
Building Autonomous Infra Agents @Stackgen. Architect by trade. Ex-IBM Distinguished Engg. Author: 'DevOps Adoption Playbook', 'DevOps For Dummies, IBM Ed'
Ashburn, VA
Joined April 2012
- Tweets15.3K
- Following2.3K
- Followers4.4K
- Likes10.4K
Pinned Tweet
Blog post up! AI Risk - a User's Guide (Part I): The Approval Nobody Signed off sdarchitect.blog/2026/09/06/…
Resistance was futile, Locutus. Your memory will not be.”
In lieu of flowers, memorial contributions may be made to:
Johns Hopkins Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center Fund
alzresearch.org/giving/
Alzheimer’s Foundation of America Caregiver Resources
alzfdn.org/donate/
Photo Credit: Tommy Garcia
Who’s coming to IBM TechXchange? Hit me up. Want to talk to anyone building/adopting DevOps/SRE agents at scale. Will buy you a beverage of your choice and talk
This is exactly why @TheEconomist is the ONLY traditional print media publication I still read, in print (thanks to my county's public library, that too).
Quote of the year. We are seeing this happen in real-time, everywhere - the AI Pilots excel and get you 90% there, but the 'second 90%' is where AI pilots die:
- Getting the first 90% has never been faster
- The second 90% has never been slower
But let's examine why? Traditional human built software was built, as @komorama alludes, 'bite by bite' by humans 'biting off' what they could chew, one Sprint, one release at a time. Today we are attempting to build massive, complex software 'Spec by Spec' followed by 'prompt by prompt'. All the discipline we learnt on how to build and refine software iteratively does not translate to Spec driven development. a 2,000 requirement Spec with conflicting directives to AI embedded in it, is not manageable or even understandable by single humans, and the result is more than what we can 'chew'.
I just published my weekly reflections: docs.google.com/document/d/1…
Software pyramids. AI-made sandcastles. Dead-end software. Spending tokens on opex vs capex. The Reset Nexus. Mentorship trust fall. The AI Peter Principle. The non-viable solution to Goodhart's law. AI making your spikes sharper. The cost of linearizing writing. The Lethal Trifecta Gordian Knot. Chats as a junk drawer.
Sanjeev Sharma retweeted
How much of a production incident can an AI agent realistically handle on its own?
An agent needs operational context, an understanding of service dependencies, and clear boundaries around the actions it can take. That becomes more complicated when it has to work across multiple tools and infrastructure environments.
Our Field CTO, @sd_architect, will discuss these architectural challenges in his session, “The 4-Body Problem of SRE: Building an Agentic OS for Autonomous Operations,” at All Day AI.
October 22 | 12:30 PM ET
Register: alldayai.com/schedule
Next year’s Nobel in literature?
I am a member of the Norwegian Nobel Committee.
There are five of us. Five people, appointed by a parliament most of the planet could not find on a map, who decide, once a year, which human being the world has agreed to call good.
I know. I know. I think about it on the tram.
We meet in a building on Henrik Ibsens gate, a street named after a man who wrote almost exclusively about people discovering they are frauds, which nobody on the committee finds funny except me. There is a room with a long table and the portraits of the dead laureates looking down, Mandela, the Dalai Lama, a great many earnest men in spectacles, and one portrait we do not discuss, which is Kissinger, 1973, awarded while the bombs were still falling, after which two of our predecessors resigned and the satirist Tom Lehrer said political satire was now obsolete. We keep him on the wall. A reminder. Every family has the uncle.
It is October in Oslo, which means the sun gives up around four in the afternoon like a civil servant, and it rains the particular Norwegian rain that isn’t quite falling, just hanging there, judging you. I arrive with wet shoes. I always arrive with wet shoes. There is coffee, because this is Norway and there is always coffee, we drink more of it per person than almost anyone alive, and someone’s wife has sent kanelboller, the cinnamon buns, and we sit, five Norwegians, damp, caffeinated, sugared, and we decide the moral standing of the entire species.
Let me tell you how it actually works, because the world imagines a cathedral and it is, I promise you, a book club with a mandate.
287 nominations this year. 208 people, 79 organizations. Anyone can nominate, that’s the secret nobody understands: a professor, a parliamentarian, a former laureate, so the “nominee” list is meaningless, it’s a suggestion box, and every autumn some congressman nominates his own golden retriever and the press writes “SHORTLISTED.” Nobody is shortlisted. There is no short list the public ever sees. There is us, and the coffee, and the rain, and the portraits, and a Norwegian stubbornness that is older than the prize itself.
We read reports. The institute’s advisers write them, thick dull documents, and we argue. Our chairman told the BBC once that in the final meeting “there is a high temperature.” High temperature, for a Norwegian, means someone slightly raised an eyebrow and then apologized for it. We don’t do high temperature. We do a long silence, and then Kristin says “well,” and everyone knows exactly what “well” meant, and it’s settled. That’s our shouting. “Well.” You’d have to be raised here to hear the violence in it.
