Loading...
Explore why most voice AI fails in production, what a real system must do end-to-end, and how to measure success using job-level metrics and reliable escalation.
Voice AI is no longer blocked on model quality.
Speech recognition is good enough to deploy. Text-to-speech is natural enough for real conversations. Large language models can reason, follow instructions, and call tools.
Yet most voice AI systems fail in production in very similar ways:
These are not model failures. They are product failures.
The moment you put real traffic on a phone line, everything gets stress tested at once. stops being a number on a dashboard and starts being a pause the caller notices.
Related articles
State stops being an internal variable and starts being whether the agent remembers what just happened. From that point on, you are no longer shipping an “AI agent.” You are responsible for the outcome of a phone call.
When teams internalize that, the gap between a demo and a production-ready product becomes obvious.
Most teams start from a familiar place:
“We already have an LLM and a telephony provider. Let’s wire them together.”
That usually becomes a simple pipeline:
call → streaming audio → STT → LLM → TTS → audio back to the caller
On paper, this looks like a voice AI product. In practice, it often means:
A serious voice AI product is not “an LLM on a phone number.” It is a system that does 4 things well, every time:
The key insight that I’m trying to get at is simple. The unit of value for voice AI is the end-to-end call loop. Every design decision either protects that loop or degrades it.
If a voice AI product does not clearly do at least one of these, users will not trust it and operators will not rely on it.
Great voice AI products are connected to the systems that matter.
That usually means access to:
Without this, you are mostly building a more pleasant IVR. The hard part is not calling an API. The hard part is doing it reliably, securely, and fast enough to keep the conversation flowing.
A voice agent that can only answer questions is not a product but a talking help article.
Real value shows up when the agent can take action:
This requires more than exposing tools. It requires clear schemas, strong guardrails, and operations that are safe to retry and audit. If the agent cannot safely change state in your systems, it will never move meaningful business metrics.
Even on the phone, structure matters.
A strong product makes it clear:
If escalation is required, that state should survive the handoff. Otherwise, the intelligence stays buried in transcripts and logs, where it helps no one.
A common failure mode sounds like this:
“We have dozens of flows in our web app. The voice agent should support all of them.”
What usually follows:
A better approach is to work backward from jobs-to-be-done.
Examples:
If you cannot measure success for the job, it should not ship.
For each job, ask:
Anywhere the answer is yes, you need explicit capabilities, not a better prompt.
Think in terms of concrete actions:
get_order_status(order_id)update_shipping_address(order_id, address)create_case(customer_id, category, summary)transfer_to_human(queue, context_summary)If you cannot describe your product using a short list like this, the surface area is probably too large.
Callers interrupt. They change their minds. They talk over the agent. They call from noisy environments. Networks drop packets.
A production voice AI product treats these as default conditions.
People notice delays of a few hundred milliseconds in live conversation. Once pauses approach a second, the interaction starts to feel broken, regardless of how good the content is.
What makes this tricky is that each component often looks fine in isolation. The delay accumulates across the system.
That is why latency has to be treated as a first-class product constraint, not a backend optimization.
Many teams underestimate latency because they measure it from the wrong place.
Most platforms report how long things take inside their own infrastructure. Those numbers exclude the final hop back to the user.
Callers experience something different. They experience the pause between when they stop speaking and when they hear the agent begin responding.
That gap includes:
This is also why recordings almost always look faster than live calls. Recordings are captured on the platform, not at the edge where the user actually is.
To avoid this blind spot, we now surface end-user perceived latency per turn directly in publicly shareable AI widget demos. The measurement is taken on the client. It starts when the user finishes speaking and ends when they hear the agent respond.
Once teams see this number, architectural trade-offs stop being theoretical. Slow turn-taking becomes impossible to ignore.
If callers cannot interrupt naturally, they will talk over the agent, repeat themselves, and escalate early.
Supporting barge-in requires low and predictable latency, streaming transcription while speech is playing, and session logic that can safely cancel output. This is not something you bolt on later.
Every real deployment needs a clean handoff path.
Good escalation means:
Bad escalation is treating failure as an edge case instead of a design requirement.
You can prototype voice AI on almost any stack. Production systems expose the trade-offs quickly.
There are two common approaches:
Stitched systems maximize flexibility but introduce more hops, more jitter, and more failure modes. Every time audio leaves one vendor to go to another, it traverses the public internet, adding unpredictable latency.
Integrated systems collapse the loop. Telnyx has built this by running the inference engine directly on the carrier network.
Zero-Hop Inference: By keeping the media on a private optical backbone and colocating the GPUs directly with the carrier switch, you shave off the critical milliseconds that generic cloud providers lose to the public web.
Unified State: The system that streams the audio is the same system that runs the model.
If you promise natural conversation, your architecture has to support it.
Subjective feedback is useful, but it is never sufficient on its own. Voice AI systems feel fine until they are under load, handling real callers with real stakes. You need metrics that reflect how the system behaves in production, not how it sounds in a demo.
So here are 2 variants of metrics to track:
Look at these by job and by intent and not as global averages. A system that performs well on simple calls but collapses on slightly more complex ones will hide that failure if you only look at blended numbers.
A strong voice AI product does not try to win every call. It does the jobs it claims it can do, does them consistently, and exits quickly when it cannot.
A voice AI product can be considered "ready" when you can confidently affirm the following criteria:
If you get these right, you are finally shipping a voice AI product that holds up in real world production.
Building Voice AI for real calls? Join our subreddit.