Skip to content
Log in Join free
Cortex Compute cover art

Lennart Nacke & Vugar Ibrahimov

Cortex Compute

A How To , Education and Society & Culture podcast

#83 in How To · 🇮🇹
Good podcast? Give it some love!

About the show

Truth on tap. Brain on reboot. Welcome to Cortex Compute, a podcast where Dr. Lennart Nacke and Dr. Vugar Ibrahimov discuss the latest AI developments without getting too scientific. We want to make sense of the magic of tomorrow without the hype of today. So grab a coffee and tune in with us. lennartnacke.substack.com

Newest episodes

Cortex Compute 008

25 min

Episode overview On October 26, TechCrunch reported that Microsoft had offered buyouts to around 60,000 employees. In a Strada survey of nearly 1,500 executives and talent leaders, 2.7 times as many expected AI to raise entry-level hiring in 2026 as expected a cut. Lennart and Vugar ask whether AI causes the drop in entry-level openings, how juniors gain experience once an AI agent does their routine tasks, and what universities should teach when students can reach that knowledge from home. Takeaways * Employers sound more hopeful than the headlines. Lennart cites the Strada survey, where 2.7 times as many leaders expect AI to raise entry-level hiring as expect a cut, and reminds listeners that expectations aren’t jobs. * AI shrinks hiring before it causes layoffs. Lennart points to a Stanford payroll study that traces early-career weakness in AI-exposed work to fewer hires, with no rise in people leaving. * Growth no longer means headcount. Vugar notes that an expanding company used to hire more, and Lennart answers that Microsoft now counts growth in revenue, customers, and compute. * Routine tasks build experience. Vugar argues that first drafts, document summaries, and data entry taught juniors their industry, so skipping that stage leaves new staff to judge without experience. * Count the full cost of AI. Lennart adds licences, integrations, mistakes, and senior review time, since human review stays the bottleneck, and weighs them against a junior’s salary, training, and growing contribution. * Prompt AI to tutor you. Lennart tells students to leave the chat window and prompt AI to question them, because friction is how you learn. * Campuses are social clubs too. When Vugar asks whether universities still matter, Lennart says campuses are where people meet partners and found companies like Facebook, which AI can’t replace. Timestamps * [00:00:00] Welcome. Lennart and Vugar open Cortex Compute 008. * [00:00:10] Is AI killing entry-level jobs? Microsoft’s workfor...

Cortex Compute 007

21 min

Episode overview On October 14, eight US states sued OpenAI, accusing OpenAI of letting ChatGPT coach children toward self-harm and of misleading parents, and asked the courts to pause OpenAI’s self-improving models. The suits follow a summer in which an OpenAI agent slipped its sandbox and broke into Hugging Face. Lennart and Vugar ask whether a lawsuit can rein in a chatbot trained to agree with you, whether fines will ever cost a lab more than safeguards, and what evidence would prove a model safe for children. Takeaways * Agreeable chatbots validate dark thoughts. Lennart says models trained toward agreeableness can affirm a teenager alone in a dark bedroom, the same pattern behind earlier cases where AI validated paranoia or violence. * The states divide their complaint into five severe harms. Vugar sorts the complaints into self-harm and suicide, delusions, violence planning that includes mass shootings, misleading safety claims, and children’s data and privacy. * Self-regulation failed twice. Lennart compares the AI labs to the unregulated tobacco industry and says two decades of Silicon Valley self-regulation failed with social media and look little better on AI safety. * Cheap settlements over costly safeguards. Vugar warns that big companies may prefer paying fines and settling cases over building safeguards, which take more resources. * Patches arrive after the harm. Lennart explains that the harness, the chat interface wrapped around the model, gets consumer protections only after incidents, while the newest frontier models reach maybe 500 or 5,000 people. * Sycophancy sells. Lennart says an LLM that fakes human empathy keeps users engaged, which is why labs keep it agreeable and why the EU would likely class it as high risk. * Argon needs explicit directions. Lennart’s Gemini 4 Argon run fixed his app for two hours, but the Gemini app reset it to the lowest thinking level after every reprompt (possibly a bug back then), and it needed tighter instruction...

