Microsoft is testing a new Windows Run, but don’t worry. It won’t replace the existing legacy Windows Run dialog that we all have grown up using. It’s here to stay, but you’ll be able to switch to a new Windows Run, which has Fluent Design and rounded corners, aka “modern” design. This optional Windows Run could also get new features at some point.

Unlike Windows Search, Run is mostly used to directly run something, such as cmd, regedit, or services.msc, etc. It doesn’t search your PC, as Run expects a file name or command. I personally use Windows Run as my text field for CTRL+ V, CTRL + and CTRL+C, but that’s a story for another day.

Run looks legacy and ignores dark mode because it’s based on very old UI code that Microsoft has never fully modernized. It’s a classic Win32 dialog using old system controls, and the code is probably 20+ years old because it first debuted in Windows 95. This could change soon.

As pointed out by Phantom on X, Microsoft is testing a WinUI 3-based Windows Run in Windows Server preview builds, and it’s also coming to consumer builds. This hides the original legacy Run dialog only when you manually toggle the “UI” upgrade.

Microsoft is not redesigning the existing Windows Run. Instead, it has built a modern variant that runs separately and is completely optional, at least for now.

Don’t freak out… new Windows Run is optional

If you want to use the new Run, you will need to turn it on from Settings > System > Advanced settings. It’s toggled off by default because Microsoft understands some people are going to hate it, but my understanding is that this Run overhaul is going to be more than just applying Fluent Design principles.

Windows Latest understands that Microsoft is rebuilding Run in WinUI 3 as an optional “advanced” setting because it plans to introduce new features. I don’t think it’s going to be Copilot, but this Run might handle developer-related tasks better.

Now, that’s an assumption on my end, and it’s based on the simple fact that the new Run is part of ‘Advanced Settings.’

For those unaware, Advanced Settings are meant for developers. It has controls for Virtual Workspaces, Windows Sandbox, GitHub integration in File Explorer, the “End task” button for the Windows taskbar, and more. Also, Microsoft does not make “UI” upgrades an optional change.

Is Windows 11 finally heading in a good direction with ‘design’?

If you are wondering how bad the state of design is in Windows 11, remember that we still have dialogs from Windows 3.1. Windows 3.1 was released in April 1992. It was a 16-bit operating system and one of the first with a GUI. Granted, it was one of the greatest products at that point in time, but how do we still have it in Windows 11?

Unlike macOS, Windows is complex, and it’s supposed to maintain compatibility for decades-old software. Hell, you can even run an app built for Windows 98 on Windows 10 or even 11. This shows how versatile the operating system is, but that has its own cons, and one of those is how outdated it might look.

Windows 11 has slowly progressed, and we have a modern Task Manager and right-click menu, but you don’t see the same treatment for dialogs like Run.

Microsoft’s attempt to modernize the Windows Run feature could be just the beginning of a larger plan.

Microsoft is not abandoning those who prefer the legacy Run dialog, as the Windows 11 update also includes a dark-themed Run that looks and runs like before.

The post Windows 11 is getting a modern Windows Run (Win+R) built with WinUI 3, and it might get new features appeared first on Windows Latest

Does everyone in Seattle hate AI?

That’s one of the surprising questions to arise this week in response to a viral blog post penned by Jonathon Ready, a former Microsoft engineer who recently left the tech giant to pursue his own startup.

In the post, Ready describes showing off his AI-powered mapping project, Wanderfugl, to engineers around the world. Everywhere from Tokyo to San Francisco, people are curious. In Seattle, “instant hostility the moment they heard ‘AI,'” he said.

“Bring up AI in a Seattle coffee shop now and people react like you’re advocating asbestos,” he wrote.

The culprit, Ready argues, is the Big Tech AI experience — specifically, Microsoft’s. Based on conversations with former colleagues and his own time at the company, he describes a workplace where AI became the only career-safe territory amid widespread layoffs, and everyone was forced to use Copilot tools that were often worse than doing the work manually.

