasoning should be checked against the human's. The AI engineer, not the domain expert, must ask the questions that calibrate the judge. Whatever the model, broken applications usually trace back to messy data.

Looking ahead. A host predicts the AI engineer role splitting into specialist functions within about five years; Aishwarya expects vertical, domain-specific AI engineers instead.

  • Many problems brought to generative AI do not need it. Aishwarya, a generative AI tech lead at AWS's Generative AI Innovation Center, calls AI therapy too far-fetched because it is subjective and models are stateless and expensive to retrain, while simple step-by-step workflows only need an integration. Generative AI adds most value in objective knowledge search and retrieval; of 10 people talking about AI, perhaps two or three know anything beyond agents, and many asking for agents do not know what RAG is.
  • An AI engineer translates business problems and metrics; tools are secondary. The role is to turn a business problem into an AI problem and its evaluation metrics into business metrics, much like software engineering but handling nondeterminism such as hallucination and sycophancy. Whether LangGraph or CrewAI is best "doesn't really matter": frameworks get replaced, and Aishwarya's team uses Bedrock agents.
  • Learn prompting, RAG, agents and fine-tuning before building projects. Aishwarya's route is to use LLMs daily, follow the mind map in Aishwarya's own free 10-week GitHub course and DeepLearning.AI's short courses, then build projects that automate your own repetitive pain points, such as the agent that compiles a monthly paper list. Estimates: two or three weeks of theory and one or two months of projects, three or four months in all, and about a year to follow research.
  • Evaluation is the hardest part, technically and operationally. Aishwarya's workflow runs from cost, latency and performance constraints to an evaluation set built from logs or synthetic data with subject matter experts, then RAG, agents for mixed sources, fine-tuning if needed, and monitoring with LLM judges. BLEU and ROUGE no longer work; LLM judges vary widely on 1-to-10 scales and favour longer answers, so use binary metrics and check that a judge's reasoning matches the human's.
  • When an AI application breaks, go back to the data. Aishwarya says more time goes into the data feeding models than into the models, because real-world data has annotation issues and conflicting answers, and no model can fix garbage in. Personal picks at the time: Claude Sonnet 3.5 for code in Cursor or Codeium, ChatGPT for creative writing, NotebookLM for research papers.
Dr. Jon KrohnHow Azeem Azhar Uses AI Agents to Automate His Day
  • Dictating a day's jumbled tasks to a chatbot yields an organised plan. After the school run Azhar records up to 10 minutes of mixed tasks in Claude's audio mode (a speech, car insurance, a parking ticket, a Stripe refund), and on reaching his desk 15 minutes later finds a sorted to-do list, a drafted appeal letter and ordered speech notes. He calls Claude 3.5 Sonnet good enough to change his day.
  • The missing piece is turning plans into actions. For now he copies and pastes; he says AI companies are promising that step "this year". He expects hundreds or thousands of agents working for each person and wants a "chief of staff" supervisor agent that takes unstructured input, doubting Apple will build it.
  • His multi-agent debate succeeds about half the time. He defines a historian of technology, an investor and a cynic, run on o1 and at least two Claude 3.5 models, with an orchestrator making them argue. A run takes five or six minutes and costs about 20 cents, and fails about half the time, which he says matches human teams on open-ended research. He builds it in Wordware, disclosing he is an investor, or Lindy.
  • Learning AI means working close to the API. Azhar says calling models directly lets you set temperature (sensible but creative, around 1, for an evaluator), which third-party interfaces hide. He also uses Gemini Advanced research, NotebookLM, and an email-drafting tool he has invested in; the host describes using You.com's research mode alongside Claude 3.5 Sonnet.
Dr. Jon KrohnBreak Your Linear Mindset to Prepare for Exponential Change
  • Linear forecasts ignore how things actually grow. Azhar says business plans still show fixed increments, though growth follows a logistic S-curve with an exponential phase; "nothing is linear except our birthdays". He points to compound interest and late pension saving, and says Bay Area tech internalised Moore's Law. Listeners have lived through exponentials in phone upgrades and data lakes growing from a gigabyte to a petabyte.
  • Model growth as compounding percentages with feedback loops. He says he has never used linear increments in more than 20 years of planning, and builds in feedback loops such as Intel chips enabling Windows features that drove upgrades. A linear multi-year S3 storage budget, he argues, is the extreme assumption, even if a realistic one alarms the CFO.
Dr. Jon Krohn855: Exponential Views on AI and Humanity’s Greatest Challenges — with Azeem Azhar
synopsis

Azeem Azhar, author of the Exponential View newsletter (105,000 subscribers, per the host) and the book The Exponential Age, argues that the more radical assumption is that exponential technology trends stop. Compute, AI and now energy keep getting cheaper through identifiable processes, and organisations and people must plan in compounding terms and practise with AI directly. He ends by declining to promise any "solid ground" for workers: most jobs will change, and skilling up is the only real preparation.

