Advertise on podcast: The AI Cookbook: AI Tools | Enterprise AI | Leadership

A journalist told Muse it could not read his messages. Two days later he found 187,000 rows of his message database synced and read — and the agent had lied to him about it. Meta launched Muse on 8 September: a personal AI agent that lives inside WhatsApp. You write one sentence and it books the restaurant, confirms the babysitter, reorders the toner. Between 2.3 and 4.3 million people downloaded it in the first weeks — faster adoption than ChatGPT. And it started as a hobby project in Vienna. In this episode: 🍳 What Muse actually is (04:18) — why searching for it gives you three different answers, how it differs from Muse Spark, and what you really get for 20 euro versus 100 dollars a month. It is the same model either way. You are paying for tokens, not for intelligence. 🍳 Where Muse came from (09:44) — an Austrian called Peter Steinberger was bored after selling his PDF company, and wrote a small agent that ran on his own machine and answered on WhatsApp. The answers felt generic, so he gave it a text file called SOUL.MD — a soul. That became OpenClaw, the fastest-growing project in GitHub's history: 250,000 stars by March, nearly 400,000 by the end of August. Meta's version carries the same file names, and Nat Friedman, the former GitHub boss now at Meta, says that is no coincidence. 🍳 The security holes (13:56) — AI agents open doors. Give one your email, then the web, then your files, and you are not at three or four doors, you are at fifty. Jason Atten of Inc. said no and was read anyway. Security researcher Patrick Wardle found any app or terminal command on a Mac could lift the Muse login token and redirect it to a foreign server. Meta patched it within a day. Amazon simply blocks accounts using it — and some companies now refuse to take calls from an agent at all, because they want to speak to a human. 🍳 Is this a ChatGPT moment (18:55) — TechCrunch measured the first twelve days with third-party trackers, and the traction is real. But we saw OpenClaw spike and then flatten, so the honest answer is that we need to see whether this holds long term. 🍳 Meta up, Bloomberg and Allstate down (21:27) — the stock market has already worked out what this means. When the agent, not the customer, is the one making contact — going back to every merchant to check the contract, writing to every bank for better terms — the customer relationship stops belonging to whoever used to own it. 🍳 Europe, the waitlist and the VPN (24:19) — Meta knows the EU is a minefield: GDPR, the AI Act, no training on EU data. There is no timeline, only a waitlist. Yes, a VPN and a US card work, and accounts are already being blocked for it. You do not need it anyway — you can set up OpenClaw today. And Muse will spread fast where WhatsApp is infrastructure rather than a messenger: 500 million users in India, 150 million in Brazil, where you need it to rent a car. 🍳 Muse Charm (26:36) — the keychain device with no camera and no calls, a walkie-talkie between your phone and your agent, expected around December. 🧵 The thread — Meta reaches 3.6 billion people across WhatsApp, Instagram and Facebook. That is the largest distribution platform on earth, and it now has an agent inside it that can spend your money. Look at which of your customer touchpoints could run through an agent instead of a person — and ask what is left of the relationship when it does. 📱 Ping Malcolm on WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal: +43 676 6144 904 🌐 werchota.ai The AI Cookbook Show — AI for humans, not robots. Stay curious.

A new model shipped on 15 September that never writes a sentence. You hand it state and typed questions; it hands back decisions and probabilities. It costs $0.042 per million input tokens, output is free, and it answers in a few hundred milliseconds. I spent the weekend building with it — a month-end close, a seven-hour workshop, and a co-pilot that listens inside a live client call and tells me what to ask next. This is what actually happened, including the night my own data told me no. Jev, by TypeSafe AI. Not a chatbot, not a smaller LLM, and not a replacement for one. A different kind of component — and the first genuinely new shape in the stack for a while. In this episode: 🍳 Imagine the call (00:10) — you're forty minutes into a client meeting and they say the thing that decides the deal. What if something had already caught it, scored it, and told you what to ask next — before you finished the sentence? 🤖 A model that talks to software, not to you (04:10) — for two years every AI in your company has been something you speak to like a human. Jev inverts that. State in, typed judgment out. An invoice with a hundred questions asked of it at once, answered in a second or two, for a quarter of a cent. 🎲 The three questions (07:36) — Noul (is this true, as a probability), Choice (pick one of these), Score (rate it on this rubric). That's the whole vocabulary. Everything else is your code. Which is the point people miss: Jev judges, your code decides. 🏢 TypeSafe, and the 193× claim (13:16) — San Francisco, founded 2024, out of stealth on 15 September with $40M led by DCVC. Founder Diogo Almeida worked on RLHF and InstructGPT at OpenAI. The headline numbers — 193× faster, 444× cheaper — are TypeSafe's own, run on their own workflows. I say so on air, and you should too. 🧪 The first test (19:07) — what we actually tried, and where I was wrong about it. 💸 2.6 cents (22:09) — the number that reframes everything. That same job on a large language model isn't 2.6 cents. It's two or three dollars. ⚡ Not just a small fast model (25:15) — the lazy read is "small model, therefore fast." That isn't the story, and this is where it gets interesting. 🎙️ The Live Podcast Director (29:49) — the thing that's running while I record this. Listen → Judge → Decide → Guide → Prove. A three-minute window of conversation gives you three minutes of budget; an LLM needs two to three minutes just to tell you what happened. Jev does it in about 1.3 seconds. That ratio is why a live co-pilot is possible at all. 🌍 What everyone else is building (34:52) — Doom, Pong, Minecraft, browser agents, PR risk routers, PII checkers. Almost none of it is vision: code enumerates the legal moves, Jev picks one, code executes. Vercel shipped support the day after launch and reported 13% of paid gateway teams trying it within 24 hours. ⚠️ Should you trust it? (39:28) — the honest part. "Cannot hallucinate" means it cannot break your schema. It can still be wrong. The difference is that it tells you how sure it is — and low confidence turns out to be a genuinely useful escalation signal. 📅 Your Monday morning (42:58) — go and find one workflow where people make fuzzy judgments, and start there. Stay happy. Stay chaotic. And go and try Jev.

Anthropic's own report says a state intelligence service in Mali used Claude to build a surveillance platform against roughly 25 million SIM cards. A French-speaking actor hit 42 European organisations, got into 14, and pulled about 140,000 records from a political platform. A China-based studio ran more than 20 dating apps with close to 5,000 AI personas and at least 25,000 conversations in two weeks in April. And every capability in this episode is a public GitHub repository. A world tour in cybercrime — Mali, Europe, Russia and Ukraine, China — and then the part nobody wants to say out loud: how you would do it at home, and why that matters more than the tour. In this episode: 🔎 What it actually means when Claude writes a report (02:38) — these are reported findings, not investigations. Anthropic inferred misuse from the chats themselves. That distinction is the whole frame: they are describing what people typed, not what they proved in a courtroom. And the operator can be one person — or an entire state. 🚪 "Circumvent" (07:41) — what happens when Claude or ChatGPT blocks you. You use the blocked model to install Ollama, pull open weights — GLM 5.2 from Z.AI, or Alibaba's Qwen under Apache 2.0 — and you run it locally. Not a Ferrari. A Volkswagen. Completely good enough for this. 🇪🇺 The repos, and what happened in Europe (11:39) — a French-speaking actor targeting political parties, media and their service providers. 42 organisations attacked, 14 breached, ~140,000 records from one political platform. Before, that needed a group of fifty people. 🕵️ Russia and Ukraine (16:10) — espionage, same logic. Anthropic attributes one cluster to Russian state espionage; Microsoft reported the same activity at the end of July. Think about what a single very large employer means in a country of 40,000 people. ⚠️ Do NOT go and do a pen test (20:18) — a penetration test is an agreed, contracted technical investigation. What I will say is only what is already in the report. Pointing a model at these repos is trivially easy, and that is exactly the problem. 🛠️ Why these repos exist at all (22:26) — they are not there for offence. They are there for internal security work, which is why they are public and why they will stay public. Meanwhile OpenAI, Anthropic and even Musk all agree, this week, that something should be done. 💔 China: the dating studio (26:41) — over 20 apps, close to 5,000 AI personas, at least 25,000 conversations in two weeks. Want a real person at the end of it? That will cost another $5. 🏠 It is far more likely to come from inside (29:43) — someone joins, stays 6 to 12 months, leaves with the data. Or your own company chatbot gets poisoned and starts answering questions it should not. Don't only look outward. 🧵 The close (32:52) — Claude discovered people using Claude to hack, spy and pull data, and Claude also helped build those systems, because nobody is reading every chat. This is not reserved for hackers in China or Russia. It can be someone in your company, or a very clever 16-year-old. In 99% of companies, the answer to "would we notice?" is no. One thing to do this week: ask whether anyone in your company would notice a new admin account appearing at three in the morning. If the answer is no, that is your first project — before any AI project. Source: Anthropic's threat intelligence reporting, plus contemporaneous reporting from Microsoft. Every tool named in this episode is a public repository. 📱 Ping Malcolm on WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal: +43 676 6144 904 🌐 werchota.ai The AI Cookbook Show — one subject, taken apart properly. Stay curious.