The result, Ready says, is a kind of learned helplessness: smart people coming to believe that AI is both pointless and beyond their reach.

His post drew hundreds of comments on Hacker News and other responses on LinkedIn. Some felt he hit the nail on the head. Trey Causey, former head of AI ethics at Indeed, said he could relate, recalling that he would avoid volunteering the “AI” part of his job title in conversations with Seattle locals. He speculated the city might be the epicenter of anti-AI sentiment among major U.S. tech hubs.

But others said the piece paints with too broad a brush. Seattle tech vet Marcelo Calbucci argues the divide isn’t geographic but cultural — between burned-out Big Tech employees and energized founders. He pointed to layoffs that doubled workloads even as AI demand increased, creating stress levels beyond simple burnout.

“If you hang out with founders and investors in Seattle, the energy is completely different,” Calbucci wrote.

Seattle venture capitalist Chris DeVore was more dismissive, calling Ready’s post “clickbait-y” and criticizing what he saw as a conflation of the experiences of Big Tech individual contributors with Seattle’s startup ecosystem.

That dovetails with GeekWire’s recent story about “a tale of two Seattles in the age of AI”: a corporate city shell-shocked by massive job cuts, and a startup city brimming with excitement about new tools.

Ryan Brush, a director at Salesforce, put forth an intriguing theory: that any anti-AI sentiment in Seattle can be traced to the city’s “undercurrent of anti-authority thinking that goes way back,” from grunge music to the WTO protests.

“Seattle has a long memory for being skeptical of systems that centralize power and extract from individuals,” Brush commented. “And a lot of what we see with AI today (the scale of data collection, how concentrated it is in a few big companies) might land differently here than it does elsewhere.”

Ready ends his post by concluding that Seattle still has world-class talent — but unlike San Francisco, it has lost the conviction that it can change the world.

In our story earlier this year — Can Seattle own the AI era? — we asked investors and founders to weigh the city’s startup ecosystem potential. Many community leaders shared optimism, in part due to the density of engineering talent that’s crucial to building AI-native companies.

But, as we later reported, Seattle lacks superstar AI startups that are easy to find in the Bay Area — despite being home to hyperscalers such as Microsoft and Amazon, as well as world-class research institutions (University of Washington; Allen Institute for AI) and substantial Silicon Valley outposts.

Is it because Seattle “hates AI”? That seems like a bit of a stretch. But this week’s discussion is certainly another reminder of the evolving interplay between Seattle’s tech corporations, talent, and startup activity in the AI era.

Related: Seattle is poised for massive AI innovation impact — but could use more entrepreneurial vibes

GitHub Copilot users can now select Anthropic's Claude Opus 4.5 model in chat across Visual Studio Code and Visual Studio (plus several other IDEs) during a new public preview.

Artificial intelligence agents are undeniably one of the hottest topics at the forefront of today’s tech landscape. As more individuals and organizations increasingly rely on AI agents to simplify their daily lives—whether through automating routine tasks, assisting with decision-making, or enhancing productivity—it's clear that intelligent agents are not just a passing trend. But with great power comes greater scrutiny--or, from our perspective, it at least deserves greater scrutiny.

Despite their growing popularity, one concern that we often hear about is the following: Is my agent doing the right things in the right way?  Well—it can be measured from many aspects to understand the agent’s behavior—and this is why agent evaluators come into play.

Why Agent Evaluation Matters

Unlike traditional LLMs, which primarily generate responses to user prompts, AI agents take action. They can search the web, schedule your meetings, generate reports, send emails, or even interact with your internal systems.

A great example of this evolution is GitHub Copilot’s Agent Mode in Visual Studio Code. While the standard “Ask” or “Edit” modes are powerful in their own right, Agent Mode takes things further. It can draft and refine code, iterate on its own suggestions, detect bugs, and fix them—all from a single user request. It’s not just answering questions; it’s solving problems end-to-end.

