← All AI Engineer talks

AI Engineer World's Fair 2026

Bringing agents onto the world wide web

Read the talk

Bringing agents onto the world wide web

Reliable browser agents need more than capable models: they need selective context, reusable website knowledge, consistent browsers and a secure way to act for users.

From a talk by Paul Klein IV

Before you start: Familiarity with LLM tool calls and basic browser automation will help; the TypeScript example uses Playwright.

Why browser automation still breaks

Why can an agent use a computer, yet still struggle to finish ordinary work on the web? For anyone who tried Operator, the possibility is easy to see. The difficulty is turning that possibility into a system that keeps working. Paul Klein IV, founder of Browserbase, frames this as a capabilities overhang: models can do more than the systems around them reliably enable.

The web was built for people. Pages change, their contents consume large amounts of context, browsers fail to start, and blockers interrupt otherwise straightforward tasks. Klein encountered these problems early in his career, when web automation meant maintaining scripts every day. Agents now help him write more durable automation, but a durable script is still some distance from an autonomous agent that can navigate unfamiliar work. That gap is the problem to solve.

Slide describing broken browsers, flaky pages, complex layouts and blockers beside a code screenshot with an error dialog.
Agents still struggle to access the web reliably.
0:160:28
Suggest correction

This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.

0:16 · section reference included

The model needs a working environment

A year earlier, Klein considered models a major bottleneck for long-horizon tasks. His assessment has changed as their ability to use interfaces has improved. He attributes part of that progress to reinforcement-learning environments: training on human trajectories in environments that resemble the real web gives models practice with the work they will encounter. Klein says computer-use RL environments received as much investment in the preceding six months as coding environments received in the preceding year. That is his account of the field’s momentum, rather than a measured investment comparison presented here.

Better models nevertheless leave a deployment question. Klein invokes Dwarkesh’s contention that sufficiently capable models would naturally diffuse into use, then identifies the missing engineering: the agent harness, meaning the scaffolding, tools and systems that let a model interact with the world. Investing in that surrounding system can expose capabilities that a bare model interface leaves unused.

Karpathy’s November 2023 picture of an LLM surrounded by tools provides a useful architecture. A code interpreter lets it compute and execute programs; audio and video inputs, including screenshots, let it observe; a browser gives it access to websites; other LLMs can work as sub-agents. The harness connects these capabilities into an operating system for the task rather than leaving the model to produce text alone.

Diagram connecting an LLM and context window to software tools, a file system, video, audio, a browser and other LLMs.
Karpathy’s diagram places an LLM among tools, storage and external interfaces.
2:092:25
Suggest correction

This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.

2:09 · section reference included

Measure the harness against a baseline

Coding agents offer a precedent. Klein points to a Factory-versus-Claude Code comparison using the same underlying model: changing the surrounding system can change task performance even when the model stays fixed. He credits Cursor with early harness engineering and describes Browserbase’s browser work as a similar effort to adapt models to a particular domain. The relevant comparison is between complete systems using a common model, not a claim that a harness somehow exceeds an intrinsic model score.

A domain harness is something an engineering team can build without becoming a model lab. A company knows its tasks, interfaces and failure modes; it can use that knowledge to improve the tools and context available to its agent. Whether custom harnesses will ultimately outperform increasingly capable RL-trained systems remains open in the talk. The immediate requirement is more practical: add the harness, then measure its performance against a baseline model configuration.

4:234:38
Suggest correction

This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.

4:23 · section reference included

Combine browser interaction with code

The opportunity extends well beyond programming. Klein cites Greg Brockman’s habit of asking why he did not use Codex for a task, treating that question as a way to find capabilities that remain unused. Klein reports qualitatively higher task completion in coding than in computer use, which he attributes to better tools and more developed harnesses. An Andreessen slide supplies the next motivation: the many non-coding workflows that could benefit from computer use. His requirements for reaching them are multimodal operation, harness engineering and reliable infrastructure.