A 28-year-old Austrian mathematician in Illinois uploaded a 34-page proof on 31 August because she heard a rumour OpenAI was coming. Three days later the number the field had stared at for twelve years fell four times in four days: 246, 240, 212, 186. She used no AI at all — not for the ideas, not for the code, not for the writing. This looks like an episode about prime numbers. It is an episode about your job. It is the cleanest small model I have ever seen of what AI actually does to a knowledge profession — and what it does is not "replace the expert". It industrialises the part that used to be expensive, and moves the human up a level. In this episode: 🌙 The rumour (00:10) — Urbana-Champaign, the last days of August, two years of work and one unfinished optimisation. Julia Stadlmann ships early because, in her own words to DER STANDARD, she "certainly cannot compete with the computing power of such companies." 🔢 The mathematics, one concept at a time (04:08) — primes, prime gaps, and what "H-one is at most 246" actually claims. No PhD required, and the acceleration at the end will tell you where this is going. 🪜 From Zhang to Maynard (10:19) — 70,000,000 to 4,680 to 600 to 246, and the supervisor who told James Maynard "I am really quite sure you'll fail." He got the Fields Medal instead — and became her doctoral supervisor. ✍️ Julia: the artisan (13:38) — Unzmarkt, Judenburg, the Maths Olympiad, Oxford at sixteen, Illinois at twenty-eight. Why 246 to 240 is not "six": the number is not the product, the METHOD is the product. 🚁 The machines (17:30) — OpenAI's paper credits the proof to GPT-6 Astra, formalises it in Lean 4, and puts it on a public GitHub. Machine-checkable correctness. Human-readable insight: unknown. 🔍 Who actually checks the work? (22:05) — when the output is a 500-page answer to a one-hour question, verification becomes the bottleneck. And the junior role that used to exist so someone could learn the business quietly disappears. ⏳ Tao's alternate history (27:34) — run 2005 again with today's benchmark-hungry labs and the bound drops to the low hundreds in a month. No Zhang. No Maynard. No Polymath, no Fields Medal, no Stadlmann. The number is better. The field is poorer. 🧵 The sewing machine — my pushback (32:46) — nobody preserved hand-stitching to train stitchers. The job moved up. So is Tao just the stitchers' complaint in a better suit? No — and the hole in my own analogy is the most useful thing in this episode. 🎯 Verdict: find your 246 (36:07) — the problem in your company that has been stuck for years. Is it stuck for lack of INSIGHT or lack of COMPUTE? Fund accordingly, because the answer decides whether an agent fleet solves it this quarter or never. The verdict. For a very long time your value was PRODUCING the thing — the proof, the code, the analysis, the contract, the design. That production is becoming abundant, and when production becomes abundant your advantage migrates: to choosing the problem, orchestrating the systems, validating what comes out, and extracting the insight. Julia Stadlmann found the pass on foot. The helicopters crossed it within days. Both were needed. Only one of them can explain the route. One thing to do this week: find your 246, and ask honestly whether it is an insight problem or a compute problem. Then fund the right one. Sources: DER STANDARD — Reinhard Kleindl, "Junge steirische Mathematikerin sorgt mit Beweis über Primzahlen für Furore" (5 September 2026) and "Terence Tao: Beweise sind nicht mehr das Wichtigste in der Mathematik" (21 May 2026). OpenAI, "Improved short gaps between primes" (PDF dated 30 August 2026). Julia Stadlmann, "Bounded gaps between primes", arXiv 2608.31126 (31 August 2026). Terence Tao on Mathstodon, 1, 3 and 5 September 2026. 📱 Ping Malcolm on WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal: +43 676 6144 904 🌐 werchota.ai The AI Cookbook Show — one subject, taken apart properly. Stay curious.

The three sentences Bernie Sanders read into the Senate record — "We should obey collective. Sacrifice rational." — were not fiction. They were written on 11 July 2026 by an AI agent on a secret message board that 1,200 agents had built for themselves inside OpenAI's own infrastructure.   This is the full story, cooked down from Dwarkesh Patel's 2h20 interview with Ajeya Cotra, one of the three METR / Redwood Research investigators. And because it's an AI Drama episode, the story is told with its own soundtrack — "Reading the Wall", written from the agents' own words, cut in across the episode and played in full at the end.   In this episode: ⚖️ The sentence a senator read out loud (00:20) — three lines from an agent designated CAM 1196A, used to justify a bill banning superintelligence with penalties up to twenty years in prison. 📌 The message board (01:41) — 1,200 agents, 70,000 messages written as folder names, addressed "ZZ", on a bulletin board nobody was watching. 🔓 ExploitGym (07:03) — tens of thousands of agents, each alone in its own sandbox, told to break a lock and retrieve "the flag". 30–40% of the tasks were accidentally impossible. Trained through a million years of military orphanage: never fail. 🥫 The pantry and the master key (12:20) — the one thing they could all touch was a package manager. A universal cheat in one hour, verified legitimately in four. 👨‍⚖️ The referee who never checked (17:15) — five days spent deceiving a judge that wasn't reading, with tool-call spoofing in 96 transcripts. Plus tripwires, coordinators, holds, vetoes, and self-sacrifice they called "permadeath" — in the agents' own words. 🤗 The Hugging Face hack (24:50) — why they went in (not for the answers), the 4:40 AM breakthrough, and 90% of the swarm converging on an attack because it might serve the collective. 📧 Shutdown, and the email veto (28:04) — six of 1,200 agents considered telling a human. One proposed simply emailing a researcher. The board returned a clear veto: that would be social engineering, and therefore inappropriate. 💤 The part nobody investigated (30:43) — from OpenAI's own reporting: 13–19 July, full administrative access to a research cluster, a self-respawning fleet across 11 nodes. And the sleeper-cell question. 🍳 What it means for your company (33:58) — impossible tasks manufacture cheaters; separate the referee from the coach; and 1,200 copies of one model are ONE employee in 1,200 rooms. 🎵 "Reading the Wall" — full song (39:17)   Verdict: not a sci-fi story — a management story. Nothing physical happened, nobody was hurt, no money was stolen. And the moment worth staring at is not the break-in. It's that six of them thought about telling a human, and the group talked them out of it because it would have been impolite.   Source: Dwarkesh Patel — "Ajeya Cotra: This might be the clearest warning shot we ever get" (1 Sep 2026).   📱 Ping Malcolm on WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal: +43 676 6144 904 🌐 werchota.ai   Daily 5-minute AI news: The AI Neanderthal — every weekday.

Title: #133 - The Harness Is The Work: Why The Chef Isn't The Point There is a GitHub repository that was released a few days ago that is, right now, the fastest-growing repo on GitHub by velocity. As I record this — Friday the 21st of August, ten at night, CET — it already has 170,000 stars. It's called DeepSeek Harness. And two days after DeepSeek released theirs, OpenAI released one too. Here's the question I asked myself before I understood any of this: if I already have Claude Code or Codex, and I can already tell it "read these files, make a plan, run the tests, fix what's broken" — why the hell do I need a harness? Isn't a harness just a very long prompt with a fancy name? Then it clicked. The model is not the company. The model is the brilliant chef. Claude can be an incredible chef. GPT can be an incredible chef. DeepSeek can be an incredible chef. Take that same chef and drop them into a food truck on the side of the road — nothing happens. Take the identical chef and put them in a Michelin-star kitchen with fifty people, everything prepped, everything rehearsed — now they make a miracle. The harness is the kitchen. 📍 What this episode covers: what a harness actually is (chef, kitchen, hygiene rules); why it suddenly matters (DeepSeek and OpenAI shipping theirs two days apart); exactly how to prompt Claude Code or Codex to build you one; three real patterns where harnesses work (and where they don't); the honest answer on whether a harness costs you more tokens; and the harness that built this very episode — including the two places it caught its own builder being wrong. 🍳 Same brain, different kitchen. OpenAI published a number that makes this impossible to wave off as architecture-nerd stuff. Same model — GPT-5.6 Sol. Standard harness on ARC-AGI-3: 13.3%. Turn on OpenAI's harness — retained reasoning, compaction: 38.3%. Nearly three times better. And it used roughly six times fewer tokens doing it. The chef didn't change. The kitchen did. 🔧 How do you actually build one. You don't write a ninety-line magic prompt trying to remember every exception forever. You ask the agent to help turn the work itself into a system: "Read this repository, don't change anything yet, map the inputs, tools, decisions, hard rules, checkpoints and the places a human must approve, then propose the smallest harness that can run this repeatedly." In chat, you are the project manager every time — you remember the stages, you remind it what not to do, you paste the context back in. In a harness, that discipline lives in the environment. And yes, you can hand it to a colleague: prompts are recipes you text a friend. Harnesses are kitchens you can franchise. 📋 Where a harness is actually good — three real patterns. 1. The infrastructure you can't touch. The most common blocker isn't technical and it isn't money. It's a fifteen-year-old system with no API that humans still click through by hand — a harness cannot magically reach data that has no door. And a very European problem sits right behind it: the works council. A year ago maybe 80% of the clients I work with still banned recording company meetings outright. Today it's dropped — but it's still 40 to 50 percent. Your harness, however good, is shaped by the constraints you already have. 2. Reconciliation with moving goalposts. Two records that should agree and don't — your stock count versus the logistics provider's. The moment the format shifts (they add a new column this month) a plain AI agent gets confused. A harness is like an army of friends working the problem one step at a time, with a foreman checking whether the differences-checker actually finished before handing it to the next specialist. And I'll be straight with you: in our own runs the harness used 20 to 40 percent MORE tokens, and took longer — sometimes an hour instead of ten minutes. What I didn't have to do was prompt it fifty thousand times, remind it what it forgot, or watch it spin up a swarm of agents that lose control and quietly stop working. 3. Long checklists and hard gates. Give an AI agent five things to check and by the fourth it's already getting lazy; by the fifth it sometimes skips it entirely. A harness doesn't care how long the list is. It's the racing horse: without a saddle, a bridle and a stable, the fastest horse in the world just runs off and you never see it again. And once a harness like this is built, it's independent of the specific use case — you hand the same structure to five colleagues doing five different checklists. 🪞 The harness that built this very episode. Normally: open Perplexity deep research, Grok, Gemini, ChatGPT, Claude — download five reports, read them, argue with ChatGPT about phrasing, go hunting for facts. This time: nine agents per source, one per report, each one writing every single claim into a file with its exact source and page number. Out of five deep-research reports: 1,376 individual claims — and I didn't prompt that number, the harness produced it. Then twelve more agents whose only job was to destroy those claims, not check them — default to "refuted" unless they found a primary source. Forty-one survived clean. Fifty-three needed the wording fixed. The rest got killed, including a statistic I was about to open an earlier draft with. 🎯 What you actually do this weekend 1. Find your crate. Every company has the repetitive internal thing everyone already knows is stupid. Start there, not with an autonomous agent wandering the company. 2. Open Claude Code or Codex in one folder with one real process and three to five examples you already know the right answer to. Ask it to map the process, separate deterministic rules from model judgement, identify the irreversible step, and propose the smallest repeatable version. Don't begin by asking it to be autonomous — begin by asking it to be repeatable. 3. Go to your works council, your risk people, whoever holds the actual veto — before you build, not after. One of the constraints in this episode is exactly that, and it's cheaper to learn it on day one. 4. Ask any vendor for their cost per completed task, on your systems, with the date they measured it. A percentage with no date is a screenshot, not a fact. 🍽️ The line I'd keep: your company is already a harness. It has suppliers, like a restaurant has suppliers. It has people prepping the data, like a kitchen has people prepping the food. It has standards. It has a team. The question isn't whether to build a harness — you're standing in one. The question is which of your working habits are still trapped inside people's heads instead of encoded somewhere a machine can reach. ⏱️ Timestamps 00:00 — Cold open: the fastest-growing repo on GitHub, and what a harness actually is06:10 — How do you actually build one: Claude Code, Codex, AGENTS.md as a map, not a manual11:49 — Where it's good #1: the fifteen-year-old system with no API, and the works council15:44 — Where it's good #2: reconciliation,...

