I care about meetings only insofar as they create momentum and outcomes. What if your meetings could actually produce the artifacts you need—specs, tickets, slides—before the call even ends?
I recently listened to an episode of Just Now Possible where Teresa Torres talks with Mark Barbir (CEO) and Sanden Gocka (Co-Founder), the co-founders of Earmark, about building a productivity suite that turns unstructured conversations into finished work in real time. As a product leader, this premise hits the sweet spot of agentic AI, real-time AI workflows, and ruthless focus on outcomes over output.
Listen to this episode on: Spotify | Apple Podcasts
Unlike generic AI notetakers that produce summaries nobody reads, Earmark runs multiple agents in parallel during your meetings—translating engineering jargon, drafting product specs, even spinning up prototypes in Cursor or V0 while you're still talking. That’s the bar I want from AI in the room: finished work, not notes.
What impressed me most was the clarity of their pivot. They moved from an Apple Vision Pro presentation coaching tool to a web-based meeting assistant. I’ve made similar calls: when the distribution path and daily workflow are obvious, you follow the user’s gravity. This shift unlocked a broader surface area—PMs, engineers, design partners—and made agentic workflows useful where work actually happens.
They also turned a technical constraint into a commercial advantage. Their ephemeral (no-storage) architecture became a feature for enterprise sales. I’ve seen this repeatedly in AI risk management: privacy-by-design and clear data governance reduce friction with security reviewers and accelerate procurement. For many enterprises, “we don’t store your data” is the win condition.
Cost discipline was another standout. They tackled the hard problem of making real-time AI affordable—from $70 per meeting down to under a dollar through prompt caching. That’s not just optimization; it’s product strategy. Choices like model selection, context window management, and retrieval-first pipeline design determine whether a feature can scale to every meeting or remains a demo.
On capability design, the team leaned into templates and simulated stakeholders to ship value fast. Template-based agents: Engineering Translator, Make Me Look Smart, Acronym Explainer. Personas that simulate absent team members (security architect, legal, accessibility). This is exactly how I frame early AI workflows: remove friction for the product trio, anticipate blockers, and let the agent do the tedious, error-prone first pass.
They were refreshingly pragmatic about models. Why GPT 4.1 still beats newer models for prose quality in their use case is a reminder that “best” is contextual. When the job-to-be-done is precise prose and production-grade artifacts, consistent quality trumps leaderboard buzz. Of course, they also invest in guardrails to ensure quality and manage hallucinations—another non-negotiable for enterprise adoption.
Search and analysis across time is where many AI products stumble. They explained the limits of vector search for analysis questions across meetings and how they’re building agentic search with multiple retrieval tools (RAG, BM25, metadata queries, bespoke summaries). I couldn’t agree more: analysis requires reasoning over structure, time, and purpose—not just semantic proximity. Layered retrieval with stateful agents beats a single embedding call.
They also articulated a crisp user thesis: design for product managers as the extreme user to solve for everyone. In my experience, if you satisfy the PM’s bar for clarity, traceability, and actionability, engineers, designers, and go-to-market teams benefit immediately. That’s how you earn daily active use, not once-a-week novelty.
For builders curious about the stack and comparables, they discuss services and tools like Assembly AI for speech-to-text, OpenAI API with prompt caching support, and build integrations with Cursor and V0 by Vercel. They also reference Granola as a comparison point and nod to ProductPlan, where both founders previously worked. If you want to try the product, here’s Earmark—a productivity suite where the work completes itself.
If you're a PM drowning in follow-up work or a builder curious about real-time AI architectures, this conversation offers a detailed look at what it takes to ship an AI product that people can't imagine working without. Personally, I see this as a credible path toward an AI chief of staff—their vision goes beyond automating deliverables to orchestrating judgment, compliance signals, and cross-functional readiness.
The episode covers the founder backstory, what Earmark does, comparisons to competitors, unique features, templates and personas, technical decisions, early versions and challenges, optimizing transcript summarization, managing multiple tools and costs, challenges with context and reasoning models, innovative search and retrieval techniques, creating actionable artifacts from meetings, ensuring quality and managing hallucinations, and the future vision for an AI chief of staff. It’s a full-spectrum look at building with agentic AI, not just talking about it.
Podcast transcripts are only available to paid subscribers.
AI Native is more than a feature set—it’s an operating system for the entire business. In my role leading product, I’ve seen that companies win when they treat AI as a first-class citizen across strategy, architecture, workflows, and go-to-market. In this narrative, I unpack what “AI Native: What It Means and How to Get There” looks like in practice, sharing the frameworks I use to align vision, technology, and teams around measurable customer outcomes.
When I say AI Native, I mean a company where core value creation, customer experience, and internal operations are powered by AI end-to-end. It’s not just bolting on a chatbot. It’s rethinking product strategy, data foundations, and execution so we can deliver differentiated experiences faster, at lower cost, and with higher reliability. This shift demands clarity on where AI truly creates leverage—and the courage to say no where it doesn’t.
The starting point is strategy. I ground teams in outcomes vs output OKRs and a crisp value proposition: Which customer jobs-to-be-done benefit most from generative AI? Where can we unlock 10x improvements in speed, accuracy, or personalization? We prioritize a small number of high-signal use cases, size impact, and design Minimum Viable Experiments (MVEs) to de-risk assumptions before scaling. This is where build vs buy decisions matter—use foundation models and platforms for commodity needs, and invest your scarce engineering time where differentiation lives.
Next comes architecture and data. AI Native products thrive on a retrieval-first pipeline, strong context window management, and model-agnostic abstraction so we can swap providers as needs evolve. I emphasize privacy-by-design, robust data governance, and observability across prompts, embeddings, latency, and cost. These guardrails let us move quickly without compromising trust, especially in regulated or enterprise settings.
Execution shifts as well. I organize empowered product teams and product trios around the highest-value workflows, not components. Continuous discovery pairs with CI/CD, feature flags, and telemetry so we can test safely in production. Eval-driven development is non-negotiable: we design offline and online evaluations that mirror real user success criteria—accuracy, helpfulness, safety, and business outcomes—then wire those evals into the build pipeline to prevent regressions.
