InfoWorld AI·
As organizations rush to move AI into production, they’re finding that the tools they rely on to monitor traditional software don’t translate cleanly to AI systems. The reason is fundamental: AI doesn’t fail as software does. It doesn’t throw clean error codes or follow predictable execution paths. It drifts, hallucinates, and degrades in ways that are often subtle, intermittent, and hard to reproduce. The result is a growing gap between what teams think observability should provide and what current tools actually deliver. The uncomfortable truth? The AI observability tools we have today are built for yesterday’s problems. To understand where the industry is headed, we need to look at where it is today and why that’s not enough. AI observability today: The era of evals Today’s AI observability landscape is dominated by one concept: evaluation. Most tools focus on scoring model outputs after the fact. They rely on test datasets, human graders, or, increasingly, “LLM-as-a-judge” approach
Read full articleTransparency scores are falling, hallucination rates on user-framed statements hit as high as 94%, and benchmark performance still fails to predict real-world results. The gap between what AI can do and what organizations can actually verify is now the problem worth solving...
The German software giant SAP says it is betting that employees can reinvent jobs instead of eliminating them. Experts are divided on whether it will work.
The release of the powerful models shows that enterprises need to be open to different AI systems and consider governance as part of choosing models.
Insider Brief Verkada announced Nvidia has made an investment in the company and is working with it on AI systems to bring its physical security platform to more devices. Verkada said the goal is to bring more context-aware AI into the built environment, where cameras and sensors can help organizations manage safety, security and operations […]
Autonomous AI engineer agents can deliver software at a scale in multiples of what a human engineering team can do, and that productivity is genuinely valuable. But without proper guardrails at the specification level, these agents can industrialise inefficient infrastructure patterns at the same pace, consistently and at a scale that makes post-deploy remediation impractical. When an agent provisions a three-node GKE cluster using n2-standard-16 machines for a workload a single e2-medium node could handle, or generates a Kubernetes pod spec with 4-CPU and 8GB memory requests for a service that peaks at 200 milli-cores and 256MB, or writes a Dockerfile that pulls a full Ubuntu base image where a distro-less container would serve, infrastructure runs that decision continuously, for the lifetime of the service. The agent will reproduce these patterns across every environment it touches, because the specification never instructed it otherwise. When agentic pipelines are generating infrast
Existing Bitcoin software supporting BIP-110 may reportedly create addresses that become invalid after the proposed upgrade.
Jason Bakke, director at Chaedrol, explains why organizations should treat IT as human-capital infrastructure.
When Jaiveer Singh talks about robots, he doesn’t begin with spectacle. He begins with infrastructure: the boards inside machines, the software that lets developers see through a robot’s cameras and the engineering required before a robot can leave a demo floor to do something useful. As a robotics software engineer who leads the team behind […]
