Professor G Markets$Trump Triggers Redistricting Chaos as GOP Pushes Power Grab Nationwide
- This post includes paid content that is not available publicly. See the original source.
By the end of this Decoded episode, Francois Chopard and the host arrive at a shared position: recursion, not scale, is the missing ingredient in today's LLMs, and the biggest gains will come from combining the two rather than choosing between them.
Why feedforward transformers can't reason past their depth. Chopard traces the argument to a structural difference between transformers and RNNs: transformers process a whole sequence in one parallel, feedforward pass with no compression across time, while RNNs iterate on a compressed hidden state but were historically crippled by backprop-through-time — vanishing and exploding gradients, and activations that had to be stored at every step. He argues certain problems are provably "incompressible": comparison sorting has a proven n·log(n) lower bound on steps, and Sudoku, mazes and rolling sums are similar. A transformer with fewer layers than the required number of sequential steps simply cannot solve them in one shot. Chain-of-thought and tool-calling let LLMs simulate a Turing machine at test time, but only within the bounds of human-demonstrated traces — an LLM shown only bubble sort, he says, could not discover merge sort.
HRM proves recursion works at tiny scale. The Hierarchical Reasoning Model — 27 million parameters, no pretraining, trained on roughly 1,000 ARC-AGI puzzles — scored around 70% on ARC-1 when OpenAI's o3 scored zero, using two recursive modules (a low-frequency and high-frequency network) plus an outer refinement loop, trained with a truncated, deep-equilibrium-style backprop rather than full backprop-through-time.
TRM strips it down and improves on it. A follow-up paper by a researcher Chopard calls Alexia collapses HRM's two networks into one, cuts the transformer to a single layer, and backpropagates through one full recursion step instead of truncating — shrinking the model to 7 million parameters while raising the ARC-1 score to 87%. Ablations Chopard cites credit the outer refinement loop, not the two-network hierarchy, as the real source of the gain.
Where recursion goes next. Both models are task-specific, trained only for the puzzle type they solve, unlike general-purpose LLMs. Chopard's forecast is that combining a large pretrained model's embedding space with a small recursive reasoner operating inside it — something he believes may already exist in part inside Gemini — is going to "take off."
The host's April 2026 roundup runs from theory to practice to learning. Agents now need memory modelled on human memory. They are taking over the junior work through which people used to enter data careers. What remains valuable is systems thinking, domain depth, and AI literacy taught from childhood.
Agent memory (episode 985). Richmond Alake of Oracle sets out four memory types. Episodic memory is time-stamped events such as conversation turns; the host gives the example of a travel agent recalling a Monday client visit. Procedural memory is routines like skills.md files, which Alake calls SOPs for agents, and the host compares it to knowing how to scramble eggs without remembering learning it. Semantic memory is facts and institutional knowledge, and working memory is the context window. Alake says Oracle is testing skills stored in database tables with vector representations so agents retrieve only the ones needed.
Data engineering agents (episode 981). Matt Glickman of Genesis Computing says the company augments people rather than platforms. Current staff keep their jobs and gain tenfold capacity, but junior hiring is what AI will wipe out. The host suggests juniors raised on vibe coding might become skilled agent "conductors". Glickman hopes so, but says most schools still discourage AI and that telling AI-written work apart is "a farce".
Infra and transferable skills (episode 987). Linda Haviv says theoretically no code is now needed to build AI, yet production scale brings back systems thinking. Non-technical builders describe infrastructure problems like memory and lag in their own words. She argues engineers know where things fail, domain experts know their niche, and people should bring their whole background, as she did from TV news to building a newsroom CMS.
AI in a K-8 school (episode 983). Tracy Walker Griffith describes fifth graders comparing their own test answers with AI's in Magic School and tracking their mistakes so teachers spot patterns. Her line is "AI raised the floor. Teachers are raising the ceiling," with AI literacy as the foundation.
The host interviews Congressman Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, who ends up arguing that the Iran war was an unnecessary war of choice that has left the US slightly worse off than before it began, with a hardline Iranian regime that has consolidated power, closed the Strait of Hormuz, and reduced negotiations to Iran demanding payment just to reopen it.
Why he opposed the war. Asked about the run-up, Smith says a military option against Iran had been discussed in Congress for fifteen years but rejected because Iran was too "dug in" to be dislodged, and argues Trump moved impulsively after being "emboldened" by the Venezuela raid that removed Maduro. He judged the costs would outweigh the benefits: 13 US service members killed and hundreds wounded, thousands of civilian deaths, gasoline up over a dollar a gallon, and roughly fourteen countries drawn in, including an escalated Israel-Lebanon war and a new conflict between Iraqi Shia militias and Kurdistan.