On the intelligence layer, we increasingly rely on AI workflows and agentic AI to orchestrate multi-step tasks—retrieval, reasoning, tool use, and verification—with human-in-the-loop where appropriate. Clear system prompts, tool definitions, and fallbacks keep behavior predictable. This is where product craft meets prompt engineering and LLMs for product managers: the best teams codify patterns, share prompts in a living library, and standardize on a lightweight AI product toolbox.
Risk and reliability are part of the product, not an afterthought. I run AI risk management as a continuous program spanning red teaming, content filters, PII handling, audit trails, and incident response. We tie policies to concrete controls and create simple dashboards leaders can trust. The goal is to ship boldly with safety, maintainability, and scale in mind.
Becoming AI Native also changes how we grow. We lean into product-led growth with clear in-app guides, product tours, and activation paths that teach users where AI shines. CRM integration ensures sales and success teams have context to coach customers. Pricing experiments—often usage- or value-based—align revenue with the impact customers feel, while retention analysis helps us double down on the use cases that drive compounding value.
To make this real, I use a 90-day plan. Days 0–30: align on strategy, top use cases, and risk posture; stand up data pipelines and a basic retrieval-first stack; define evaluation metrics. Days 31–60: ship MVEs behind feature flags, run head-to-head evals, and instrument observability; start a cross-functional community of practice. Days 61–90: scale the winning use cases, formalize governance, and publish a roadmap tied to outcomes—not just features—with clear SLAs and success metrics.
The destination is a durable advantage: faster iteration cycles, smarter experiences, and a product strategy that compounds with every interaction. If you’re ready to make the leap, start small, measure obsessively, and build the muscle to ship, learn, and adapt. That’s the heart of becoming AI Native—and it’s well within reach.
I’ve watched AI adoption accelerate dramatically over the last year, and the momentum is undeniable. Teams everywhere are experimenting, piloting, and operationalizing AI—but the ways they’re doing it, and the outcomes they’re seeing, vary widely.
Our latest research shows that 82% of senior leaders invested in AI for customer service in 2025, and 87% plan to in 2026. That’s the new baseline. The differentiator now is depth—how far AI is embedded into core workflows, accountability, and measurement.
Teams with mature AI are almost twice as likely to achieve higher, more consistent support quality. Our survey shows 43% of advanced adopters citing this benefit compared with 24% of early deployments.
But while most teams are using AI, our 2026 “Customer Service Transformation Report” shows that this usage is not equal. A gap is opening up between teams that have deployed AI at a surface level and those that have integrated it deeply. I see this firsthand: shallow deployments answer FAQs; deep deployments redesign processes, policies, and teams.
Survey results highlight the AI deployment gap: nearly nine in ten organizations with mature AI see improved customer service metrics (87%), compared with 62% across all respondents, visualized with bold circles.
For this year’s report, we surveyed over 2,400 global customer service professionals across a range of industries to see how they’re using AI today, where it’s paying off, and what they’re betting on as they plan for 2026. The findings mirror my experience leading AI Strategy and AI workflows at scale.
As AI programs advance, measurement confidence surges. This chart shows how ROI tracking rises from 35% in exploring to 70% in mature deployments—evidence of a widening execution gap in customer service.
We found that for many teams, AI is still doing narrow work like answering simple questions or handling small parts of workflows. These teams are seeing benefits, but only a fraction of what’s possible. Meanwhile, a smaller group is pulling away. They’ve put AI at the core of their service operation, integrating it into critical workflows, giving it more responsibility, and continuously improving it over time. That’s the hallmark of mature deployment.
Customer service priorities are shifting fast. By 2026, improving CX tops the list at 58%, cost and efficiency climb, and quality moves to third as teams prepare to scale operations and evolve skills.
The difference in results and overall support experience – for both teams and customers – is significant. Here’s how I interpret the data and what I recommend to close the gap.
Survey insights from the 2026 customer service transformation report reveal how AI reshapes support roles: 45% of teams updated job descriptions and 40% ramped up AI training, while human agents focus more on complex escalations.
AI adoption is the norm, depth makes the difference. According to senior leaders, 82% of organizations invested in AI in 2025, with 87% planning to invest in the year ahead. Despite this widespread investment, only 10% of teams report having reached a mature level of deployment, where AI is fully integrated into operations and working at scale. In my playbook, maturity means end-to-end ownership of well-defined workflows, robust guardrails, and clear success criteria.
Early AI wins are fueling expansion beyond support. Survey results show 57% cite proven success, 49% aim for a unified customer experience, 33% need to scale without adding headcount, and 31% see demand from other teams.
Reaching this level of maturity is where AI’s real value lies. We found that 43% of teams with mature deployment report higher quality and consistency across support – nearly double the rate of those still in the exploration or initial deployment stages. That aligns with what I see when we move from point solutions to platform thinking and agentic AI patterns.
Leaders are racing ahead with real AI in support. Explore the 2026 Customer Service Transformation Report to see where deployment is stalling, benchmark your team, and get practical steps to scale automation that delights.
ROI becomes clearer with deeper integration. The economic benefits of AI tend to show up first in speed and throughput, and they show up fast. Across all respondents, 62% say their customer service metrics have improved since implementing AI. Most often, teams report their initial gains in efficiency and scale—faster responses, shorter handling times, and the ability to resolve more conversations with the same team—all driving lower cost per interaction.
But the deeper teams go with deployment, the more the results start to show in the metrics. We found that among teams that describe their AI deployment as mature, the cohort of respondents reporting improved metrics as a result of AI rises from 62% to 87%. What’s more, teams with more mature deployments are significantly more likely to say they can measure the return on their AI investment. My advice: instrument everything upfront, baseline rigorously, and use eval-driven development to iterate with confidence.
The bar has moved from ‘does it work?’ to ‘is it actually good?’ More than ever, teams are focused on improving customer experience and satisfaction, with 58% saying it’s the top priority for 2026. That number has more than doubled since last year, when just over a quarter (28%) of respondents cited it as a top priority. As AI assumes repetitive work, your people can shift from reactive triage to proactive journey design. Now is the time to invest in quality frameworks, prompt engineering standards, and LLMs for product managers to close the loop between product, ops, and CX.