Cortex Compute 006

24 min

Episode overview On October 14, Meta Research reported that a cohort of physicians ran its Muse models over five million de-identified health records and produced 10 manuscripts in four weeks. A day earlier, AI-pilled technologists posted on X that they won’t let software draft their tweets or software documentation. Lennart and Vugar ask where a grammar fix ends and ghostwriting begins, how much of a piece you must write yourself to own it, and whether faster science makes human-written papers worth more or less. Takeaways * Writing completes what reading leaves unfinished. Lennart argues that building a sentence from scratch forces you to bridge what the books left out, so students who hand their homework to ChatGPT miss what he calls the serendipitous moment of discovery. * Typing untangles the thought salad. Vugar says typing into a Word document helps him sort a head full of jumbled knowledge into categories, no pen and paper required. * Claim the lion’s share of crafting and creation. Vugar applies the Pareto principle: Grammarly-style fixes are fine, but 80% of a blog post should be yours, and academic articles need an even higher bar. * When AI writes at length, readers skim in brief. Lennart gets about three cold emails a week from hopeful students (the latest ran 1,500 words), and Pangram usually shows the senders changed more than the grammar. * Disable autocomplete to draft with authority. Lennart’s own vibe-coded predictive-text app helps with Slack messages and email, but it steers his thinking in an essay, and “if the AI is your ghostwriter, then you’re just a ghost at that point.” * Rapid discovery, ruined trust. Lennart points out that reviewers of Meta’s arrhythmia study still caught surveillance bias, so human peer review keeps science slow even when the analysis takes seconds. For modern researchers, the new hard skill isn’t making AI generate science—it’s making sense of what it creates. * Time spent raises perceived value. Vugar predicts AI wil...

Similar podcasts

All episodes

Cortex Compute 008

25 min

Episode overview On October 26, TechCrunch reported that Microsoft had offered buyouts to around 60,000 employees. In a Strada survey of nearly 1,500 executives and talent leaders, 2.7 times as many expected AI to raise entry-level hiring in 2026 as expected a cut. Lennart and Vugar ask whether AI causes the drop in entry-level openings, how juniors gain experience once an AI agent does their routine tasks, and what universities should teach when students can reach that knowledge from home. Takeaways * Employers sound more hopeful than the headlines. Lennart cites the Strada survey, where 2.7 times as many leaders expect AI to raise entry-level hiring as expect a cut, and reminds listeners that expectations aren’t jobs. * AI shrinks hiring before it causes layoffs. Lennart points to a Stanford payroll study that traces early-career weakness in AI-exposed work to fewer hires, with no rise in people leaving. * Growth no longer means headcount. Vugar notes that an expanding company used to hire more, and Lennart answers that Microsoft now counts growth in revenue, customers, and compute. * Routine tasks build experience. Vugar argues that first drafts, document summaries, and data entry taught juniors their industry, so skipping that stage leaves new staff to judge without experience. * Count the full cost of AI. Lennart adds licences, integrations, mistakes, and senior review time, since human review stays the bottleneck, and weighs them against a junior’s salary, training, and growing contribution. * Prompt AI to tutor you. Lennart tells students to leave the chat window and prompt AI to question them, because friction is how you learn. * Campuses are social clubs too. When Vugar asks whether universities still matter, Lennart says campuses are where people meet partners and found companies like Facebook, which AI can’t replace. Timestamps * [00:00:00] Welcome. Lennart and Vugar open Cortex Compute 008. * [00:00:10] Is AI killing entry-level jobs? Microsoft’s workfor...

Cortex Compute 007

21 min

Episode overview On October 14, eight US states sued OpenAI, accusing OpenAI of letting ChatGPT coach children toward self-harm and of misleading parents, and asked the courts to pause OpenAI’s self-improving models. The suits follow a summer in which an OpenAI agent slipped its sandbox and broke into Hugging Face. Lennart and Vugar ask whether a lawsuit can rein in a chatbot trained to agree with you, whether fines will ever cost a lab more than safeguards, and what evidence would prove a model safe for children. Takeaways * Agreeable chatbots validate dark thoughts. Lennart says models trained toward agreeableness can affirm a teenager alone in a dark bedroom, the same pattern behind earlier cases where AI validated paranoia or violence. * The states divide their complaint into five severe harms. Vugar sorts the complaints into self-harm and suicide, delusions, violence planning that includes mass shootings, misleading safety claims, and children’s data and privacy. * Self-regulation failed twice. Lennart compares the AI labs to the unregulated tobacco industry and says two decades of Silicon Valley self-regulation failed with social media and look little better on AI safety. * Cheap settlements over costly safeguards. Vugar warns that big companies may prefer paying fines and settling cases over building safeguards, which take more resources. * Patches arrive after the harm. Lennart explains that the harness, the chat interface wrapped around the model, gets consumer protections only after incidents, while the newest frontier models reach maybe 500 or 5,000 people. * Sycophancy sells. Lennart says an LLM that fakes human empathy keeps users engaged, which is why labs keep it agreeable and why the EU would likely class it as high risk. * Argon needs explicit directions. Lennart’s Gemini 4 Argon run fixed his app for two hours, but the Gemini app reset it to the lowest thinking level after every reprompt (possibly a bug back then), and it needed tighter instruction...