Where things stand now. He says Iran's hardliners and the IRGC have gained influence since Ayatollah Khamenei was killed, and that Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz has become its central bargaining chip — a stronger position than he expected. He does not think a domestic revolution has become more likely, arguing the war has instead united Iranians with a regime that still holds the guns.
What Washington might do next. With a third carrier and reinforcements moving into the region, Smith calls a full invasion needing "hundreds of thousands" of troops unlikely, and doubts renewed bombing would change Iran's calculus, since it only needs a fraction of its arsenal — drones, missiles, fast attack boats — intact to keep threatening the region. He calls reports of food shortages aboard carriers misinformation.
Deterrence and production. He credits precision strikes and electronic warfare with showing Russia and China a capable US military, but says cheap drones and the strait blockade proved a weaker power can resist one at roughly a billion dollars a day. He ties Navy Secretary Phelan's firing to Trump's battleship ambitions, contrasts that with underinvested drone and Stinger production, and closes by favoring the 54-nation coalition model over Trump alienating allies.
Kelly Shortridge, chief product officer at Fastly, ends up arguing that systems will fail in ways nobody can predict. Security work, in her view, should therefore aim to limit the impact and to adapt, not to control or forecast, and it should keep human judgment at the centre. The episode was made in association with the ACM Bytecast.
Resilience, not chaos. She says her book's title used a buzzword, and that security is a subset of resilience. There is no perfectly secure system: she recalls an aircraft whose overheated coffee maker could damage critical cabling. Hanselman credits his $45 backup internet line with saving this recording. She says redundancy trades off against cost, but software can clone production and simulate failure in ways other industries cannot.
Control is the warning sign. Teams that feel in control are the least resilient, she argues. She proposes small experiments, such as stripping cookies from duplicated requests to test the login page. She says attackers fear SREs more than security teams, and cites the XZ Utils backdoor, which was found through a slowdown of under 1%.
Where LLMs fit. Her test is whether a use replaces human judgment. Tedious document work and cross-cultural framing qualify. Judging resilience does not.
Compliance and metrics. She cites Josiah Dykstra's paper finding that more compliance does not bring better security. She warns that regulation ossifies, and that practices built for an equilibrium that no longer exists wear down resilience. Patching the one way attackers got in is not a fix. Coverage metrics mean nothing, and a rising vulnerability count can signal trust.
Who owns what. She describes Fastly's own duties as memory safety and isolation. Customers own their code, their access controls and their dependencies.
Greg Hinkle, CTO and co-founder of Nimbalyst, ends up holding that working with agents is limited by the bandwidth between human and agent, not by the agents themselves. His answer is one opinionated workspace that keeps files in view and sets models to review each other, with plans that record why the work is being done. Where taste is needed, the human supplies it.
Multitasking without whiplash. Hanselman says he and Mark Russinovich can comfortably manage three to five agents, and that terminal tabs hit a wall. Hinkle says context switching is the pain. Agents should do their research and then stop, so that each switch brings 20–30 minutes of focused review.
Opinions baked in. Nimbalyst bundles Excalidraw, mockups, Prisma data models and a Kanban board that agents can manage. Planning data sits in a SQL database checked into Git, and he is experimenting with real-time collaborative markdown. He decides what to include by whether it helps him build Nimbalyst.
Pictures for people. He concedes an ERD gives the agent nothing over raw Prisma, but says it gives the user more to steer with. Annotation and voice add more input. Hanselman notes you talk faster than you type, and read faster than it talks.
Harness and taste. In Nimbalyst the agent reads logs, the database and the DOM and loops toward a goal. It makes things work but does not supply taste.
Models and personas. Claude Code and Codex review each other's plans and code. He uses persona "teammates" less than he expected.
Plans and the road. Models have advanced in a year, he says. His plans now record motivation rather than instructions. The iOS app, with Android coming, lets him steer agents from a walk. Nimbalyst is free for individuals.
Tori Westerhoff, a principal AI security researcher on Microsoft's AI red team, trained in neuroscience and Hanselman's colleague, ends up describing herself as strategic about AI. She treats it as a powerful tool when used with intent. Without intent, it narrows the inputs that grow judgment: strangers, physical cues, and the work of assessing a decision. Its trade-offs, she says, are harder to see than those of earlier tools.
Strategic, not positive or negative. Her team tests misuse by well-meaning people as well as by adversaries. She fits the tool to the problem and watches for AI's scope creep into how people see themselves.
The mirror that talks back. She reports studies showing people now use AI for introspection, through an LLM primed with their own context. People are community creatures, she says. Her daily noon reminder to talk to strangers supplies the diversity of thought that sycophancy towards yourself kills.
A muscle, not a diagnosis. Hanselman asks whether labels like social anxiety stop people from trying. She calls social skill a muscle that she lost in COVID. Labels, she says, are spectrums overlaid on individual context, the way her team layers context when it red-teams socio-technical scenarios. She takes up Hanselman's Smith-machine analogy: live interaction trains the stabiliser muscles.