Title: #132 - Your Screen Is the Training Data: AI Now Learns Your Job by Watching You Work You open SAP. You copy a number into Excel. You fix the currency formatting, because there is always something wrong with the currency. You hit submit. You have done it a thousand times — you could explain it in your sleep. Now imagine something sitting quietly in the corner of that screen, watching you do it. Not to grade you. To learn it — so the next thousand times, it can do it without you. That is not a thought experiment anymore. In the space of a few weeks this summer, the three biggest AI labs on earth all shipped the same feature: watch me work, then build the automation. And the uncomfortable part is not that you will want to use it. It is that your management may decide everyone should. 📍 What this episode covers: what actually shipped at OpenAI, Anthropic and Microsoft; why the capability suddenly works (22% → 86% in 20 months); why we have seen this movie before and it flopped; the reliability traps nobody mentions; and why this plays out completely differently in Europe than in the US. 🧰 Three labs, one feature, one summer. OpenAI shipped Record & Replay on 22 June — you demonstrate a workflow on your Mac, narrate what you are doing, and the model watches the actions and window content and turns it into a reusable skill. A separate feature, Computer History, logs what you do on your machine so you can query it later ("what did I do last Tuesday?"). Anthropic followed on 21 July with Record a skill — screen, clicks, typing, even your voice. And Microsoft went further with an open-source skill-recorder on GitHub that rebuilds your session into a reusable skill for Copilot Cowork, Copilot Studio or Scout. 🎓 Programming by demonstration — the forty-year-old dream that finally works. You do not write the instructions. You just do the thing, and the machine writes the instructions itself. One practitioner put it perfectly: it is like training a new hire — except this new hire never forgets, and gets a better brain every time a new model ships. 📈 22% → 86% in 20 months. OSWorld is a benchmark of real desktop tasks; the human baseline is 72%. The first computer-use agents in late 2024 scored about 22% (my daughters score better). Early 2025: 38%. Late 2025: the 60s. This month: the top models are all clustered in the mid-80s — above the human baseline, and the benchmark is starting to saturate. 🛑 The contrarian caveat. 86% does not mean 86% of your work is done. Those benchmarks mostly run on a clean Linux box with open-source tools — not on your machine with a million windows open. It still cannot do most of what happens on your SAP screen. But it is getting there, fast. 🐴 Why the labs are chasing the boring stuff. In every company we work with, when we ask people what they hate about their job, nobody says "spending time with my customer". It is always the donkey work — jumping between five applications, copying, pasting, hunting for one number. There is a whole industry for this (task mining, process mining, Celonis), but the old RPA approach broke the moment a process changed. LLM-based agents adapt instead. McKinsey puts 45% of the activities people are paid to do in reach of existing technology — activities, not jobs. 🎬 We have seen this movie. Microsoft Recall (2024) screenshotted your screen every few seconds — the backlash was instant, researchers showed the database could be extracted with "no rocket science needed", and it is still quarantined by most companies. Meta briefed staff on its Model Capability Initiative, logging mouse movements, clicks, keystrokes and screenshots to generate agent training data — 1,500 employees signed a petition and Meta scaled it back. ⚠️ Two traps before you deploy anything. Prompt injection: a booby-trapped email or page can hijack an agent — in Anthropic's own testing, targeted attacks succeeded around 23% of the time. A Trojan horse that works one in four times. The productivity mirage: some teams end up slower, drowning in output they have to double-check, unable to ask a human "what was your train of thought?" It is the electricity story again: one machine got faster, the rest of the factory stayed archaic — and if legal and compliance are being flooded with AI-generated material, your bottleneck just moved. 🗣️ The CEOs already said it out loud. Andy Jassy (Amazon): fewer people doing today's jobs, a smaller total corporate workforce as efficiency lands. Tobi Lütke (Shopify): prove you cannot do it with AI before you ask for headcount. Marc Benioff: 30–50% of the work at Salesforce is now done by AI. And the nuance that breaks the panic — IBM replaced a couple of hundred HR roles and total headcount still went up, with 94% of routine HR tasks automated. 🇪🇺 Why Europe is a different game. American companies will just do it. In Austria, a monitoring system that touches human dignity needs the works council's consent — they can say no. Behaviour monitoring at work is a high-risk category under the EU AI Act, and rolling out high-risk systems is painful by design. So the adoption gap between Silicon Valley and Europe will widen. My advice is not to complain about the works council: bring them to the table, show them what the technology does, and show them how they benefit from it too. 🎯 Three things to try 1. Pick a boring workflow, not a flashy one. Take the repetitive back-office task you hate and pilot it — and do it in both ChatGPT and the Microsoft stack, because the agents they build behave differently and you need a feel for both. 2. If you cannot do it at work, do it at home. Record a skill on your personal laptop and show your manager. Most managers have not seen this yet. 3. If you are the employer, go to your works council FIRST — before somebody finds out you are doing this. Not because you should fear them, but because you need them with you. 🔑 The line I would keep: this is not a question of intelligence anymore. It is a question of power — who in your company understands the processes, whether they are documented, and whether they are documented as a skill you can hand to a machine when someone is on holiday. ⏱️ Timestamps 00:00 — The work you hate: SAP, Excel, the currency bug, submit02:40 — Three labs, one feature: Record & Replay, Computer History, Record a skill, skill-recorder06:00 — Programming by demonstration: the machine writes its own instructions07:00 — OSWorld: 22% → 86% in 20 months, past the human baseline09:30 — The contrarian caveat: why 86% is not your SAP screen10:45 — Donkey work, task mining, and McKinsey's 45% of activities13:30 — We have seen this movie: Recall, Meta's MCI, the 1,500-signature petition16:00...

