Agent2Agent Protocol for LLMs

Google has just announced the Agent2Agent Protocol (A2A). A2A is open source and aims to enable AI agents to work together seamlessly, potentially multiplying productivity gains in end-to-end business processes.

As I understand it, A2A is to agent communication what MCP is to tool use. At the time, I saw MCP as an opportunity to reduce frictions in agent deployment while maintaining a level of security (see here), and it has taken off since then. Google’s A2A seems to take it to the next level, providing more security in the cloud for multiple agents to communicate and collaborate:

A2A focuses on enabling agents to collaborate in their natural, unstructured modalities, even when they don’t share memory, tools and context. We are enabling true multi-agent scenarios without limiting an agent to a “tool.”

SourceDocumentation

Collapse of trust in digitized evidence

[Click title for image]

How much longer will we have non-zero trust in what see on a computer screen?

Generative models are eroding trust in the digital world at an astonishing rate with each new model released. Soon, pictures and videos of events will no longer be accepted as evidence.

Insurance companies won’t accept pictures and videos of damage after accidents, and accounting departments will no longer accept pictures of receipts. This may be an easier problem to solve. We’ll likely develop more ways to authenticate digital files. More algorithms will verify authenticity, and companies may simply ask customers to use dedicated apps.

But the shift in public trust in digital files is less easily repairable and may even be permanent. We may be leaving behind pics or it didn’t happen for I only believe what I physically see.

No-code as a cure for understanding

[Click title for image]

Some tasks require understanding, not just knowing how to do. Tools can’t fill the gaps in understanding. For these tasks, time is better spent learning and understanding. No-code development is useful for building without understanding, but understanding is most critical when things fail. And things fail while building products, be they data products or otherwise.

Here the user switches from Cursor (automated coding) to Bubble (a no-code tool) to address the lack of understanding, not realizing that switching tools is solving the wrong problem.

We often make the same mistake in data science, especially in predictive modeling, where a new off-the-shelf library or method is treated as a prophet (pun intended), only to find out later that it was solving the wrong problem.

Source

Coding vs. understanding the code

[Click title for image]

Doing is not understanding. Even LLMs seem to know the difference.

I’ve written and spoken a lot about this (link to the talk). Naturally, the exchange here was too good not to share. Here is Claude in Cursor lecturing a user on the difference between having something coded by an LLM vs. coding it yourself so you learn and understand.

The better we separate things we need to understand from things we just need to do, the more effectively we will benefit from LLMs. We certainly can’t understand everything (nor do we need to), but it’s a good idea to avoid the illusion of understanding just because we can do it.

To paraphrase Feynman, we can only understand the code we can create.

Sources of technological progress

[Click title for image]

If you woke up this morning running to the coffee pot even more aggressively because of the start of Daylight Saving Time, just remember that you’re not alone, and that’s how innovation and technological progress begin.

The world’s first webcam was invented in 1991 to monitor a coffee pot in a computer lab at the University of Cambridge, England:

To save people working in the building the disappointment of finding the coffee machine empty after making the trip to the room, a camera was set up providing a live picture of the coffee pot to all desktop computers on the office network. After the camera was connected to the Internet a few years later, the coffee pot gained international renown as a feature of the fledgling World Wide Web, until being retired in 2001.

See the Wiki here.

Deep, Deeper, Deepest Research

[Click title for image]

You must be Platinum, Diamond, or Elite Plus somewhere. Maybe Premier Plus?

Since LLM developers discovered the idea of using multiple models (or agents?) that interact with each other to produce richer output, we have seen another round of semantic reduction by overusing “deep” and “research” (as we did with “intelligence”, “thinking”, and “reasoning”).

In this post “The Differences between Deep Research, Deep Research, and Deep Research”, Han Lee tries to make sense of the deep research mania and offers a quadrant to classify different models.

Is the “depth” of research just the number of iterations in the search for information? That’s another story.

AI as a substitute or complement

This is a much-needed perspective on the new generation of tools in language modeling, object recognition, robotics, and others. The time and effort spent pitting algorithms against human intelligence is truly mind-boggling, when algorithms have been complementing us in so many tasks for decades. The new generation of tools simply offers more opportunities.

In data science, for example, humans excel at conceptual modeling of causal problems because they are creative and imaginative, and algorithms excel at complementing effect identification by collecting, structuring, computing, and optimizing high-dimensional, high-volume data in nonlinear, nonparametric space. Maybe we just need to get over the obsession with benchmarks that pit machine against human and create tests of complementarity.

Causal inference is not about methods

The price elasticity of demand doesn’t magically become causal by using DoubleML instead of regression. Similarly, we can’t estimate the causal effect of a treatment if a condition is always treated or never treated. We need to treat sometimes and not treat other times.

Causal modeling starts with bespoke data and continues with assumptions. The methods follow the data and assumptions and are useful only if the right data and assumptions are available. This is different from predictive modeling, where brute force bias reduction using the most complex method can be successful.

We offer a reminder in this solo piece at Data Duets. You can read or listen (just scroll to the end).

New AI feature. Great, how do I disable it?

[Click title for image]

I just received this email from Google. If you have a Google Workspace account, you may have received it as well. As soon as I saw the email, I remembered a Reddit thread from yesterday (where the meme is from).

I can’t turn off “Gemini Apps Activity” in my account (the account admin can’t turn it off either). Why is this? Why would I use a tool that is forced upon me while it is also giving me little to no control over my data?

See the Reddit thread here for more frustration with the haphazard rollout of “AI” tools (not limited to Google or privacy issues).

From data models to world models

[Click title for image]

Sentence completion is a predictive task for the language model, not a causal one. It works as just another data model – it doesn’t need a world model, that is, unless a revolution is at stake.

World models are causal representations of the environment to the extent required by the tasks to be performed (as discussed here and there).

World models guide actions by making predictions based on this causal representation. So while not all data models need to be causal, all world models do.

LLM agents as world modelers?

LLMs are data models, so they are useful simplifications of the world. How well LLM agents can move from one useful simplification to another will determine the business use cases for which the agents will be useful. We’re about to find out.

* Image courtesy of xkcd.com.