Multimodal operation here includes choosing both the model and the method. A complex page may justify a more capable model; a simple page may not. The agent can also combine coding with computer use instead of treating every operation as a click on a screenshot. One route is to inspect network requests, then have a coding agent write a script that replays the relevant requests.

Task situationUseful execution method
Complex interfaceMore capable model for interpretation
Simple interfaceSimpler model for the interaction
Repeatable request sequenceCode that replays the relevant requests

Klein reports that reliable production browser agents often write code alongside using the browser. His comparison is Claude Code producing a script versus Claude in Chrome carrying out the interaction: for repeatable work, the script can represent the task with less context than repeated page inspection. The browser helps discover or navigate the workflow; code can carry the repetitive portion.

Slide with Multi-model, Harness engineering and Infrastructure columns above a diagram reading coding plus computer-use leading to one agent.
Coding and computer-use models combine into one agent.
5:526:00
Suggest correction

This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.

5:52 · section reference included

Stop rediscovering the same website

Once a workflow repeats, memory and skills become part of the execution strategy. Klein introduces Browse.sh as a catalog of website skills, launched a few weeks before the talk. Those skills let an agent inspect what it can do before it visits a site. WebMCP provides another way to obtain knowledge of available website actions. Both address the same waste: an agent should not have to discover a familiar operation from scratch every time.

The same principle applies when the agent controls a site through a CLI such as Playwright’s: supply the relevant skills and context alongside the tool. Dumping the entire page into the model makes each interaction expensive and can obscure the useful information. The harness chooses both the tools and the information needed to use them. Its context should preserve what determines the next action while excluding page content that does not help produce a repeatable result.

7:588:11
Suggest correction

This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.

7:58 · section reference included

Keep the browser environment consistent

The infrastructure beneath the harness must also be dependable. Klein uses the rush to buy Mac minis for OpenClaw as a revealing example: a machine at home provides macOS, remote access over SSH and a residential network environment that affects encounters with CAPTCHAs. That can support a personal setup, but it does not by itself solve operating thousands of customer agents. His joke about not having seen a SOC 2 compliant Mac mini deployment at scale points to the distance between a working personal machine and a managed production environment.

Consistency matters even before scale. Repeated runs should encounter the same kinds of inputs and outputs, including a stable page size and layout. If one run gets a mobile layout and the next gets a desktop layout, an otherwise unchanged task can expose different controls and navigation. The harness and model then have to absorb variation introduced by their own infrastructure.

For a Playwright-based harness, a fixed browser context makes that viewport requirement explicit. This TypeScript helper uses one desktop size for every page it opens; callers supply the browser and destination:

typescript

import type { Browser, BrowserContext, Page } from "playwright";

export async function openAgentPage(
  browser: Browser,
  url: string,
): Promise<{ context: BrowserContext; page: Page }> {
  const context = await browser.newContext({
    viewport: { width: 1280, height: 720 },
    isMobile: false,
    hasTouch: false,
  });

  try {
    const page = await context.newPage();
    await page.goto(url, { waitUntil: "domcontentloaded" });
    return { context, page };
  } catch (error) {
    await context.close();
    throw error;
  }
}

The caller closes context when the task finishes. Fixing the viewport removes one source of layout variation; it does not prevent the website itself from changing.

9:029:15
Suggest correction

This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.

9:02 · section reference included

Make website actions discoverable

Improving the agent is only one side of the problem. Improving the web requires persuading website operators that they want agents to visit and work on users’ behalf. Accessibility is an existing foundation: instead of consuming only raw HTML and the DOM, an agent can use the accessibility tree and ARIA labels to identify components and understand which control to activate. A labeled component gives the agent a more useful representation than undifferentiated page markup.

WebMCP takes that idea from identifying controls to exposing structured actions. Klein describes it as publishing MCP servers inside a page; more precisely, Chrome’s WebMCP work exposes page tools through HTML and JavaScript APIs. It began as an early preview, and the subsequently updated Chrome documentation describes an origin trial rather than universal availability. The practical example is submitting a registration form through a website-provided tool: the agent gets a context-efficient action that the website deliberately exposes, without separately installing a server integration.

