Практика Shadowing: Building the future of agentic infrastructure - Изучайте разговорный английский по видео

Выберите режим практики

Каждый режим открывает полноэкранную комнату практики.

171 предложений

Если предложения слишком короткие или длинные, нажмите Edit, чтобы их изменить.

You can tell we’re API nerds, because we're saying agents should talk to each other through API.

It's been a crazy six months.

Because I think if we look back six months, most of what the Claude Platform was, was an API that got you access to inference and tokens.

And out of the model and sure, we had started to build some interesting tools around the model that could get you more intelligence, or could help you lower your costs or get more speed.

But I think of late we've started to launch some really rich features within the platform that help you get a ton more out of the model that help take infrastructure problems off your hands, and help take harness engineering problems off your hands so that you can really get that intelligence, at a much lower cost for your team.

Angela, what has been some of the most interesting feedback patterns you've seen from customers?

I think the most exciting ones have been around managed agents, which has been really awesome, and I know you, obviously product manage to manage agents.

But it's been great.

I think the feedback, has been really awesome, especially around concepts like memory and concepts like outcomes and dreaming.

But I think my favorite one actually is a bit old school, but, I did hear a developer who was using it say they just really love the abstraction levels.

And, that always warms my heart a little bit.

Even as these workflows are evolving, there's still this concept of agent identity.

And so how do we think about the idea of workflows combined with agent identity?

Yeah, I think agent Identity will actually probably need to be almost somewhat separate.

Like almost the agent needs to have its own identity.

I think today it's still a little bit early.

People are still discovering interesting use cases, and there's still a lot of trust that you need to give an agent.

But I think increasingly that agent identity is closer to something where the agent listens to an outcome that you want, and then it probably comes back to you and asks like, hey, in order to accomplish the outcome that you gave me, I need access to A, B, C, and D, and you may say, you know, A, B, and C are okay, but I don't want you to touch D, and then the agent is able to go and see if you can accomplish that.

And then when it does do that, it's able to kind of almost create a service account for itself.

And in that world then you can audit it.

You can make sure that, it's successfully doing the things that you want.

And I think that is probably closer to the operating model we’ll see with the identity layer kind of evolving.

So a lot of what's interesting about how agents can talk to each other is like, you can build an agent and you can expose an API, or you can expose just some mechanism by which, like another agent can talk to that agent the same way that a person might interact with that agent.

And we've seen people doing some really interesting stuff from this perspective, like, some folks have built on Claude managed agents within the platform, and then have built like a nice thin MCP server that they can go and expose, and then you can have another agent just know exactly how to call in to you talking to that agent.

And so, I think that is extremely helpful.

And, you know, just people have been able to do really creative stuff like that.

So, why are these kind of workflows legitimate now?

Like what had to change at the model or at the infrastructure layer for this to be possible?

Models have obviously just gotten better.

I think that's a huge part of it, because I think previously you would have had to maybe build a whole ton of scaffolding around the model and, standard operating procedure type stuff that make sure that you have, this stuff happens and then that stuff happens, right?

Like the nondeterminism of the model used to be a lot more problematic than it is today.

I think today the models are really great and can actually figure out within some reasonable guardrails, like what are the steps I need to take?

And what are the things that I need to do, I think they've also been able to run for longer.

Like we have the right infrastructure to let an agent be, ambient within a workspace, and it can get triggered by something, and then it can go off and run at some workflow for some period of time.

And, you know, come back when it's actually ready.

So I think some of this is evolution of the model.

I think some of this is evolution of the infrastructure in the way that people are able to actually stand up and build agents around it.

Angela, I would love to hear your thoughts on how this, like, nondeterminism that Katelyn is talking about has really evolved the harness layer.

Yeah, I think in the past, it just felt like a couple months ago, really, where people would actually create these, like, very complex boxes of business processes that they'd put together.

So first it needs to go through step A and then step A can only go to B if and only if all this kind of stuff.

And it's a very complex web of things.

And it ended up being like very fragile, I think.

in terms of an agent actually being able to exhibit the intelligence that you were hoping it to have, and you were obviously trying to automate something or make it a you know, a little bit more useful.

And we've kind of tried to box in a lot of the model.

As Katelyn mentioned, with the model getting smarter and I think more and more capable more agentic in its tool calling and also deeper in it's own reasoning.

It's actually able to get to a place where you can kind of start to delete some of those, you know, restrictive parts of the harness.

And so I see harnesses actually getting thinner and thinner over time.

The other thing I see is that with harnesses getting thinner, you almost have like, meta harnesses.

I don't know what to call those things.

Maybe they're like saddles or something in the future.

