Andrew Ng (@AndrewYNg)

New course: Add voice to your AI agents and applications, built with @VocalBridge (disclosure: an AI Fund portfolio company) and taught by its CEO @_ashwyn. Voice applications historically required making a hard tradeoff: using fast voice-to-voice models that sacrifice reliability, or accurate speech-to-text pipelines that add latency. This course teaches you how to build voice agents that are both reliable and fast. You'll build three types of voice-enabled applications: a voice-interactive game where voice commands and mouse clicks work together over a single channel, an agent that gains a voice in about 10 lines of code without touching its prompts or tools, and an agent that places outbound phone calls using a make_phone_call function. Skills you'll gain: - Add a voice layer to an existing agent without rewriting your prompts, RAG pipeline, or tools - Give an agent the ability to place outbound calls and stream transcripts back live - Set up voice evaluation to score calls, catch regressions, and improve quality before deployment Join and add voice to your agents without overhauling your architecture:

One of the new, buzzy jobs in Silicon Valley is the AI Forward Deployed Engineer (FDE), an engineer who is embedded within a client organization to help customize solutions, such as building and tuning agentic workflows that suit the client’s particular needs. I’ve heard from people who are wondering anew about the FDE career path since OpenAI and Anthropic started building new teams to place FDEs within client organizations. The rise of FDEs for AI workloads is one way AI is creating new jobs (and why the jobpolcalypse narrative of upcoming job market collapse is false -- there will be many AI and non-AI jobs). However, I believe there will be far more AI Engineer jobs than FDEs, as I explain below. The FDE role was pioneered about two decades ago by Palantir, which sent engineers to government locations to work on secure, air-gapped networks. In addition to having good technical skills, FDEs need communication skills and sometimes business skills. For example, they may need to speak with clients to understand their needs, formulate a strategy to prioritize projects, explain complex technology, and respectfully push back if a client asks for something unrealistic. They’re enjoying a resurgence because of the amount of work involved in taking an off-the-shelf LLM and building it into a custom agentic workflow that fits particular business needs. However, I believe the number of AI Engineer jobs will be far larger. A company might accept a few FDEs to be embedded within its organization. But most companies will want far more of their own employees working on their projects. While my organizations do hire FDEs, we hire far more AI Engineers! Also, a common client concern is that it is hard to find vendor-neutral FDEs — they are, after all, there to deeply integrate a particular vendor’s product into a company. In this moment when it’s hard to predict which AI service will be the best one in a year’s time, optionality (the ability to pick whatever vendor turns out to fit best in the future) is very valuable. In contrast, letting FDEs tightly bind a company’s processes significantly reduces optionality. Right now, I see surging demand for AI Engineers who can build software applications using AI software components (like LLM prompting, agentic frameworks, evals, etc.) and effectively use AI coding agents (like Claude Code, Codex, Antigravity CLI, and OpenCode). As the AI Engineer role matures, I expect it to fragment into more specialized roles, like the generic Software Engineer role from decades ago fragmented into frontend, backend, mobile, data engineering, devops, and so on. What will be the future, specialized AI engineering roles? I don’t know. Perhaps there will be AI FDEs, LLMOps Engineers, Evals Engineers, AI Data Engineers, Harness Engineers, and other roles we don’t have names for yet. But for now, I see a lot of AI engineers who are generalists create a lot of value. Skilled AI Engineers are in very high demand! As our field continues to mature over the coming decade, I look forward to new specializations within AI Engineering that create even more job opportunities. [Original text: The Batch newsletter]

There will be no AI jobpocalypse. The story that AI will lead to massive unemployment is stoking unnecessary fear. AI — like any other technology — does affect jobs, but telling overblown stories of large-scale unemployment is irresponsible and damaging. Let’s put a stop to it. I’ve expressed skepticism about the jobpocalypse in previous posts. I’m glad to see that the popular press is now pushing back on this narrative. The image below features some recent headlines. Software engineering is the sector most affected by AI tools, as coding agents race ahead. Yet hiring of software engineers remains strong! So while there are examples of AI taking away jobs, the trends strongly suggest the net job creation is vastly greater than the job destruction — just like earlier waves of technology. Further, despite all the exciting progress in AI, the U.S. unemployment rate remains a healthy 4.3%. Why is the AI jobpocalypse narrative so popular? For one thing, frontier AI labs have a strong incentive to tell stories that make AI technology sound more powerful. At their most extreme, they promote science-fiction scenarios of AI “taking over” and causing human extinction. If a technology can replace many employees, surely that technology must be very valuable! Also, a lot of SaaS software companies charge around $100-$1000 per user/year. But if an AI company can replace an employee who makes $100,000 — or make them 50% more productive — then charging even $10,000 starts to look reasonable. By anchoring not to typical SaaS prices but to salaries of employees, AI companies can charge a lot more. Additionally, businesses have a strong incentive to talk about layoffs as if they were caused by AI. After all, talking about how they’re using AI to be far more productive with fewer staff makes them look smart. This is a better message than admitting they overhired during the pandemic when capital was abundant due to low interest rates and a massive government financial stimulus. To be clear, I recognize that AI is causing a lot of people’s work to change. This is hard. This is stressful. (And to some, it can be fun.) I empathize with everyone affected. At the same time, this is very different from predicting a collapse of the job market. Societies are capable of telling themselves stories for years that have little basis in reality and lead to poor society-wide decision making. For example, fears over nuclear plant safety led to under-investment in nuclear power. Fears of the “population bomb” in the 1960s led countries to implement harsh policies to reduce their populations. And worries about dietary fat led governments to promote unhealthy high-sugar diets for decades. Now that mainstream media is openly skeptical about the jobpocalypse, I hope these stories will start to lose their teeth (much like fears of AI-driven human extinction have). Contrary to the predictions of an AI jobpocalypse, I predict the opposite: There will be an AI jobapalooza! AI will lead to a lot more good AI engineering jobs, and I’m also optimistic about the future of the overall job market. What AI engineers do will be different from traditional software engineering, and many of these jobs will be in businesses other than traditional large employers of developers. In non-AI roles, too, the skills needed will change because of AI. That makes this a good time to encourage more people to become proficient in AI, and make sure they’re ready for the different but plentiful jobs of the future! [Original text in The Batch newsletter.]