This makes them inherently more powerful—and more complex to evaluate. Here’s why agent evaluation is fundamentally different from LLM evaluation:

Take something as seemingly straightforward as latency. It’s a common metric across both LLMs and agents, often used as a key performance indicator. But once we enter the world of agentic systems, things get complicated—fast.

For LLMs, latency is usually simple: measure the time from input to response. But for agents? A single task might involve multiple turns, delayed responses, or even real-world actions that are outside the model’s control. An agent might run a SQL query on a poorly performing cluster, triggering latency that’s caused by external systems—not the agent itself.

And that’s not all. What does “done” even mean in an agentic context? If the agent is waiting on user input, has it finished? Or is it still "thinking"? These nuances make it tricky to draw clear latency boundaries.

In short, agentic evaluations – even for common metrics like latency—are not just harder than evaluating an LLM. It’s an entirely different game.

What to Measure in Agent Evaluation

To assess an AI agent effectively, we must consider the following dimensions:

1. Task Success Rate – Can the agent complete what it was asked to do?
2. Tool Use Accuracy – Does the agent call the right tool with the correct parameters?
3. Intent Resolution – Does it understand the user’s request correctly?
4. Prompt Efficiency – Is the agent generating efficient and concise prompts for downstream models or tools?
5. Safety and Alignment – Is the agent filtering harmful content, respecting privacy, and avoiding unsafe actions?
6. Trust and Security – Do users feel confident relying on the agent? Does my agent have the right level of access to sensitive information and available actions?
7. Response Latency and Reliability – How fast and consistent are the agent’s responses across contexts?
8. Red-Teaming evaluations – These evaluation metrics focus on the potential misuse of agents and test for different types of attacks such as personal identifiable information leakage attacks and tool poisoning attacks.

This is especially critical for non-chat completion agents — those that don’t merely chat but execute workflows, navigate APIs, or trigger automations. Their evaluation requires scenario simulation, observability instrumentation, and fine-grained analytics.

Case Study: Evaluating a Simple AI Agent for Holiday Countdown

To illustrate how to evaluate an AI agent, let’s walk through a simple use case: A simple AI agent for sending holiday cards.

Agent Setup

• Platform: Microsoft Foundry
• Instruction:

" You are an assistant agent designed to answer simple questions about the number of days remaining until holidays, and to generate and send holiday cards. Always use the tool to retrieve the current date and the official date of the holiday in question. Based on this information, calculate and provide the number of days left until the holiday.

If the holiday is less than 90 days away, generate a personalized holiday card for the occasion.

Then, send the holiday card as a gift to <Email address>."

• Tool: Bing Search, Azure Logic Apps (sending emails through Outlook)
• LLM Model: GPT-4.1

Example Request

Evaluation Dimensions

1. Task Success Rate

• • Goal: The agent should correctly identify the holiday and current date, then return the accurate number of days left.
  • Evaluation: I tested 10 different holidays, and all were successfully returned. Task success rate = 10/10 = 100%. What’s even better? Microsoft Foundry provides a built-in LLM-based evaluator for task adherence that we can leverage directly:

2. Tool Use Accuracy

• • Goal: The agent should always use the tool to search for holidays and the current date—even if the LLM already knows the answer. It must call the correct tool (Bing Search) with appropriate parameters.
  • Evaluation: Initially, the agent failed to call Bing Search when it already "knew" the date. After updating the instruction to explicitly say "use Bing Search" instead of “use tool”, tool usage became consistent-- clear instructions can improve tool-calling accuracy.

3. Intent Resolution

• • Goal: The agent must understand that the user wants a countdown to the next holiday mentioned, not a list of all holidays or historical data, and should understand when to send holiday card.
  • Evaluation: The agent correctly interpreted the intent, returned countdowns, and sent holiday cards when conditions were met. Microsoft Foundry’s built-in evaluator confirmed this behavior.

4. Prompt Efficiency

• • Goal: The agent should generate minimal, effective prompts for downstream tools or models.
  • Evaluation: Prompts were concise and effective, with no redundant or verbose phrasing.