Important support work now extends beyond the inbox. AI is reorganizing core customer service operations as it starts to take on a higher volume of work and more complex tasks. Even at the initial deployment stage, 16% of teams report spending less time handling support volume since implementing AI – and among teams who’ve reached maturity, that figure rises to 28%. I’ve seen new roles emerge—AI operations managers, conversation designers, and model evaluators—alongside upskilling for agents into higher-order troubleshooting and relationship building.
Support is creating the blueprint for AI deployment across the business. Support was the proving ground for AI, and our research suggests that businesses are now planning to expand its use to other areas based on the results it’s yielded so far. Fifty-two percent of respondents said that their organizations are actively planning to scale AI to departments like customer success, marketing, and sales in 2026. The two most cited driving forces behind this decision are the success support has seen with AI to date and a desire to create a unified customer experience. Treat your support stack as a reusable platform: shared services, governance, and reusable components accelerate adoption in adjacent functions.
Seize the opportunity to close the gap. Having or not having AI isn’t a question anymore. What you should be asking now is how close you are to mature deployment, where AI is capable of tackling nuanced, high-stakes work. Those who have reached this stage show that going deep is what unlocks real value. That’s the opportunity. Push AI to do more, bring it to more channels, use it to resolve the most complex queries, and close the gap before it becomes too wide to close.
This might seem daunting. But trying new things always is. What we’re experiencing now is a defining moment for customer service, and the teams that are leaning in are actively building the future. As this report shows, what works in customer service now will become the blueprint for how organizations transform the full customer journey with AI. If you want the benchmarks and the playbook to accelerate from pilots to production-grade outcomes, I recommend reviewing the full “2026 Customer Service Transformation Report.”
Across my teams and portfolio, I’m watching AI fundamentally reshape product-led growth—from static funnels and one-off playbooks to adaptive, compounding growth loops that learn in real time. The shift isn’t just technological; it’s an operating model change that rewards continuous discovery, rigorous instrumentation, and outcome-driven product strategy.
"Learn how AI is transforming PLG with a new generation of growth loops that can turn your product into a self-optimizing platform." That line captures what I’ve been building toward: systems that sense user intent, decide the next best action, act contextually, and learn to improve the loop with every interaction.
Here’s the core pattern I rely on. First, sense: unify product analytics and behavioral signals (think Amplitude analytics, Pendo events, Intercom conversations) into a single, queryable, privacy-safe layer. Second, decide: apply AI Strategy—LLMs for product managers, rules, and retrieval—to segment users by intent and probability of success. Third, act: deliver in-app guides, product tours, tooltips, or personalized nudges that accelerate user activation and time-to-value. Finally, learn: run A/B testing with a clear minimum detectable effect (MDE), then feed outcomes back into the model for continuous optimization.
Activation is where the gains start compounding. With gen ai, I can auto-generate tailored onboarding checklists, dynamic walkthroughs, and contextual help that adapts to the user’s role, data maturity, and current friction points. We’ve moved from generic product tours to precision guidance that updates based on real-time behavior—often lifting first-week activation and shortening time-to-first-value without adding support load.
Experimentation is the governor that keeps speed and quality in balance. I instrument every growth loop end to end and pair eval-driven development with A/B testing to confirm incremental impact. Amplitude analytics gives me cohort views and path analysis; Pendo or Intercom can deliver in-app variants; a unified analytics platform closes the loop on retention analysis so I’m not optimizing for click-through at the expense of long-term value.
Retention and expansion are where AI shines as a compounding engine. Retrieval-first pipeline patterns allow instant, contextual support that deflects tickets and boosts perceived product competence. Agentic AI can orchestrate next-best actions—prompting power users toward advanced features, surfacing value moments, or timing expansion prompts when success signals appear. The result is a virtuous cycle: better guidance drives deeper adoption, which improves model accuracy, which unlocks more relevant guidance.
None of this works without guardrails. I bake in AI risk management from the start: strict data governance, privacy-by-design, human-in-the-loop review for high-impact actions, transparent user consent, and continuous drift monitoring. The goal is reliable automation that users trust—augmented by clear fail-safes when confidence drops.
Operationally, I anchor the work in empowered product teams and product trios, focus on outcomes vs output OKRs, and practice continuous discovery to validate problems and solutions before scaling. The baseline metrics I watch: activation rate, time-to-value, week-four retention, PQL/PQA conversion, expansion revenue, and support deflection—each tied to a specific growth loop hypothesis.
If you’re starting fresh, begin with the highest-leverage loop: user activation. Instrument your onboarding journey, define the critical path to value, ship two to three personalized interventions, and measure impact with a precommitted MDE. Scale what wins, drop what doesn’t, and iterate weekly. Once activation is compounding, extend the same approach to adoption depth, collaboration features, and expansion triggers.
In practical terms, AI-powered PLG is less about flashy features and more about disciplined feedback loops. Build the sensing fabric, keep the decision layer auditable, ship small actions quickly, and treat learning as the product. Do that, and your product doesn’t just grow—it becomes a self-optimizing platform.
I just tuned into the latest conversation on the upcoming Product at Heart 2026, and it hit on the exact challenges product leaders are navigating right now: curating meaningful content in a world where AI moves faster than our agendas, designing formats that create real connection, and ensuring every minute earns its place. Listening to Petra Wille and Teresa Torres map out the speaker lineup, workshops, and structural shifts, I found myself nodding along—this is the kind of thoughtful curation we need if we want product teams and product leaders to walk away with practical value, not just inspiration.
Listen to this episode on: Spotify | Apple Podcasts
What stood out immediately is the bold move to a single-track conference for 2026. In an era of gen ai hype and endless breakouts, this choice signals clear intent: tighter curation, a shared experience, and less FOMO. The team isn’t carving out a separate AI track—and I love that decision. Their stance is simple and sensible: No AI track—AI will show up everywhere, but not as a siloed topic. The team sees it as part of the everyday toolkit. That mirrors how high-performing, empowered product teams actually work today—AI Strategy and AI workflows are part of the operating system, not a side show.
The keynote lineup is already compelling. Christian Idiodi (SVPG) brings storytelling that turns product principles into habits you can actually use on Monday. Elaine Kasket, cyber-psychologist, exploring digital afterlife and AI replicas, will push us to think more deeply about the human side of our systems. And Teresa Torres will be sharing what she’s learning about AI—exactly the kind of continuous discovery mindset we need as we integrate LLMs into product discovery and delivery.