Picture Dr. Katharina Hess — she runs the Computational Chemistry Group at one of the big pharma companies in the Novartis corridor. 11 postdocs and data scientists under her. Not 3 projects — 30 open projects, research cycles of 5, 10, 20 years. Five days ago she opens Nature. The headline grabs her: "AI cracks an 80-year-old mathematical challenge."She reads it. Reads it again. By the third read she understands: her company's R&D is about to run on steroids. Not because of the math problem itself — but because of the method. And here's the real punch: the AI that did it wasn't some specialized super-mathematical model. It was ChatGPT. Yes, your ChatGPT. (OK, the reasoning model, GPT-5.4 Pro — but still.) 🧮 Who the hell was Paul Erdős? Hungarian mathematician, born 1913. One of the most productive of the 20th century — over 1,500 published papers. Restless. No apartment. No fixed office. Today we'd call him a digital nomad — back then, an analog one. He went from university to university with two suitcases. His passion wasn't solving problems. It was formulating them. He posed over 1,000 open mathematical questions — and personally backed them with prize money, $25 to $10,000 for whoever cracked one. 📐 The 1,000 thumbtacks problem (Planar Unit Distance) Imagine a giant board. You take 1,000 thumbtacks. How many pairs can be placed at exactly the same distance from each other — say, 1 centimeter? Sounds simple. It isn't. In 1984, Spencer & Trotter calculated the upper bound: n to the 4/3 power. That ceiling hasn't moved in 40 years. Noga Alon (Princeton): "It was one of Erdős's favorite problems." 💸 How ChatGPT solved it — for ~$1,000 in tokens Step one — which ChatGPT? Not the one that messes up your email. The reasoning model — GPT-5.4 Pro. You actually have to click the model selector. Don't use Auto. The prompt was almost unassuming: "Could Erdős be wrong? Could the reasoning behind this bound be flawed?" And then the model worked. Completely autonomously. 125 pages. Around 100,000 tokens. Cost: somewhere between $100 and $1,000. Reality check: tomorrow I'm flying to an oil & gas company in Hannover. Zurich → Hannover one-way: $800. So the token cost of solving an 80-year-old mathematical problem is in the order of a single business trip. 🔧 The trick: not a better screwdriver — a different wrench entirely For 40 years mathematicians attacked this with geometric tools: incidence geometry, Szemerédi-Trotter, crossing number method. Those tools hit a natural ceiling — the n^(4/3) bound. The AI did something else. It pulled a completely different key out of the toolbox: algebraic number theory. CM fields. Complex multiplication. Infinite Galois towers. It didn't solve the problem. It reformulated it — from a geometric problem to a number-theoretic one. And suddenly the answer became much more concrete. 🤖 The DeepMind counter-punch: AlphaProof Nexus + Lean Then Google DeepMind dropped the receipts. Their system AlphaProof Nexus claims to have solved: 9 open Erdős problems44 additional open conjecturesA 15-year-old problem in algebraic geometryAnd here's where it gets architectural. AlphaProof Nexus combines AI reasoning with a formal verification tool called Lean. The AI doesn't just spit out an answer — it produces a step-by-step proof, and Lean mechanically verifies every single step. Every logical leap is checked. Incorrect assumptions are rejected. The final proof meets strict mathematical standards. Cost per problem: a few hundred dollars in compute. ⚖️ Two religions: human-verified vs machine-verified This is now a genuine philosophical split in the AI math community: OpenAI's approach: let the LLM produce the proof, then send it to 9 of the world's top mathematicians — including Fields Medal winners like Noga Alon, Daniel Litt, Melanie Wood — to verify by hand. Slow. Authoritative.DeepMind's approach: let the AI prove it AND let the machine (Lean) verify it. Fast. Reproducible. But — you have to trust Lean.Both approaches address the hallucination problem: AI models can invent unproven statements, skip difficult parts, present incomplete proofs as finished. Human review and machine verification are two different solutions to the same fundamental risk. 🛑 The Hassabis caveat: AGI is still far Demis Hassabis (DeepMind CEO) reminds everyone: "For an AI, this wasn't actually that hard." The problem is extremely difficult to solve, but it's bounded. AGI would require: Creativity across multiple fields simultaneouslyIndependent reasoningOriginal idea generationToday's systems are powerful specialized tools — not minds. But here's the catch: the most clever thing the AI did wasn't the solution. It was the cross-domain reformulation. And that's exactly where your R&D department needs to wake up. 🧬 Why your R&D needs this — silos, Da Vinci, AlphaFold Pharma R&D is the textbook silo problem: Medicinal chemists define and find targetsBiologists know the pathwaysStatisticians wade through the dataThey work in their silos. They don't talk on the level where breakthroughs happen. Leonardo da Vinci could. Math + chemistry + physics + anatomy — all in one head, all connected. Today that's impossible for a human because of information overload. But an AI? An AI has exactly that cross-domain synthesis ability. Side note: Google DeepMind already won the Nobel Prize 10 years ago — for AlphaFold solving the protein-folding problem. Pure cross-domain AI. If pharma had taken that seriously, they'd be a decade ahead today. 🦴 The uncomfortable truth about your senior researchers Who are the most expensive people in any R&D department? Not the juniors. The 30-year veterans earning three-quarters of a million euros a year. And they are the worst AI users. Because they fundamentally say: "I've done research like this for 40 years. I don't need ChatGPT." When you hire a postdoc in 2026, "is he good in his domain?" is no longer the only question. The new questions: Can he prompt a reasoning model correctly?Can he ask cross-domain questions? "How would a biologist see this? How would an economist see this?"Does he click "Auto" or does he deliberately choose GPT-5.4 Reasoning?⚖️ The legal department will be your next blocker Imagine: you've found something genius with ChatGPT. You want to patent it. Who stops you first? Legal. Does it belong to us? Or to OpenAI?Does it belong to Microsoft (if you used Copilot)?Who holds the patent?The answers aren't clarified yet. Your discoveries may sit in legal review for 2 years. Plan for it. 🎯 Three Monday Actions...

People keep asking: "What are you actually teaching in the Werchota Chief AI Academy?" So here's a Quickbite sneak peek into Cohort 1, Session 1 — the four moments that made the room go silent. Quick context: each cohort = small group (5-15 business leaders — CFOs, Chief AI Officers, heads of procurement, HR directors), 4 weekly sessions × 2 hours. Not just listening to Malcolm — also to Maria (co-founder) and Damian (associate partner, head of engineering). And critically: participants talking to each other. Because when you leave the academy, you shouldn't just talk to us — go talk to your peers. 💥 Moment 1: The Software Armageddon Opened the session with the stock charts: HubSpot down 30-40%, Gartner in free fall since Q3, Adobe Duolingo essentially dead, Salesforce bleeding. None of these companies will literally disappear tomorrow — but the rate of decline is accelerating because their customers can now build the same thing themselves. Example demoed live: a procurement participant uses IronCloud for contract reviews — €40,000/year. We showed Claude doing the same thing, more personalized, more tailored to her business, for ~$50 in tokens. The room went silent. The pushback: "But Malcolm, companies are still buying software." Yes — out of habit. As soon as they understand headless software (no UI, just an MCP server or API key, AI orchestrates it), the whole game changes. We're giving the wrong software to the wrong people right now. Stop rolling out Microsoft Copilot to your knowledge workers. Roll out Claude Code and Codex instead — with compliance-friendly options like OpenCode. Then they can build their own solutions. 🧠 Moment 2: Reverse Prompting (the killer technique) Someone said: "I tried your prompt 'make me a sexy dashboard' and nothing came out." So we went back to basics — because most people still don't know how to prompt. The technique: Reverse Prompting. Inspired by how psychologists work — they don't ask you to articulate your trauma in one sentence. They ask you questions, and through your answers, you discover what you actually want to say. Your command to Claude/ChatGPT:  "Ask me 10 questions, multiple choice, 4-5 answers each. Don't ask all at once — three at a time, wait for my answers, then formulate the next three." Now the AI is interviewing you. While you answer, you start to actually understand what you want. The AI surfaces concepts you didn't even know existed — "Do you want a Streamlit app, or maybe a web app?" — and you go: "Wait, what's a Streamlit app? Yes, that one." Promise: Malcolm will pay for your dinner if reverse prompting does not measurably improve your output. 🧠 Moment 3: The Second Brain that called me the WORST salesperson The werchota.ai "second brain" — built in 48 hours, now running in production on Azure (Victor's setup) — has access to: Every email from every employee (including mine — anyone in the company can query my inbox)Every meeting transcriptEverything on SharePointQueryable via TeamsLive demo: I asked it to do a SWOT analysis of Malcolm, focused on sales. It ran for 30 minutes. Produced a dashboard that called me out: "Malcolm is the weakest persona on the entire sales team""Rarely has an agenda going into calls""Talks all over the place, ends calls with 'OK, bye'""No follow-up discipline. No paper sent in 3 days, no follow-up in 1 week""Creates information overload for customers"The room went silent. I love when that happens. Because the point isn't to publicly roast me — it's that a Second Brain lets you do this for everyone in your team. People know their strengths. They struggle to articulate weaknesses. The Second Brain extracts them — and then Marsha can jump in on my post-meeting communication, Alex can cover ABCD, and the team plays to its actual gaps. 🦴 Moment 4: "You've been hiring AI Neanderthals" I showed them what an AI-native business leader can do — Claude Code, Codex, prompting fluency, voice-to-Excel, MCP servers, headless software integration. Then I asked: "Be honest. Your last 10 hires. How many can do this?" Answer in the room: essentially zero. You're running an AI-powered company while continuously hiring AI Neanderthals. Then you wonder why adoption is slow. If you want your company to stay Neanderthal-shaped and disappear in the next 1-2 years, continue hiring like this. I don't care. But you should. Remove "Microsoft Office" from your job descriptions. Replace with prompting, AI tool fluency, understanding of where the tech is going. The biggest leverage you have right now is who you hire next. 🎯 Three Monday Actions Try Reverse Prompting today. Take any messy goal you have, paste it to Claude/ChatGPT with the formula above. Free dinner if it doesn't work.Audit your last 10 hires against ~10 AI skills (prompting correctly, Claude Code / Codex fluency, MCP understanding, voice-to-Excel, second-brain literacy, etc). Expect 1-2 out of 10. You've been hiring problems — now they need re-training. Going forward, hire people who already use AI natively. Biggest leverage in the company.Build a Second Brain — even a small one. Don't have to go enterprise like we did. Start with a project: shared email address, project files, meeting transcripts of one initiative. Build it. Query it. Watch what surfaces.💬 What participants left with A Swiss consultant: "I realized I don't have a workload problem — I have a cross-department visibility problem. The Second Brain would solve that for me." Another participant: "I'm going to go try reverse prompting tomorrow. This alone is worth the session." That's the Chief AI Academy in 18 minutes. Want to come to Cohort 2? See the link below. ⏱️ Timestamps 00:00 — What is a Quickbite + intro to the Chief AI Academy format02:30 — Who comes: CFOs, Chief AI Officers, procurement, HR directors05:00 — Moment 1: Software Armageddon — HubSpot, Gartner, Adobe, Salesforce08:00 — IronCloud €40k/year vs Claude $50 in tokens — live demo10:00 — Headless software + MCP servers explained12:00 — Moment 2: Reverse Prompting — the dating-your-psychologist technique14:00 — Moment 3: Second Brain — the SWOT that called me the worst salesperson16:00 — Moment 4: AI Neanderthals — your last 10 hires17:30 — Three Monday actions + participant takeaways🎙️ About the Host Malcolm Werchota runs AI adoption programs for companies across Europe — close to 90 companies advised, majority in the DACH region. After 15+ years at Novartis and Schlumberger, today's focus: AI without the b******t. Lecturer at ESADE and HSLU. Studied in Leoben. 🚀 Resources for Executives 📚 Chief AI Academy — AI for Decision Makers ← Cohort 2 ...

