The proliferation of AI leaderboards incentivizes companies to optimize models for specific benchmarks. This creates a risk of "acing the SATs" where models excel on tests but don't necessarily make progress on solving real-world problems. This focus on gaming metrics could diverge from creating genuine user value.

Static benchmarks are easily gamed. Dynamic environments like the game Diplomacy force models to negotiate, strategize, and even lie, offering a richer, more realistic evaluation of their capabilities beyond pure performance metrics like reasoning or coding.

People struggle with AI prompts because the model lacks background on their goals and progress. The solution is 'Context Engineering': creating an environment where the AI continuously accumulates user-specific information, materials, and intent, reducing the need for constant prompt tweaking.

With models like Gemini 3, the key skill is shifting from crafting hyper-specific, constrained prompts to making ambitious, multi-faceted requests. Users trained on older models tend to pare down their asks, but the latest AIs are 'pent up with creative capability' and yield better results from bigger challenges.

Simply offering the latest model is no longer a competitive advantage. True value is created in the system built around the model—the system prompts, tools, and overall scaffolding. This 'harness' is what optimizes a model's performance for specific tasks and delivers a superior user experience.

Public leaderboards like LM Arena are becoming unreliable proxies for model performance. Teams implicitly or explicitly "benchmark" by optimizing for specific test sets. The superior strategy is to focus on internal, proprietary evaluation metrics and use public benchmarks only as a final, confirmatory check, not as a primary development target.

Before delegating a complex task, use a simple prompt to have a context-aware system generate a more detailed and effective prompt. This "prompt-for-a-prompt" workflow adds necessary detail and structure, significantly improving the agent's success rate and saving rework.

Users mistakenly evaluate AI tools based on the quality of the first output. However, since 90% of the work is iterative, the superior tool is the one that handles a high volume of refinement prompts most effectively, not the one with the best initial result.

The early focus on crafting the perfect prompt is obsolete. Sophisticated AI interaction is now about 'context engineering': architecting the entire environment by providing models with the right tools, data, and retrieval mechanisms to guide their reasoning process effectively.