
Show Notes
A year ago, Palo Alto Networks built dashboards to track AI spend. Today those dashboards are useless, and the team that built them thinks that's the whole story. Recorded at FinOps X in San Diego, this conversation brings together Abhinav Lad, who leads cloud and AI finance at Palo Alto Networks, and Kuntal Patel, who runs the cloud engineering function behind it. They explain what happened when agents entered the picture, and AI stopped behaving like a service anyone could forecast. The short version: consumption went from linear to exponential almost overnight. Agents are goal-oriented rather than task-oriented, so they plan, call tools, verify, fail, retry, and keep looping until they hit the outcome, and every iteration is billable. So how do you run finance on top of that? Abhinav and Kuntal walk through the metrics that replaced their old forecasts: adoption rate, cost per user, AI as a percentage of revenue - and the budget limits that let engineering leaders choose between the newest model and a longer runway. They get into the open question of whether a cheaper model saves money or just burns more tokens thinking. They explain why an AI gateway became the control plane for cost and security at the same time, why retry caps belong in the design phase instead of the postmortem, and how FinOps starts to resemble product QA once the bill becomes the clearest signal that something is broken. They close on a warning worth sitting with: cost per million tokens is a number that means almost nothing on its own, and a value story built on it will point you somewhere you don't want to go.
Palo Alto Networks: https://www.paloaltonetworks.com
Abhinav Lad: https://www.linkedin.com/in/abhinav-lad Kuntal Patel: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kuntalpatel35 Alex Salkever: https://www.linkedin.com/in/alexsalkever
Timestamps: [0:00] Intro [1:00] Who runs FinOps for AI at Palo Alto Networks [2:10] Last year's AI dashboards are already useless [4:26] Agents turned linear forecasts exponential [7:27] Three traits that make agents expensive [8:34] The hidden bill: RAG, vectors and egress [9:16] Cost per user and adoption rate [11:21] Giving engineering leaders a budget [12:07] Using DORA metrics to prove value [13:53] Where DORA stops fitting AI [16:20] Does the cheaper model actually save money [17:57] Why you need an AI gateway [20:05] Inside Prisma AIRS [21:00] Three cost models for three use cases [22:52] Forecasting lessons from Electronic Arts [24:03] Runaway agents and endless loops [25:59] Capping retries before they burn cash [28:06] Writing cost policy at design time [29:01] When FinOps becomes product QA [32:17] Explaining AI spend to the C-suite [34:51] Valuing AI beyond engineering [37:04] Crawl, walk, run: where they are today [38:20] Why cost per million tokens is meaningless [39:26] Closing thoughts
More from Agentic Conversations (formally mlops.community)
AI can write your code, choose its own tools, and book your next trip. But who checks that it actually did the job?
What happens when you give 200 engineers who have barely touched AI a coding assistant and a six-month deadline to rebuild their platform? Pepijn Senders, a principal engineer who previously led AI enablement at HelloFresh, has done exactly that, and he chose Sonnet over Opus on purpose.
An AI slips out of its sandbox. A chatbot won’t explain your cat’s stripes. And your next shopping spree might not involve you clicking anything.
What happens to the web when the ones browsing it are no longer people? Sarah Drasner, Area Tech Lead at Google, sits down with us ahead of her Agentic Web keynote at AGNTCon + MCPCon North America. She works through that question from both directions: rebuild the web so agents can use it properly, or build agents smart enough to handle the web as it already exists.
Everyone is racing to build one agent that can do everything. Justin Schroeder, co-founder of Standard Agents, thinks the future looks more like thousands of tiny ones. Ahead of his talk on domain-specific agents at AGNTCon + MCPCon North America, he explains why tightly scoped agents might be the smarter bet, even if it feels like a step back toward the single-purpose machine learning models of a few years ago.