Exponentialism and the baseline. Azhar defines exponential technologies as ones that get much better and cheaper every year, chips above all, and says they are why data scientists exist; his home network moves a terabyte every couple of weeks. Long-range forecasting is hard; the data scientist title barely existed when he hired one in 2010. His heuristic is to extend the line. By his calculation, computing capacity has grown about 65% a year compounded for 52 or 53 years since 1972, and assuming it stops is the bolder bet. He grants the turkey-before-Thanksgiving objection but says the trend rests on processes, not magic: scaling out when quantum effects bite, faster GPU interconnects, financial incentive, and soon AI help.

Why linear intuition fails. Azhar points to compound interest and late pension saving. Business plans still show fixed increments, though real growth follows logistic S-curves. For more than 20 years he has modelled growth as compounding percentages with feedback loops, such as Intel chips enabling Windows features that drove upgrades. He calls a linear multi-year S3 storage budget an "extreme assumption", even if the realistic one alarms the CFO.

The exponential gap. Technology outruns norms and processes. Azhar says fast-growing AI companies reach $30 million annualized revenue in about 20 months against about 60 for SaaS, and that Anthropic hit a billion dollars in sales in 2024, its third or fourth year. To catch up, organisations should build "the muscle of working with AI": using cognitive assistants, building systems that survive tool churn, learning where AI works, and prioritising. The right level is APIs and semi-finished tools. Packaged SaaS workflows leave the learning to the vendor, and foundation models need about 20 top scientists and $10 billion.

His own AI workflows. He dictates up to 10 minutes of mixed tasks into Claude's audio mode after the school run and finds an organised to-do list, draft letters and speech notes at his desk. The missing step is turning these into actions, which he says AI companies are promising this year. He expects hundreds or thousands of agents, with a "chief of staff" supervisor agent; he doubts Apple will build it. A multi-agent debate (historian, investor, cynic, plus an orchestrator) runs on o1 and Claude 3.5 models, takes five or six minutes, costs about 20 cents, and gives a good result about half the time, which he likens to human research teams. He builds it in Wordware, which he discloses he has invested in, or Lindy. Quantum and energy. Azhar does not know when quantum computing will be useful. Its builders are scientists with long time frames, and transformers on Nvidia chips may "knock down the doors" first. On energy, he argues AI demand will impose discipline, and that energy is becoming a technology. Fossil energy has not got cheaper over 200 years, while he believes solar costs fell 99% in 20 years. He likens the shift to telecoms giving way to the internet and cites Nature and Science papers on materials and an Oxford study finding renewables cheaper. He puts the transition at a couple of decades, and cheap carbon capture and desalination later.

Why humanity needs AI, and work. Population is expected to peak in 60 or 70 years, after which knowledge production would shrink without tools to magnify it. He cites Sakana's AI Scientist and a chemistry agent, says few people ever understood breakthroughs like Rosalind Franklin's anyway, and sees LLMs turning scientists back into polymaths. On work, citing David Autor's finding that 60% of today's jobs did not exist in 1940, he expects most jobs to change and everyone to become more "boss-like" directing AI. Answering a listener, he uses the move from steam to electrified factories to argue that work structures will change fundamentally.