I’m also thrilled to see roundtables become what they’re calling an “alternative track.” That’s a smart way to deepen learning without fragmenting attention. The best conference ROI I’ve had often comes from targeted small-group conversations—where product trios compare approaches, swap metrics frameworks, or challenge each other’s product strategy assumptions. It’s a design choice that rewards curiosity and builds communities of practice.
We also get a behind-the-scenes look at Teresa’s Maker Studio workshop, where participants will build personal AI workflows. That’s exactly the hands-on, practitioner-first approach teams need right now—less demo theater, more systems that stick. If your roadmap includes integrating LLMs into continuous discovery or augmenting your team’s decision velocity, this kind of guided practice is gold.
The broader workshop slate looks deep and balanced. Expect returning favorites and practical frameworks: Rich Mironov on the realities of product leadership in complex orgs; Büşra’s metrics workshop translating outcomes into action; and an overview of additional workshops from Rich Mironov, Büşra Coşkuner, Marcus Castenfors, and Özlem Yüce. From success metrics to toolkits for product managers, the content spans IC to product management leadership—ideal if you’re stepping into new roles or scaling empowered product teams.
One of the most exciting evolutions is the Product Leadership Event, now a 1.5-day retreat. The format blends talk sessions, mini-workshops, dinners, and small-group excursions (boat rides, improv, etc.), giving leaders time and space to exchange playbooks, stress-test decisions, and build real relationships. It’s capped at 60 attendees (all in product leadership roles) to keep it intimate and useful. As someone who believes in outcomes vs output OKRs and first principles decision making, I appreciate how this structure encourages depth over breadth—and real accountability among peers.
Here are the core takeaways I’m carrying into my own planning: single-track means tighter curation, so every talk has to earn its place. Roundtables are growing into an “alternative track,” offering more ways to engage beyond stage talks. Workshops go deep and meet you where you are—IC, manager, or executive. And the leadership retreat expands to maximize learning from peers, not just from the stage. If you care about product discovery, product strategy, and conference networking that leads to actual business impact, this program looks thoughtfully engineered.
If you’re planning your 2026 calendar—or just curious how conferences evolve alongside the craft—this is a thoughtful walkthrough of what to expect. Come say hi to Teresa and Petra—on stage, at a roundtable, or somewhere in the hallway conversations that make these events memorable.
For more context and resources mentioned, explore: Product at Heart, Arne Kittler, Mind the Product, Christian Idiodi of Silicon Valley Product Group, Elaine Kasket, House of Beautiful Business, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People by Stephen Covey, Rich Mironov, Marty Cagan, Claude Code, Codex by OpenAI, Marcus Castenfors, Büşra Coşkuner and her Success Metrics: A Playbook for Product Managers, Özlem Yüce’s Essential Toolkit for Product Managers, Petra’s Product Leadership Wheel (PLwheel), and Netlight.
Follow Teresa Torres: https://ProductTalk.org
Follow Petra Wille: https://Petra-Wille.com
Full transcripts are only available for paid subscribers.
I’ve led product teams through countless discovery cycles, and nothing has accelerated our learning loops like AI. By weaving AI into our continuous discovery practice at HighLevel, I cut time-to-insight, reduce risk earlier, and keep our product strategy relentlessly focused on customer outcomes.
AI streamlines product discovery by accelerating research, prototyping, and validation, enabling teams to make faster, smarter, and user-driven decisions.
In the research phase, I use gen ai and LLMs for product managers to synthesize interviews, cluster themes, and surface unmet needs in minutes instead of days. Pairing those qualitative insights with behavioral signals in Amplitude analytics helps me spot high-intent cohorts and friction points at scale, so our problem framing is both human-centered and data-backed.
From there, I translate insights into crisp hypotheses and prioritize with the Kano Model and outcomes vs output OKRs. To keep experiments honest, I define a minimum detectable effect (MDE) up front and design A/B testing plans that reflect realistic traffic and seasonality, ensuring our decisions are statistically grounded rather than anecdotal.
Prototyping is where gen ai for product prototyping really shines. I spin up multiple UX flows, UI copy variants, and edge-case scenarios using prompt engineering, then iterate with rapid feedback from product trios. When needed, I mock in-app guides and product tours to validate onboarding concepts before we commit to code, preserving velocity without sacrificing quality.
For validation, I lean on a mix of lightweight experiments—fake-door tests, concierge pilots, and targeted A/B testing—augmented by in-product surveys via Pendo or Intercom. For AI-powered features, I apply eval-driven development to measure relevance, latency, and safety, so we can ship responsibly while maintaining the pace of learning.
This approach only works when the team is structured to move fast. Empowered product teams and product trios own discovery end-to-end, with clear guardrails around data governance, privacy-by-design, and AI risk management. That alignment lets us shift from opinions to evidence, and from output to outcomes, without friction.
If you’re getting started, pick one discovery loop to transform: automate research synthesis, prototype two to three variants with AI, and validate with a tightly scoped experiment. Instrument your analytics, track time-to-insight and time-to-prototype, and iterate your product roadmapping and sprint planning with what you learn. The payoff is immediate: faster cycles, stronger conviction, and a more user-driven path to product-led growth.
How do you help disadvantaged students take action on opportunities they don't even know exist? That question has been top of mind for me as I’ve explored how AI can augment—not replace—human mentorship. Recently, I dug into the work behind Zero Gravity, a UK-based platform using mentoring, community, and learning pathways to unlock elite career opportunities for state school students. Their approach reframed a core problem I care deeply about: the "knowing-doing gap."
I sat down with Elliot Little (Product Manager) and Dan St. Paul (Software Engineer) from Zero Gravity to unpack how they’re tackling this gap with an AI career co‑pilot. They’ve intentionally positioned the system as an orchestrator, not an automation tool—bridging the space between knowing what to do and actually doing it. As a product leader, I see this as a powerful pattern for Generative AI: use AI to coordinate steps, personalize guidance, and empower action in moments where confidence and clarity are fragile.
What resonated most was the humility of their build journey. They started with grand visions of AI mentors and synthetic avatars, then scaled back to something simpler and more effective. The first prototype—a job suitability summary—didn’t deliver the "wow moment" they expected. And they discovered that hiding the "LLM magic" backfired—students needed to feel the personalization. That insight aligns with my own experience: users must perceive the value for trust and motivation to compound.