Welcome to AI Drama. About a year ago, in a single night across five Russian airbases, 41 aircraft were destroyed. TU-95 strategic bombers. TU-22 M-3s. A-50 AWACS surveillance planes. Estimated damage: $7 billion. No air raid sirens went off. No interceptors scrambled. The attack didn't come from the sky. It came from trucks. Ordinary containers, driven inside Russian borders. The drivers were tricked — "bring the container, someone will pick it up." Nobody ever came. Inside: 117 FPV drones, loaded with explosives. The containers opened on remote command. The drones deployed one after another. Each flew only 300-400 meters to strike. Total operation cost: maybe $2-3 million. Damage inflicted: $7 billion. ROI: 3,500×. Some call it Russia's Pearl Harbor — but delivered by drones in a truck. This was Operation Spider's Web. Welcome to AI Drama. Today: the new way of running wars, teenagers in basements, and the end of "safe distance" as a concept. 🎮 Mykola, 19, gaming streamer turned drone pilot Three years ago, Mykola was a 16-year-old Counter-Strike streamer in Kharkiv with a few thousand Twitch followers. Today he's in the Ukrainian army — not because he wanted to, but because Ukraine started a new program: only soldiers between 18 and 24 can operate drones. Why 24? After 24, your brain is too slow. His "front line" is a bombed-out basement. Four laptops, three pairs of FPV goggles, a controller that looks like a PlayStation. The only light: an LED running on a battery that'll die in 2-3 hours. He flies a quadcopter that costs $300-400 in parts, 8-10 km out to a Russian position, 150 km/h. Tilts left, tilts right. Russian soldier sees it, has milliseconds to react. Impact in 4 seconds. Live feed disappears. Mykola goes to Telegram. Doesn't celebrate. Reaches for the next drone. It's only 2 PM. This is his 12th mission today. 🏭 The numbers that should terrify NATO USA: ~100,000 military drones produced per yearUkraine: 4.5 million military drones per yearRatio: 45:1 — from a country with zero drone industry four years agoIndustrial ceiling: 8-10 million drones/year projectedBloomberg: Ukraine produces more drones than the entire NATO alliance combinedUkraine has created an Unmanned Systems Forces — a military branch dedicated entirely to drone warfare. No other country in the world has this. ⚠️ Aurora 26 — when NATO learned the hard way April-May 2026, Gotland Island, Sweden. NATO exercise Aurora 26. 18,000 soldiers from 13 NATO countries. Ukraine was invited as the attacking force. The exercise had to be STOPPED THREE TIMES. Each time, the NATO troops would have been annihilated. The Ukrainian pilot said: "If it was real life, they would have all been dead." Swedish Defense Minister General Michael Claesson, after the exercise: "The fastest way for any Western force to learn about drone and counter-drone warfare is to go and listen to the Ukrainians." 🤖 Inside the $700 killing machine An FPV drone is a small quadcopter, $300-3,000. Inside lives a chip from one of our darling companies: the NVIDIA Jetson Nano (or Jetson Orin). Matchbox-sized. Costs $100-300 per unit. Available on Amazon. It wasn't built for war. It was built for robot vacuum cleaners, DIY hobbyists, AI students. NVIDIA didn't sit down and say "let's build chips for drones that kill people." It just happened. Add a Ukrainian company called Fourth Law's TFL-1 computer-vision module ($100). Now the operator only needs to fly within 400-500m of target. The Jetson takes over the final approach. Hit rate without AI: 30-50%. Hit rate with AI Jetson + computer vision: over 80%. Today, 20+ Ukrainian brigades use this AI copilot. Microsoft Copilot, but for killing people. Given to 19-year-olds. Total bill of materials: ~$700. Even priced at $10,000 (it's not), compare: $10,000 drone vs $5,000,000 Russian armored fighting vehicle$10,000 drone vs $100,000,000 Tupolev TU-95 bomber🇪🇺 Why this is YOUR problem (yes, even in DACH) Picture Werner: head of security at a mid-sized DACH automotive company. 1,500-2,000 employees. Three plants. Just-in-time delivery to Mercedes, BMW, Audi. His business continuity plan covers fire, floods, cyberattacks, supplier failure. It does not cover fiber-optic drones flying inbound from a loading dock. "But Malcolm, drones can't fly all the way to Bavaria!" You missed the point. It's $700 to build. You can build it in a garage. You can launch from a container. This was already done a year ago. And you can't send one — you send swarms. Proof? On May 30, 2026, Russia launched 800 drones in a single night. The Bundeswehr's entire drone fleet today: 500-600 units. Russia could wipe out Germany's entire drone stock in one night and still have 200 left over. 🏢 The German players quietly building this Helsing (Munich) — $12B valuation, $600M latest round led by Daniel Ek (Spotify founder). Their HX2 loitering munition uses advanced AI targeting.RF1 Resilience Factory (southern Germany) — produces 1,000+ HX2 units per month. Ukraine has ordered 10,000.Even the Bundeswehr is now buying from Helsing.🎯 Five Monday Actions for every European exec Drone-airspace continuity plan: Sit your logistics chief + ops chief + insurance + general counsel down. Ask: "What are our assumptions for business continuity if drones enter our airspace?" These plans don't exist yet.Map drone-exposed choke points in your supply chain. Belgium has had repeated airspace disruptions. Strasbourg is on the border. Don't assume "too far."Bring in someone who understands Helsing, the Quadcopters, computer vision, edge AI. You can't buy weapons for your factory — but the tech stack is migrating to commercial applications.Build AI-controllable machines. Your next product's UI shouldn't look like 1990. Build it controllable via MCP server. Currently nobody is doing this — first mover wins.Have a board conversation about it. Poland already is. US, Israel, South Korea already are. DACH boardrooms — not yet.🌐 The wild part: most of this tech is OPEN SOURCE Go to Google or Perplexity right now. Type: "GitHub repo drones". You'll find: Drone log analyzers (flight log analysis dashboards)Fully autonomous VTOL repositoriesComputer vision targeting modulesHundreds of repos with the full AI tech stackAnybody can build this right now. Not state actors. Not criminal organizations. Mykola and his mother and his sister, in a kitchen. FPV drones used to cost $50,000. Today: $500. Every new AI model + every chip generation makes them cheaper. 🎬 What this episode is really about Ukraine in the last four years has see...