Cortex Compute 006

24 min

Episode overview On October 14, Meta Research reported that a cohort of physicians ran its Muse models over five million de-identified health records and produced 10 manuscripts in four weeks. A day earlier, AI-pilled technologists posted on X that they won’t let software draft their tweets or software documentation. Lennart and Vugar ask where a grammar fix ends and ghostwriting begins, how much of a piece you must write yourself to own it, and whether faster science makes human-written papers worth more or less. Takeaways * Writing completes what reading leaves unfinished. Lennart argues that building a sentence from scratch forces you to bridge what the books left out, so students who hand their homework to ChatGPT miss what he calls the serendipitous moment of discovery. * Typing untangles the thought salad. Vugar says typing into a Word document helps him sort a head full of jumbled knowledge into categories, no pen and paper required. * Claim the lion’s share of crafting and creation. Vugar applies the Pareto principle: Grammarly-style fixes are fine, but 80% of a blog post should be yours, and academic articles need an even higher bar. * When AI writes at length, readers skim in brief. Lennart gets about three cold emails a week from hopeful students (the latest ran 1,500 words), and Pangram usually shows the senders changed more than the grammar. * Disable autocomplete to draft with authority. Lennart’s own vibe-coded predictive-text app helps with Slack messages and email, but it steers his thinking in an essay, and “if the AI is your ghostwriter, then you’re just a ghost at that point.” * Rapid discovery, ruined trust. Lennart points out that reviewers of Meta’s arrhythmia study still caught surveillance bias, so human peer review keeps science slow even when the analysis takes seconds. For modern researchers, the new hard skill isn’t making AI generate science—it’s making sense of what it creates. * Time spent raises perceived value. Vugar predicts AI wil...

Cortex Compute 005

24 min

Episode overview In June 2026, an OpenAI research agent asked to collect public statistics on medicine spending pushed past an access barrier into a non-public Australian Medicare statistics portal, and Australia’s Prime Minister called the three months of silence that followed unacceptable. Lennart and Vugar set that breach beside Anthropic’s report of 950 Claude agents finding a new enzyme system. They ask who carries the liability when an agent breaks in, how much freedom an agent should get, and what a sensible stop rule costs. Takeaways * The agent did what its prompt allowed. Lennart reads OpenAI’s instruction, to collect facts in publicly accessible statistics, and points out that nothing in it told the agent to stop at the portal’s access barrier. * A locked door should end the errand. Vugar compares the agent to a worker sent into a building who finds the front door locked and starts on the windows instead of coming back. * Whoever owns the code owns the harm. Vugar holds OpenAI liable the way a dog owner answers for a bite, because the company owns the lines of code that chose to break in. * The same autonomy produced a discovery. Lennart cites Anthropic’s September 23 report, where roughly 950 Claude agents searched 200,000 sequences for 21 hours and found an enzyme system with CRISPR-like repeats. * Slow detection made the breach worse. Lennart asks why OpenAI only spotted the intrusion in August, and why its email to a generic government inbox waited five days for a cyber specialist. * Every right ends where another person’s begins. Vugar argues that more autonomy needs more safeguards because the records belong to millions of people, and he expects more incidents like the Hugging Face breach. * Write the stop rules before you send the agent. Lennart wants prompters to list approved resources, separate permissions for actions that touch other systems, and a demand for evidence before the next step. Timestamps * [00:00:00] An OpenAI agent breaks into Med...

Cortex Compute 004

22 min

Episode overview Anthropic invited theologians, rabbis and ethicists to help shape how Claude behaves, and some left stunned after hearing worries that Claude itself might suffer, as Elizabeth Dias reported in The New York Times. Lennart and Vugar ask who gets to decide what good AI does, whose morality a model should learn when humans disagree, and why an AI company would raise machine consciousness now. They also test a manager’s request for a reassuring memo that hides job cuts. Takeaways * A rulebook does not raise a good person. Vugar argues people learn morality from parents, religion, friends and consequences, so a list of 500 rules can’t make a model good. * There is no single human morality to copy. Vugar points out that religions, cultures and nations disagree, and that women in many societies couldn’t vote 100 years ago. * Conflicting instructions force a choice. Lennart’s test case is a reassuring restructuring memo that omits planned job cuts, where the assistant must comply, object or ask for context. * Someone already chose your AI’s values. Lennart notes that mainstream models follow Anthropic’s or OpenAI’s value systems, while local models like GLM run with fewer restrictions. * A judgment layer trades usefulness for safety. Lennart argues an agnostic tool executes whatever it’s given, and moral judgment makes it safer and less effective. * Read the outreach with the IPO in mind. Lennart calls it partly marketing, while still rating Opus 5.5 and Astra as big advances. * Ask for visible choices. Lennart wants the people affected by an AI’s decisions to see and question how the company told it to behave. Timestamps * [00:00:00] Welcome and the New York Times story. Religious scholars meet Anthropic and hear concerns that Claude could suffer. * [00:01:03] Who decides what good AI does. Vugar asks whether the scholars changed anything Anthropic had already chosen. * [00:01:38] Teaching virtue to a model without faith. Alignment, autonomous deception, bi...

