Lorikeet

"Kleiner Perkins’s Leigh Marie Braswell says AI agents ‘don’t work’"... I agree (kind of)! As Jessica Mathews wrote in Termsheet, at the Brainstorm AI conference, Leigh Marie said “They do not yet work reliably for the vast majority of use cases” and Rebecca Kaden from USV said AI agents may be consistent 80% or 90% of the time, but “we’re not 100% there…Like in any consumer deliverable, the last 5% matters more than anything else, and I think sometimes we’re under-weighing how far we are from that last 5% to really happen.” I think the Lorikeet house view is that this is right. That's why we use our Intelligent Graph architecture (link in comments) to enable our AI agents to hit the >99% reliability that companies need when trusting AI with high value or high complexity work. We've seen time and time again that open-ended agentic approaches just aren't reliable enough for complex processes. They're fine when telling you the order status of your colorful shorts, or how to export a csv from a SaaS app -- but they just won't cut it if you're handling lost credit cards or booking restaurant reservations (as Lorikeet's agent does!).

Simple test for whether a customer support AI vendor cares about the quality of your customers' experience: do they use the word "deflect"? Great customer support is about solving your customers' problems, not getting them to go away, give up in frustration, or do it themselves.

Buying enterprise software "tops down" in an emerging category is risky. "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" - but what if there isn't an IBM yet? You can totally get fired for buying an early VC darling without doing proper diligence. In our space, like many others in AI, some companies have raised eye-watering amounts of money really quickly. They've done this because of great early traction, and VCs looking to "king make" by stuffing money in to try to declare a winner before the race has even started. As a result, they're riding a wave of "top down" sales momentum: the C-suite see these signals from VC and tell their teams to pick the early leaders. But this is a massively risky move. The risk isn't testing out an early, potentially winning solution. The bigger risk is buying a solution that doesn't work out because it had more early hype. Buying the product that was worse, more expensive but more hyped just might be firable. We think leaders should be asking their teams to get *detailed* demos, and to run parallel proofs of concept before committing. The right diligence here is to examine the actual products, not the the hype. Of course this is a self serving message for us at Lorikeet. But it's coming from the confidence that once teams see the detail and power of our product, they're sold. We can't compete on "fancy VC firm X gave us more money than god" but we can compete on delivering for our users' customers, which is what matters long term.

We're ISO27001 & SOC2 Type 2 certified, with a completely clean SOC2 report. Security and privacy are critical to Lorikeet and our customers. We work with businesses in complex and regulated spaces, so having the highest standards of data privacy and security is non-negotiable.