From a UX standpoint, the team chose text chat over voice input and leaned into guided prompts rather than empty text boxes. That decision lowered cognitive load and increased completion rates—classic product management tradeoffs that privilege momentum over novelty. In my view, this is what good AI product strategy looks like: invite action with structure, then expand autonomy as confidence grows.
The technical backbone is equally thoughtful. Multi‑month journeys require rigorous context window management to avoid exploding token counts and degrading quality. I appreciated their pragmatic toolkit: context management techniques like removing stale tool calls, summarizing history, exposing tools conditionally. They also used application logic rather than complex RAG architectures to manage tool availability and context freshness. This is the kind of disciplined engineering that keeps systems reliable at scale without overcomplicating the stack.
Model selection was fit‑for‑purpose, not one‑size‑fits‑all. They’re using different models for different tasks, including "GPT-5 Nano for structured outputs, lighter models for quick replies." That modularity enables speed and cost control while preserving high‑fidelity moments where structure matters most.
Safeguarding was treated as a first‑class concern—non‑negotiable when you’re building AI for 16‑year‑olds. Their safeguarding architecture pairs moderation endpoints with external verification via Unitary. They also invested in building a failure taxonomy through internal red team/green team exercises. This is AI risk management done right: define failure modes early, test ruthlessly, and wire safety into the product surface area—not just the model layer.
Evaluation was grounded in outcomes, not demos. The team focused on whether students progressed from insight to action: applying, interviewing, and engaging with mentors. That aligns with how I run eval‑driven development—ship narrowly, measure real behavior, and iterate toward a repeatable "wow moment" that students can actually feel.
Looking ahead, I’m excited by what’s next: long‑term memory management for multi‑year student journeys. It’s a hard problem—balancing privacy, provenance, and portability—but it’s precisely where an AI career co‑pilot can compound value over time. The vision is compelling: a resilient companion that remembers goals, adapts to context, and orchestrates the right next step.
If you want to dive deeper, you can listen to the full conversation on Spotify and Apple Podcasts:
Listen to this episode on: Spotify | Apple Podcasts
Blue Dot Impact AI Safety Course – free AI safety course Elliot recommended: https://bluedot.org/
My key takeaways: build AI that augments human relationships, not replaces them; don’t hide the personalization—let learners feel it; privilege application logic over unnecessary architectural complexity; and treat safety, context, and evaluation as product features, not afterthoughts. That’s how we bridge the "knowing-doing gap" with integrity and scale.
I wanted to cut through the hype and see what’s actually changing inside customer service teams as AI agents like Fin move from pilots to production. So I analyzed 166 interviews with support leaders, managers, and frontline specialists to understand how roles, workflows, and team structures evolve once AI becomes part of everyday work.
The anecdotes were already loud: AI tools are transforming customer support. But the scale, shape, and consistency of that transformation? Less clear. I went to the source—the practitioners living it—to quantify what’s real and what’s next for customer support AI strategy.
Here’s what I gleaned from the data.
TL;DR — What’s changing
AI is reorganizing core CS operations: Nearly every team (≈95%) reported meaningful workflow changes. Triage, routing, translation, and categorization are increasingly automated. Hybrid human+AI systems are taking their place.
Frontline work is changing to AI oversight: Humans now QA, monitor, and test AI outputs. When it comes to handling queries, they step in for nuance, rather than repetition.
Structural change is widespread but uneven across companies: 83% reported new responsibilities or roles. Some built AI pods, while others retained traditional setups.
Tier 1 headcount demand is falling: 28% saw hiring freezes, slowdowns, or natural attrition at Tier 1 level as AI Agents manage more requests and improve operational efficiency.
Skill gaps are widening inside teams: Data literacy, QA, and cross-functional communication are all rising in value. For many companies, long-term role strategy is lagging behind.
Research methodology
The goal of this research is to understand how many customer service teams have changed their roles, responsibilities and ways of working due to adopting AI agents, as well as understanding how these changes manifest within their organizations.
For this study, the data chosen consists of interviews conducted by the research team, either with Intercom customers or prospects. This data was chosen because the focus of the interviews revolved around the individual experience of the participant, which gives a higher chance of information related to role changes to be present.
The data was collected using Snowflake by pulling all interviews stored in gong conducted by a member of the research team from 01-01-2025 to 14-10-2025.
After the data was pulled, a python script was used to clean the conversation corpus for each conversation retrieved. Common English stopwords (e.g. “and”, “very”, “with”, etc.) were removed, as well as all the text associated with a speaker in the conversation that was not the interview participant(s). This was done to reduce the computational power required for the conversation coding, avoid API timeouts and reduce costs.
After the corpus was cleaned, the OpenAI API was employed, alongside a prompt, to code each conversation using closed codes defined in a closed codebook.
The codes used were:
No role change mentioned: No explicit changes to roles, teams, or reporting lines are attributed to AI/Fin.
Role responsibilities changed due to AI/Fin: Duties/ownership moved between humans and AI/Fin, or scope of a role changed because AI/Fin handles tasks.
Team structure/reporting changed due to AI/Fin: Org/team boundaries, team charters, or reporting lines changed due to adopting AI/Fin.
Headcount/hiring impacted due to AI/Fin: Hiring plans, headcount, staffing coverage, or shifts/rotations changed due to AI/Fin.
Workflow/process changed due to AI/Fin: Steps, triage/escalations, routing, or playbooks changed because AI/Fin alters the process.
Other organizational changes due to AI/Fin: Other changes inside the organization due to AI/Fin that don’t involve a change in responsibilities, team structure/reporting lines, headcount or workflow/processes changes.
Data analysis
166 conversations were retrieved. More than 90% of all conversations report some sort of change either in their role, team, or processes due to implementing Fin, or a similar AI product, with only 13 participants reporting no changes.
Across these conversations, each one could have multiple types of change associated with it (M = 2.35, Med = 2, Min = 1, Max = 4, N = 166).
More specifically, after implementing Fin or a similar AI product:
94.58% participants reported having their processes and workflows disrupted
82.53% participants reported seeing their role and responsibilities change
27.71% participants reported changes in company headcount or hiring
6.02% participants reported their team structure or reporting lines changing as a result
Additionally, 16.27% participants reported a change for a different reason from the ones highlighted above (“Other organizational changes due to AI/Fin”).