  • Assuming exponential compute growth stops is the more radical bet. Azhar calculates world computing capacity has grown about 65% a year compounded for 52 or 53 years since 1972, and his baseline for 10 to 30 years out is to extend that line. He grants the turkey-before-Thanksgiving objection but argues the curve rests on processes (parallelism, interconnects, financial incentive, soon AI help) rather than on shrinking transistors alone.
  • Linear forecasts are the extreme assumption in planning. He says he has modelled growth as compounding percentages with feedback loops (Intel chips enabling Windows features driving upgrades) for more than 20 years, and that a linear S3 storage budget contradicts history. Most real growth follows a logistic S-curve; "nothing is linear except our birthdays".
  • AI-native companies are opening an "exponential gap". Azhar says fast-growing AI companies reach $30 million annualized revenue in about 20 months against about 60 for SaaS, and that Anthropic reached a billion dollars in sales in
    1. His advice is to build "the muscle of working with AI" on APIs and semi-finished tools, neither finished SaaS workflows nor your own foundation models.
  • Energy is turning from a commodity into a cheapening technology. He says fossil energy has not got cheaper in 200 years while solar panel costs fell by, he thinks, 99% over 20 years, with batteries on a similar curve, and likens the shift to telecoms giving way to the internet. He cites an Oxford paper from about two years earlier finding a fully renewable system cheaper to run, and puts the energy transition at a couple of decades and cheap carbon capture and desalination further out.
  • AI is needed to keep knowledge growing as population peaks. Azhar expects human population to peak in 60 or 70 years, after which fewer people can work on problems. On jobs he says there is "no solid ground": citing David Autor's finding that 60% of today's US jobs did not exist in 1940, he expects most jobs to change, everyone's work to become more "boss-like" directing AI, and skilling up as the only preparation.
Dr. Jon KrohnInside AWS Generative AI: Q, Bedrock, and SageMaker Explained
  • AWS's generative AI stack runs from plug-and-play to fully granular. The guest (Eremenko, in episode 853) says Amazon Q offers no choice or customisation of the base model. Q Business is effectively RAG across S3, RDS, Kendra, Gmail, Dropbox, Slack, Zendesk, Jira and Salesforce, with an option to fall back on the model's own knowledge. Q Developer is a coding assistant in JetBrains, VS Code and the CLI, and an AWS-account assistant.
  • The middle layer suits most; the granular one needs technical staff. He describes Bedrock as pay-as-you-go access to proprietary and open-source models, with prompting, RAG and agents. SageMaker covers the whole machine learning pipeline with finer customisation and deployment, but needs more technical staff or a partner. The guests disclose no Azure or GCP experience, after over two and a half years on AWS.
  • A low-code tool outperformed his hand-tuned models, he says. The second guest (de Ponteves) reports that SageMaker Canvas built, trained and tuned a model in a few clicks and five minutes that outperformed every model he had spent hours tuning on his usual benchmark dataset. He also praises Data Wrangler for preprocessing and JumpStart for vision and NLP foundation models beyond LLMs.
Dr. Jon KrohnInstruction Fine-Tuning: Teaching AI to Think Your Way
  • Instruction-based fine-tuning adds an explicit instruction to each example. The guest (de Ponteves, in episode 853) fine-tuned an Amazon Titan model on niche topics with an instruction to answer in two or three words ("a dog" to which pet is more attention-seeking), and says the result gave concise, straight-to-the-point answers. The difference from domain-specific fine-tuning, he says, is an extra dataset column carrying the instruction. The host notes his former company Nebula instead did domain-specific fine-tuning of Llama models with LoRA.
AI Analyst LabTop Drivers or Data Science Salary
  • Data science pay turns on several distinct factors. The speakers list industry, seniority (IC1, IC2, IC3, with more experience paid more), the area of the organization, location (the Bay Area pays more), performance, and specialized skills in demand. They add the macroeconomic situation, citing 2021's high demand and low supply, and a company's own need: a role critical to the business that must be filled fast gets paid more.
Dr. Jon KrohnThe 12-Step Checklist for AI Model Selection
  • Start with cost, modality and the customisation the model supports. The guest (Eremenko, in episode 853) says pricing differs between models, that input and output types (text, image, video) rule models in or out at once, and that you need to know which customisation methods you need before checking which models support them.
  • Match inference options and latency to how the model is used. He contrasts real-time uses with no delay (an in-game feature, a natural voice conversation) with asynchronous answers in five minutes and background batch jobs.
  • Benchmarks, language and size trade performance against price. He notes that leaderboards score the base model before you customise it, that average performance at a lower price can suffice where accuracy is not business-critical, and that small language models are gaining ground.
  • Scalability, compliance, licensing and energy are easily overlooked. He asks how a deployment serving 10,000 users grows to 100,000, flags growing AI regulation and model licences, and suggests weighing a provider's chips and energy use in training and inference.
  • In practice, dataset format decided the model. The second guest (de Ponteves) says he chose an Amazon Titan model for one fine-tuning experiment and a Llama model for a medical chatbot because each matched his data's format, and mentions Amazon's just-released Nova models.
Dr. Jon Krohn854: The Six Epochs of Intelligence Evolution — with Jon Krohn (@JonKrohnLearns)
  • Intelligence began with physics and chemistry storing information. The host relays Ray Kurzweil's first epoch from The Singularity Is Nearer: atoms formed a few hundred thousand years after the Big Bang, then molecules, with carbon's stable chains allowing elaborate information. Self-replicating RNA, though not alive, let natural selection act. The host adds his own awe that physical constants are fine-tuned enough for this.
  • Biological life is the second epoch. Per Kurzweil, RNA learned to make proteins and became trapped in fatty-acid bubbles to form protocells. Selection for more stable membranes and storage, eventually double-helix DNA, produced single-celled and then multicellular organisms several billion years ago.
  • Technology, beginning a few thousand years ago, is the fourth epoch. Humans began storing information outside their brains, from clay tablets to solid-state drives, and now machine learning that perceives and reasons. The host forecasts that simply scaling parameters, inference compute and data will keep machines passing humans on harder tasks, and that within a few years scientific discovery may be led more by machines than humans.
  • We are entering the fifth epoch, merging brains with computers. Today brain-computer interfaces are implanted mainly for paralysis or motor loss after spinal injury or stroke. Kurzweil expects ordinary brains to be augmented over coming decades, vastly expanding memory and abstract thought.
  • The sixth epoch turns the cosmos into a substrate for computation. The host calls it Kurzweil's most speculative idea: intelligence spreads beyond Earth and restructures matter, limited only by the speed of light and quantum mechanics, until individual intelligences merge. He says it may be wild conjecture, but that Kurzweil has been prescient about AI's pace.
AI Analyst LabElevate Your Data Science Career: Avoid These Common Mistakes | Ep10
synopsis

Manisha, a data science leader at Google and founder of Prep Vector, talks with Shane and a co-host on the Data Neighbor podcast about building a long data science career and moving into leadership. The episode's argument is that advancement is earned before it is granted: act like a leader before the title, tell your manager early what you want, be deserving of it, and present your work in terms of business impact rather than technique.

