A US state shipped an observability tool for AI yesterday and most engineers didn't notice.
California turned on a monthly tracker (June 25) that ...
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
You can't skip the AI's planning because it is extracting data rather than integrating it. A breakpoint in your process will only make you seem unprofessional and increase the cost.
not sure i follow the breakpoint framing - the metrics in the article are post-process, not inline instrumentation. the planning phase runs uninterrupted. what setup are you seeing that adds overhead here?
Simply put, the work do we is relatively flexible, while the planning of AI is more rule - based. We can define your dashboard as a five - step process but, AI will define it as a six - to seven - step process. Unless you keep adjusting it to five steps, during execution, AI still takes more steps. It's just that it's artificially defined as five steps instead of its own planning.
that gap between the five steps you report and the six-seven the model runs is the instrumentation problem. you're measuring the declared process, not the actual one.
Maybe. this Perhaps is the difference in the execution process of AI in China and foreign countries. However, I think it may mainly involve the issue of prompt words.
yeah, the prompt defines what the model even counts as a step - so prompt structure and the measurement gap are the same problem from different angles.
One metric I'd add is human intervention. If AI-generated work still requires extensive review or rework, the productivity gains may be smaller than they appear. Measuring both speed and quality gives a much clearer picture.
human intervention is the one I found hardest to define consistently - what counts? quick skim-and-approve? flagged for major rework? my team tracked it differently week to week and the trend was noise. rework rate gave us cleaner signal.