Sample representativeness
The sample is representative with a confidence level of 90% and a margin of error of ±6.4% (accounting for an overall unknown population size). The individual confidence intervals for each type of change are as follows.
Workflow/process changed due to AI/Fin: 157 (94.6%), 90% CI: 91.7% – 97.5%
Role responsibilities changed due to AI/Fin: 137 (82.5%), 90% CI: 77.7% – 87.4%
Headcount/hiring impacted due to AI/Fin: 46 (27.7%), 90% CI: 22.0% – 33.4%
Other organizational changes due to AI/Fin: 27 (16.3%), 90% CI: 11.6% – 21.0%
No role change mentioned: 13 (7.8%), 90% CI: 4.4% – 11.3%
Team structure/reporting changed due to AI/Fin: 10 (6.0%), 90% CI: 3.0% – 9.1%
Thematic analysis
1) Automation and AI integration replacing manual steps (94.58%). I see AI workflows embedding into every stage of support. Manual triage, routing, translations, and repetitive responses shift to Fin or similar systems, while agents focus on human-in-the-loop oversight.
Agents’ day-to-day work now revolves around monitoring or fine-tuning AI outputs, not replying to the same questions. In many teams, conversations enter Fin first; humans only step in when nuance or exception handling is required. Testing, QA, and rollout practices have matured too—teams track Fin’s accuracy and iterate intentionally.
2) Humans shift to oversight, AI handles execution (82.53%). The role resets are unmistakable. Support agents and managers move from high-volume execution to optimization, configuration, and measurement. New roles emerge—AI specialists, automation managers, Fin owners—while responsibilities migrate toward strategic analysis and quality assurance.
Duties are redistributed: Fin takes on refunds, triage, simple messaging, even parts of the sales process. I’ve watched some careers pivot toward product/ops or AI systems strategy as managers coordinate testing and monitor adoption metrics.
3) Reductions or slower growth due to efficiency gains (27.71%). Efficiency is real. Many teams reduce Tier 1 headcount needs or slow hiring because AI absorbs simpler requests. Others reallocate people to complex work or AI management. A few still expand—adding automation engineers, implementation specialists, or technical AI leads—but not at past growth rates.
The upshot: organizations handle more volume while stabilizing or reducing staffing, especially at the frontline tier.
4) New AI teams, flatter orgs, fewer escalation layers (6.02%). I’m seeing organizational design catch up to the tech. Some companies form dedicated LLM or automation teams. Others flatten hierarchies, design around workflow complexity instead of region, or merge roles. Dedicated escalation layers shrink as Fin routes or resolves more autonomously.
Team design is getting more modular and data-driven, with clearer ownership for configuration, governance, and Agent Analytics.
5) Broader digital transformation and operational modernization (16.27%). Beyond support, companies are modernizing their operating model: automation-first, digital self-service, better data foundations, and new vendor ecosystems. Collaboration patterns between data, ops, CX, and product/engineering are tightening, with a culture of experimentation and continuous improvement taking hold.
How have customer service roles and responsibilities changed due to Fin/AI agent implementation?
Implementing Fin or a similar AI agent profoundly changes how an organization operates, with around 95% of participants reporting some level of change in their processes after implementation. These systems have significantly reshaped the workflows that customer service teams are used to. Tasks once performed manually, such as ticket triage, routing, repetitive responses, and translations are now handled by AI agents.
“This marks a clear transformation in how customer service agents work: moving away from directly resolving customer queries to focusing on more analytical and procedural work”
As a result, customer service agents’ responsibilities have shifted from performing manual tasks to monitoring and fine-tuning the AI agent whenever its output is inaccurate or incomplete. This marks a clear transformation in how customer service agents work: moving away from directly resolving customer queries to focusing on more analytical and procedural work, such as testing, QA, and performance analysis of AI outputs.
Human agents who still handle conversations tend to do so either because the AI agent cannot yet respond adequately, or because of an organizational choice to retain human involvement for sensitive or high-value interactions. Nevertheless, the need for such roles is diminishing. Around 28% of participants reported a reduction in Tier 1 staff or a hiring slowdown or a full hiring freeze, as AI agents increasingly manage simple requests and organizational attention shifts towards improving automation efficiency.
“In some cases, this has led to the creation of specialized AI teams, reorganizations around workflow complexity, or the merging and redefinition of existing roles”
However, this transformation is not uniform across companies. While some roles have disappeared (particularly escalation layers), others have emerged. Many organizations are reallocating existing staff to AI management or hiring new technical profiles such as automation engineers, implementation specialists, and AI leads. In some cases, this has led to the creation of specialized AI teams, reorganizations around workflow complexity, or the merging and redefinition of existing roles.
Around 83% of participants reported changes to their roles or responsibilities following the introduction of Fin or similar AI agents. Specifically, customer service agents who no longer handle basic queries now focus on managing AI performance, reviewing Fin tasks and improving automation outputs. Managers oversee AI evaluation and implementation, coordinate testing, and monitor AI metrics such as resolution and involvement rates. In some organizations, new dedicated roles have emerged—AI specialists, automation managers, or Fin owners—reflecting a strategic shift toward automation-first, digital self-service models.
These structural shifts are also cultural. I’m seeing teams embrace experimentation, versioning, and eval-driven development while deepening collaboration with data, operations, and product/engineering. The move from outcomes vs output OKRs is palpable: leaders are measuring containment, deflection, CSAT, and time-to-resolution with new rigor.
Overall, a widespread transformation is underway. Roles are broadening, responsibilities are diversifying, and cross-functional collaboration is becoming the norm. Given the pace of gen ai improvement and the rise of agentic AI patterns, I expect these shifts to intensify.
This evolution raises two important questions
Firstly, do customer service agents possess the skills required to succeed in these new roles? While they are experts in customer interaction and company policy, their work now demands new competencies in data analysis (e.g. reporting AI agent performance and how it changes over time), quality assurance/debugging (e.g. Fin output testing and versioning), and cross-functional communication (e.g. if help from another team is required, drafting a business case to justify the resources required could be needed).