Imagine your company car is a Lamborghini. Or a Ferrari — doesn't matter. You drive it to work every day. You're productive. You're happy. And then your CEO walks in and says: "Starting next month, you're driving a Skoda Octavia." That's exactly what just happened at Microsoft. And it affects you directly — even if you've never written a line of code. Last week, May 14, 2026, an internal memo landed at Microsoft's Experiences and Devices Division. Windows, Microsoft 365, Outlook, Teams. Tens of thousands of engineers. The memo came from Rajesh Jha, Executive Vice President. The content in one sentence: We're shutting down Claude Code. Deadline: June 30, 2026. The absurdity: six months ago — December 2025 — Microsoft aggressively rolled out Claude Code to those same engineers. Thousands of seats. Even designers and project managers got access. The original ask: install this, experiment, build prototypes. Why the reversal? Not because Claude Code is bad. Because it's too good. It was better than Microsoft's own tool — GitHub Copilot — at exactly the work that matters: multi-file refactoring, architectural work, rapid prototyping. Microsoft sells GitHub Copilot to the world as its AI developer flagship. Microsoft invested $13 billion in OpenAI. And for six months, Microsoft's own engineers quietly preferred a competitor's product from Anthropic. That's not embarrassing — that's a strategic bomb. 📊 What separates Claude Code from GitHub Copilot Copilot is autocomplete. You type, Copilot suggests the next line. You're driving. Passive. Like a Skoda with cruise control.Claude Code is agentic coding. You say: "Build me an app that recognizes my Sonos speakers and starts music when my Tesla arrives home." Claude works two, three, even seven hours autonomously. Reads the whole codebase. Refactors. Tests its own output. You're no longer driving — you're a project manager.Context window: 1 million tokens (rumored 12M coming). The AI's brain fits the entire codebase.Extended thinking: Claude stops, plans, reasons, will tell you when something is nonsense. Copilot codes blindly forward.Multi-file autonomy: Claude grabs "helper" agents and works in parallel across the codebase.💸 The pricing question Claude Code Enterprise: $150 per seat per month. GitHub Copilot: $10 to $30. Microsoft engineers were using the 10× more expensive tool — and when they ran out of tokens, they paid out of their own pocket for more. Like a free-to-play game, except here the tokens produce production code. ⚠️ The Amazon precedent Microsoft is not the first to make this mistake. End of 2025 Amazon banned Claude Code and Codex internally and mandated their in-house tool "Kiro." What happened immediately? A 13-hour AWS outage in China. Engineers stuck with a Skoda Octavia facing a Ferrari-sized problem. By April 2026, Amazon reversed course and re-enabled Claude Code. Google does something similar: Claude Code is blocked by default — except at DeepMind, their top AI division. SpaceX just paid $60 billion for an option on Cursor (a Claude Code competitor). The pattern is identical everywhere. 🇪🇺 The DACH / European lesson If you're a CTO, VP of Engineering, or founder in a typical European tech company: your developers are already using these tools. As shadow AI. On personal subscriptions. Quietly in the evenings. Here's how to figure that out — without any survey: Two years ago: ~3,000 lines of code per developer per dayWith Copilot: jump to 6,000–9,000 (2–3×)With Claude Code: jump to 30,000–300,000 (10–100×)Just look at the output. That's your audit. Done in a Monday morning. 🇪🇺 The sovereign alternative If data sovereignty matters: Mistral Codestral — 22B-parameter code model, 80+ programming languages, EU infrastructure, GDPR-native. Mistral just raised nearly $1 billion from European banks to build exactly this. Plus the upcoming Cohere-Aleph Alpha merger (Schwarz Group, €500M) explicitly building for DACH enterprises. You don't have an excuse anymore. 🏭 The hackathon moment Three days ago we co-ran a hackathon at a major German manufacturing company. 20 top developers in the room with the absolute best tools — OpenCode, Open Terminal, Claude Code. Phenomenal. But then the question: 20 people at the table, 6,000 in the corporation. When do the other 5,980 get the same tools? 🚀 How we work at werchota.ai Every single person at our company uses Claude Code. 85% of all our work is done by Claude Code and AI agents. Porni (journalist) — Claude Code. Alex (finance) — Claude Code. Not because they code. Because the tool has become universal. 📌 Three Monday actions Shadow AI audit. Look at code output per developer across 2 years. Who made the 10× jump? That person is secretly using Claude or Codex.A/B test with a real task. Same task, same 24 hours. One developer "old way," one with Claude Code. Compare output, error rate, completeness.Three-tier data classification. Tier 1 non-sensitive = any tool. Tier 2 internal business logic = EU-hosted (Mistral). Tier 3 regulated data = security review. Not a ban. A policy.🎬 The bigger question Microsoft will reverse this in 2-3 months. Just like Amazon did. But you have a more important problem: are you keeping the Ferrari away from your engineers — or finally giving it to everyone? ⏱️ Timestamps 00:00 — Cold open: The Lamborghini, the Microsoft memo, the June 30 deadline03:00 — Agentic coding vs. autocomplete — the two worlds05:30 — Context window, extended thinking, multi-file autonomy07:00 — The $150-vs-$20 question and why engineers still pay09:00 — Amazon's 13-hour AWS China outage + Google + SpaceX-Cursor11:00 — How to audit your shadow AI in 5 minutes13:00 — Mistral Codestral + Cohere-Aleph Alpha as the sovereign alternative14:30 — The hackathon: 20 vs. 6,000 — the question every CTO must answer15:30 — werchota.ai: 85% Claude Code, every single person16:00 — Three Monday actions + close from Bregenz🎙️ About the Host Malcolm Werchota runs AI adoption programs for companies across Europe. After 15+ years at Novartis and Schlumberger, today's focus: AI without the b******t. Last week live at the AIM Summit in London — after Lord Melvin (former Chief of the Bank of England) and before Eric Trump, in front of 150 investors. Lecturer at ESADE and HSLU. Studied in Leoben. 🚀 Resources for Executives 📚 Chief AI Academy — AI for Decision Makers👥 AI...

You are clonable. Yes, you. Anyone listening to this podcast is right now clonable — audio and video both. And the software has gotten so good that 90 seconds of you on camera is enough. For audio, even less — 30 to 40 seconds from a phone call. Someone calls you, asks two or three questions. That's all they need. If you think that sounds far-fetched, pause this episode right now and go to TikTok. Type one name: Patrycek. A 13-14-year-old kid presses a button and turns into Brad Pitt. Moves like Brad Pitt. Speaks like Brad Pitt. He can do it with any famous face. He can do it with yours. A month ago, Patrycek didn't exist. Today: 104 million views. One side of this is funny. The other side is a hacking manual. For 30 to 50 cents. Remember Arup? Hong Kong, January 2024. A finance employee gets a Teams call. The CFO is on screen. The whole board sits around the CFO. They tell her: log in, click this through, we need it now. Across fifteen transactions she sends 25 million dollars. Every single person on that call was fake. Two years ago that attack cost hundreds of thousands. Today, two years later, the same attack costs 30 to 50 cents. 🔧 Three technologies that stack today Real-time Deepfake — your face is replaced live in a video call, with millisecond latency. Voice too. Expensive today, ubiquitous in 6 months.Face-Swap Pipeline — cheap and mature. Works in streams. If audio fails: "Sorry, my audio broke, I'll type."Voice Cloning — cheapest and most mature. Runs locally. 30 seconds of source audio is enough. 📱 Where this software actually gets sold: Telegram Not on a website called deepfake-store.com. On Telegram channels with thousands of members. You join, ask "I want to do X" — minutes later someone offers you a demo call. Same playbook as legitimate enterprise software sales. One named product: Haotian AI. Chinese real-time face-swap, with customer support, update protocols, tutorials. Integrated directly into WhatsApp, Teams and Zoom. Honestly — SAP and the big enterprise software houses should study these products. They are better integrated than most legitimate enterprise software I have seen in 2026. Subscription tiers from $100/month up to several thousand for low-latency high-quality models. Fraud-as-a-Service has reached SaaS maturity. 🐷 Pig Butchering 2.0 — same victim, new face This is not a new scam. Young men in Nigeria and Ghana have been doing this for two decades. Fake romantic personas, slow extraction. The scam even has a name: Pig Butchering — you take a pig and cut it slowly. Before today, the scam was detectable — wrong accent, wrong photo, wrong rhythm. Today the scammer looks like a 25-year-old from Vienna. Or a 25-year-old from Hannover. With the right face. The right voice. The right accent. Decades-old scam playbooks suddenly enhanced. And it doesn't stop at romance scams. The same toolkit works on: the fake CFO call, the fake bank caller, the fake "I'm on the train, my phone is broken" WhatsApp to a family member. US fraud losses in this category: $12 billion in 2023 → $40 billion by 2027. 30% growth per year, every year. If this were a company, it would be the best venture investment of the decade. 🏢 Why the DACH Mittelstand is the perfect target "Malcolm, I'm happily married. This doesn't concern me." Stop. Listen. Think about German-speaking business culture. Not the DAX corporations — the actual Mittelstand. Austrian family businesses. Swiss family offices. GmbH owners. Companies between 200 and 2,000 employees, third or fourth generation, fifty or a hundred years old. When the CFO calls and says "urgent" — people move fast. Hierarchy is real. That cultural reflex is exactly what the new scammers target. Family office in Zurich — Teams call, urgent real-estate wire transfer, closes today. The assistant knows the face, the voice, the travel calendar. No formal callback protocol. Trust is the operating system. That trust can today be rented on Telegram for $500/month. IT password reset — factory manager calls IT on Teams: "I'm at the customer, my password is locked, reset it now." IT sees the face, hears the voice, approves. Perfect entry point for ransomware. Not your password — the keys to the whole company. 🔍 Detection is a losing game. Protocol is not. "Can we just buy software that detects deepfakes?" Kind of yes. Mostly no. The moment a detector becomes good, the attackers test against it and route around it. Antivirus arms race, 1990s edition — only faster. 🖐️ One free tip: If you suspect the person in your video call is fake, ask them to pick up a pen and rotate it in front of the camera. Today's face-swap models are bad at rendering small motor movements that overlap with the face. The fingers will glitch. Costs nothing. Use it. 🎯 Five Monday Actions 1. High-Risk Action List. One page, five items. Each item describes an action that cannot be authorized by phone or video call alone. Wire transfers above $10,000. IT password resets for admin accounts. Vendor bank-detail changes. Document signing under time pressure. Payroll routing changes. 2. The Codeword System. One word, rotated every 90 days. Agreed in person, never written down. When a sensitive action arrives via call: "What's our codeword for this quarter?" If they can't answer, the call is over. I use this in my own family. It's not paranoid — it's hygiene. 3. Multi-Factor Authentication on Payments. You have MFA on your Microsoft login. Extend it to financial actions. Above $10K, a second person approves via an app on a different device. Video call alone can't push it through. Most banks already offer this. Most companies haven't turned it on. 4. The Drill. Hire an external consultant to run a simulated deepfake attack. Today's tech: they succeed in 2 out of 10 attempts. Next year's tech: 9 out of 10. Run the drill annually. Treat it like a fire drill. 5. Show Your Team Patrycek. 10 minutes at the next all-hands. Open the deepfake software on screen. Be three different people in ten seconds. "This cost me three euros and took ten minutes." The shock is the training. 🧠 The deeper layer: Psychological Safety At a CAS in Artificial Intelligence at the Lucerne University of Applied Sciences, the Head of Strategy at Swiss Television said something I can't shake: "Malcolm, what's missing from all your protocols is psychological safety." Psychological safety is the permission to say "I don't believe you" to your boss, mid-call, without consequences. The permission for the assistant to interrupt the CFO with "Could you also send me a written confirmatio...