Files such as llms.txt, skills.md and AGENTS.md provide another place to publish useful instructions alongside a website. Together, accessible controls, structured actions and discoverable instructions reduce how much an agent must infer from the visual interface alone.

10:1910:27
Suggest correction

This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.

10:19 · section reference included

Give agents secure delegated access

Reaching the right page does not answer the next question: how does the agent log in on the user’s behalf? Klein identifies two familiar approaches, each with operational costs.

  • Shared passwords: The agent can use the user’s login, but handling those credentials securely is difficult.
  • Service accounts: The agent gets limited access, but new work may require repeated permission grants.

Selected actions may also need human approval. For enterprise computer use, access to the required systems becomes a deployment gate even when the model and harness can perform the task.

Klein points to WorkOS auth.md as a way for an agent to discover how to register. The protocol describes registration on behalf of users and scoped, user-linked credentials, rather than necessarily creating an independent identity owned by the agent. The product-design question is therefore concrete: what does signup and login look like when an agent performs it? Making that path explicit gives software a chance to support agent use securely instead of forcing it through an improvised human flow.

11:3711:46
Suggest correction

This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.

11:37 · section reference included

Distinguish authorized agents from bad bots

Authentication does not settle the broader question of trust. A website built to block bad bots now also encounters agents carrying out legitimate requests. Klein argues that CAPTCHAs are less effective against agents than people assume; the more useful question is whether the site can identify an agent and connect it to the person authorizing its work.

Klein names WebAuthn in this discussion. Browserbase’s published agent-identity work instead names Web Bot Auth; these are distinct technologies, not interchangeable names. His broader proposal is a Verisign-like role for agents: a trusted issuer that can attest to an agent or its vendor. He presents that trust layer as an unresolved opportunity, alongside secure authentication, rather than as an already completed industry system.

12:4112:51
Suggest correction

This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.

12:41 · section reference included

Choose infrastructure that supports improvement

Solving all of these problems can become a full-time engineering job. An existing platform is useful when it absorbs that work while preserving the choices an application needs. Klein’s requirements are practical:

  • Scale: Support the move from one agent to thousands.
  • Model choice: Allow the application to change providers as model capabilities improve.
  • Identity and access: Broker trusted-agent access with anti-bot providers instead of leaving every application to negotiate it independently.

The platform’s value is the combination, not simply a remotely hosted browser.

Observability supplies the next layer. Screen recordings show what the agent encountered; logs expose its steps; network activity reveals what the browser exchanged with the website. Those records can feed the next iteration of the agent, making failures and unnecessary work available for review. Klein introduces Autobrowse, published earlier that year, as an example of improving an agent over multiple loops. The goal is to use execution evidence to improve future behavior; improvement on every run is an aspiration, not an automatic consequence of collecting traces.

13:3513:48
Suggest correction

This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.

13:35 · section reference included

The work is already behind web forms

Browser agents and web data extraction serve more than large AI-native companies. Klein describes being surprised by the range of smaller businesses that can benefit from browser automation. His examples move outside the technology industry: a logistics company in Singapore, a bank in South Africa and a lumber factory in Mexico.

These businesses may run on PHP websites, forms and people clicking buttons every day. Their workflows already have interfaces, but those interfaces expect human operators. Klein’s economic case for computer use is that it can bring AI into this existing software estate. The opportunity is to solve the company’s actual workflow with dependable browser infrastructure underneath it.

15:2015:30
Suggest correction

This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.

15:20 · section reference included

Package the browser as a specialist agent

Klein introduces Browserbase Agents as a product launched the previous day, packaging the agent and harness together. He says Browserbase’s platform experience includes millions of browser sessions each month, informing its handling of edge cases. This is platform session volume, not a count of successfully completed autonomous tasks.

In the demonstration, a prompt is the entry point to the execution system. The platform supplies the harness, runtime, sandbox, code execution, fetch and search tools, and models. As the agent runs, Klein describes it examining and remembering its steps so that it can reuse what it learns.