But, I do think they, they tend to combine strategies.

So, for example, we've seen people do really innovative stuff where it's multiple agents, and this is built into the harness in itself, but multiple agents actually compete to go try and solve a problem together.

And there's another instance in which, you spin up two of them, and one of them generates an idea, and then the other one's adversarial to it.

And there's so many other strategies you can build on top of it.

We recently did advisor strategy as an example, where if the model can't figure out what to do, it actually just goes, reaches out, and calls a friend, and that friend is hopefully smarter and helps it figure out.

So I think things like that is increasingly where harness innovation will go.

And we'll see a lot of, incredible ways where agents, through that expansive architecture, are able to solve more and more complex problems.

Yeah. I think this is, really getting to the heart of how we think about harness evolution, because, ultimately you have all these different composite strategies, and over time, we'll be evolving to having hybrids of these strategies like you could start with, the best of end, sort of like expansive approach.

And then once you decide on the right, framework, then you can iterate on that, single framework.

So you mentioned complex problems.

Tell me about a particularly complex problem that has inspired you recently.

There was this one really great hackathon winner that was super inspirational.

I believe it's called Urrea.

I might be mispronouncing that, but they, you know, had this problem where inside a bunch of different manufacturing facilities, there is this need for an expert who really understands the machinery.

And then you have to kind of listen to and monitor whether or not certain machines are going up or down.

And then you also have to then read the manuals for like that specific component inside the machine.

And traditionally there's one person in that factory who has figured that out over the course of maybe like 10, 15, 20 years working in that plant, and then they retire very reasonably.

And then you just, you don't have that expertise anymore.

This person was actually able to take all of these types of pieces and say, okay, if I upload the standard operating procedure, if I build in monitoring, I just attract signals from all the different types of parts of the plant.

Then I can actually have agents try to mimic that human judgment.

And it was really cool to see them actually be able to take a significant proportion of that and then build in what is basically redundancy in, you know, that person retiring and actually being able to return to that agentic system and say, okay, I can rely on this as a place to accumulate the really important, you know, factory knowledge that's necessary.

What about you, Katelyn?

What's an interesting problem you've seen solved recently?

Yeah. I think one of the cool things that's happening within engineering team specifically, or not even actually engineering teams just like development teams that are trying to get work done, is people are coming up with agents that are just more powerful than just, I can get some code written, like we have excellent like, Claude Code is an excellent product, a whole bunch of excellent products around, how can you actually write code?

And I'm seeing people now go further than that and say, okay, if I'm starting from the very beginning of a project, what are all the things that are going to have to happen in order for that work to get done?

How do I need to think about running my development environment to actually test the code that I'm running?

Right? Like, How do I, you know, actually write the PR up front, like the requirements documents and then like later on verify all the QA testing sort of things that need to happen.

And so there's a few examples out there right now where people, in larger companies have actually put together full agenda systems and platforms.

That help them do pretty custom end to end development.

And I think a really good example is Shopify recently talked about doing this with, I think they called it River.

And, you know, there's been a few other examples like this.

And I think this is one of the evolutions that has been made possible by just the evolution of what agents are capable of.

So it's clear that some organizations are seeing a massive amount of ceiling raising on the problems that they're able to solve.

But not all organizations are feeling that.

So what do you think is the biggest barrier to that?

Actual boundaries, like the things that can get in the way for people.

Security and compliance guardrails that they need to have in place in order to feel comfortable, like having agents do the work that they're able to do.

Evals, I think is a big one, too.

In order to actually get the most out of the technology.

Security and compliance is definitely a big one here, because I think that a lot of teams are operating on, security assumptions that prevailed, you know, 20 years ago.

And now agents are fundamentally changing everything.

And along with that comes security.

So I think that we have a pretty fundamental idea of what makes a safe agent with strong guardrails.

I think pushing that concept uphill and revising the checklist, has been a bit of a, a bit of a journey.

Yes. Yeah. And Curious for how you think about ROI of agents and how enterprises can manage that?

Yeah, I think it's a very, top of mind question for a ton of different companies right now as they look at how everything is accelerating and how they can accelerate themselves.

I think, you know, there's a couple different ways to think about this, but I tried to kind of encourage a slightly more like simplified mental model.

I think oftentimes people want to jump to like, how do I agentify gigantic old school processes that I have, and maybe they have 120 of them and they want to go down the laundry list or they're like, great, this is my moment.

If consumer preferences are changing to fundamentally transform our entire product service.

100

And I think all those things are great, but it's obviously very hard to go through all of those.

101

And there's a very, very wide array of things there.

102

I do think that from an ROI point of view, it's easier to almost start from the individual, actually, and to be focused on how much faster that individual is getting.