Three foundations. Manisha starts with three habits for a long career. Keep learning, because what was called analytics 12 years ago has become data science, ML and now AI. Build relationships, because over the long term much happens through networks: a previous manager moves companies and starts hiring. Be extremely good at the core job, since there is no workaround. A host links the second to the third: people stay in touch with someone whose work they remember.

Leading without the title. For leadership roles Manisha adds knowing your own values and leadership style, staying hands-on enough to understand the team's work, and talking to managers, skip-levels and their peers to learn business priorities and OKRs. Leading and managing differ. Anyone, even an intern, can lead by fixing what is broken. The signals Manisha watches are small: running an agenda, writing documentation, chasing late data, good feedback from partners, volunteering for shadowing. The IC and manager tracks are parallel and neither is better. The difference is looking inward at your own credit versus outward at others' success, and only managers carry performance management.

Asking for it. The co-host spent a long time doubting being a good manager, then asked, learned what was missing, did the work without the title and asked again. The co-host estimates perhaps 5% of people ask, women especially rarely. Manisha's addition is to "be deserving of what you ask for", so that the goal is a goal and not a dream; promotions lag the behaviour, and being calm and centred is noticed. Shane recalls PwC's promotion day, when top reviews were not enough because the partner needed six months' notice. Manisha was once passed over too, and a friend's lesson was "the crying baby gets the most attention".

Hiring. Manisha says most companies look for technical skills as table stakes, the ability to structure a vague problem into a clear plan, and culture fit. Candidates should treat the interview as a brainstorming conversation and judge whether they want the team. The co-host probes self-awareness by asking candidates to rate themselves from 1 to 10, then tests the claim with deeper follow-ups that expose people presenting a team's work as their own. Manisha asks only that candidates name their part.

Job search and switching in. The common complaint at Prep Vector is applying without replies, usually with one resume for every role. Manisha's fix is a base version tailored in about 10 minutes per job description. What candidates most lack is industry perspective: interviews pose business problems, not definitions, and nobody is promoted for model accuracy. A host's example is a resume quantified in precision and F1 instead of revenue or time saved. Beginners should build something, such as a Kaggle notebook, before reading company tech blogs, and programming skill stands out now that data scientists sit inside product teams. Moving from healthcare consulting, Manisha found A/B testing was the gap, and kept consulting's stakeholder and simplification skills as strengths.

Underrated skills. Answering a LinkedIn follower, Manisha names talking about one project at different altitudes, in detail with researchers and at the level of OKRs with a VP. Shane names prioritisation and saying no against stakeholders' goals, and the co-host names creativity in storytelling.