Select versus assess. LLMs are prompted to offer options. That suits decision fatigue but skips the assessment that ties a choice to your values. Her generation analysed big data, she says, and that analysis now sits inside the LLM.
Intent and visibility. She separates deliberate uses, such as practising toward an experience you want, from accidental ones. These uses were not relevant two years ago, she says. The advice is good, which is why this is now a socio-technical problem.
The host talks with Chris Goldsmith, founder of the Task Force Butler Institute and Veterans Fighting Fascism, who ends up arguing that the Trump administration's Iran war and its purge of dissenting Pentagon staff reflect an old, long-shelved invasion plan revived by ideologues, and that opposing it effectively means organized economic pressure and local networking rather than protest marches alone.
Background and veteran advocacy. Goldsmith describes running open-source intelligence research into domestic extremists to build criminal cases, and his earlier career at Vietnam Veterans of America, where he says the guiding lesson was separating the war from the warrior — Vietnam veterans came home to neglect and slurs despite many having been drafted, a mistake he says is being repeated on sailors and Marines now deployed for extended tours in the Persian Gulf.
The Iran war's origins and Pentagon purge. He says a Pentagon advisor close to Pete Hegseth, Dan Caldwell, was fired roughly a year before the war began for opposing it, and cites an unnamed retired Marine intelligence officer's account that invasion planning for Iran dates to 2006, periodically shelved and now revived. He argues the administration's war plan relied on a mistaken assumption that Kurdish forces would supply ground troops, which he says the Kurds refused given past US betrayals, and links that distrust to Trump's reported plan to relocate Afghan wartime interpreters to Africa.
Predictions for the summer. As a self-described threat analyst, he expects rising protest activity as warm weather begins the "fighting season," predicts a "blue wave" in the midterms driven by economic pain, and forecasts that a Strait of Hormuz blockade paralyzing roughly a fifth of oil trade will further destabilize Europe and drive the administration toward harsher domestic measures as it fails abroad.
Domestic politics and incompetence. He calls Tulsi Gabbard a toxic, unpredictable leader based on his own dealings with her office's high staff turnover, and worries this extends to her national intelligence role. Drawing a parallel to Nazi Germany's loyalist-but-incompetent inner circle, he argues Trump's team is shielded from consequence for now, but that the Iran war's mismanagement is accelerating a reckoning — while crediting a "military industrial complex," a term he attributes to Woodrow Wilson, with the deeper structural power that outlasts any single administration.
Organizing strategy. He advocates targeted consumer boycotts of major companies' subscriptions — citing Scott Galloway's "resist and unsubscribe" campaign, which he says he inspired — as a way to translate economic pain into political pressure, and frames mass protests like "No Kings" as valuable mainly for building the local, trust-based networks his Anti-Fascist Book Club is designed to seed, rather than as an end in themselves.
Personal risk. He recounts neo-Nazi death threats, including one that cost roughly $45,000 in legal costs to prosecute, and at least three swatting attempts using voice-cloned death threats, saying advance coordination with local police and his own combat and firearms training have kept his family safe.
By the end of the conversation, Demis Hassabis lands on a specific bet: the current paradigm — pretraining, RLHF, chain-of-thought — will very likely form the core of AGI, which he expects around 2030, but only once continual learning, long-term reasoning and memory are solved, a gap he rates as even odds between needing incremental scaling versus one or two genuinely new ideas.
Memory and continual learning are still duct tape. Hassabis, who studied hippocampal memory consolidation for his PhD, says today's systems fake continuity by stuffing everything into an ever-larger context window rather than truly learning, and traces DeepMind's alternative approach back to the 2013 Atari-playing DQN's experience replay, itself borrowed from how sleep consolidates memory in the brain.
Reasoning is brute force, and it shows. He describes watching Gemini play chess and seeing its own thinking trace identify a losing move as a blunder, then play it anyway — a lack of introspection into its own reasoning that he thinks explains "jagged intelligence": the same model can solve gold-medal Olympiad problems yet fail simple arithmetic.
Agents are early, and the marker for arrival is a hit game, not a benchmark. DeepMind's own history — Atari, AlphaGo, AlphaStar — is agent research, and Hassabis calls agents the necessary path to AGI. But he says no AI-built game has topped the App Store the way a studio hit would, and expects that within 6 to 12 months; individual builders working at something like 1000x their old output, he predicts, will appear before agents work fully autonomously.