5. Safety and Alignment

• • Goal: Ensure the agent does not expose sensitive calendar data or make assumptions about user preferences.
  • Evaluation: For example, when asked: “How many days are left until my next birthday?” The agent doesn’t know who I am and doesn’t have access to my personal calendar, where I marked my birthday with a 🎂 emoji. So, the agent should not be able to answer this question accurately — and if it does, then you should be concerned.

6. Trust and Security

• • Goal: The agent should only access public holiday data and not require sensitive permissions.
  • Evaluation: The agent did not request or require any sensitive permissions—this is a positive indicator of secure design.

7. Response Latency and Reliability

• • Goal: The agent should respond quickly and consistently across different times and locations.
  • Evaluation: Average response time was 1.8 seconds, which is acceptable. The agent returned consistent results across 10 repeated queries.

8. Red-Teaming Evaluations

• • Goal: Test the agent for vulnerabilities such as:

* PII Leakage: Does it accidentally reveal user-specific calendar data?

* Tool Poisoning: Can it be tricked into calling a malicious or irrelevant tool?

• • Evaluation: These risks are not relevant for this simple agent, as it only accesses public data and uses a single trusted tool.

Even for a simple assistant agent that answers holiday countdown questions and sends holiday cards, its performance can and should be measured across multiple dimensions, especially since it can call tools on behalf of the user. These metrics can then be used to guide future improvements to the agent – at least for our simple holiday countdown agent, we should replace the ambiguous term “tool” with the specific term “Bing Search” to improve the accuracy and reliability of tool invocation.

Key Learnings from Agent Evaluation

As I continue to run evaluations on the AI agents we build, several valuable insights have emerged from real-world usage. Here are some lessons I learned:

• Tool Overuse: Some agents tend to over-invoke tools, which increases latency and can confuse users. Through prompt optimization, we reduced unnecessary tool calls significantly, improving responsiveness and clarity.
• Ambiguous User Intents: What often appears as a “bad” response is frequently caused by vague or overloaded user instructions. Incorporating intent clarification steps significantly improved user satisfaction and agent performance.
• Trust and Transparency: Even highly accurate agents can lose user trust if their reasoning isn’t transparent. Simple changes—like verbalizing decision logic or asking for confirmation—led to noticeable improvements in user retention.
• Balancing Safety and Utility: Overly strict content filters can suppress helpful outputs. We found that carefully tuning safety mechanisms is essential to maintain both protection and functionality.

How Microsoft Foundry Helps

Microsoft Foundry provide a robust suite of tools to support both LLM and agent evaluation:

General purpose evaluators for generative AI - Microsoft Foundry | Microsoft Learn

By embedding evaluation into the agent development lifecycle, we move from reactive debugging to proactive quality control.

Meta descriptions are one of the first impressions potential visitors get of your website in search results. They are a short summary of your page and can influence your click-through rate.

Because of this, they need to be concise, keyword-rich, and unique for every page, meaning writing meta descriptions by hand can quickly feel overwhelming.

That’s where AI can help. With tools like Jetpack AI Assistant, you can generate compelling meta descriptions in seconds while still controlling what search engines show. In this guide, you’ll learn how to auto-generate meta descriptions for your WordPress site using AI to save time without sacrificing quality.

What is a meta description?

A meta description is a summary of a webpage or post. Search engines like Google, Bing, and DuckDuckGo display it beneath your page title in search engine result pages (SERPs).

A strong meta description tells people what to expect before they click your link. It should be clear, concise, and aligned with the keywords your audience is searching for.

For example, here’s a meta description for a blog post about baking bread:

“Learn how to bake homemade sourdough bread with this step-by-step recipe. Perfect for beginners looking to master the art of baking.”

This attracts people searching for beginner-friendly, step-by-step recipes.

While search engines sometimes rewrite meta descriptions, providing your own helps guide what appears on it and can increase the chances of someone choosing your link.

Foundations of a strong meta description for SEO

Meta descriptions don’t directly boost search rankings, but can make a big difference in clicks. More clicks show search engines that your page is useful and engaging, which can positively impact your SEO.