The intended integration is a browser specialist acting as a sub-agent within a larger agentic system. That lets the application developer concentrate on the customer’s problem instead of assembling every browser capability. The completed demonstration frame shows a nursing-license search page alongside the run timeline, action list, and text and structured results: the task’s output and the evidence of its execution are visible together.

Agent dashboard showing a completed run, a timeline and action list, a nursing-license search page, and text and structured results.
A completed license-check run shows its steps, browser view and returned result.

Optimization then looks backward at that execution and asks how to perform the task better. This closes the feedback loop introduced earlier: observe a run, review the behavior and use what was learned to improve the next attempt. The completed result is evidence of that run; retrospective optimization is the separate process for improving future runs.

16:1816:28
Suggest correction

This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.

16:18 · section reference included

A reason to return to computer use

Klein ends by acknowledging the frustration behind the room’s sparse attendance: after a year of difficulty getting browser agents into production, some builders have stepped back. His counterweight is firsthand experience with customers for whom the systems are working. He predicts a crowded room a year later as models, techniques and tools improve. The responsibility he leaves with builders is to turn those improvements into better systems—systems that can reliably perform the work people already do on the web.

17:3817:41
Suggest correction

This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.

17:38 · section reference included

Resources

From the talk

  • A catalog of reusable website skills and a CLI for browser actions, network inspection and cloud sessions.

  • Chrome's introduction to structured website tools defined through HTML forms and JavaScript.

  • An open protocol for applications to describe how agents register on behalf of users and receive scoped credentials.

  • AutobrowseArticle15:05

    Browserbase's workflow for reviewing execution traces, improving strategies and saving reusable browser skills, with examples and failure cases.

  • The launch overview of managed browser agents, structured outputs, execution observability and optimization modes.

  • Factory's September 2025 report comparing coding-agent accuracy across models and agent frameworks on terminal tasks.

  • Browserbase's browser-agent SDK combining natural-language actions with deterministic browser control.

  • Browserbase's account of agent identification using Web Bot Auth and infrastructure partnerships.

Updates since the talk

Read the complete timestamped transcript
  1. 0:00

    [on-hold music] Hello. Very sleepy crowd in the computer use room.

  2. 0:16

    Have we all given up at this point? Like, what's going on? [chuckles] Uh, thank you for coming in to my talk. My name is Paul Klein. I'm the founder of Browserbase, and I'm gonna talk about bringing agents onto the World Wide Web.

  3. 0:28

    If you're in this audience in this track, you've done computer use, you tried Operator when it came out, and you're probably like, "Why isn't this happening yet?" It, it seems obvious.

  4. 0:38

    Well, we'll address some of the high-level needs of computer use to really serve what I think is the largest category of AI agents, the agents that actually go out and do work on your behalf in the real world.

  5. 0:50

    We'll talk through some of the technical stuff, but really trying to focus on there's a huge model capabilities overhang in this category specifically, and you all here can hopefully solve it.

  6. 1:01

    So thank you for coming. Well, of, of course, as we all know, the Web wasn't built for agents, it was built for people, and that becomes very challenging as we're building systems to try and interact with it and automate it.

  7. 1:13

    So when we're thinking about building agents that interact with people for systems, we have to really wonder why wasn't it, you know, why was it built for us and, and why is it a struggle?

  8. 1:23

    When you've done any sort of automation in the past, you've run into so many roadblocks. You know, the pages change. The Web was built in a very context, uh, inefficient way.

  9. 1:31

    It's a lot of text, a lot of tokens, and when you're running any sort of browser agent or web agent right now, you get a broken browser that doesn't spin up.

  10. 1:38

    You know, you have pages that don't work. You have blockers or other sort of problems that really limit you. And I actually started my career doing web automation, maintaining these scripts every single day.

  11. 1:48

    It was very painful. So in my world, agents have made a huge advancement and allow me to write durable web automation scripts, but we still haven't gotten to agents yet.

  12. 1:57

    And the question I wanna ask is, why? You know, we're sitting here in this room, we're thinking computer use we saw a year ago, has progress stalled? Like, why, why are web agents and browser agents not as big as they could be?