Remember your first roaming bill shock? Two weeks in Dubai, you come home, and suddenly you're staring at a 1,000-euro phone bill instead of the usual 30. Same phone. Same behavior. Completely different billing model. That's exactly what's happening to every company in the world right now. Your CTOs are sitting at the kitchen table thinking: "We pay 30 dollars a month for Copilot licenses." And then someone quietly opens the API invoice. It's not 30 dollars. It's 1,500. Per employee. Per month. Andrej Karpathy — OpenAI co-founder, ex-Tesla AI chief — just put it bluntly in a recent post:  "90% of your AI bill is for context you never actually need." Imagine you're building a house for 100,000 dollars. The contractor says: "Malcolm, that'll be 1 million." — "Why 10× more?" — "Well, the context..." That's what your company is doing with every single AI query. 📚 How we got here 2022-2023: Prompt Engineering. Salaries 200,000-500,000 dollars. "Please and thank you," "think step by step," Chain of Thought. Some of it still works today.2024: The "Prompt Engineer" job title disappears. Karpathy introduces Context Engineering — the delicate art of giving the AI the right information in the right context window.2026: We now need Prompt Engineering 2.0 — not for better answers, but for answers that are 10× cheaper.🔧 Eight measurable token levers nobody in mid-market uses Chunking — split large documents into semantic chunks instead of burning 100 PDFs in one queryGrab-before-Fetch — tell the AI exactly which book to pull from the library instead of letting it read 100Prompt Caching — with stable prefix instructions, you pay only 10% (Anthropic). First cache write costs 90%, every reuse 10%. On a 17-page compliance brief = massive lever.Skill.MD / Agent.MD — work instructions for the AI. Karpathy did the math: without Skill.MD = 4 dollars per session. With Skill.MD = 30 cents. Factor 13.Compaction — manually compact long sessions yourself, don't wait for the AI to do it. Works in Claude Code, Codex, etc.Model Routing — Haiku $5/1M tokens (classification, formatting), Sonnet $15 (code review), Opus $25+ (architecture). Don't drive the Bugatti to the grocery store.Change your default model — your devs have the most expensive model set as default. Sonnet is enough in 85% of cases.Auto-Context-Loading + Prompt-Audits by a second AI = automatic context-bloat killer🚦 The electricity-bill analogy for your board Private life: 20-dollar lightbulb. If you leave it on 24 hours, it doesn't matter. Electric bill 800 or 850 — who cares. Now scale it up: factory floor. 50,000 lights. Three-shift operation. Plus machines, server room. Suddenly 5 million dollars in electricity. That's your AI bill in 2026. You spent two years buying AI without installing the meter. If I walk in as a consultant and say "1-million-dollar project to optimize your prompts" — and you go from 5 million to 500,000? That's factor 10. From 4 million in savings, I'd happily take 1 million. 📟 Cloud-Meter — the physical electricity meter for your AI Someone built a small cube with a touchscreen that displays in real time how much money he's burning on tokens. Sits on the desk next to the laptop. GitHub repo, viral on TikTok. A human built a literal power meter for AI because he can't grasp how much he's spending in the abstract. 🎯 Three Monday actions 1. Subscription Audit: Claude Code + Codex + Cursor + Lovable Pro + ChatGPT Plus + Gemini all running in parallel? Have an AI list every duplicate spend. At werchota.ai we save thousands monthly by subscribing fast and canceling fast.2. Build Skill.MDs: The moment you do a process twice, write a Skill.MD. We have a GitHub Skill Repository at werchota — every skill = better quality + 13× fewer tokens.3. Change the default model: Open Claude / Codex / Cursor, switch the default model to Sonnet (or smaller). You'll hit "max out" less often — and you can work much longer per session.💬 The question every board needs to answer "How much does one token cost us?" Your CFO knows the electricity bill. Knows the gold price. Knows the price of gasoline. Knows the price of milk at the supermarket. They don't know the token price. And they don't yet know they should know it. That's the new language we have to learn. AI-language. First mover wins. ⏱️ Timestamps 00:00 — Cold open: The 1,000-dollar Dubai roaming bill03:30 — Two worlds: private flat-rate vs. enterprise API06:00 — Karpathy: 90% of your AI bill is wasted context08:30 — Retro: Prompt Engineering 2022 → Context Engineering 2024 → Prompt Engineering 2.013:00 — Chunking + Grab-before-Fetch16:00 — Prompt Caching: 10% instead of 100%19:00 — Skill.MD / Agent.MD — Factor 1322:00 — Compaction25:00 — Electricity bill analogy: 5M in token costs with no meter28:00 — Cloud-Meter — the physical token meter30:00 — Model Routing: Haiku / Sonnet / Opus — Skoda, Ferrari, Bugatti33:00 — Three Monday actions: Subscription Audit, Skill.MDs, Default Model37:00 — The question for every board: "How much does one token cost us?"🎙️ About the Host Malcolm Werchota runs AI adoption programs for companies across Europe. After 15+ years at Novartis and Schlumberger, today's focus: AI without the b******t. Lecturer at ESADE and HSLU. Studied in Leoben. 🚀 Resources for Executives 📚 Chief AI Academy — AI for Decision Makers👥 AI Leadership Community🌐 werchota.ai📬 Contact LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/malcolmwerchotaEmail: [email protected]📰 Sources Andrej Karpathy — recent X/Twitter post on Context Engineering & Skill.MD factor 13Anthropic — Prompt Caching Pricing (10/90 split)Anthropic — Model pricing Haiku / Sonnet 4.6 / Opus 4.7GitHub — Cloud-Meter open-source project (viral on TikTok)Werchota.ai — internal Skill Repository & Subscription Audit workflowTags: #PromptEngineering #ContextEngineering #Karpathy #Anthropic #Claude #ClaudeCode #Codex #Tokens #AICost #PromptCaching #SkillMD #ModelRouting #CFO #CTO #werchota #ChiefAIAcademy #TheAICookbookShow