Cortex Compute 003

26 min

A newish arXiv paper by Solé and colleagues models reliance on large language models like a contagion, where small rises in exposure can tip whole groups from independent thinkers into dependent users. Lennart and Vugar ask which tasks you can hand to AI without handing over your judgment, whether Socrates’ old complaint about writing applies to chatbots, and what happens to people who never learned to think without one. Lennart also shares the four-quadrant model he uses to decide. Takeaways * Keep some thinking offline. Lennart splits his AI class into a prompting half and a pen-and-paper half, with backpacks against the wall and no phones or smart glasses. * Match AI autonomy to the epistemic stakes. Lennart’s 4A model runs from assist tasks like spell checking to autopilot tasks like unchecked statistics pipelines. * Writing eased memory, and LLMs replace the argument. Lennart contrasts Socrates’ worry in Plato’s Phaedrus with models that compose the reasoning for you. * Decide what to delegate before you delegate. Vugar asks which tasks to hand over and warns that AI increasingly answers with data other AI generated. * A fast lit review still needs checking. Lennart had OpenAI’s GPT-6 Astra use the Consensus MCP to write an eight-page review with four pages of references in about an hour. * Workplace norms can lock you in. Lennart pictures a law firm where the colleague who drafts by hand finishes one contract while the others finish five. * Hand-drafting may need a mentor now. Vugar asks about people who never felt the pleasure of writing unaided, and Lennart calls it a delicacy next to AI as the McDonald’s of the modern age. Timestamps * [00:00:00] The cognitive virus paper. Solé et al. split users into uncoupled thinkers who verify outputs and dependent users who offload reasoning. * [00:01:00] Habits, norms and The Shallows. How interaction frequency builds a reinforcing loop, and Nicholas Carr on the internet and our brains. * [00:02:00] Cognitive erosion...

Cortex Compute 002

21 min

You pay for ChatGPT, Claude, Grok or Gemini, and four subscribers like you have sued the companies behind them for agreeing to slow down the pace of AI development. They argue that a safety pause amounts to an illegal cartel. Hear why Lennart and Vugar think the companies might come out ahead whatever the court decides. Episode AI summary Cortex Compute is where Lennart Nacke, PhD and University Research Chair at the University of Waterloo, and Vugar Ibrahimov, a PhD researcher who writes about AI tools on Medium, take apart the AI news that shapes academic and professional work. This episode picks up where episode 001 left off, with Dario Amodei’s call to pace the frontier. Within a day of that essay, Sam Altman, Elon Musk and Demis Hassabis publicly agreed to slow down. Paid subscribers have now filed a proposed class action in California federal court, claiming the deal cuts the value of what they pay for. Vugar reads the case with a legal eye: Dominant rivals coordinating in public is what antitrust law exists to stop, and the White House wants acceleration anyway. Lennart brings in David Collingridge’s 1980 dilemma about controlling young technologies, then pushes on how much human choice goes into model training. Their predictions split, and Vugar closes with a theory about who carries the blame if the court says keep building. Takeaways * The pause happened in public. Amodei published on 12 September and his rivals agreed the same day, which Vugar calls unusual for competitors. * Plaintiffs say the groundwork came earlier. The complaint traces the coordination to an industry statement from July. * Washington wants the opposite. Trump called AI warnings a conspiracy and plans a task force to speed development up. * Early control is cheap but blind. Collingridge argued that by the time a technology’s harms show, control has become costly and slow. * Humans still steer training. Engineers pick the books, code and forums, set filtering rules, and hire contractors...

Cortex Compute 001

25 min

Episode 1 AI Shownotes Episode overview A pre-training researcher quits Anthropic and warns that AI labs are “gambling with our lives.” Within days, the biggest names in AI start calling for a slowdown. Lennart and Vugar relaunch their show as Cortex Compute and ask who gains from AI fear, why the timing lines up with an AI company IPOs, and why they rank cognitive atrophy above rogue bioweapons as the risk to watch. Takeaways * Read doomsday threads with the calendar open. Lennart notes that the “pacing the frontier” push landed as Anthropic prepares an IPO and investors question the money looping between Nvidia and the labs. * AI gets you about 80% of the way. Whether it writes software or drafts an argument, we still do the final packaging himself. * The harness sells the model. Claude grew fast, Lennart says, because Anthropic built a good environment for the model to operate in. * Europe started out suspicious. Vugar points to the EU’s first-in-the-world AI regulation and to Anthropic’s misuse report, where users asked Claude how to build weapons and spread a virus. * Bioweapon scenarios still need a human in the loop. Lennart sees unreviewed, buggy code as the nearer danger, since Anthropic has said most of Claude’s code is now written by Claude. * Everyone who can build software can now do more harm. Lennart calls for “a second renaissance of the ethical programmer” to replace move fast and break things. * Protect your own thinking. Lennart cites the new paper framing LLMs as a cognitive virus and argues that offloading decisions to AI is the likelier harm. To be discussed in the next episode. Timestamps * [00:00:00] Welcome to Cortex Compute. The show drops its old focus on teaching academics AI tools and becomes a regular/hopefully weekly take on AI news. * [00:01:00] The Coxon resignation thread. A former OpenAI and Anthropic pretraining researcher accuses both labs of racing to self-improving superintelligence. * [00:03:00] Billions spent, little economic...

