← All speakers

Bio, Work & Ideas

Daniel Bump

Conference affiliation: Engineer · Google · 2026

Daniel Bump is a Google research engineer working on image and video generation, computer vision, and language models. His product portfolio includes Google Photos storage management, Veo image-to-video generation for Google Ads, and 3D-aware photo recomposition.

Bump studied at the Georgia Institute of Technology from 2017 to 2021 before building his career at Google. His visual-generation interests include super-resolution, image editing, and preserving fine details. Google’s Auto frame technology, which he includes among his projects, estimates a photograph’s three-dimensional geometry and uses latent diffusion to generate content revealed by a changed camera angle.

At AI Engineer World’s Fair 2026, Bump and fellow Google / YouTube Ads speaker Preetika Bhateja examined how advertising agents can be evaluated against creative accuracy, brand safety, and other production requirements. Bump’s specific priorities include:

  • Build dependable tools first. Optimize the agent’s underlying capabilities before scaling evaluations; critique agents and remediation loops can address remaining limitations.
  • Start small, then formalize. Inspect early outputs directly, identify recurring weaknesses, and build curated golden datasets around representative tasks and negative cases.
  • Evaluate patterns, not anecdotes. Because generative outputs vary between runs, measure repeated failure modes instead of rewriting prompts around isolated mistakes.
  • Make launch readiness measurable. Improve datasets, rating guidance, agent behavior, and tools together, while distinguishing acceptable regressions from failures that should block release.

Read the topics behind these talks

1 conference talk

Key ideas

Scroll to read ↓

Reliable agents need more than better prompts: they need focused tools, shared rating criteria, trace inspection, and launch decisions grounded in recurring behavior.

  • Reliability starts with the agent’s foundation
    0:27 ↗
  • Define success, then learn from the outputs
    2:52 ↗
  • Start small and agree on the rubric
    5:52 ↗
  • Collect explanations for each quality dimension
    8:18 ↗
  • Calibrate automated judges against people
    9:38 ↗
  • The agent detected the disclaimer—and removed it
    11:02 ↗
  • Keep a test set outside the iteration loop
    12:21 ↗
  • Improve the evaluator and the agent together
    13:01 ↗
  • Optimize patterns, not isolated runs
    14:45 ↗
  • Let evaluation mature with the product
    15:51 ↗
  • Define launch criteria before deciding to launch
    17:15 ↗
  • How much judging should be automated?
    18:25 ↗

References