  13. 2:09

    And I think it's really a, uh, it comes down to a few things. You know, until recently, the, the bottleneck was the models. The models one year ago really weren't good at long context horizon tasks, but that's clearly been, you know, solved in a major way.

  14. 2:25

    Models can do more and more complex tasks than ever, and of course, in AI, you always have to update your priors. It's clear to me that anything I believed six months ago, I have to revisit every single week because these models are progressing at an insanely fast pace.

  15. 2:39

    So I don't think it's the models. A- a- and especially models are now much better at using interfaces. You know, we've seen this kind of capabilities improvement in computer-use models.

  16. 2:49

    In the last year, a lot of investment was made in RL environments for coding, and in the last six months, months, just as much investment has been made in RL environments for computer use.

  17. 3:00

    And computer-use models are getting better, and you can see this in the evals. When you train things on human trajectories in RL environments that model our real world, the real Web, you can make better models.

  18. 3:10

    So the models are getting there, I promise. But that kind of... Okay, so the models are good. Why, why do agents still struggle to use the Web? What are the, what are the problems here if, if it's a model problem?

  19. 3:21

    Dwarkesh says, "If the models were good enough, diffusion would just happen." Uh, there's still a lot of work to be done here. And, and to me, it's, it's no longer just the models.

  20. 3:30

    I'd argue that agents are missing the right harness and tools, and if you aren't familiar with an agent harness, you haven't been on Twitter in the last few weeks, it's the, it's the scaffolding and systems around your model that enable it to actually interact with the world.

  21. 3:42

    Uh, a lot of talks talk about harness engineering. We're gonna spend a lot of time on it today, but I really think you can invest a lot in the harness and get a lot more out of the models and extract that overhang out of the models.

  22. 3:52

    You know, Karpathy actually tweeted this back in November twenty twenty-three, and I thought it was just so forward-looking that this-- what he described, these systems around an LLM, it's the harness.

  23. 4:02

    It's, it's the, the tools that it can access, and if you fast-forward three years later, a lot of what we're doing every single day is building towards this: a code interpreter for the LLM, audio and video input like screenshots, a browser, and other LLMs as sub-agents.

  24. 4:15

    All of these principles have held true, so if you're ever wondering, what should I build next? Just go look at Karpathy's old talks. He's a pretty good predictor of the future.

  25. 4:23

    And, you know, applying this to coding, we know that harnesses work really, really well with coding. Uh, on the, the graphic on the right, you can see Factory, when it compared to Claude Code, using the same model, but using their kind of custom, uh, harness.

  26. 4:38

    And it turns out when you build a harness optimized for the domain that your agent is operating in, it can actually achieve, you know, above model results in that domain.

  27. 4:47

    Harness engineering is a real thing, and I'd say Cursor actually started this. Cursor was the first one that was doing har-- uh, model engineering or harness engineering on top of the original LLMs.

  28. 4:58

    And a lot of what we've done at Browserbase with browser models has been, you know, harness engineering.

  29. 5:03

    But-- and I think that, like, building a good harness is an engineering problem. You don't have to be a lab to build a good harness, and, and a lot of us in the room maybe aren't working at labs.

  30. 5:11

    Your company can make a great harness for your domain and actually improve model results. You don't just have to wait for the models to catch up, and once again, I believe the models are quite capable now.

  31. 5:20

    And, and if you look at this, you can see that it's not just Cursor, it's not just Factory. You know, many, many different types of companies are building coding harnesses on top of models and over-performing on the models' capabilities.

  32. 5:33

    Now, it's not clear yet if custom harnesses are gonna beat out durable, you know, RL models, uh, but we're not gonna debate that today. We know that adding a harness on a model improves results.

  33. 5:43

    Whether or not, you know, Claude Code will be the best harness ever or not, I think that's a different conversation. But you should still have some sort of harness on your model and measure the performance versus baseline model.

  34. 5:52

    And what I really want to get back to is that there is a massive capabilities overhang in computer use. The models are good enough, but we haven't done the engineering work to solve it.