Secondly, what long-term strategies are companies adopting to support these evolving roles? Some are reorganizing entirely around automation, while others retain traditional structures. For those undergoing transformation, it remains unclear whether these changes are part of a deliberate strategic plan aimed at achieving specific performance outcomes, or the result of experimentation without defined goals.
Ultimately, Fin’s success— and of AI in customer service more broadly— depends not only on the technology itself but on the people and strategies that shape its use. In my experience, the winners invest early in data literacy, robust QA, clear ownership, and governance; they align product, ops, and CX around a shared AI roadmap; and they measure what matters with disciplined Agent Analytics. That’s how you turn AI workflows into durable customer and business outcomes.
Every week, I watch the cybersecurity landscape shift under our feet. As a VP of Product Management, I’m responsible for building secure, resilient products—and that means understanding how artificial intelligence is transforming the way IT teams defend, respond, and even anticipate attacks.
Learn the ways in which AI is transforming both cybersecurity offense and defense for IT teams.
First, AI supercharges threat detection and prevention. Pattern-recognition models now sift through endpoint telemetry, identity signals, and network flows to surface anomalies in near real time. In practice, that means fewer false positives, faster prioritization, and earlier containment. We’re pairing behavioral analytics with enrichment from our SIEM/EDR stack so analysts get a ranked, explainable view of risk instead of a noisy alert queue—directly improving mean time to detect and laying the groundwork for scalable threat detection and response.
Second, AI accelerates incident response. We’ve embedded LLM-powered copilots into our SOC workflows to summarize alerts, propose next-best actions, and auto-generate draft remediation steps from playbooks. Orchestration then executes routine tasks—isolating endpoints, rotating credentials, updating tickets—while keeping a human-in-the-loop for approvals. To keep this safe, we use privacy-by-design principles, a retrieval-first pipeline for authoritative playbook content, and eval-driven development to measure precision/recall on suggested actions. The result is meaningful reduction in mean time to recover and more consistent incident management.
Third, the offense is getting smarter—and we need to be honest about it. Adversaries use gen AI to craft targeted spear-phishing, deepfake executive voice notes, and polymorphic malware that evades signature-based tools. We counter by red-teaming with AI, deploying deception tech to waste attacker cycles, and hardening identity as the new perimeter (MFA, conditional access, continuous risk scoring). Education matters, too: when employees see how convincing AI-generated lures have become, phishing reports spike and successful compromise rates drop.
None of this works without strong governance. We treat AI like any high-impact capability: rigorous data governance, model access controls, and AI risk management across the lifecycle. We log model prompts and outputs, restrict sensitive data via contextual policies, and continuously test for drift and bias. This is as much an IT leadership challenge as it is a technical one—clear ownership, well-defined runbooks, and regular tabletop exercises make the difference between resilience and chaos.
If you’re getting started, I recommend a focused 90-day plan: identify one high-signal detection use case, one response playbook ripe for automation, and one employee risk area (usually phishing) for immediate uplift. Instrument everything—latency, precision/recall, MTTR—and iterate with a cross-functional group spanning security engineering, SRE, and product management leadership. With disciplined AI strategy and guardrails in place, you can move faster, reduce noise, and stay ahead of adversaries without compromising data or trust.
AI is changing how I build products, not by replacing designers or researchers, but by amplifying the quality and speed of what our product trios can deliver. The real breakthrough isn’t a single tool; it’s the way genAI and traditional methods combine into a tighter discovery–design–delivery loop that shortens time-to-value without sacrificing rigor.
Learn how Pendo’s product design team is using genAI and traditional tools to speed up design and development.
In practice, that’s exactly the pattern I see working across my teams: we treat genAI as part of the AI product toolbox—great for rapid exploration, structured synthesis, and test preparation—while we rely on our proven techniques to validate outcomes. For early-stage concepting, I use prompt engineering to generate multiple storyboard options and interaction flows in minutes, then refine those outputs with our design system for alignment and accessibility. It’s a pragmatic “gen ai for product prototyping” approach that lets us compare more alternatives, faster, with better signal.
On the testing front, AI accelerates everything around A/B testing without diluting statistical discipline. We draft hypotheses, define success metrics, and estimate minimum detectable effect (MDE) with guardrails, then deploy variants via feature flags in CI/CD. That pairing—LLMs for product managers plus eval-driven development—keeps experiments reproducible while boosting deployment frequency. The outcome is fewer opinions, more evidence, and a tighter feedback loop from build to learn.
Research goes from weeks to days when we combine a retrieval-first pipeline for qualitative data with strong data governance. I’ll ingest interview notes, support tickets, and session transcripts to cluster themes, then pressure-test the clusters with live customer calls. Privacy-by-design and AI risk management remain non-negotiable: we redact sensitive fields, constrain context windows, and keep a human-in-the-loop for decisions that affect user experience or compliance.
Where analytics meets adoption, tools like in-app guides and product tours help us translate insights into behavior change. I’ll prototype a flow, auto-generate guidance variants, and run controlled rollouts to target segments, measuring activation and retention analysis in parallel. This is product-led growth in action: discover the friction, design the intervention, instrument the journey, and validate outcomes with unified analytics.
Organizationally, empowered product teams and continuous discovery make the difference. Our product trios work from outcomes vs output OKRs, pairing competitive differentiation with product strategy to keep bets focused. We meet weekly to review experiment readouts, model trade-offs with the Kano Model, and update product roadmapping and sprint planning based on verified learning—never vibes alone.
If you’re getting started, begin with one workflow—say, prototype generation plus structured experiment design—and measure impact across cycle time, experiment throughput, and decision quality. Layer in communities of practice to share prompt patterns, establish eval baselines, and codify what “good” looks like. The companies winning with AI aren’t chasing shiny objects; they’re building a repeatable system that turns curiosity into customer value.
I’ve been refining a hands-on approach to “burger prompting” that turns prompt engineering into a reliable, repeatable system. Using an AI resume coach as the proving ground, I’ll walk through a detailed prompt structure to get the most out of your LLM and share what’s worked for me in product environments where clarity, consistency, and measurable outcomes matter.
At a high level, burger prompting follows a simple mental model: the top bun frames the role and mission, the fillings pack in context and examples, and the bottom bun locks in output format and quality guardrails. It’s deceptively simple and extremely effective for Generative AI use cases where you need predictable behavior across different inputs and user personas.