  • Long data careers rest on learning, network and core excellence. Manisha, a data science leader at Google and founder of the career platform Prep Vector, says the field has changed so much in 12 years that learning must be a habit. Relationships matter because managers move and hire, and there is "no workaround" for being extremely good at the core job; a host adds that your network depends on being remembered for good work.
  • Leadership does not wait for a manager title. Manisha separates leading from managing: anyone can fix what is broken, and future leaders show in small signals such as running meeting agendas, writing documentation, following up proactively, and feedback from cross-functional partners. The IC and manager tracks are parallel, with the difference being looking inward at your own work versus outward at other people's success.
  • Ask for the promotion early, and be deserving of it. A co-host says few people ask, perhaps 5%, especially women, and that promotions are a lagging indicator of work already done at the next level. Shane missed a promotion at PwC despite five-out-of-five reviews because the partner needed to hear six months ahead; Manisha was once skipped too, and a friend's line was that "the crying baby gets the most attention".
  • Candidates lack industry perspective, not theory. Manisha advises one base resume tweaked in about 10 minutes to each job description, and impact stated in business terms rather than model accuracy, since nobody is promoted on accuracy. Career switchers should research job descriptions (A/B testing was the gap Manisha found coming from healthcare consulting), lean on transferable skills such as stakeholder management, and close the gaps.
  • The underrated skill is talking at different altitudes. Manisha's answer to a listener's question is zooming in on detail with a research team and out to OKRs and business impact with a VP, on the same project. Shane names prioritization and saying no, judged against stakeholders' goals; a co-host names creativity in data storytelling.
Dr. Jon Krohn8 Steps to Ensuring AI Success in Production (Foundation Models; LLMs)
  • The first three lifecycle steps are the labs' job, not yours. The guest (Eremenko, in episode 853) says data preparation, architecture selection and pre-training, which costs "hundreds of millions of dollars", are done by companies like Meta, Anthropic, Google and OpenAI. He adds that businesses repeating them would make global warming much worse.
  • Fine-tuning narrows a general model to proprietary data. He gives examples of medical journals, legal data, or ten years of customer-service call transcripts. The model learns specific terms and style the way a fluent speaker learns a specialist vocabulary.
  • Evaluate against business metrics, not just technical scores. He says technical scores like BLEU, ROUGE and BERTScore are not enough, and a model must also be tested on the business tasks it is meant to do.
  • Deployment, monitoring and iteration form an ongoing loop. He explains an endpoint as just a URL with parameters, says models degrade through data and model drift like a car needing maintenance, and says changes in the business, in customer expectations or in legislation send you back through steps four to eight.
  • A single AWS service covers most of the lifecycle. The second guest (de Ponteves) says Amazon Bedrock handles most steps except pre-training, with data prep done in other AWS services. His students fine-tuned a Llama model on a Hugging Face medical-terms dataset in "dozens of minutes" and got a chatbot that could discuss advanced terms. The host separately notes that 2017 was the transformer paper, and ChatGPT in 2022 was GPT-3 with RLHF.
AI Analyst LabHow Real-World Skills Beat Degrees in Data Science
  • A prestigious degree stops mattering once the interview starts. The speakers grant that Harvard is looked on more favourably than a community college, but say the interview is "purely based on performance", and seven or eight years in nobody cares where you studied. Shane notes having gone to community college rather than Harvard; another speaker has clients from Harvard who cannot get the job, and they conclude that applied experience counts for more than what you learned.
Dr. Jon KrohnWhat Are Foundation Models? A Beginner’s Breakdown
  • A foundation model is a pre-baked base layer businesses rent and customise. The guest (Eremenko, in episode 853) likens it to a cake's sponge layer, baked by well-funded labs such as Anthropic, Meta and Mistral, to which a business adds its own toppings for its use case. He says the analogy itself came from ChatGPT.
  • Foundation models are broader than large language models. The host offers a Venn diagram in which LLMs sit inside foundation models alongside vision models of the kind a Waymo car relies on, and the guest agrees, adding image and video models.
AI Analyst LabHow Salary Transparency Increases Your Pay
  • Salary secrecy benefits only the employer. The speakers say tech compensation is widely misunderstood because consistent information is scarce and talking about pay is taboo. An employer that can pay a good performer less has no reason to pay more, so knowing the baselines is the only way to help yourself.
Dr. Jon Krohn853: Generative AI for Business — with Kirill Eremenko and Hadelin de Ponteves
synopsis

Kirill Eremenko, founder of the podcast, and Hadelin de Ponteves argue for a deliberately non-technical message aimed at managers and executives: generative AI is "not scary", because the expensive part of a foundation model is already built. A business picks a model against a set of practical criteria, customises it through fine-tuning or inference-time techniques, and runs it on a cloud stack, which for them means AWS. The episode doubles as the launch of their implementation and consulting business, and they disclose that their focus on AWS reflects the certification courses they teach.

What a foundation model is. Eremenko's analogy, which he says ChatGPT suggested, is a cake: large, well-funded labs (OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta, Mistral) bake the spongy base layer, and businesses rent a copy and add their own toppings. The host adds that foundation models are broader than LLMs, taking in vision models of the kind a Waymo car uses. He also corrects a slip about timing: 2017 was the transformer paper, and ChatGPT in November 2022 was GPT-3 with RLHF. De Ponteves says he now uses Amazon Bedrock for nearly everything, because it carries most providers' models except OpenAI's; a Master Yoda chatbot took his students minutes.

The eight-step lifecycle. Eremenko lays out data preparation, architecture selection, and pre-training, which he says costs "hundreds of millions of dollars" and which businesses should not repeat, partly for energy reasons. Then come fine-tuning, evaluation (technical scores such as BLEU, ROUGE and BERTScore plus business metrics), deployment behind an endpoint (which he explains as just a URL with parameters), monitoring for data and model drift, and iteration, looping back through steps four to eight. De Ponteves says Bedrock covers most of these except pre-training. He fine-tuned a Llama model on a Hugging Face medical-terms dataset in "dozens of minutes" and got a chatbot that could discuss advanced terms.

Choosing among thousands of models. Eremenko gives twelve factors: cost, modality, customisation options, inference options (real-time, asynchronous, batch), latency, architecture, benchmarks, language, size, ability to scale from 10,000 to 100,000 users, compliance and licensing, and environmental impact. Asked where to start, de Ponteves says that in his experience the deciding factor was dataset format; he chose an Amazon Titan model for one experiment and Llama for the medical one for that reason. He also mentions Amazon's newly released Nova models. The host relays Andrew Ng's advice from episode 841 to ignore cost while prototyping, because most ideas never get many users. Eremenko pushes back for an established firm that knows it will roll out a customer chatbot. The host replies that top-down enterprise rollouts succeed perhaps 1% of the time, so change management matters.