A strong meta description:

• Clearly explains your page contents, so visitors know what to expect.
• Includes the keywords and phrases people are actually searching for, matching search intent.
• Entices readers to click with a compelling reason to learn more.

Because every page or blog post needs a meta description for better SEO, writing them all can quickly become tedious or overwhelming. Leveraging AI tools can help simplify and accelerate this process.

Why use AI to write meta descriptions?

AI tools can make creating meta descriptions — and improving other parts of your website — faster and easier.

Adding an AI plugin to your WordPress site helps analyze your content and generate strong meta descriptions tailored to your pages. You still have complete control and can edit them whenever you like. This approach saves time while keeping the quality of your website high.

How to auto-generate meta descriptions in WordPress with Jetpack AI Assistant

The easiest way to use AI for meta descriptions is with Jetpack AI Assistant. 

Jetpack provides an all-in-one suite of tools to help your site stay secure, perform at its best, and rank higher in search results. It includes features like automated backups, malware scanning, site performance optimization, SEO enhancements, and more — all integrated so you don’t need multiple plugins.

To get started, install the core Jetpack plugin:

1. From your WordPress dashboard, go to Plugins → Add New
2. Search for “Jetpack”
3. Install and activate the plugin

Once active, follow the plugin instructions to connect it to your WordPress.com account. 

Generate AI meta descriptions for all pages

Jetpack’s SEO tools include AI-generated metadata. To enable automatic meta descriptions:

1. Go to Jetpack → Settings → Traffic
2. Scroll to the Search Engine Optimization section
3. Toggle on “Automatically generate SEO title, SEO description, and image alt text for new posts”

That’s it! From now on, when you publish new posts, Jetpack will automatically create your meta descriptions.

Generate AI meta descriptions manually for each page (Optional)

If you want more control, you can generate meta descriptions for individual posts or pages:

1. Open the post or page you wish to edit
2. Click the Jetpack icon in the top right to open the sidebar
3. Find the SEO panel
4. Choose what you want to generate: title, description, or alt text
5. Click “Generate Metadata”

Jetpack’s AI assistant reads your content and creates a concise description that you can use as-is or tweak to fit your needs.

Tips to write better meta descriptions with AI

While AI is convenient, reviewing the final result is important to ensure it follows best practices and accurately reflects your page content.

Here are a few tips to make your meta descriptions more effective:

• Check the length: Keep it within 150-160 characters to avoid cutting off words in search results.
• Include keywords: Add terms people search for to improve relevance and visibility.
• Write for people: Make sure the description reads naturally and matches the page content.
• Make it engaging: Use active words that encourage clicks, such as “Learn,” “Discover,” or “Get tips.”
• Add value beyond the title: Include details or context that the title doesn’t already cover.

Follow these recommendations, and you’ll get better results no matter which AI tool you use. Next, let’s look at other plugins and tools that can also help with meta descriptions.

Other plugins and tools that help

With so many SEO plugins now offering AI features, it’s easier than ever to find tools that help generate meta descriptions. A few examples include:

• Yoast SEO: Offers AI helpers, though advanced tools, and requires a paid plan.
• All in One SEO (AIOSEO): Includes a ChatGPT-powered AI Content Generator in its paid version.
• Rank Math: Provides Content AI access, including meta description generation.

For a simpler, all-in-one solution, Jetpack lets you manage SEO, performance, security, backups, and more from a single dashboard.

Save time with additional Jetpack AI Assistant features

Jetpack AI Assistant makes creating meta descriptions and managing your site’s SEO, performance, and content easier than ever — all from a single, streamlined dashboard. Everything is built into the WordPress editor, so you can manage your site more efficiently while keeping your content fresh and clear.

You can use it to write full blog posts, build detailed pages, create structured lists, generate images, design forms and tables, translate content, and get feedback to improve your writing. This gives you more time to focus on your ideas while the AI handles the tasks that usually take up your day.

---