CS336 is Stanford's course on building a language model from scratch: five assignments cover the tokenizer and Transformer, training-systems optimization, scaling laws, data processing, and alignment and reasoning RL, with no code skeleton, only tests. The lectures, recordings, all five assignment repos and the leaderboards are public; from Assignment 2 on you supply your own compute, and the course-sponsored compute and grading are not available.
vLLM is the de facto standard for self-hosted LLM inference (89,470 GitHub stars, verified 2026-08-21), built on managing the KV cache the way an OS manages paged memory. But the selection question isn't how fast it is — it's your GPU utilization. Using Red Hat's measured 793 output tokens/second, a fully saturated A100 costs roughly $0.70 per million output tokens; at 10% utilization that becomes $7, more than most cloud APIs.
A web retrieval benchmark must evaluate complete tasks, not HTTP 200s: 30 fixed cases across five failure strata and three live channels, measuring answers, citations, freshness, latency, cost, and unnecessary escalation. This article delivers the harness and gates, but no fabricated ranking while the three live channels remain unconfigured.
An agent should not open a browser for every web task: route first to Search or Fetch, then escalate on explicit signals such as status codes, weak content, JavaScript shells, authentication, or challenge pages, with retry, budget, cache, deduplication, and provenance constraints at every step.
Behavioral interviews aren't about improvisation — they're about a pre-prepared story library. AI Engineer behavioral interviews have unique focus areas: AI ethics (bias, fairness, privacy), technical decision impact narratives (why you chose this model/architecture), and experience driving ML projects across teams. Strategy: build 8-10 STAR stories, practice each until you can deliver it in under 2 minutes.
AI Engineer coding interviews aren't identical to SWE — beyond LeetCode medium, you'll face ML-flavored problems (implementing a tokenizer, writing a batch inference pipeline, handling sparse matrices). Strategy: practice LeetCode medium to 70% pass rate, then spend remaining time on numpy/pandas operations, data processing pipelines, and ML-related programming problems.
Deep learning interviews don't ask you to derive backpropagation — they test whether you can explain the design intuition behind architectures. High-frequency topics: CNN's locality and translation invariance, why the evolution from RNN to Transformer was necessary, self-attention computation and complexity, BatchNorm vs LayerNorm use cases, and common training tricks (learning rate scheduling, gradient clipping, mixed precision).
LLM Application Design is the hottest new interview topic in 2025-2026. Key focus areas: RAG pipeline chunking/retrieval/reranking design, agent tool-use and planning loops, context window management strategies, guardrails and safety design, and LLM application evaluation methods. Interviewers especially value whether you've hit real-world pitfalls.
ML fundamentals interviews don't test formula memorization — they test whether you can explain concepts intuitively and hold up under follow-up questions. High-frequency topics: the practical meaning of bias-variance tradeoff, the selection logic for L1/L2 regularization, why cross-entropy beats MSE for classification, SGD vs. Adam tradeoffs, and how precision/recall priorities differ by scenario.
The core of ML System Design interviews isn't choosing the model — it's how to turn a business objective into a system that's deployable, monitorable, and iterable. Interviewers want to see if you can: translate business goals into ML objectives, design data pipelines and feature stores, choose reasonable serving strategies, and plan monitoring and A/B testing.
MLOps interviews test whether you have experience pushing models to production. Key topics: ML pipeline CI/CD (how it differs from software CI/CD), model registry and version management, A/B testing design and pitfalls, inference scaling strategies (horizontal scaling, model compression, caching), and production monitoring and alerting design.
The dividing line in LLM interviews is whether you've actually used these things. High-frequency topics: BPE tokenization logic and multilingual challenges, pretraining objectives (CLM vs MLM), three levels of fine-tuning (full/LoRA/prompt tuning), RLHF workflow and failure modes, prompting as engineering practice, and the difficulty of LLM evaluation with current methods.
AI Engineer interviews go beyond ML — big tech emphasizes system design and coding, startups look for end-to-end delivery, and AI-native companies test LLM engineering depth. Strategy: identify your target company types first, then allocate prep time across six dimensions (ML fundamentals, system design, LLM applications, coding, paper reading, and behavioral).
