Ryan chats with Leo de Moura, Senior Principal Applied Scientist at AWS and the creator of the Lean language, about proving correctness in AI agents with the Lean language, how automated reasoning complements probabilistic AI models, and the use of AI for continuous code optimization.
Ryan chats with Leo de Moura, Senior Principal Applied Scientist at AWS and the creator of the Lean language, about proving correctness in AI agents with the Lean language, how automated reasoning complements probabilistic AI models, and the use of AI for continuous code optimization.
In context
- Topic: Inteligencia Artificial — IA aplicada al negocio: casos, límites, costos y gobierno.
- Source: Stack Overflow Blog
- Published: 28/08/2026
Continue reading at the original source →
Excerpt published automatically by the site radar. The full text belongs to its publisher and is linked above.
Why it matters
Every week there is an announcement that promises to change everything, and every week most organisations are still fighting the same battle: messy data, processes nobody documented, and expectations running faster than capability. This story reads better with that in the background.
I always separate two things that get mixed up: the demo and the operation. A demo needs to work once with someone watching. An operation needs to work a thousand times with nobody watching, with odd cases, dirty data, at two in the morning. The gap between the two is where the budget goes.
What usually goes wrong
What I see fail most is the expectation. Somebody saw a flawless demo and asked for the same thing in their area within a month, without considering the demo ran on clean data prepared for the occasion. When the real pilot shows uneven results, the unfair conclusion is that the technology does not work.
What to watch
- Cost per query at real volume, not pilot volume: the variable that produces the most surprises.
- Where the data ends up and under what contract, especially when customer information is involved.
- Whether the organisation can change provider without rebuilding everything, which is the proof it did not get locked in.
How I read this entry
My practical advice is to fix on day one what happens when the model is wrong: who reviews, how often, and at what point it gets switched off. It sounds defensive, but it is exactly what lets you be aggressive later, because the risk stopped being an unknown.
This entry is an excerpt from the original source, selected by the site radar. The commentary above is the site's own and does not belong to the cited publisher.
Living through this in your own team?
Open the chat and tell me how you're handling it. I'm interested in comparing notes.