  35. 6:00

    And I love this Greg Brockman tweet where he says, "Whenever I don't use Codex for a task, I ask myself why," and it feels like the task is outside the capabilities of the model.

  36. 6:09

    The overhang is there. The, the, the actual work we can do is missing. And when you look at the amount of, like, task completion you can get with coding, it's so much higher than CUA because we haven't actually really pushed the models far enough and given it the right tools.

  37. 6:24

    So to me, not only is this important because I think that non-coding is a much bigger opportunity than it is coding. If you look at this Andreessen slide, there's so many use cases that are in the non-coding domain that can benefit from computer use.

  38. 6:39

    It's a problem worth investing in, and the wrong answer is to sit around and just wait for the models to get better. You can actually solve this today. Solving overhang is an engineering problem, and this is the work that we can do within our companies and within our agents, especially within the computer use domain, to build reliable

  39. 6:55

    web agents. And when I think about browser agents that work, it, it really comes down to three different types of things. They're multimodal, they're harness engineered, and they have reliable infrastructure, and I'll go through each of these three.

  40. 7:10

    First, they're multimodal. You no longer have to use a single model to actually interact with the task, and we see this with coding agents all the time. Sometimes you'll use a smarter model for a more complex page, sometimes a, a dumber model for a simpler page, and maybe you're using a combination of coding and computer use to

  41. 7:27

    actually power your agent. This is a really important insight. It turns out automating the web isn't always just clicking the button on the screen. It might be intercepting the network requests and writing a coding agent or having a coding agent write a script to actually replay those network requests.

  42. 7:42

    The most reliable browser agents that we see in production right now are often writing code alongside using the browser to actually automate a task. If you've done any sort of personal automation work in your life, you might see Claude Code output a script more often than using, you know, Claude in Chrome because that's a very context-efficient way

  43. 7:58

    to automate a repeatable task. There's also harness engineering. It turns out, yeah, sure, we can, you know, write scripts and use models, but doing these things repeatedly, you want to benefit from things like memory and skills.

  44. 8:11

    We launched something a few weeks ago called browse.sh, which actually publishes skills for websites. So before your agent even goes to the website, it can observe what types of tasks it can do.

  45. 8:21

    WebMCP is very useful for this. It's a part of pulling in existing knowledge to optimize a website. Your agent doesn't have to discover something in the first place if it's done it before.

  46. 8:29

    It can use its memory and its skills to actually make it better. And you should think about trying to build in skills to your agents. If your agent is using CLIs to control websites like the Playwright CLI, you can actually give it skills and context to be more effective there.

  47. 8:44

    And this results in much more optimized token usage, as if you're throwing everything on the page to a model, you're going to get subpar results, and it's gonna cost you a lot.

  48. 8:52

    The right harness should not only present the right tools but present an optimized amount of tokens that are compressed to get exactly the right repeatable result every single time.

  49. 9:02

    And finally, the infrastructure here is extremely important because when you're running browser agents in production, you want an environment that's going to work everywhere, every time. And I think a lot of work still needs to be done here.

  50. 9:15

    This is a lot of what our company does because computer use environments are, are pretty complex to scale up. You know, it's funny, when OpenClaw came out, everyone started buying Mac minis, which to me feels like an infrastructure problem, right?

  51. 9:26

    You're running a OpenClaw on a Mac mini in your house because that's the best way to run macOS that you can SSH into and then end up, like, solving the CAPTCHAs because your home IP address.

  52. 9:37

    That is not something you can do when you're building thousands of agents for customers in production. I've yet to see a SOC 2 compliant Mac mini set up at scale, but please tell me afterwards if you found one.

  53. 9:46

    I'm very curious about it. The infrastructure problem that needs to be solved here is also an engineering problem, and most importantly, the consistency in this infrastructure is important. When your agent is running across a website multiple times, you want it to see the same inputs and outputs, the same page layout, the same size.