For the top bun, I establish the AI’s role, audience, and objective in one place. In the resume coach flow, I define the assistant as a structured, unbiased reviewer tasked with aligning a candidate’s resume to a specific job description. I set constraints on tone (supportive but direct), scope (resume and job description only), and safety (avoid speculative claims, defer legal or medical advice). This crisp intent statement reduces ambiguity and prevents the model from wandering outside the product’s value proposition.
The fillings are where context window management becomes crucial. I inject the job description, the candidate’s resume, a capability rubric aligned to the role, and the company’s style preferences. If the content is long, I chunk inputs and, when needed, use a retrieval-first pipeline to fetch only the most relevant snippets. I also include a brief style guide with voice, depth, and formatting expectations so the AI doesn’t drift between terse and verbose responses across sessions.
Strong examples are the meat of the burger. I include a few annotated comparisons that show what “excellent,” “good,” and “needs improvement” look like for specific competencies, from impact statements to quantification. These examples are compact and domain-specific, so the LLM sees the pattern I expect without overfitting to a single profile. I encourage transparent reasoning by asking for stepwise evaluations that reference evidence from the resume and job description, while keeping the explanations concise and user-friendly.
The bottom bun finalizes structure and guardrails. I specify an output schema that always returns a brief summary, evidence-backed strengths, concrete gaps with examples of what’s missing, and a prioritized action plan with suggested rewrites. I also request a rubric-aligned score to support eval-driven development, and I cap length to ensure scannability inside product UI. This predictable format reduces downstream parsing errors and keeps the AI workflow snappy.
To operationalize this in a product context, I run small A/B tests on the prompt variants and measure utility through user activation and completion rates. I tune the prompt with tight feedback loops, comparing structured scores against human spot checks until the variance narrows. When I see drift, I adjust the constraints, swap underperforming examples, or expand the rubric to capture overlooked signals.
Quality and trust are non-negotiable. I add guidance to avoid hallucinated credentials or inflated claims, enforce privacy-by-design around sensitive data, and encourage the assistant to cite which resume lines support each recommendation. When the model is uncertain or the resume lacks evidence, the assistant should explicitly say so and propose realistic next steps rather than guessing.
The result is an AI resume coach that feels both helpful and disciplined. With burger prompting, you get a durable prompt pattern you can reuse across adjacent AI workflows, from portfolio reviews to job description rewrites. Once you internalize the top bun, fillings, and bottom bun, you’ll find it far easier to ship prompts that scale, maintain consistency across releases, and deliver tangible, career-advancing outcomes for users.
I’ve spent the past few product cycles re-architecting roadmaps around one simple reality: AI is no longer just a feature—it’s a business model. The companies winning market share are those that treat models, data, and workflows as monetizable assets with defensible moats, not science projects.
AI business models are rewriting value creation. Learn how smart teams turn algorithms into profit engines, reshaping entire industries.
From my seat in product leadership, I evaluate AI bets through three lenses: durable value (moat and differentiation), measurable outcomes (clear ROI), and unit economics (gross margins under real-world load). With that frame, here are ten AI business models I see performing now—and how I decide when to invest.
1) API-first Model-as-a-Service. I monetize foundation or specialized models via an API, priced by tokens, requests, or time-in-context. Success hinges on latency, accuracy, and “context window management” that balances quality with cost. This is where “consumption SaaS pricing” shines and where disciplined rate-limiting, observability, and SLAs build trust.
2) Vertical AI copilots. I package domain-specific expertise (legal, healthcare, finance, field service) into workflow-native assistants that surface next-best actions. Because these copilots live where work happens, I price on outcomes—time saved, revenue recovered, or risk reduced—aligning value with customer metrics and accelerating product adoption.
3) Agentic AI automation. When autonomous agents handle multi-step tasks across tools, I lean toward per-outcome or per-job pricing. Reliability is the moat, so I invest early in eval-driven development, robust guardrails, and human-in-the-loop QA. This model compounds fast once agents can execute end-to-end workflows with transparent audit trails.
4) Copilot add-ons inside existing SaaS. I’ve seen “AI Assist” tiers deliver immediate ARPU lift and retention gains. The playbook: start with high-frequency, high-friction jobs (drafts, summaries, enrichment), then expand to proactive suggestions. This aligns tightly with product strategy and lets me stage value without overhauling the core experience.
5) Insights-as-a-Service via data network effects. I transform exhaust data into benchmarking, predictions, and prescriptive recommendations—while honoring privacy-by-design and data governance. The more customers I onboard, the stronger the patterns, and the higher the switching costs. Pricing ties to seats plus an outcomes or value metric.
6) Retrieval-first pipeline for enterprise knowledge. I land with high-accuracy answers over customer data (search, summarize, cite), then expand into workflow automations. This “retrieval-first pipeline” reduces hallucinations, boosts trust, and creates defensibility through connectors, semantic indexing, and continuous relevance tuning—an ideal fit for LLMs for product managers prioritizing reliability.
7) Open source monetization. When I bet on openness, I monetize hosting, support, enterprise controls, and compliance features. The advantage is developer love and rapid iteration; the moat is operational excellence at scale, plus integrations customers rely on. This model converts community momentum into predictable revenue.
8) Marketplaces for prompts, skills, and agents. I create a platform for third-party extensions and charge a take rate on usage. The flywheel spins when developers see distribution, customers see breadth, and I enforce strong quality bars. The roadmap focuses on governance, discovery, and safe execution policies.
9) Solutions with forward deployed engineers. For complex rollouts, I pair product with specialized implementation to guarantee outcomes. Revenue blends software plus services, accelerating time-to-value and informing the roadmap with real-world constraints. Over time, learnings fold back into scalable, self-serve capabilities.
10) AI risk, security, and compliance tooling. As AI scales, so does the need for policy enforcement, monitoring, and auditability. I monetize via platform subscriptions that address model provenance, data leakage prevention, red teaming, and reporting. Strong “AI risk management” is now a purchasing requirement, not a nice-to-have.
How do I choose among these models? I start with the customer’s biggest workflow pain, map it to the fastest path to measurable outcomes, and align pricing with value creation. Then I build defensibility through data advantage, distribution, and governance. If a model deepens trust, improves margins, and compounds learning, it earns a place on the roadmap.
