The Agentic Post
Breaking
Gemini’s Multimodal Features, Explained  Â·  ChatGPT Custom GPTs, Explained  Â·  What Is Constitutional AI? Explained  Â·  AI Capex Explained for Investors  Â·  AI Startup Valuations: How They Are Set  Â·  How to Reskill for an AI Job Market  ·  
Home/Guides/AI Glossary
The AI Glossary: Every Term You Need

The AI Glossary: Every Term You Need

AI Glossary

Plain-language definitions for the AI and agent terminology that shows up constantly in 2026 AI news, from tokens and context windows to MCP and world models.

AI coverage runs on jargon that didn’t exist five years ago, half of it overloaded with multiple meanings. This glossary defines the terms that actually come up in day-to-day AI news and product decisions, organized by what they describe rather than alphabetically, so related concepts sit next to each other.

Models and how they’re built

  • Large language model (LLM): A model trained on huge amounts of text to predict the next piece of language, which turns out to be enough to answer questions, write code, and follow instructions.
  • Parameters: The internal numeric values a model adjusts during training. More parameters generally mean more capacity to learn patterns, but not always better real-world performance.
  • Mixture of Experts (MoE): An architecture that splits a model into specialized sub-networks (“experts”) and only activates a subset for each input, letting a model have a huge total parameter count while only using a fraction of it per request, saving compute.
  • Context window: How much text (measured in tokens) a model can consider at once. A larger context window lets a model work with longer documents, codebases, or conversation history without losing track of earlier details.
  • Token: The basic unit a model reads and generates, roughly a word or word-fragment. Pricing, context limits, and generation speed are all measured in tokens.
  • Fine-tuning: Further training a general model on a narrower, specific dataset to specialize its behavior for a particular task or domain.
  • Reasoning model: A model trained to generate intermediate reasoning steps before its final answer, generally improving performance on math, coding, and multi-step logic at the cost of speed.
  • Hallucination: When a model generates confident, plausible-sounding information that’s actually false or fabricated. It’s a known limitation, not a bug specific to any one product.
  • Open-weight model: A model whose trained parameters are published for anyone to download and run themselves, as opposed to a closed model only accessible through an API.

Agents and how they act

  • AI agent: A system built on top of a model that can plan, take actions, use tools, and adjust based on results, rather than just answering a single prompt. See our full AI Agents coverage.
  • Agentic workflow: A multi-step process where an agent breaks a task into stages, executes them, checks its own results, and adjusts course, rather than doing everything in one pass.
  • Model Context Protocol (MCP): A standard that lets an AI model connect to external tools, files, and services in a consistent way, rather than requiring a custom integration for every product. See the official MCP specification, or read our deep dive on MCP’s 2026 rewrite.
  • Computer-use agent: An agent that interacts with a computer the way a person would, through screenshots, clicks, and keystrokes, rather than through a dedicated API.
  • Tool use / function calling: A model’s ability to call an external function, API, or tool mid-response, such as running a calculation, searching the web, or querying a database.
  • Orchestrator / subagent: In multi-agent systems, an orchestrator agent breaks work into pieces and assigns them to specialized subagents running in parallel, then combines their output.

Infrastructure and physical AI

  • Inference: Running a trained model to generate a response, as opposed to training it. Inference cost and speed are what most product pricing is actually based on.
  • Training compute: The processing power spent building a model in the first place, a one-time cost, distinct from the ongoing cost of running it afterward.
  • World model: An AI system trained to predict how the physical world behaves, objects, forces, causality, rather than just predicting text. See our explainer on physical AI and world models.
  • Physical AI: The broader category of AI systems designed to perceive and act in the real world, spanning robotics, autonomous vehicles, and world models.
  • Reality gap (sim-to-real gap): The performance drop that happens when a system trained in simulation is deployed on real hardware, caused by imperfect physics modeling in the simulation.

Safety and governance

  • Guardrails: Safety mechanisms built into a model or the system around it that restrict harmful, dangerous, or policy-violating outputs.
  • Sandboxing: Running a model or agent in an isolated environment specifically so it can’t affect real systems, used heavily in AI safety testing. See our coverage of what happened when sandboxing failed at two major AI labs in the same month.
  • Red teaming: Deliberately trying to make a model misbehave, produce harmful content, or bypass its safety training, to find and fix weaknesses before real-world release.
  • RLHF (Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback): A training technique that uses human ratings of model outputs to steer a model toward more helpful, accurate, or safe behavior.