103

And it sounds really almost like simple and kind of, you know, like not sophisticated enough.

104

But I actually think if you start there and you are able to accelerate that one individual, you can move from that to then a team.

105

And as you get to the team level, you start to think about the speed that you're generating there.

106

And then, and probably only then I would actually start then to encourage say, okay, if I can make this team faster, now what is my ability to take this team and think through a process across my company?

107

And realistically, a process typically requires many different teams and many different individuals who don't share standard operating procedures, who don't share maybe the exact same expertise.

108

And that's why we have all them together probably, you know, duct taping a bunch of things together.

109

But if you go through that kind of phase where you think about speed at the individual layer, team and their productivity, and then lastly followed by how you're able to string these workflows together.

110

I think you're able as a company, to basically almost light up every single bar that you eventually care about, so you can eventually make your way to that kind of list of 120 workflows that you wish you could be agentifying.

111

And I think if you think about it from that point of view, most of your ROI calculations should probably be on speed first and foremost, and productivity.

112

It tends to be much more leading and successful as the primary mechanism to take a look at as that starts to, I think, flower a little bit inside of a company, then it makes more sense to kind of transition a bit to be like, okay, well, you know, maybe there are financial metrics that I wanted to push.

113

Maybe there are, user metrics that will help drive the overall like outcome productivity that I care about.

114

And I think if leaders and companies are able to follow that kind of process.

115

They're actually able to drive more of that ROI.

116

And see, it's stage by stage.

117

Katelyn, you keep saying engineering teams and I want to double click on that and say what is an engineering team anymore?

118

So engineering team for us is a set of humans that actually doesn't look that different than an engineering team looked 6 months ago, 12 months ago.

119

You still kind of need that set of humans to understand the system that they are building, how to operate it, how to be on call when something's going wrong, all of these sorts of things.

120

But each of those humans is just insanely turbo charged by agents that can help them get their work done.

121

And so what we're kind of seeing is a bit of a shift from an engineering team that was maybe, like one technical lead who's got, you know, opinions on how we should design the system, right?

122

And then a whole bunch of engineers who are, you know, picking up tickets and getting work done to almost the whole team are people who have strong opinions on here's how we end to end build a product or build a system.

123

Here's what the technical design needs to look like.

124

And then they're kind of orchestrating their Claudes, for lack of a better term, to get the work done.

125

And so, for us, our engineering teams actually look pretty similar.

126

But they're able to just get so much more work done, than they were in the past.

127

I'm curious how you think about potential failure modes of reliance on agents in an organization?

128

I do think it does create a sense of like, hyper independence in a way that is maybe slightly false.

129

Like, you think that.

130

Of course, now everyone's a builder, so I can go and build and yes, I can like spin up like ten prototypes.

131

And for you, normally you'd be like, well, which of these options is the best option?

132

You do a little bit thinking you now have the ability to be like, well, this is cheap.

133

Like, why don't I just like launch all ten and then whichever one's the winner is the one that they will pick.

134

And so I do think it creates this like hyper independence on every single person.

135

But oftentimes, you know, I think the quality that comes together from something that's like more systematic, more holistic tends to then be a little bit harder to coordinate.

136

So I do think that's a little bit of the failure mode is like if by giving everyone hyper independence, but not necessarily organizing them together to a concrete direction, you might see like sprawl that looks a little bit like this.

137

And that can have pros and cons, but I think there's definitely failure modes that result from things like that.

138

So where do you think the puck is going?

139

What is the future of agentic development?

140

I think it's like deeply embedded inside the organization to a point where you probably don't really use tools in the way that's like so obviously instantiated.

141

And what I mean by that is you know, today we all are reaching for this agentic tool or that agentic tool.

142

And this one's good at this and that's good at that.

143

And I think in the future it'll be closer to like maybe there's some common substrate where we all kind of engage.

144

It's like familiar interfaces and everything like that.

145

But you kind of are just able to kind of tag an agent, spin it up and down as you see fit, and it just does a lot of like work by itself invisibly.

146

And so and it might even actually be proactive.

147

Maybe it's the one coming to you and saying, hey, you know, we noticed this thing went down.

148

And so I dug into the details and I figured it out and I fixed it.

149

And here's the PR maybe you want to review it.

150

And maybe you even told it, like next time in the future for things so small, don't bother me.

151

Just go ahead and, like, ship it.

152

And I think it'll look a little bit like that where it almost feels like, almost like an invisible like substrate that you engage with.