Paper reading interviews don't test whether you've read that specific paper — they test whether you can quickly understand a new method and identify its limitations. AI-native companies (Anthropic, OpenAI) particularly favor this format. Strategy: practice reading a paper in 30 minutes and verbally stating contribution + limitation, build your own must-read list, and practice summarizing each paper in three sentences.
Generating a correct candidate and recognizing it are different capabilities. This series follows the Autumn 2025 syllabus through a course overview and seventeen session guides covering all seventeen content sessions; five guest sessions have no public material and use public material from the speakers on similar topics instead; video Parts 7–9 map to sessions 8, 17 and 20.
The 2026 consensus for agent-built slide decks: outline-first, separate content from construction, then render to images and let a fresh-eyes subagent do visual QA. Anthropic's and OpenAI's official slides skills both converged on PptxGenJS plus a visual verification loop, and the research line (PPTAgent → PreGenie → DeepPresenter) points the same way. But two later corrections matter: PresentBench shows the widely cited PPTEval scores too generously, and SeaSlides argues the model should not write free-form HTML/SVG at all.
Governance carries more weight on these exams than most engineers expect — CCAR-P is 14% governance plus 14% stakeholder work (28% non-technical), CCAO-F is 15%, AB-100's deploy-and-govern block is 40–45%, AIF-C01 is 14% responsible AI plus 14% security/compliance/governance. But across all fifteen official exam guides in this series, not one names the EU AI Act, the NIST AI RMF, or ISO/IEC 42001; the only regulations any of them names are CCAR-P's GDPR, HIPAA, and FedRAMP. So the use of this post isn't memorizing frameworks for an exam — it's using the three frameworks as a skeleton to file six certifications' scattered governance objectives. The three split cleanly: the EU AI Act is law (fully applicable 2026-08-02, high-risk duties pushed to 2027-12-02 by the AI Omnibus), the NIST AI RMF is voluntary (GOVERN/MAP/MEASURE/MANAGE, and 1.0 is currently being revised), and ISO/IEC 42001 is a certifiable management system standard whose clauses are paid, so this post covers only what is on ISO's public page.
Google PMLE, AWS AIF-C01 and AIP-C01, Microsoft AI-103 and AI-500, and NVIDIA NCP-GENL all test how to make a GenAI application fast, cheap, and reliable — and they form a three-rung ladder: AIF-C01 asks whether you know cost scales with tokens, AIP-C01 and the two Microsoft exams ask whether you can instrument and control it, NCP-GENL asks whether you can change the model and the hardware. Three different altitudes. NVIDIA works at the kernel and quantization layer (Model Optimization 17% + GPU Acceleration 14% = 31%, the heaviest single cost/latency block in the whole series), AWS and Microsoft at the application layer (three caching tiers, token caps, chargeback), and Google at the MLOps layer (CPU/GPU/TPU evaluation, data vs model parallelism, scaling serving backends by throughput). The shared core is eight levers, but each lever becomes a different question at each altitude. This post deliberately carries no prices and no hardware specs — that is the part of this topic that rots fastest.
Microsoft AI-500, AB-620, AB-100, NVIDIA NCP-AAI, and Claude CCAR-F all test multi-agent architecture, and they overlap on seven things: orchestration topologies, A2A and MCP, per-agent identity boundaries, three-layer memory, observability and agent replay, human-in-the-loop, and guardrails at four intervention points. But four vendors use four vocabularies for the same ideas, and each exam has objectives that don't transfer — Microsoft names four context-window failure modes nobody else names, 7% of NVIDIA's is locked to NeMo and NIM, and Claude tests SDK-level details like stop_reason. One correction along the way: Google PMLE's wall-to-wall 'Agent Platform' is a Vertex AI rename, not a multi-agent domain.
Pure image understanding has flattened out — four frontier models all clear 80% on MMMU-Pro within 3 points of each other. The real differentiation is video, long-document OCR, and realtime speech, each with a different leader. But the most useful lesson from assembling these rankings is that two credible sources named different Video-MME leaders more than 10 points apart — and that July and August each turned the field over again.