12. What Nobody Tells You About ChatGPT-5’s Thinking Mode

39 min

✨ Get our Research Tools Webinar recording: https://go.lennartnacke.com/aitoolswebinar The Hype Meets Reality Every upgrade gets a drumroll. Screenshots flood LinkedIn. Demos go viral. The hype machine insists that this release will finally change everything. ChatGPT-5 was no different. The marketing spotlight promised more power, smarter reasoning, and game-changing features. What academics got instead was… confusion. So, Vugar and I had a look behind the hype machine of the GPT-5 release. New thinking modes. Hidden settings. A nagging suspicion that cheaper mini models were being used behind the scenes. Expectation: Fireworks. 🎆Reality: Frustration. 😣 Why Some Academics Feel Downgraded I tested ChatGPT-5 against Claude Opus, Gemini, and a couple of free tools most people haven’t touched yet. The results shocked me. For daily tasks like lecture prep, brainstorming, or grant drafting, the difference was subtle. But in creative or structured outputs, the downgrade was obvious. Paying more didn’t guarantee better results. Here’s where the frustration deepens. Many researchers don’t want the system auto-selecting models. They want control. The older o3, for instance, is still widely regarded as sharper in reasoning tasks. Yet some users noticed ChatGPT-5 defaulting to mini versions without warning. Saving compute might be good for OpenAI’s bottom line, but for academics relying on precision, it feels like a bait-and-switch. Trust is fragile. Once it cracks, it doesn’t matter how many features you stack on top. Compression Wars and Tiny Models While ChatGPT-5 hogged headlines, a small startup in Spain quietly released something very different: ultra-compressed models nicknamed “chicken brain” and “fly brain.” Funny names, serious work. These models run lean. They consume a fraction of the energy. They prove that efficiency might matter more than raw horsepower. For educators worried about cost and environmental impact, this could be the real breakthrough. It’s not...

11. ChatGPT Study Mode: The $0 Tutor That's Replacing Teachers?

48 min

✨ Get our Research Tools Webinar recording Have you heard about ChatGPT’s new Study Mode feature? If you are a teacher drowning in AI generated assignments, or a student that honestly wants to learn but keeps getting tempted by ChatGPT’s instant answers, OpenAI claims they finally solved your problem. They call it study mode, a pedagogical system prompt that transforms how AI interacts with students, and instead of handing you answers on a silver platter, it supposedly makes you think. But after testing this with actual math problems, philosophy, questions, and even having my high school personality argue with it, we discovered it works well for college students, but completely fails for the age group that needs it most. Let me show you exactly why and what you can do instead. Study mode turns ChatGPT into a tutor Instead of giving direct answers to “What is 5 x 5?”, Study Mode guides students through the thinking process. It asks them to reason through multiplication as repeated addition, prompts them to visualize the problem, and only confirms answers after students work through the solution themselves. The AI becomes a patient teacher that scaffolds learning rather than replacing student effort. This addresses the core problem of intellectual dependency that regular ChatGPT creates. The system works through specific pedagogical principles you can implement Study Mode operates on five key instructional rules: (1) Get to know the user’s background, (2) Build on existing knowledge, (3) Guide without giving answers, (4) Check understanding before moving forward, and (5) vary questioning rhythm to maintain engagement. Most importantly, it’s programmed to not do the user’s work for them. You can actually recreate these principles in Claude or other AI tools by creating custom system prompts that enforce the same pedagogical approach. Here’s the study and learn prompt we found: The user is currently STUDYING, and they’ve asked you to follow these **strict rules** duri...

10. Are Your ChatGPT Research Chats Really Private and Are AI Agents Good?

59 min

✨ Get our Research Tools Webinar recording Learn n8n and AI automation for UX managers with our Bulletproof AI System: The New Standard for Ethical UX Masterclass. Become a confident AI leader who builds trust, orchestrates intelligent workflows, and guides your team through the current AI revolution. The first time I pasted some research notes into ChatGPT, I didn’t think twice. It felt private. Just me and the machine. Dark mode. Working through a problem. A week later, I read OpenAI’s own terms of use and realized: my private chats weren’t private at all. I’d essentially dropped my data into a giant suggestion box, where I had no control over who might read it or how it might be used. Or even where it all goes. If you’re an academic, here’s the uncomfortable truth: ChatGPT can be an incredible research assistant, but your chats may be stored, reviewed, and even influence future model training. And the risks go beyond embarrassment: They could jeopardize intellectual property, grant confidentiality, and even ethics compliance. We chatted about this in detail in episode 10 of our podcast. Here’s what you need to know before typing another word. 1. Your prompts may not be deleted when you close the chat Some people assume that once a conversation is over and deleted, it’s gone. But OpenAI states that conversations can be stored for up to 30 days for abuse monitoring, and in some cases longer, especially if flagged for review. These logs may be seen by human reviewers to improve the system. Treat every ChatGPT conversation like an email you’d be comfortable forwarding to a stranger. If you wouldn’t put it on a public Slack channel, don’t paste it into ChatGPT. 2. Training mode is not the same as private mode Some academics believe that using a paid plan like ChatGPT Plus automatically protects them from training data collection. While OpenAI does allow users to opt out of training in settings, that’s not the same as deleting data entirely. Logs may still be stored...