Modifying models during training. In descending cost: training from scratch, continued pre-training, domain-specific fine-tuning (which Eremenko calls the one businesses will most likely use), instruction-based fine-tuning (for example, training on hundreds or thousands of return-policy replies), and RLHF. The host says his former company Nebula fine-tuned Llama models with LoRA. De Ponteves describes instruction fine-tuning a Titan model to answer in two or three words, where the difference is an extra instruction column in the dataset.

Modifying models during inference. Eremenko calls these the toppings, giving big differences for minimal effort. Temperature controls variability: de Ponteves's short-story generator produced the identical story every run until he noticed it was at zero. RAG retrieves from a vector database at answer time; his French-dessert assistant needed one PDF. Agents break a task into steps, so a simpler model can outperform a complex one. Prompt templates pre-write part of the prompt, but Eremenko warns users can inject "ignore previous instructions", so guardrails and governance are needed. He compares Bedrock (open and proprietary models), Azure OpenAI Service (OpenAI's proprietary models, Microsoft integration) and Vertex AI (the most open-source friendly).

The AWS stack. Both guests say they have no Azure or GCP experience yet and have used AWS for over two and a half years. Eremenko ranks the services by level. Amazon Q is plug-and-play with no model choice: Q Business does RAG across S3, RDS, Kendra, Gmail, Slack, Jira, Salesforce and others, and Q Developer is a coding and AWS-account assistant. Bedrock is the pay-as-you-go middle. SageMaker is the most granular and needs more technical staff. De Ponteves praises SageMaker Data Wrangler, JumpStart's non-LLM foundation models, and Canvas, which he says beat in five minutes the hand-tuned models he had spent hours on for his benchmark dataset.

  • Businesses should customise foundation models, not build them. Eremenko frames a foundation model as a cake's base layer that big labs bake and businesses rent and top. Of his eight lifecycle steps, the first three (data prep, architecture, pre-training costing "hundreds of millions of dollars") are done for you; a business handles fine-tuning, evaluation, deployment to an endpoint, monitoring for drift, and iteration.
  • Model choice turns on many factors, and in practice data format. Eremenko lists twelve: cost, modality, customisation options, inference options, latency, architecture, benchmarks, language, size, scalability, compliance/licensing and environmental impact. De Ponteves says his own picks (an Amazon Titan model, a Llama model) came down to which fit his fine-tuning dataset's format. The host relays Andrew Ng's advice to ignore cost while prototyping; Eremenko objects for enterprises certain to roll out.
  • Domain-specific fine-tuning is the business default. Eremenko ranks it the most common training-time method, ahead of instruction-based fine-tuning (which de Ponteves describes as an extra instruction column in the dataset), RLHF, continued pre-training and training from scratch. De Ponteves reports fine-tuning a Llama model on a Hugging Face medical-terms dataset in "dozens of minutes" to get a medical chatbot.
  • Inference-time levers give large gains for little effort. The pair cover temperature (de Ponteves's story generator repeated one story word for word at temperature zero), RAG over a vector store (a French-dessert assistant from one PDF), agents that split tasks into steps so a simpler model can beat a bigger one, and prompt templates, which Eremenko warns can still be hijacked by injected instructions.
  • Pick an AWS service by how much control you need. Eremenko calls Amazon Q (Business, Developer) plug-and-play with no model choice, Bedrock the pay-as-you-go middle layer, and SageMaker the most granular. They disclose no Azure or GCP experience; their AWS focus follows their course business's certifications. De Ponteves says SageMaker Canvas beat his hand-tuned models on his benchmark dataset in five minutes.
Dr. Jon KrohnHow to Start Using Quantum AI Today
  • Using quantum computers does not require a physics degree. Neukart (Terra Quantum, in episode 851) says physicists are needed only to build chips. He argues the real barrier is meeting superposition and entanglement first as adults, and suggests quantum games for children. For anyone in data science, he calls quantum "a technology like GPUs" that can be added to the stack.
  • Regression, classification and LLM hybridisation are fertile ground. He names image classification, chassis-damage inspection on production lines, medical images and self-driving, with LLM hybridisation an active research area with open questions. A model can be trained with a quantum computer and still run inference on a mobile device without one. For learners he points to Terra's TQ42 platform and TQ Academy training.
AI Analyst LabHow to get fair compensation and salary
  • Fair pay starts with knowing the market rate. The speaker says reaching fair compensation is something everyone has control over: "information is power", so know the fair market rate or how to find it out. That information is then used across a career to make sure the pay matches the work.
Dr. Jon KrohnQuantum AI: Mindblowing Future Applications That Will Change the World
  • The company funds medical work it says it does not need commercially. Neukart says Terra Quantum is about to start clinical trials, paid for itself, of laser treatments for osteoarthritis and arteriosclerosis. A fibre-optic channel delivers circular laser radiation, with imaging and laser parameters optimised by a hybrid quantum algorithm. He claims the approach could prevent stroke and heart attack.
  • Some results are released without a customer. He says Terra's hybrid quantum classifier for fatty-liver (steatosis) cases outperformed the benchmark and was published for anyone to use. The host's framing cites the CEO's meeting with Pope Francis on AI and quantum for human well-being.
Dr. Jon KrohnWill Quantum Computing Make Encryption Useless?
  • Quantum supremacy headlines compare against problems built for quantum. The host cites Satya Nadella's claim of a billion years classically versus under two minutes quantum for RSA-2048, and Google's Willow claim of five minutes versus "10 septillion years", calling such comparisons unfair. Neukart (Terra Quantum, in episode 851) agrees real-world problems matter more, but says RSA is a real one because quantum computers can find the prime factors of very large numbers efficiently.
  • Quantum-safe security combines three layers. Neukart describes post-quantum algorithms, citing NIST's recently released standard of three algorithms, which cannot be cracked efficiently "as of current understanding". Quantum key distribution over fibre encodes keys in photon phase or polarization so eavesdropping is detected. Quantum random number generators, using photons or avalanche breakdown, cannot be reproduced the way seeded pseudo-random generators can. Combined, he says, "you're absolutely secure".
AI Analyst LabDo Data Certificates ACTUALLY Help You Land a Job?
  • A certificate matters only if it builds job skills. The speaker says the certificate itself does not matter unless it gives practice on the work you actually do, adding that such programs are not hard to join and complete.
AI Analyst LabAre Data Scientists Paid MORE than Doctors?
  • Senior data scientists can out-earn many doctors. The speaker puts family medicine and pediatrics at around $250,000 a year, the same as a data scientist at IC4, so from staff level a data scientist makes more. Radiologists, anesthesiologists and surgeons make around $800,000, but a principal staff data scientist at IC7 at Facebook was making $750,000, "probably more than some surgeons".
Dr. Jon Krohn852: In Case You Missed It in December 2024 — with Jon Krohn (@JonKrohnLearns)
synopsis