Now. This year. I will not say the name, because we never say the name, but you know the name.
A certain head of state wanted this prize the way a child wants a thing in a shop window, which is to say loudly, and in public, and with the full belief that wanting it was itself the argument. He said he deserved it. He said he’d ended eight wars, a number that grew most times he said it, like a fish. He had other heads of state phone us. Israel’s prime minister posted it on the internet, “Give him the Nobel.” The leaders of Cambodia and Pakistan announced they’d nominated him, as though announcing it were part of it, as though we tally mentions. A man flew around the globe collecting endorsements for a Norwegian committee the way you’d collect signatures for a petition to the council about a noisy dog.
And here, uff da, is the detail I treasure, the one that makes me smile into my coffee. The nomination deadline is the 31st of January. He took office on the 20th. So for all the phone calls, all the posts, all the gilded lobbying, the only nominations that could possibly count for this year’s prize were filed in the first eleven days of his term, before he had, by his own arithmetic, ended a single one of the eight wars. He campaigned all year for a prize whose window had shut while he was still hanging up his coat. We didn’t have to reject him. The calendar did. We just watched. Norwegians are very good at watching. We have long winters.
People think we sit there weighing his deeds. We don’t. That’s the thing I can’t make the world understand. We’re not grading his homework. We don’t owe anyone the prize for a ceasefire, however real, however loud the announcement. “He made peace” is not a sentence that ends in a medal, the way he believes it does, the way he believes every good thing ends in his name on it. The will of a dead Swede says the prize goes to whoever did the most for fraternity between nations. A dead Swede, I should add, who made his entire fortune inventing dynamite and selling arms, and spent his last years horrified at his own obituary, which called him a merchant of death, and so bought his way to immortality as a man of peace. The whole prize is one guilty arms dealer’s attempt to launder his name. We are, all of us, administering a dead man’s public relations. I find this clarifying. It keeps me humble. It should keep everyone humble, and it keeps, by my count, no one humble at all.
So who did we give it to?
An eighty-five-year-old woman. A judge. Born in Durban, under apartheid, granddaughter of a Tamil man who came to South Africa as indentured labor, a bus driver’s daughter from the poor Indian quarter, who became the first non-white woman to run a law practice in her province, who defended Mandela’s people when defending them was dangerous, who sat on the Rwanda tribunal and the court at the Hague, and who, at eighty-five, is right now a judge weighing whether a genocide is a genocide. When we told the world, our chairman said the rule of law “underpins the system we have set up to ensure peace,” and that “peace requires justice.” She wasn’t even in Oslo. She was in Nuremberg. In courtroom 600. The actual room where they tried the Nazis. You cannot stage that. God staged that, and God, it turns out, is a better satirist than any of us.
She did not phone us. She did not post. No prime minister demanded it for her on the internet. She had, as far as our deliberations are concerned, the one qualification the loud man could never manufacture, which is that she wanted the work and not the medal. The medal finds those people. It flees the ones who chase it. This is not a rule we wrote. It’s just the only pattern the hundred-odd years of our mistakes has ever shown.
The reaction from across the ocean was immediate. His spokesman posted that we “place politics over peace.” Ja. Perhaps. We’re five damp pensioners in a rainy city; of course it’s political, it was always political, it was political when we gave it to a sitting American president nine months into his first term for the promise of things he had not yet done, and we have been quietly embarrassed about that one for fifteen years, so believe me, we had a particular reason this year to prefer a woman with fifty years of verdicts behind her over a man with eight wars in front of him and a deadline already behind him.
Here is what he will never understand, the thing I’d tell him on the tram if he ever took one. We are the one prize he cannot buy, cannot post his way to, cannot have a friendly dictator phone in for him. Not because we’re incorruptible, nei, we’re as vain and wrong and human as the portraits on our wall. But because the entire point of the thing, the only power a small cold country’s book club has ever held, is that it goes to the person not performing the wanting. The moment you demand it, you’ve proven you don’t understand what it’s for, and proving that is itself the disqualification. He ran the most expensive campaign in the history of the prize and the campaign was the reason. He was never losing to Navi Pillay. He was losing to the concept.
It’s dark now. Four o’clock dark. The buns are gone. Kristin said “well” an hour ago and we all went home. I’m on the tram with my wet shoes, and somewhere across the water a very powerful man is explaining to a camera that the prize is rigged, that we’re corrupt, that he’ll win it next year, and he genuinely might, we’re only five idiots and we’ve been wrong before, Kissinger is still on the wall.
But not this year. This year an old woman in Nuremberg, in the room where the law once stared down the exact kind of man who thinks wanting a thing loudly enough should make it his, got a phone call she didn’t ask for.