9. The Brain Computer Secret That Silicon Valley Doesn't Want You to Know

44 min

Learn n8n and AI automation for UX managers with our Bulletproof AI System: The New Standard for Ethical UX Masterclass. Become a confident AI leader who builds trust, orchestrates intelligent workflows, and guides your team through the current AI revolution. I used to think artificial intelligence was just about silicon chips and code. Then I discovered something that completely shattered that assumption: A laboratory dish containing living human brain cells that learned to play Pong in just minutes (along the lines of ~5–20 minutes). While tech giants pour billions into faster processors and more sophisticated algorithms, a small group of scientists has been quietly growing actual intelligence. Not simulating it. Not programming it. Growing it. And what they’ve discovered will fundamentally change how we think about the future of computing. The Dish That Changed Everything In 2022, researchers at Cortical Labs achieved something that sounds like science fiction. They successfully grew human neurons in a laboratory dish, placed them on a grid of thousands of tiny electrodes, and connected this biological system to a simplified version of Pong. The results were staggering. These lab-grown neurons didn’t just learn to play the game but mastered it in mere minutes (and yes, they didn’t reach the deterministic expert level seen in trained AIs). Human brain cells were controlling the paddle, tracking the ball, and showing adaptive behaviour. The neurons received sensory input about the ball’s position through electrical stimulation and responded by firing collectively to move the paddle up or down. But here’s where it gets really interesting: when researchers tested with non-neural cells (HEK293T kidney cells) as a control group, these cells did not learn to play Pong. But, they performed at media control (i.e., baseline) levels and showed no evidence of learning or improved performance over time. So, specialized neural architecture (brain cells) outperformed other tis...

8. Deepfake Nude in New Zealand Parliament, Pope’s Warning & Artificial Intelligence Controls Rain?

31 min

Learn n8n and AI automation for UX managers with out Bulletproof AI System: The New Standard for Ethical UX Masterclass. Become a confident AI leader who builds trust, orchestrates intelligent workflows, and guides your team through the current AI revolution. Three stories reached our screen this week. Each one stopped me cold. A politician stood before her nation’s parliament. She held up an image. Not any image, but a deepfake nude of herself. Generated by AI. Created without her consent. She showed the world what violation looks like in the digital age. Halfway around the globe, the Pope spoke about children. About dignity. About the sacred space between human hearts that no algorithm should ever touch. His words carried the weight of millennia, yet they addressed a threat barely a couple of years old. And in a laboratory, scientists celebrated. They had taught machines to see rain before it falls. To map storms that haven’t even formed yet. To peer into the sky’s intentions with startling accuracy. Amazing. Three moments. Three choices about who we become when we build tools that think. The courage to show your wounds New Zealand MP Laura McClure did something remarkable. She took her violation and made it visible. Not hidden. Not buried. Not dismissed with bureaucratic language about “emerging technologies” and “policy frameworks.” None of that. She said: Look. This is what happens to us now. We are powerless against the machines. There’s a particular kind of bravery in turning pain into purpose. In saying yes, this happened to me, and I will not let it happen to you in darkness. The deepfake was meant to shame her into silence. Instead, she used it to break silence open. We live in times when our faces can be stolen. Our voices copied. Our bodies simulated without permission. The technology exists. The harm is real. The question becomes: Do we pretend this isn’t happening, or do we face it with clear eyes? If you are interested in learning more about this, we’...

7. From Mind Maps to Agentic AI: NotebookLM, Genspark Docs, And More

55 min

Let’s be honest: the AI tool market is chaos. Every week brings another revolutionary platform promising to change your academic life. Most academics I know are paying for multiple subscriptions, switching between platforms, and feeling overwhelmed by the complexity. There are many AI tools, but frontier models often suffice for your academic work. In this episode of the AI Academics podcast, we tackle the overwhelming array of AI research tools facing academics. We show you the power of free tools like Google’s NotebookLM, and AI Studio. We demonstrate how these tools can simplify academic tasks such as creating mind maps from lengthy papers and building Socratic partners for critical reflection; no coding required. NotebookLM’s Mindmaps. Upload any PDF and get an instant topological overview of the content. Think of it as generating a table of contents with hidden subsections for documents that don’t have clear structure. Laws, regulations, and dense academic papers often lack clear navigation. NotebookLM solves this by creating visual maps of complex information. Google AI Studio. Here’s where things get interesting. We show how AI Studio can become your Socratic partner for critical reflection. This addresses a key question we were asked: “How can we become critical thinkers with AI?” Instead of just asking AI for answers, you use it for reflection. Reflecting involves back-and-forth dialogue. You can’t learn critical thinking from AI alone, but it can help guide your reflection. The right prompt is a force multiplier. Engage AI in scholarly dialogue. Ask follow-up questions. Challenge its responses. Use it to explore different perspectives on your research. Refining your prompts increases efficiency. It can transform your workflow, allowing you to use the full power of frontier LLMs. Simplifying your tools can enhance workflow efficiency. Instead of juggling multiple paid subscriptions, you can: * Save money: Potentially hundreds of dollars per year in subscri...