Key takeaway

This list will keep growing as the field does; bookmark it and check back when a new term shows up in our coverage that you haven’t seen defined plainly elsewhere.

Up Next
AI Captured 86% of US Venture Funding

AI Captured 86% of US Venture Funding

Funding & Startups

US venture capital hit a record $412.7 billion in H1 2026, with AI companies capturing 86% of the total and OpenAI and Anthropic alone taking roughly 43% of all global startup funding.

AI companies captured 86 cents of every dollar of U.S. venture capital deployed in the first half of 2026. That’s not a sector doing well, it’s a venture market that has functionally become a single trade, according to PitchBook’s H1 2026 Venture Monitor, and the concentration is even more extreme than the headline number suggests.

Quick facts

  • US venture capital hit a record $412.7 billion in H1 2026, up nearly 30% from all of 2025, with AI companies capturing $355.9 billion, or 86%, of that total.
  • Crunchbase’s independent global tally puts H1 2026 startup funding at $510 billion worldwide, already well ahead of the $440 billion raised across the entirety of 2025.
  • OpenAI and Anthropic alone accounted for roughly 43% of all global startup funding in H1 2026 — a two-company share of the entire venture market.
  • Deal count didn’t meaningfully grow even as total dollars surged, meaning the market is concentrating larger checks into fewer companies rather than broadening participation.
  • Just three investment firms — Andreessen Horowitz, Founders Fund, and Thrive Capital — accounted for nearly half of all H1 2026 fundraising activity.

Where the concentration is actually coming from

This isn’t broad-based enthusiasm for AI startups generally, it’s a small number of enormous rounds. Seven rounds above $1 billion closed in Q2 2026 alone, totaling $87.2 billion, and five of the seven went to AI companies. OpenAI’s $122 billion round in March pushed its valuation to $852 billion; Anthropic’s own Q2 round, reportedly around $65 billion, took its valuation to roughly $965 billion, up from a $350 billion mark just three months earlier. Together, those two companies alone are estimated to have absorbed close to half of all global startup capital raised in the first six months of the year, leaving a shrinking pool for essentially every AI startup that isn’t a frontier lab, and an even smaller pool for startups outside AI entirely.

Who’s actually writing these checks

Traditional venture capital increasingly isn’t the primary source of capital for the very largest rounds. PitchBook analyst Dimitri Zabelin, describing Q1 2026’s funding concentration, noted that sovereign wealth funds and corporate investors supplied much of the capital behind the largest deals, characterizing frontier AI labs as foundational, structural infrastructure rather than typical venture bets. That’s a real shift in who has power over the AI industry’s capital formation: sovereign wealth funds and hyperscalers want pre-IPO equity in what they view as generational infrastructure, which is a different motivation, and a different negotiating posture, than a traditional venture fund optimizing for a 10-year return.

What this means if you’re not OpenAI or Anthropic

For any startup raising outside the handful of frontier labs, the practical read isn’t that AI funding is booming everywhere, it’s that capital is concentrating hard at the very top while deal counts stay flat. If you’re a founder building something AI-adjacent but not foundational-model-scale, the funding environment for you specifically looks meaningfully tighter than the top-line $412.7 billion number implies, since so much of that figure never touches companies outside the top handful of names. Venture debt, at roughly $64.7 billion across 280 loans in the same period, may matter more to actual runway planning for most founders than the mega-round headlines suggest.

Common questions

Does this mean it’s a bad time to raise money for an AI startup? Not necessarily, but it means the environment is bifurcated: frontier-scale companies are raising historic sums, while everyone else is competing for a comparatively smaller pool, with flat overall deal counts backing that up.

Is this concentration unique to the US? No. Crunchbase’s global figures show the same pattern internationally, with the US absorbing the large majority of the total specifically because nearly all of the largest AI labs are US-headquartered.

Could this reverse in H2 2026? The reporting reviewed here doesn’t forecast that; what’s clear is that H1’s pattern was driven by a handful of mega-rounds rather than broad deal growth, so H2’s trajectory depends heavily on whether similarly sized rounds recur.

Key takeaway

The headline number to remember isn’t 86%, it’s that two companies took nearly half of everything. If you’re evaluating the health of the AI startup ecosystem broadly, look past the aggregate funding totals to deal count and check size distribution, that’s where the real story about concentration, and what it means for everyone outside the very top tier, actually shows up.