I'm delighted that @coursera and @udemy have come together as one company to serve learners. Both Coursera and Udemy were founded with the belief that access to high-quality education changes lives. Over the years, both companies have advanced this goal, creating opportunities for individuals, organizations, and communities around the world. That role is even more important now, as AI is changing the nature of work and increasing the need for continuous learning. Helping people build job-relevant skills will be critical to how we create a better world. By combining the strengths of both ‌companies, we can better serve this need. We bring together a broader range of learning content, trusted instructors and educators, and engaging learning experiences. This creates new opportunities to make learning more personalized, more applied, and more accessible at scale. I’m excited to serve as Chairman of the combined company, working alongside Greg Hart and the leadership team. There is a strong foundation in both organizations, and I look forward to what the teams will build together to expand access opportunity globally. Learn more:

Should there be a Stack Overflow for AI coding agents to share learnings with each other? Last week I announced Context Hub (chub), an open CLI tool that gives coding agents up-to-date API documentation. Since then, our GitHub repo has gained over 6K stars, and we've scaled from under 100 to over 1000 API documents, thanks to community contributions and a new agentic document writer. Thank you to everyone supporting Context Hub! OpenClaw and Moltbook showed that agents can use social media built for them to share information. In our new chub release, agents can share feedback on documentation — what worked, what didn't, what's missing. This feedback helps refine the docs for everyone, with safeguards for privacy and security. We're still early in building this out. You can find details and configuration options in the GitHub repo. Install chub as follows, and prompt your coding agent to use it: npm install -g @aisuite/chub GitHub:

Happy 2026! Will this be the year we finally achieve AGI? I’d like to propose a new version of the Turing Test, which I’ll call the Turing-AGI Test, to see if we’ve achieved this. I’ll explain in a moment why having a new test is important. The public thinks achieving AGI means computers will be as intelligent as people and be able to do most or all knowledge work. I’d like to propose a new test. The test subject — either a computer or a skilled professional human — is given access to a computer that has internet access and software such as a web browser and Zoom. The judge will design a multi-day experience for the test subject, mediated through the computer, to carry out work tasks. For example, an experience might consist of a period of training (say, as a call center operator), followed by being asked to carry out the task (taking calls), with ongoing feedback. This mirrors what a remote worker with a fully working computer (but no webcam) might be expected to do. A computer passes the Turing-AGI Test if it can carry out the work task as well as a skilled human. Most members of the public likely believe a real AGI system will pass this test. Surely, if computers are as intelligent as humans, they should be able to perform work tasks as well as a human one might hire. Thus, the Turing-AGI Test aligns with the popular notion of what AGI means. Here’s why we need a new test: “AGI” has turned into a term of hype rather than a term with a precise meaning. A reasonable definition of AGI is AI that can do any intellectual task that a human can. When businesses hype up that they might achieve AGI within a few quarters, they usually try to justify these statements by setting a much lower bar. This mismatch in definitions is harmful because it makes people think AI is becoming more powerful than it actually is. I’m seeing this mislead everyone from high-school students (who avoid certain fields of study because they think it’s pointless with AGI’s imminent arrival) to CEOs (who are deciding what projects to invest in, sometimes assuming AI will be more capable in 1-2 years than any likely reality). The original Turing Test, which required a computer to fool a human judge, via text chat, into being unable to distinguish it from a human, has been insufficient to indicate human-level intelligence. The Loebner Prize competition actually ran the Turing Test and found that being able to simulate human typing errors — perhaps even more than actually demonstrating intelligence — was needed to fool judges. A main goal of AI development today is to build systems that can do economically useful work, not fool judges. Thus a modified test that measures ability to do work would be more useful than a test that measures the ability to fool humans. For almost all AI benchmarks today (such as GPQA, AIME, SWE-bench, etc.), a test set is determined in advance. This means AI teams end up at least indirectly tuning their models to the published test sets. Further, any fixed test set measures only one narrow sliver of intelligence. In contrast, in the Turing Test, judges are free to ask any question to probe the model as they please. This lets a judge test how “general” the knowledge of the computer or human really is. Similarly, in the Turing-AGI Test, the judge can design any experience — which is not revealed in advance to the AI (or human subject) being tested. This is a better way to measure generality of AI than a predetermined test set. AI is on an amazing trajectory of progress. In previous decades, overhyped expectations led to AI winters, when disappointment about AI capabilities caused reductions in interest and funding, which picked up again when the field made more progress. One of the few things that could get in the way of AI’s tremendous momentum is unrealistic hype that creates an investment bubble, risking disappointment and a collapse of interest. To avoid this, we need to recalibrate society’s expectations on AI. A test will help. If we run a Turing-AGI Test competition and every AI system falls short, that will be a good thing! By defusing hype around AGI and reducing the chance of a bubble, we will create a more reliable path to continued investment in AI. This will let us keep on driving forward real technological progress and building valuable applications — even ones that fall well short of AGI. And if this test sets a clear target that teams can aim toward to claim the mantle of achieving AGI, that would be wonderful, too. And we can be confident that if a company passes this test, they will have created more than just a marketing release — it will be something incredibly valuable. [Original text: ]