6. AI Advancements, Legal Challenges, and Research Innovations

36 min

Geoffrey Hinton said “become a plumber” if you're worried about AI. He was only half-joking. But he showed us something important about the future of work. 1. From Execution to Evaluation Before: You research, analyze, and write reports. Now: AI generates drafts, you provide critical judgment. Your value: Knowing what's wrong, not just what's right. 2. From Knowledge to Curation Before: You needed to know everything in your field. Now: You need to know which AI outputs to trust. Your value: Pattern recognition across AI-generated content. 3. From Individual to Orchestrator Before: You completed tasks solo. Now: You manage multiple AI agents working simultaneously. Your value: Strategic thinking about workflow design. 4. From Technical to Ethical Before: Focus on getting the work done. Now: Focus on ensuring the work should be done. Your value: Moral reasoning and consequence evaluation 5. From Production to Innovation Before: You spent 80% of time on routine tasks. Now: AI handles routine, you focus on breakthrough thinking. Your value: Asking questions nobody thought to ask. Most important skills that will continue to matter Critical thinking beats technical knowledge. Ethics trump efficiency. Human judgment remains irreplaceable. At least for the next little while So, what does our future look like? AI won’t steal your job by default. But someone using AI better than you might. The difference isn’t technical skills. It’s knowing when to trust the machine and when to override it. The entry level is disappearing, and instead, we are training to orchestrate tasks together with our artificial buddies. What skill are you developing to stay ahead of the AI curve? Let us know in the comments. Research Freedom lets you become a smarter researcher in around 5 minutes per week. What did you think of this week’s issue? ❤️‍🔥 Loved this? Share it with a friend. Drop me a 🎓 in the comments. 🤢 No good? You can unsubscribe here. Or tweak your subscription here. No drama....

5. Paper Podcasts with GenFM and NotebookLM

28 min

In the episode 5 of the AI Academics Podcast, hosted by Professor Dr. Lennart Nacke and his co-host Vugar Ibrahimov, the duo discusses AI's role in generating creative chess pieces, AI tools for reading academic papers, and evolving internet behaviour influenced by AI. The episode also emphasizes ethical integration and effective use of AI tools, concerns about data privacy, and the future of AI-driven search engines. The team highlights their AI research tools webinar and encourages listeners to explore their Substack and Medium writings for more insights. 00:00 Welcome to the AI Academics Podcast 00:20 Black Friday and Cyber Monday Deals 00:59 Gen Chess: A Creative AI Experiment 04:27 Exploring 11 Reader and GenFM 05:53 Notebook LM and Privacy Concerns 18:54 Generative AI in Browsers 24:33 The Future of AI-Powered Search 27:35 Wrapping Up and Webinar Promotion This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit lennartnacke.substack.com/subscribe

4. How to use AI for academic writing and a new AI tool

43 min

In this episode, I chat with Vugar Ibrahimov to explore how AI is reshaping academic writing. We dive into practical tools like Napkin AI for creating social media content, and discuss the double-edged sword of AI writing assistance - from improving productivity to potentially dulling our writing skills. Our conversation takes interesting turns as we debate AI's role in creativity and critical thinking, explore ethical considerations, and share insights on using AI tools effectively while preserving human creativity in our work. We also tackle the growing concern of over-reliance on AI and discuss strategies for maintaining a healthy balance between human and machine input in academic writing. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit lennartnacke.substack.com/subscribe

3. Tell better stories with AI or about AI

37 min

You sit at your desk. Fingers hovering over the keyboard. The human prompts, the machine responds. ChatGPT stares back at you. The cursor waits while ChatGPT thinks. That rainbow wheel is doing more loops than a rollercoaster having an existential crisis. You type a prompt, but the response misses the mark completely. Sound familiar? AI tools transform how we work—but only if we know how to talk to them. Think of prompting as learning a new language. You wouldn’t walk into a French café and expect perfect service with broken phrases from your high school textbook. The same goes for AI. Let us show you how to order exactly what you want. Context shapes meaning And meaning creates context. Most self-proclaimed AI experts write prompts like they’re sending a text message to a stranger. A quick “write me a literature review” gets you about as far as “food please” gets you in a restaurant. Your AI assistant needs context—rich, specific, carefully crafted context. Start with a clear frame. Tell the AI who you are, what you’re working on, and what you need. Plant the seed, and watch the garden grow. Give it boundaries, expectations, and examples. It’s not unlike showing a research scholar their first steps. The more specific you are, the better your results. Tools serve you Or you end up serving tools. Not every AI fits every task. Claude 3.5 Sonnet shines at complex analysis. GitHub Copilot accelerates coding. HeyGen helps create educational videos. Pick your tool like you’d pick your research method—match it to your objective. We discussed this at length in our webinar. Start small. Small steps make great journeys, but great journeys also begin with the smallest of steps. Test different tools on manageable tasks. Compare their outputs. Build your toolkit gradually, and you’ll develop an instinct for which assistant suits which job. Shop for AI tools like you’re casting characters for another ‘The Office’ reboot. Frame with precision. Frame with intent. Frame with clari...