153

And in that world, I think that every person ends up being at a place where they almost kind of like, are able to build kind of team oriented agents, but maybe not in the sense of like it's like another team mate, but more that like the team orientation of some workflow that say, you and I have there's an agent for that, and it's able to actually map to the kind of preferences the two of us have been in.

154

The three of us have a team based agent and it like, understands a slightly different preference, and it starts to kind of fill in a lot of the gaps that are necessary.

155

And again, I think still have the common interfaces and things we have, but we might see it a bit more of as like an operating system or, or something like that instead of, specific tools that we actively reach out for.

156

And how do you think Claude Platform will help us get to that vision?

157

Yeah, I think one of the bigger things that we've been kind of trying to push the boundaries on recently are some concepts, like outcomes is a big one.

158

Like we shipped in Claude managed angents this idea of an outcome where you tell Claude, like, here's what good looks like.

159

Give it a rubric.

160

How many times can it iterate to go and try and get that outcome successfully before it stops, right?

161

And I think as we evolve that concept, we'll probably get closer and closer to a world where you're talking to Claude and you're saying, I want this outcome and here's a budget.

162

Go. You know, and you don't really have to think beyond that.

163

And I think the idea of what we're trying to get out with the platform is make that so easy.

164

And being in a world where you're spinning up an agent every day because you're like, today, I have to summarize some interview notes and put together a packet of feedback, right?

165

Or something like that.

166

You can say, okay, great agents, I want notes look good, looks like this.

167

And you can spend this amount.

168

Go. Right? And then you'll get back what you want and making it so that you don't have to work harder, think hard to actually create that, is the gap that we're trying to fill.

169

Making that super easy.

170

This has been so much fun talking about the future of agents.

171

Thanks so much, guys.

Скачать приложение

Всё для свободной речи

ИИ-оценка произношенияОценка каждой фразы

Практика IPAОсвойте каждый звук

СловарьСоберите свой словарный запас

Игра со словамиУчитесь играя

Сканировать QR

Download on theApp Store Get it onGoogle Play

Тот же канал

Building the best agentic analytics harness: Powered by Claude, built with Claude Code

Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults

FOR YOU

Лексика и советы по произношению к этому уроку

Этот урок разговорной практики уровня C1 построен на видео «Building the future of agentic infrastructure». В этом видео 171 предложений и 3718 слов для шедоуинга. Речь длится 16:26. Говорящий говорит быстро, около 226 слов в минуту, поэтому звуки часто сливаются и сокращаются. 86% слов входят в 3000 самых частых слов английского языка; остальные стоит разобрать перед занятием.

Ключевая лексика этого видео

Самые сложные слова из видео (15), с произношением и значением:

Слово	Произношение	Значение
harness глагол	/ˈhɑɹ.nəs/	запряга́ть
workflow существительное	/ˈwɝkfloʊ/	пото́к рабо́т, воркфлоу
evolve глагол	/ɪˈvɑlv/	развива́ться, разви́ться
guardrail существительное	/ˈɡɑɹdˌɹeɪl/	огражде́ние
accelerate глагол	/ɪkˈsɛl.əˌɹeɪt/	ускоря́ть, уско́рить
expose глагол	/ɪkˈspoʊz/	выставля́ть, раскрыва́ть
oftentimes наречие	/ˈɔf.ənˌtaɪmz/	ча́сто, многокра́тно
metric прилагательное	/ˈmɛt.ɹɪk/	метри́ческий
retire глагол	/ɹəˈtaɪɹ/	выходи́ть на пе́нсию, выходи́ть в отста́вку
accomplish глагол	/əˈkɑm.plɪʃ/	заверша́ть, заверши́ть
expertise существительное	/ˌɛkspɜːˈtiːz/	компете́нтность, зна́ния
abstraction существительное	/æbˈstɹæk.ʃn̩/	абстра́кция
accumulate глагол	/əˈkjuːmjʊˌleɪt/	нака́пливать, копи́ть
automate глагол	/ˈɔ.təˌmeɪt/	автоматизи́ровать
checklist существительное	/ˈt͡ʃɛklɪst/	контро́льный спи́сок, контро́льный пе́речень

Фразовые глаголы, которые вы услышите

Слово	Произношение	Значение
figure out глагол		разбира́ться, разобра́ться
put together глагол		собрать, составить
end up глагол		зака́нчиваться, зако́нчиться
go down глагол		спуска́ться, спусти́ться
come back глагол		возвраща́ться, возврати́ться
come up with глагол		придумывать, приходить в голову
go ahead глагол	/ˌɡoʊ əˈhɛd/	дава́й, приступа́йте
go off глагол		взрыва́ться, взорва́ться

Фразы, которые стоит повторять

Короткие законченные фразы из видео, которые пригодятся в повседневном разговоре:

I think today it's still a little bit early.
I don't know what to call those things.
What's an interesting problem you've seen solved recently?

