← All speakers

Bio, Work & Ideas

Cedric Vidal

Conference affiliation: Microsoft · 2025

Cédric Vidal is a Principal Cloud Advocate at Microsoft focused on agentic experience optimization: making autonomous AI systems dependable as they move from answering questions to completing complex, multistep tasks. His background spans financial software, fraud prevention, autonomous vehicles, and the infrastructure required to evaluate systems whose decisions have real consequences.

After approximately a decade consulting for financial-services companies, Vidal became chief technology officer of Quicksign in 2014. He led work on digital customer onboarding, document recognition, and fraud prevention as the company expanded from rules-based processing and optical character recognition into machine learning.

In 2019, he joined Argo AI, managing engineering teams responsible for machine-learning infrastructure, data-labeling tools, and autonomous-vehicle production pipelines. He later worked as a staff software engineer on workflow orchestration. Following Argo’s closure in 2022, he shifted toward language models, embeddings, retrieval, and copilots; his professional résumé traces his move to Microsoft startup advocacy in 2023 and principal cloud advocacy in 2026.

His RAFT Distillation Recipe combines document-derived synthetic examples, larger teacher models, fine-tuning, and evaluation to adapt smaller models to specialized tasks. His writing on production-data distillation extends that approach to real application interactions while identifying privacy, data-quality, and evaluation constraints.

What makes an agent trustworthy

  • Evaluate complete agent behavior. Vidal argues that evaluation should begin during application design and measure more than answer quality: grounding, relevance, tool selection, execution traces, and reliability across repeated runs. His Azure AI Evaluation SDK work connects model comparisons with representative datasets and automated scoring.
  • Treat function calling as function routing. A language model proposes a tool and structured arguments; application code executes the operation. Keeping that boundary explicit improves control over permissions, security, and debugging when agents touch databases, files, or external systems.
  • Use specialized-agent routing deliberately. Overloading one agent with tools increases the chance of incorrect selection. Vidal favors routing requests to narrower agents, while warning that autonomous loops require explicit stopping criteria and can produce inconsistent results.
  • Ground agents in data and enforce conventional security. His systems combine SQL, PDFs, vector search, browser automation, and visualizations; sensitive information still requires access controls beyond prompt instructions. His analysis of the GoEX research project examines constrained execution and keeping credentials away from models.

Vidal also organizes San Francisco practitioner events including AI Show + Tell. His practical examples range from interpreting handwritten menus to analyzing kitesurfing GPS data and generating sales dashboards, consistently distinguishing impressive demonstrations from systems that can be inspected, evaluated, and operated safely.

Read the topics behind these talks

4 conference talks

Key ideas

Scroll to read ↓

Move from inspecting individual model responses to testing a browser agent, then scale evaluation with datasets, Python evaluators, and application-specific acceptance thresholds.

  • What would justify shipping this agent?
    0:18 ↗
  • Inspect an answer before averaging many answers
    4:16 ↗
  • Turn a model into an event-extraction agent
    7:12 ↗
  • Inspect the route behind a batch result
    10:39 ↗
  • Choose measures, then run them across a dataset
    13:40 ↗
  • Separate safety severity from acceptance policy
    17:00 ↗
  • Continue with the SDK and community
    18:51 ↗

Key ideas

Scroll to read ↓

Follow a retail RAG backend from product retrieval and customer lookup through prompt assembly, deployment and an evaluation that catches a convincingly invented product.

  • What information does a retail chatbot need?
    0:00 ↗
  • A tent recommendation, then a purchase-history question
    7:07 ↗
  • Two retrieval paths meet in one prompt
    10:55 ↗
  • Launch the lab, authenticate and inspect the data
    16:22 ↗
  • What a flow owns
    40:13 ↗
  • Prompt flow, application orchestration and the playground
    49:48 ↗
  • Connections, persistence and search quality
    1:04:31 ↗
  • Customer context is not customer authorization
    1:17:25 ↗
  • From lookup results to a rendered prompt
    1:26:51 ↗
  • Run locally, package the flow and understand its limits
    1:33:50 ↗
  • A fluent answer can still invent a product
    1:41:20 ↗
  • Use failures to change the system
    1:49:33 ↗
  • Uploaded PDFs need a retrieval lifetime
    1:52:02 ↗

Key ideas

Scroll to read ↓

Follow a Python sales agent from SQL queries to document retrieval and generated charts, including the live results that expose the difference between tool use and reliable planning.

  • A sales question should not require a new dashboard
    2:03 ↗
  • Where the managed service fits
    6:16 ↗
  • A tool request becomes executable work
    12:03 ↗
  • Tool use, workflow chaining, and knowing when to stop
    20:29 ↗
  • Narrow the choice of tools without isolating useful memory
    32:57 ↗
  • Connect the Python project to Foundry
    40:16 ↗
  • Keep query generation separate from query execution
    50:41 ↗
  • Regional sales work; “last quarter” needs a reference date
    58:45 ↗
  • Schema grounding is necessary; instructions are not access controls
    1:05:46 ↗
  • Reuse evidence, but delegate calculation
    1:11:39 ↗
  • Add the product knowledge that SQL does not contain
    1:17:54 ↗
  • The cross-source query succeeds—even after a restart
    1:26:47 ↗
  • Generate a chart from retrieved sales
    1:32:34 ↗
  • Multiple tool calls are not a completion criterion
    1:38:42 ↗
  • The web-search extension stops at a resource error
    1:45:37 ↗
  • Evaluate the conversation and choose what to manage
    1:49:22 ↗

Key ideas

Scroll to read ↓

What is vegan on a photographed menu? That small question opens a progression through multimodal reasoning, local inference, retrieval grounding and agents that execute Python.

  • Beyond a text-only application
    0:16 ↗
  • What is vegan on this menu?
    3:32 ↗
  • From image descriptions to monitoring signals
    8:37 ↗
  • Translating speech without flattening delivery
    11:36 ↗
  • Choosing a model also means choosing how to run it
    13:31 ↗
  • Repeat the infrastructure question with Phi-3 Vision
    16:18 ↗
  • Move inference into the browser
    17:47 ↗
  • Give the model newer Rivian information
    19:50 ↗
  • Check behavior after changing prompts or models
    22:45 ↗
  • Ask questions of a kitesurfing GPS track
    23:56 ↗
  • From a repository request to an editable plan
    27:22 ↗

References