  54. 10:03

    If your infrastructure renders a page in like a mobile layout one time and then, like, in a desktop layout the second time, it's gonna have inconsistent results. Consistency in the infrastructure is the nice base layer on top of your harness and on top of your models to actually get good results with this.

  55. 10:19

    I also think we have to improve the web itself. So there's a whole other side of this problem that's very interesting, which is, like, how are we gonna make it so the web works well with agents?

  56. 10:27

    And I think this is arguably the harder challenge because we're not just engineering on our own systems anymore. We have to be evangelists to the web and to the broader world that, hey, you want agents to come to your website.

  57. 10:38

    So accessibility is the first thing I want to talk about. There's been a lot of really cool stuff here. Now, when you look at what best-in-class browser agents are doing, they're not just consuming the raw DOM and HTML of the page anymore.

  58. 10:50

    They're looking at sub, you know, subsections of that, like the accessibility tree, the ARIA tags. These are labeled components of a page that can help show your agent where it needs to click and why.

  59. 11:01

    Chrome just added WebMCP, which I think is really, really cool. Websites can now publish MCP servers within their page that your agent can take advantage of without pre-installing the actual MCP.

  60. 11:12

    It can now issue tool calls to a website like submit the registration form in a way that's not only content effic-- context ef- context efficient, but is website approved and blessed.

  61. 11:22

    More and more work can go into accessibility, and we've seen things like llms.text, skills.md, agents.md all being published alongside our websites. We need to see more of that to build the agent-first web.

  62. 11:37

    I think authentication is actually an even bigger problem here too because once your agent can actually go to a website, how can it log in on your behalf? There's been a lot of different paradigms here.

  63. 11:46

    Maybe you're just giving your agent your password, but doing that securely can be very challenging. Maybe you're creating a service account for your agent where it has some limited access, and you constantly have to give it new permissions.

  64. 11:57

    You know, authentication for agents is the next thing to be solved once you solve the harness and capability problems, and doing that securely where you can have a human in the loop approve certain actions on a website is going to be a major challenge for unlocking computers for the enterprise.

  65. 12:11

    The biggest gate to building agents that actually can work in prod is going to be the systems it has access to. And authentication is something that needs to be solved in our industry to make this possible.

  66. 12:21

    I've seen a lot of really cool stuff come out. WorkOS just launched AuthMD, which is a new way for your agent that goes to a website to find how to sign up on that website and get its own accounts.

  67. 12:30

    And if you're building software now, you should think about, what does my agent first sign-up and login flow look like? Because agents are gonna be using your software whether you like it or not.

  68. 12:38

    It's best to let them use it securely.

  69. 12:41

    Finally, I want to talk about trust. The web was built to stop bad bots, but now there's good agents and bad bots. How do we delineate between the two?

  70. 12:51

    And the CAPTCHA has been the tool in our tool chest for a very long time, but as we all know, CAPTCHAs are not as effective as we think against agents.

  71. 12:59

    And trying to identify these good agents is very important. There's been a lot of cool frameworks and work done on things like WebAuthn and more authenticated ways to say, "This is my agent.

  72. 13:09

    It's coming from me, and you can follow me along on the web." But I still don't think we've solved the issue yet. And a big unlock to agents accessing the web, alongside authentication, is actually how can we trust these agents?

  73. 13:21

    And I think there needs to be almost like a Verisign moment for web agents, where who can be the certificate issuer in saying, "My agent is trusted and this agent vendor is trusted"?

  74. 13:30

    Nobody's come out and done that yet. I think those are really, really big opportunities.

  75. 13:35

    So building reliable browser agents is, is not a model problem. It's an engineering problem that all of us can solve. But doing that engineering is, is a full-time job.

  76. 13:48

    And if you are working in this space, I'd, I'd love to meet you. But if you aren't, and you just wanna build something that works, I, I might have a few ideas.

  77. 13:56

    You really don't have to reinvent the wheel here. There's been a lot of stuff happening, and it's a consortium of companies that are continuing to push the world forward on what's possible when you want to automate the web.

