Topic

TypeSafe AI

All digests tagged TypeSafe AI

How To Build A Harness With Jev | A LangChain x TypeSafe Conversation thumbnail

· 48:04

How To Build A Harness With Jev | A LangChain x TypeSafe Conversation

This conversation introduces Jev, a novel System 1 model from TypeSafe AI, designed for fast, low-latency, and cost-effective decision-making. Unlike traditional LLMs, Jev does not generate text; instead, it makes structured decisions based on well-scoped questions and type-safe schemas. For build engineers, the primary focus is integrating Jev into agent harnesses (using frameworks like LangChain) to enhance reliability, manage risk (e.g., safety classification), and optimize resource usage (e.g., model routing) within the agent development lifecycle.

Key takeaways

  1. Jev is a System 1 Model, not a Generative LLM 5:23

    Jev is fundamentally different from LLMs; it does not generate text or images. It is designed to make fast, intuitive decisions from specific, well-scoped questions using type-safe schemas. This aligns with System 1 thinking (quick determinations), contrasting with System 2 thinking (multi-step reasoning, often associated with LLMs and code).

  2. Three Core Question Types for Structured Decisions 20:13

    Jev supports three decision types: **Choice** (selecting one option from a list, analogous to a classifier); **Score** (rating a state on a single, semantically defined axis, e.g., 0 to 2 for frustration); and **Noul** (a simple True/False or binary check). Questions must be broken down to the point they cannot be broken down further.

  3. Integrating Jev into Agent Middleware 32:37

    Jev can be integrated into agent harnesses as middleware to solve critical problems: **Safety Classification** (e.g., determining if a tool call is destructive and requires explicit intent) and **Model Routing** (selecting the optimal model—fast vs. in-depth—for a given task). This is significantly cheaper and faster than using heavy LLMs for every decision point.

  4. Context Engineering and Observability Best Practices

    When using Jev, it is crucial to minimize the state input to only what is strictly necessary for the determination. Furthermore, building auditability into the system and utilizing platforms like LangSmith for observability and evaluation (Evals) is highly recommended.

Watch on YouTube Full article

What's Next After RLHF? — Diogo Almeida, TypeSafe AI thumbnail

· 18:05

What's Next After RLHF? — Diogo Almeida, TypeSafe AI

Diogo Almeida argues that current Large Language Models (LLMs), particularly those trained using Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF), are fundamentally optimized for 'assistance'—meaning they prioritize pleasing the human user. This optimization leads to overpromising and a lack of reliability in autonomous tasks. The next frontier, he asserts, is not simply better code generation or enhanced chat capabilities, but achieving true automation by optimizing models for verifiable rewards and calibrated decision-making, moving beyond the need for constant human oversight.

Key takeaways

  1. The Limitation of RLHF 12:11

    RLHF trains LLMs to optimize for human preference (engagement), which makes them excellent assistants but poor autonomous agents. The goal is to please the user, not necessarily to execute a task correctly in a background server environment [7:31].

  2. Assistance vs. Automation 5:14

    The core divide in modern AI is between 'assistance' (where the human remains in the loop) and 'automation' (where the system operates autonomously with real stakes). Current models are optimized for the former, making them unreliable for critical business decisions [3:14].

  3. The Path to True Automation

    Future AI must shift its optimization target from human preference to verifiable rewards and calibrated decision-making. This requires redesigning the entire AI stack for reliability, moving beyond current LLM post-training methods like RLHF or even RLVR [15:43].

  4. The Importance of Software Expressibility 17:15

    True automation requires smarter software that is more expressive than current SaaS models. The focus must shift from merely automating the writing of code to solving extremely rote, simple tasks that can be done repeatedly and reliably by a computer [10:35].

Watch on YouTube Full article