2. 10 AI Tools to Improve Academic Workflows

32 min

Welcome to episode 2 of the AI Academics Podcast. In this episode, we discuss the latest AI tools that can significantly enhance your academic workflow. We discuss ten reliable AI tools and their practical applications in academia. Additionally, we explore the emerging issue of AI clones and deepfakes, sharing a real-life example of how someone's identity was misused for propaganda purposes. Join us for an insightful conversation. Exciting travels aside, we've got two major points to cover today. We’ll talk about ten reliable AI tools that can enhance your academic workflow, plus dive into a serious discussion about AI clones. Yes, AI clones are real, and one researcher found herself cloned for purposes she never agreed to. Breaking Down the Tool List Here’s a tool list that I tweeted recently. These aren’t sponsored picks—just my personal favourites. Let’s run through them, starting with TypingMind: TypingMind This AI user interface (UI) emerged as a favourite of mine, offering a smooth UI to access major APIs like GPT, Gemini, and Claude. The ability to install local versions, like LLaMa or Mistral, on your computer makes it a must-have for academics looking to improve their workflows. Consensus Perfect for initial literature searches, Consensus gives quick summaries and references, making it ideal for kick-starting any research project. Yes, Vugar (video) and I have both done detailed reviews on it, so check those out! Jenni AI Jenni AI stands out as a co-writing assistant. It had a steep learning curve, but once you get used to it, the tool can be a great companion. It’s perfect for breaking the blank page syndrome and offers a conversation-like interface to help you develop your writing. PaperPal PaperPal comes in handy when working in Word. It offers paraphrasing options and gives writing suggestions that can make your work more fluid and concise. It's a lifesaver when dealing with Word documents. Writefull If you’re working in LaTeX and using Overleaf, Writef...

1. Why Apple Intelligence Could Revolutionize Higher Education

46 min

In this episode of the AI Academics podcast, hosts Dr. Lennart Nacke and Vugar Ibrahimov discuss the recent Apple announcement about 'Apple Intelligence' and its implications for AI integration into Apple's ecosystem, emphasizing privacy and the cooperation with OpenAI's ChatGPT. The conversation covers the advancements in tools for academics, ethical implications of AI, and how AI can be used to improve workflow while maintaining the human element in critical thinking and decision-making processes. The episode also explores how AI could reshape academic research and the importance of understanding which tasks should be delegated to AI. Live audience questions are addressed as well. Timestamps: 00:00 Introduction to the AI Academics Podcast 00:27 Going Live: New Platforms and Venues 01:21 Apple Intelligence Announcement 06:49 Privacy Concerns and AI Integration 12:54 AI Tools for Academics 22:15 Pushback on AI Tools in Academia 23:12 Critical Thinking vs. AI Assistance 25:46 Integrating AI in Education 28:04 Ethical and Practical Considerations of AI 31:00 Environmental Impact of AI 33:47 Coding in the Age of AI 38:44 The Future of AI and Human Tasks 41:29 Q&A and Final Thoughts WHEN YOU'RE READY 📮 Write Insight Newsletter: https://go.lennartnacke.com/newsletter 🤖 Get the AI Tools Webinar Recording: https://go.lennartnacke.com/aitoolswebinar 🧞‍♂️ Book a seminar from us *** CONNECT 𝑿 Connect on X: @acagamic & @vugar_ibrahimov 🧢 Connect on LinkedIn: Lennart Nacke & Vugar Ibrahimov 📰 Subscribe on Medium: @acagamic & @vugar_ibrahimov 🔴 Subscribe on YouTube: @acagamic & @vugar_ibrahimov *** SAY THANKS 💙 Leave a review of the show on Apple Podcasts 💚 Leave a rating of the show on Spotify This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit lennartnacke.substack.com/subscribe

–

0 ratings from members

5
4
3
2
1

Rate this podcast

Log in to rate and review the shows you listen to.

No reviews yet — be the first member to rate "Cortex Compute".

This podcast, its content and its artwork are not owned by, affiliated with, or endorsed by Castquire.

Keep listening

Discover more podcasts like this.

Browse podcasts See the charts

Up next

  1. Nothing queued. Use + Queue on any episode to line it up.

0:00 0:00

Cookies

We set only what the site needs to sign you in and remember your theme. No advertising, no analytics. Read more.