  78. 14:07

    And I think there's, like, a few things here that are really important for a great solution, right? It has to be a scalable platform that serves your infrastructure needs.

  79. 14:13

    You know, you can wanna run, run one agent, but also thousands of agents. And, and the challenge is that those different levels of scale is very, very important. You want browser agents that are model agnostic.

  80. 14:23

    As a developer, I don't want to be locked into a single model provider. As models continually change and get better, I want to be able to move my agent around.

  81. 14:30

    That's why you need model-agnostic infrastructure. You need somebody to solve agent identity, somebody who's going to go out and negotiate with the, you know, anti-bot providers of the world and say, "We are the platform for trusted agents, and we are the ones that can help broker the access for your agents as you use the web."

  82. 14:47

    And finally, you need observability. When you're building these agents that go to any website in the world, you need to see where they're going and why, and how that you can make sure that it's improving every iteration.

  83. 14:57

    Every agent you run should get better every single time. You need screen recordings, logs, network activity, and you need to feed that back into your agent, so it can self-improve.

  84. 15:05

    We published something called Auto Browse earlier this year. That's a really interesting way to see, how is my agent able to improve itself over multiple loops? And the, the feed-in of data to that from observability is extremely important to make your agents get better over time.

  85. 15:20

    And, and that's, you know, what we're building here at Browserbase. You know, we power browser agents, web data extraction, and really all these use cases across the entire web to make your agents work well.

  86. 15:30

    And what I've been extremely surprised by in building this company is the plethora of use cases. Of course, there are the, you know, large AI native companies that use companies like Browserbase to power their browser agents, but there's also all these little companies across the world that can benefit from automation.

  87. 15:47

    And my core belief with this company is that solving computer use accelerates the diffusion of AI to the real economy. And as much as I love our bubble here in San Francisco, the real economy is companies like the logistics company in Singapore, the bank in South Africa, or the lumber factory in Mexico.

  88. 16:03

    These people are built on PHP websites with forms and human beings clicking buttons every single day. That's a huge opportunity for you to go solve to build browser agents for them, and hopefully you can use the right infrastructure to power those things.

  89. 16:18

    And, and that's why we built Browserbase Agents, by the way. This is our new product we launched yesterday. Because we want to give everyone a batteries-included agent and harness for everything they need to automate the web.

  90. 16:28

    The goal here is that you shouldn't reinvent the wheel. You shouldn't have to figure all this out and optimize it. You should benefit from the platform scale that we've seen millions and millions of sessions every single month and understand how we've solved the edge cases for you, so you don't have to solve them on your own.

  91. 16:42

    I have a quick little demo here. The way it works is, instead of having to pull our tools together, you can actually put in a prompt, and we will stand up the harness, the runtime, the sandbox, the code execution, the fetch, the search tools, and the models to actually accomplish a task for you.

  92. 16:56

    And what's beautiful is, as this agent is running, it's looking at its steps, and it's remembering what it can do and learning from it, so it can do them again in the future.

  93. 17:06

    The future for you is not having to reinvent the wheel every single time. It's actually being able to use an agent that's purpose-built for browsing the web and pull it in as a sub-agent of your larger agentic system.

  94. 17:16

    This is not the main thing you should be focusing your time on. You should be focusing your time on actually solving customer problems, not trying to rebuild the best-in-class browser agents.

  95. 17:25

    The optimization feature is quite cool. It's gonna look back and actually understand, "Hey, how could I do this better?" after looking back at this. This is this data feedback loop that I've talked about before, and I think it's what makes agents really, really special.

  96. 17:38

    I kinda wanna end with this last note.

  97. 17:41

    You know, based on the attendance in the room, I do think a lot of people have stepped back from computer use because they've had so much challenges over the past year making browser agents work in production.

  98. 17:52

    But I can tell you firsthand from our customers, we see it working. And actually, I think one year from now, this room is gonna be overfilled with people because the models are getting better, the techniques are getting better, the tools are getting better.

  99. 18:02

    It's just on us to build better things. Thank you all for having me today. I really appreciate it. [audience applauding] [upbeat music]