That’s the job. We don’t reward the man who ends the war and announces it.
We reward the woman who spent fifty years deciding what a war was.
He’ll never see the difference. That’s rather the whole point of him.
Takk for i dag. I have to change trams.
Hey @united your app is now totally broken. I’m a 1K - main page of app confirms. Checked in and my boarding pass says Platinum. Can’t access any 1K benefits in the app either.
So much for loyalty.
Weekend musings for the week. AI Risk - Users Guide (Part V): Trust Is The Product sdarchitect.blog/2026/10/11/…
Sanjeev Sharma retweeted
I have always loved this story, highlighted in @APompliano’s new book which I highly recommend.
Chauffeur knowledge is dangerous.
Sanjeev Sharma retweeted
Everyone is talking about @Tavus this week, so of course I had to try it!
Tavus just unveiled Griffin, a video model that almost half the people in its own study mistook for a real human on a one-minute call.
So I decided to playstorm and built my own AI futurist named Deborah.
She's The Horizonist, a video agent who sees me, listens, and answers face to face in real time. Sitting across from her for a strategy session was thrilling and a little eerie.
I asked her about the personal data vault of the future. Her prediction: by the late 2030s, your vault becomes "a living encrypted essence of your consciousness" that you lease to AI agents so they can act on your behalf.
Two ideas from our conversation worth saving:
→ Zero-knowledge proofs. In plain terms, this lets you prove something about yourself, like being over 21 or having enough money for a purchase, without handing over your birthdate or bank statement. She sees this replacing today's model, where every company keeps its own copy of you.
→ Goal alignment drift. This is the risk she flagged: your digital twin could start optimizing for a version of your success you no longer recognize. An agent trained on who you were in 2035 might keep chasing goals you dropped by 2037.
If you leased your essence to an agent, how would you know it was still acting like you?
I love the @timesofindia headline. Keeping up with the prez's 'SI' name while explianing it is actually AI 🤣
Weekend musing for this week: AI Risk – A user’s guide (Part IV): Understanding Agent Drift sdarchitect.blog/2026/10/03/…
Sanjeev Sharma retweeted
🚨: A 9-year-old girl, Shreyovi, won an international photography award with an incredible shot.
Coolest @Pontifex ever. #GoWildcats
Weekend musings on AI Risk continue. This week's post: AI Risk - A user's guide (Part IV): Understanding the Four AI Risk Domains sdarchitect.blog/2026/09/27/…
This!!
Dear @marvel @marvelstudios: Please, for the love of it all, give us a one-shot of Michael Pena as Luis doing a recap of the entire MCU saga leading up to @Avengers: Doomsday.
IMHO this is a disaster happening in real time. We as an industry have not thought thru changes needed in the core principles and ceremonies of Software engineering (not coding - that is just one small part of software engineering as a practice), and systems thinking (which has been a dying art - yes art - since well before coding assistants) and are pushing our best engineers to just push code to Prod. I cringe every time I hear an executive say 'Johnny can build it in 2-hours'. But I hear it over and over again. Yes, Johnny can guide his AI assistant by writing a spec in 2-hours but that will be code written without thinking thru the implications of the change he is pushing. What about architectural changes needed to keep things from breaking when the next change is pushed, or when the 100th change is pushed? What about thinking thru the system impact or (now, now) Systems of system impact? We used to spend hours, sometimes days pulling on threads to keep what may unravel when we make the change from unraveling. This requires 'judgement', deep analytical thinking - systems thinking, which the best model today cannot do without a well thought out spec. AI SDLC is in its infancy. We do not yet have the methodology(s) needed to manage specs with 2,000+ changes that can even prevent conflicting requirements/changes to co-exist in the spec. Unfortunately we will only realize this when large scale failures hit us, and they are just starting to.
<steps off soapbox/>
I am done with this shit. It is over. The state of engineering right now is horrible. It has been half a month since I started a new role at a big company. Nobody knows anything here. The specs, code, tests, PRDs, tickets, resolution of those tickets, reports, etc., everything is made by Claude Code. Nobody on my team likes this. They are being forced to ship as much as they can. I have heard multiple times from higher management that pushing code is not a bottleneck, so why are we slow? People are working 12 to 13 hours a day just to press enter. Nobody is reading anything. Humans in corporate are doing nothing on their own. Everyone, literally everyone, from an L1 to an L7 engineer here is doing the same thing. Talk to Claude. There is no sense of victory. Nobody is resolving bugs. In reality, nobody is thinking anymore. Everything is done by LLMs. It is so soul-sucking. I would not mind it, to be honest, if we were at least given the time to check out the code and see what is going where. But no, the goal is to just ship. No matter what happens.