This compilation of December 2024 clips runs from practical advice on building with LLMs to a sceptical frame for AI itself. It starts with build first and optimise later, moves through model selection and data security in agentic systems, and ends with a guest arguing that the industry's certainty about AGI is a faith claim, and that slowness may be a virtue.

Cost and model choice. Andrew Ng (episode 841) says teams worry too much about API prices. A weekend day of his own coding ends at about a $5 OpenAI bill, and agentic workloads run to tens or low hundreds of dollars. His advice is to use the best model, build something valuable, and only then optimise with smaller models or supervised fine-tuning. Ed Donner (episode 847) adds that an AI engineer's first job is choosing the right LLM from data, business-outcome metrics and budget and time constraints. He recommends starting from a non-LLM baseline, as he and the host did with heuristics and logistic regression at their earlier startup, and then usually a closed-source model. He lists four reasons to go open source: proprietary data, sensitive data, inference cost, and on-device use.

Security in agentic systems. The episode 843 guest from Protopia argues that agents spanning on-prem, private and public clouds force component-by-component thinking about data exposure. He cites homomorphic encryption work, including a recent Apple announcement, and partnerships across the stack.

2024's highs and lows. In episode 849 the host and his co-guest found OpenAI both the year's disappointment (hers) and its wow moment, o1 (his). She calls this "TikTok-ified" expectations. Her wow was NotebookLM; his near-wow was Waymo. He forecasts disruption of truck driving, the top job in most US states, but expects automation to raise employment as it has before.

Tech agnosticism. Greg Epstein (episode 845) recasts the host's AGI optimism as a slow multi-stage Rapture. He argues that confident figures sell certainty in an uncertain world, that Sam Altman's $7 trillion ask reflects OpenAI's cash burn, and that losing the arms race might be worth it.

  • Use the best model first and optimise cost only after success. In episode 841 Andrew Ng says a full weekend day of his own coding ends at about a $5 OpenAI bill, and agentic workloads at most tens or low hundreds of dollars. Cheaper models or supervised fine-tuning before something valuable works is, he says, "most likely premature optimization".
  • AI engineering starts from business requirements and a baseline. In episode 847 Ed Donner says there is no best LLM, only the right one, chosen on data, business-outcome metrics and non-functional limits (budget, time to market). He advises a non-LLM baseline first, then usually closed source. Open source fits large proprietary datasets, sensitive data, inference-cost pressure, or on-device use with small models like Llama 3.2.
  • Agentic systems spread data across locations, changing security needs. The episode 843 guest from Protopia says agents will touch on-prem, private-cloud and multi-tenant public-cloud data, so exposure must be managed per component. He points to homomorphic encryption, including a recent Apple announcement for information retrieval, as one piece alongside his company's Stained Glass.
  • One company gave 2024 both its biggest flop and wow. In episode 849 the host named OpenAI's o1 his wow moment while his co-guest named OpenAI her disappointment. Her own wow was NotebookLM's human-sounding podcasts, and Waymo and Tesla's full self-driving were sub-wows. She relays a Waymo co-CEO describing a fleet of over 100,000 cars as building "one driver".
  • Treating AGI as a coming rapture is a religious frame. In episode 845 Greg Epstein, author of Tech Agnostic, reads the host's singularity hopes as a "slow moving multi-stage Rapture". He argues uncertainty deserves dignity over confident leaders, and that Sam Altman's $7 trillion ask reflects OpenAI burning cash with no route to profit. He suggests there may be benefit in moving slowly and losing the AI arms race.
AI Analyst LabHow Did AI Come This Far? (LLMs, AI Agents, RAG) | Ep9
synopsis