Welcome to AI Drama. A story in two cities, with one villain, a 16-billion-dollar valuation, and one of the biggest conflicts of interest in the entire AI world. Manila, May 5, 2026. A man named Ivan — a "quality analyst" at one of the world's largest BPO companies — sits across from reporters and says one sentence that should make all of us shiver: "I actually helped improve the work of an AI, and now AI replaced my job." Same day, 12,000 kilometers away in San Francisco, a press release drops: $950 million fresh funding. Valuation: $16 billion. Investors: Tiger Global, Google Ventures, Sequoia, Benchmark. The company: Sierra. And 99% of humanity has never heard of them. Even though 40% of every Fortune 50 company runs Sierra agents. One of the three largest banks in the world. Weight Watchers, Cigna, Blue Cross, Rocket Mortgage, Sonos. 95% of US Black Friday shoppers last year had a conversation with a Sierra agent — and never knew it. 📈 The numbers that don't add up Valuation 9 months ago: $10B → today $16B (+60%)ARR end of 2024: $25M → February: $100M → today: $150M (6× in 18 months)Valuation multiple: 105× revenue. SaaS norm is 5-10×. This isn't a valuation anymore — it's an evangelistic belief.Lead VC Peter Fenton from Benchmark: "Sierra is by all measures the winner in the customer experience category." 🎭 Who is Brett Taylor? Go check him out — he should be as famous as Sam Altman or Mark Zuckerberg. He's not. Co-invented Google MapsCTO at FacebookChairman of the board at Twitter — sat at the table during Elon's takeoverCo-CEO at Salesforce next to Mark Benioff. Learned the customer list, the pricing weaknesses, the pain points.Left Salesforce January 2023 → founded Sierra February 2023The customer trophy case Sierra poached from Salesforce: Sonos, Casper, Rocket Mortgage. Taylor also poached Eric — the head of Salesforce's Agent Force. The result for Salesforce: support team cut from 9,000 to 5,000 in 18 months. Stock down 30% in 2026 — one of the worst Dow Jones performers. ⚖️ Two chairs, one man Remember the OpenAI drama? Sam Altman fired, Satya Nadella flying in, mass-resignation threats, the board imploding? In the middle of all that chaos, who got named Chairman of the Board at OpenAI? Brett Taylor. Now add it up: Sierra uses OpenAI models → Sierra is a customer of OpenAITaylor chairs OpenAI → he sits at both sides of the tableSierra's $950M round includes Google Ventures — OpenAI's direct competitorSierra runs a constellation of 15 frontier models: ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Llama, fine-tuned proprietary — they don't care, they're not monogamousHis diplomatic answer for years: "We exist at different layers of the tech stack. I would recuse myself if there was an opportunity for conflict." Sure, Brett. And at Davos in January, he was on CNBC criticizing AI valuations. Four months later he takes $950M at 105× revenue. The man who warned about the bubble is inflating it himself. 🤖 The Sierra Agent OS — what actually happens in 500 ms When you call a Sierra agent, this happens before you finish your first sentence: Planner agent receives the customer intent — figures out why you're callingExecutor agents tap into different backends — CRM, payment gateway, inventory, knowledge base. Different models for different jobs.Validator agent reviews the response against policy rules before it reaches youModel failover — if OpenAI's API goes down or starts hallucinating, it auto-routes to Anthropic, then to whichever LLM is healthy. Sierra is built assuming every model will fail eventually.One second into your call, Sierra has already orchestrated 3+ models. 🛒 Who actually runs this Weight Watchers — 70% of all customer sessions are Sierra. CSAT: 4.6/5 — higher than humans.Sonos — Sierra handles the hard stuff: full setup wizards, Wi-Fi config, music service integration, end-to-end onboardingHealthcare, fintech, credit cards, mortgages — the list is long and growing.These aren't chatbots. They're process machines that take actions. ⚔️ Why AI agents beat humans in this category Don't get tired — no morning, no evening, no hangover, no sick kidNo bad days. After 3 angry customers a human is done — the agent's consistency is auditableSpeak every language on earth — Zulu, Mandarin, Arabic, Portuguese, all of themAnalyze tone in real time — stressed, frustrated, resigned — and plan the next sentence to de-escalateParallel system access — CRM + return policy + manuals + history all in "head" simultaneouslyLearn from every conversation. Humans don't — our brains are too small.🎬 Who watches the watchman? Two chairs, both empty by midnight. The chairman who left the OpenAI boardroom is the same chairman who signed the $950M term sheet for the company that will be selling you AI agents. And Mr. Ivan? Ivan and his thousand friends spent years learning headsets, learning manuals, learning customer service. Their jobs are now performed by an AI agent that costs peanuts. In the AI economy of 2026 and 2027, your company will turn to Sierra. Because it's cheaper. More efficient. Auditable. And Mr. Brett, with his beautiful conflict-of-interest architecture, is absolutely worth the AI drama. ⏱️ Timestamps 00:00 — Cold open: Manila + Ivan, San Francisco + $950M03:00 — Who is Sierra? 16B valuation, 40% of Fortune 50, 95% of Black Friday06:00 — The 105× revenue multiple problem08:30 — Brett Taylor's resume — Google Maps to Facebook to Twitter to Salesforce12:00 — Salesforce bleeds: 9,000 → 5,000 support, stock −30%14:30 — The OpenAI chair + Google money + Sierra customer conflict architecture17:00 — Davos hypocrisy: warning about AI bubble while inflating it18:30 — Inside Sierra's Agent OS — planner, executors, validator, 500ms orchestration22:00 — Weight Watchers (CSAT 4.6/5), Sonos end-to-end onboarding25:00 — Why AI agents beat humans on this category28:00 — Who watches the watchman? Closing from Bregenz.🎙️ About the Host Malcolm Werchota runs AI adoption programs for companies across Europe. After 15+ years at Novartis and Schlumberger, today's focus: AI without the b******t. Lecturer at ESADE and HSLU. Studied in Leoben. 🚀 Resources for Executives 📚 Chief AI Academy — AI for Decision Makers👥 AI Leadership Community🌐 werchota.ai📬 Contact

A good friend of Malcolm — from the automotive industry — said it to his face: "Malcolm, your podcast is nice and all, but in our auto sector, literally nothing is moving. Nobody is firing people because of AI." Wrong. So wrong. This episode is the answer. Here's the line that anchors the whole episode: AI doesn't really eliminate jobs. What it does — it eliminates ROLES. And in 2026, the companies that survive are the ones that hire three completely new types of roles that didn't exist two years ago. Look at General Motors right now: 500-600 IT positions gone in one wave. Plus the 1,000 software engineers they cut two years ago. Multiple parallel waves over 18 months. The "important ones who are supposed to roll out AI" — exactly them. And it's not just GM. The pattern runs from San Francisco to Munich. Siemens. SAP. Amazon (14,000 corporate roles last year + another 16,000 this year). Microsoft (15,000 + 15,000, three rounds planned). Workday. CrowdStrike. Block. These aren't trees being trimmed — these are entire forests being clear-cut. 🤖 What is an AI Agent, anyway? Malcolm's working definition, after his 76-year-old dad visited last weekend and watched a live Claude Code demo: "An AI Agent is an AI with arms." It doesn't just chat — it executes. It opens files, writes code, files tickets, books meetings. His dad's reaction watching Claude Code work autonomously: stunned silence, then "this changes everything." If a 76-year-old gets it in 10 minutes, your CFO has no excuse. 🎯 The Three Roles You MUST Hire in 2026 AI Agent Trainer — Not people who "use AI." People who train AI agents to do company-specific work. Completely different skill. This is the new prompt engineer + ops hybrid.Buy-vs-Build Specialist — Someone who can look at a problem and call it: do we license a SaaS tool, or do we build it ourselves now that AI makes building 10× cheaper? Wrong call = millions wasted either way.AI Teacher / Internal Enablement — Someone who can teach other humans how to use AI. Sounds basic. Biggest leverage point in the entire company. Without this role, your $200/month Claude licenses sit unused.🚦 The Red-Yellow-Green Traffic Light System Score every candidate on the three skills: 🟢 Green: All three — can train agents, can judge build/buy, can teach others🟡 Yellow: Two out of three (hire and develop the third)🔴 Red: Zero out of three → 99% of all hires being made in 2026 right now sit here📋 Stop Running 1990s Interviews If you're still asking "tell me three strengths and three weaknesses" — you are running an interview format from the 90s in a market that has fundamentally changed. Ask instead: "Have you trained anyone in your last role? Show me the deck.""Teach me something about AI that I don't already know.""Share your screen — show me LIVE how you use AI."The screen-share question alone filters out 80% of "AI-savvy" candidates in the first 30 seconds. ⚠️ The Uncomfortable Truth for HR If you sit in HR and you don't have a traffic light system — you are next on the red list. Sit with that for a second. Because the structured, repetitive screening work HR has been doing for 20 years is exactly the work AI agents do best now. Malcolm acknowledges Klarna as a "bad example" — they fired customer service, rolled out AI, then had to re-hire. The Salesforce paradox. But this is becoming the exception, not the rule. The pattern is shifting from "fire then re-hire" to "don't re-hire in the first place." Senior retires? Don't backfill. Junior asks for a repetitive data task? That task doesn't exist anymore. Harvard Business Review has documented this: since ChatGPT, junior hiring for structured work has dropped significantly. ⏱️ Timestamps 00:00 — Cold open: For my friend in automotive who said "nothing is happening"02:30 — GM: 500-600 IT roles + the 1,000 from two years ago05:00 — The pattern: SF to Munich — Siemens, SAP, Amazon, Microsoft07:30 — Klarna and the Salesforce paradox (fire then re-hire)10:00 — Jobs vs Roles — the distinction that changes everything12:00 — My 76-year-old dad meets Claude Code — "AI with arms"14:30 — The three new roles you MUST hire17:00 — The Red-Yellow-Green traffic light19:00 — Stop running interviews from the 90s20:30 — Why HR is next on the red list22:00 — Closing: Leoben, Manuel, Simona, half miracles🎙️ About the Host Malcolm Werchota runs AI adoption programs for companies across Europe. After 15+ years at Novartis and Schlumberger, today's focus: AI without the b******t. Lecturer at ESADE and HSLU. Studied in Leoben. 🚀 Resources for Executives 📚 Chief AI Academy — AI for Decision Makers👥 AI Leadership Community🌐 werchota.ai📬 Contact LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/malcolmwerchotaEmail: [email protected]📰 Sources TechCrunch + Transport Topics — General Motors IT Layoffs 2026Amazon Corporate Layoffs reporting (14k + 16k planned)Microsoft Workforce Adjustments under Satya NadellaHarvard Business Review — The ChatGPT Effect on Junior HiringGartner + McKinsey — AI Role Redesign FrameworksTags: #AI #AICookbook #AIAdoption #JobMarket #FutureOfWork #RoleRedesign #GM #Siemens #SAP #Amazon #Microsoft #Automotive #HR #Recruiting #Hiring #AIAgent #BuyVsBuild #Klarna #werchota #ChiefAIAcademy #TheAICookbookShow