Грамматика в этом видео

Конструкции, которые говорящий использует чаще всего, с точными словами из видео:

Конструкция	В видео
Present Perfect have/has + причастие прошедшего времени — прошлое действие, важное сейчас	It's been · we've started · has been
Пассивный залог be + причастие прошедшего времени — важно, что происходит, а не кто это делает	is built · has been made
Придаточные определительные who / which + предложение — уточнение о человеке или предмете	agents, which has · people who have

Произношение, на которое стоит обратить внимание

Говорящий использует 52 сокращённых и редуцированных форм, например don't, they're, you're. Произносите их коротко, так, как слышите.

Звуки «sh» и «zh»: accomplish /əˈkɑm.plɪʃ/, abstraction /æbˈstɹæk.ʃn̩/, instantiate /ɪnˈstænʃieɪt/, inspirational /ˌɪnspəˈɹeɪʃənəl/, calculation /ˌkælkjuˈleɪʃn̩/
Длинные слова — следите за ударением: accelerate /ɪkˈsɛl.əˌɹeɪt/, nondeterminism /nɑndəˈtɝmɪnɪzəm/, accumulate /əˈkjuːmjʊˌleɪt/, adversarial /ˌæd.vɚˈsɛɚ.i.əl/, invisibly /ɪnˈvɪzɪbli/

Звуки, трудные для русскоязычных:

/w/ — губы округлены, это не /v/: workflow /ˈwɝkfloʊ/, workspace /ˈwɝkˌspeɪs/, whichever /wɪt͡ʃˈɛvɚ/
/h/ — лёгкий выдох, а не русское «х»: harness /ˈhɑɹ.nəs/, hackathon /ˈhæ.kə.θɑn/, holistic /hoʊˈlɪs.tɪk/, uphill /ʌpˈhɪl/
Звонкие согласные в конце слова — не оглушайте их: evolve /ɪˈvɑlv/, expose /ɪkˈspoʊz/, expansive /ɪkˈspænsɪv/, oftentimes /ˈɔf.ənˌtaɪmz/, expertise /ˌɛkspɜːˈtiːz/

Как заниматься с этим видео

Прослушайте всё видео один раз молча и выпишите незнакомые слова.
Начните со скорости 0,75×, повторяйте предложение за предложением и вернитесь к обычной скорости, когда станет легко.
Запишите себя и сравните с оригиналом, обращая внимание на такие слова, как harness, workflow, evolve.

Что такое техника Shadowing?

Shadowing — это научно обоснованная техника изучения языка, изначально разработанная для подготовки профессиональных переводчиков и популяризированная полиглотом доктором Александром Аргуэльесом. Метод прост, но эффективен: вы слушаете аудио на английском от носителей языка и немедленно повторяете вслух — как тень, следующая за говорящим с задержкой в 1–2 секунды. В отличие от пассивного прослушивания или грамматических упражнений, Shadowing заставляет мозг и мышцы рта одновременно обрабатывать и воспроизводить реальные речевые паттерны. Исследования показывают, что это значительно улучшает точность произношения, интонацию, ритм, связную речь, понимание на слух и беглость речи — что делает его одним из самых эффективных методов для подготовки к IELTS Speaking и реального общения на английском.

Техника шедоуинга: читать полное пошаговое руководство →

Практика Shadowing: Building the future of agentic infrastructure - Изучайте разговорный английский по видео

Выберите режим практики

Скачать приложение

Тот же канал

Build a proactive agent workflow with Claude Code

Tag Claude in, right where you already work

Build data-driven lesson plans with Claude for Teachers

The future of work with @Claude

Can you trust what AI tells you?

How AI gets its character

Plan smarter with Claude for Teachers

How Claude Code Works

Building the best agentic analytics harness: Powered by Claude, built with Claude Code

Рекомендуемое видео

The Multi-Agent Architecture That Actually Ships — Luke Alvoeiro, Factory

how AI broke the SWE Career Ladder

CEO of Addepar Eric Poirier on Lesson from $6 Trillion in Assets

Anthropic's CCA Exam as a Field-Guide for Agentic Engineering — Frank Coyle, UC Berkeley

What's new in Google Cloud in less than 1 minute

A Return to Code

Alexandr Wang on what matters in an age of abundant intelligence

Reimagining IT with ChatGPT

This 25-Year-Old Built a 2-Year Moat Nobody Can Bet Against | Corgi, Nico Laqua & Emily Yuan

Introducing the Agents API

What are AI Agents?