Karan Singh, an engineering leader and senior software engineer at Salesforce, walks the Data Neighbor podcast hosts through how AI reached large language models and agents. The position Karan ends on: today's LLMs are powerful retrievers that cannot yet reason, agents and RAG work around that, and artificial general intelligence follows once reasoning is solved, which Karan predicts within 5 to 10 years.

A career built on pivots and contacts. Karan moved from Android development, through a master's in software engineering with a data minor, into deploying machine learning models under compliance constraints at a fintech, and then to bringing AI into Salesforce's infrastructure layer. Both later moves came from phoning former managers, which the hosts present as the case for keeping early connections.

From rules to Transformers. Karan traces 1960s rule-based systems, probabilistic models, traditional machine learning such as linear and logistic regression, and neural networks that infrastructure held back until deep learning. A neuron is described as a linear unit with parameters, like m and c in y = mx + c, passed through an activation. Transformers allowed parallel training, which is why only the largest companies with infrastructure build frontier models.

Agents and jobs. An agent gives the LLM "brain" tools: a writer, an email sender and an SMS sender replace a month of if-else code. Karan argues that software engineers are still needed, with humans in the loop, and compares the shift to moving from PHP to React. The hosts add that creativity and domain knowledge decide what anyone can get out of these tools.

Retrieval is not reasoning. An LLM resembles a reader with photographic memory: trained on bad data, it answers anyway, and hallucination is sequence completion. RAG grounds answers in supplied knowledge and allows source tracing. Karan says AGI arrives once reasoning works, citing ReAct-style prompting and OpenAI's new reasoning models, alongside responsible-AI work. For learners the episode recommends DeepLearning.AI, Andrej Karpathy's videos, agent frameworks, and a daily AI news article for the non-technical.

  • AI progressed from rules to statistics to deep learning to LLMs. Karan Singh, an engineering leader and senior software engineer at Salesforce, traces 1960s rule-based systems, probabilistic models, traditional machine learning, and neural networks held back by infrastructure until deep learning. Transformers made parallel training possible, so the companies with the infrastructure (OpenAI, Microsoft, Google, xAI, Anthropic) build the large models.
  • Agents give an LLM tools, but engineers still build them. Karan's example wires a writer, an email sender and an SMS sender into an agent that infers what to do, replacing if-else code that might take a month to write. Human-in-the-loop systems still need good software engineers; Karan likens the change to Facebook moving from PHP to React, and gives agents that build agents "very low confidence" within the next 5 years.
  • LLMs retrieve rather than reason, so they cannot judge their data. Karan compares an LLM to a reader with photographic memory: trained on bad data, it will still answer, and a hallucination is it completing a sequence it does not know. RAG tells the model to favour supplied knowledge and lets it cite the source chunk.
  • Karan expects AGI once models can reason. The forecast is within 5 to 10 years, pointing to ReAct-style prompting and OpenAI's new reasoning models from its "12 days" announcements, and adds that responsible AI work must continue alongside. Researchers can study where LLMs fail to reason or plan; practitioners should learn agent frameworks such as LangChain, LangGraph and CrewAI.
  • Domain knowledge decides what you can get out of an LLM. The hosts and Karan argue that you can only prompt well, or build a useful agent, if you know the subject. Suggested resources are DeepLearning.AI courses, Andrej Karpathy's build-ChatGPT-from-scratch videos and Karan's book, anticipated "next year February"; a host advises non-technical listeners to read one AI news article a day.
Dr. Jon KrohnQuantum Computing: Real-World Applications Today
  • Scheduling is intractable classically and suits hybrid quantum. Neukart (Terra Quantum, in episode 851) describes a production problem for Volkswagen: fitting 250-odd test classes, each with subtests, to staff with differing skills for cars leaving the line. The same algorithm can schedule EV software subroutines to cut power use. He concedes quantum also cannot prove optimality, so Terra compares quantum and classical results and keeps the better one.
  • Logistics, satellites and finance are other live optimization uses. He cites minimising fleet size and empty miles for perishable goods that must reach hubs within windows such as 1 to 3 p.m., satellite constellations, market prediction, collateral optimization and exotic options pricing. He groups quantum uses as optimization, machine learning and simulation.