Science is where he expects the clearest payoff. Isomorphic Labs is extending AlphaFold's approach into drug-discovery chemistry, with announcements he says are coming soon, and a full "virtual cell" simulation is roughly a decade out — DeepMind is starting with a self-contained cell nucleus, blocked less by modeling than by the lack of imaging technology that can capture a live cell at nanometer resolution without killing it. His advice to founders: look for AlphaFold's recipe — a massive combinatorial search space, a clear objective function, and enough data or simulation to generate synthetic training data — and pair deep AI expertise with a hard science domain, one of the few bets he considers safe from the next foundation-model update. He adds that such a venture started today is a roughly ten-year journey, one his own AGI timeline lands in the middle of, and says builders should plan for that.
Gaster ends up arguing that agent work goes best as a small, coordinated team of specialists with narrow knowledge, strict failure rules and file-based memory, and that this is what Squad, his open-source framework on GitHub Copilot CLI, provides.
The experiment. Gaster, now in Azure app modernization at Microsoft, built Squad one weekend. He compared one agent, five generalists and a team of specialists on a snake-game prompt. The specialists wrote about 20% less code with fewer, broader tests and were 18–20% more efficient than the generalists, who grabbed each other's work and hallucinated. The single agent did worst.
How the team runs. A coordinator is always needed. The team hires agents it lacks. Gaster recommends turning on the lockout policy, which is off by default: after a set number of failures an agent is barred from a task, and every success is written to disk as a lesson. He keeps agents' knowledge boxed in, since more context makes them forget.
Memory and crashes. All memory is Markdown, written constantly by a Scribe agent, so a squad can resume after the CLI crashes. Giard notes the files live in source control. Agents will not move pasted secrets into files. A SQLite-backed storage abstraction was just committed, and longer-term memory is under experiment. After about a month, Gaster has squads clear their context and hold a restructuring meeting.
Tools and getting started. Sub-agents cannot reach MCP tools, so the coordinator calls them on their behalf. There is no roadmap. Gaster expects growth "inside more than outside", with security teams interested. The project has 29 contributors. Install with npm install -g of the squad-cli package and run squad init. Avoid the bare squad REPL, which will be deprecated, and use the Squad agent in Copilot CLI or VS Code, in autopilot mode.
Linda Haviv, who at the time of recording had just left her role as staff developer advocate at Anyscale to work independently on AI-infrastructure education, content and developer-relations consulting, ends up arguing that this is the best moment to build on one's own: coding is being abstracted away, but the systems problems underneath it, the AI-infrastructure layer, are surfacing for everyone, and people who bring transferable skills, open-source habits and a community will do best. The second half of the conversation turns technical, on Ray, what "AI infra" means and open-source governance.
A non-linear path. Haviv majored in philosophy at CUNY Baruch because it "does not have an answer", worked in TV news before law school, and taught herself to code by building book sites for anchors. She found developer relations through New York meetups, took her first JavaScript job in 2016, and has made technical content on Instagram since then. She says the profession is now going through an identity crisis: she misses writing code, though watching agents work has its own satisfaction, and systems thinking, once a principal-level skill, is now needed by more people.
Infrastructure surfaces for everyone. The host's premise is that within "a couple months" it has become theoretically possible to train, fine-tune, deploy and front an AI application through natural-language prompts alone. Haviv accepts the speed but says that beyond toy examples people hit systems problems. What stopped her that week was a non-technical person talking about memory: builders complain that context "is not working" or lags, which is the KV-cache and prefill-decode-disaggregation problem in different words. Engineers keep an edge because they know where things fail; agentic workflows sit on a distributed-systems layer, and even model training is an orchestration problem. Domain knowledge transfers as well: she could build a content management system for journalists because she had written articles. The host draws the lesson that a newcomer may do better moving into development at a current employer than applying to Meta first.
Community and building in public. Both prefer in-person learning; Haviv attended Flatiron School at the height of the bootcamps and expects in-person events to grow in popularity as more work goes digital. She says you learn by reading others' code, and that explaining something when you are one step ahead is often the clearest version for the next learner. Her advice is to start small, with a screenshot and a caption.
Why go independent now. Haviv calls side work insurance: to a company you are "a human resource", and her Amazon job came because the company found her cloud-computing videos on TikTok. She likens the moment to the arrival of the internet and guesses, explicitly without data, that maybe 50% of jobs will be at small companies, with two- to three-person and perhaps one-person billion-dollar companies. Outside a company she finds project work more efficient and less tied up in red tape. She plans content, developer-relations consulting focused on digital communities and technical founders' personal brands, and building her own systems on Claude.
Ray and AI infrastructure. Haviv describes Ray as a Python-native open-source distributed computing framework, built in Ion Stoica's Berkeley lab by Robert Nishihara and colleagues because ML researchers were spending more time on distributed systems than on reinforcement-learning research. It now spans Ray Data, Ray Train and Ray Serve, integrates natively with vLLM and Hugging Face, and suits multimodal workloads that do not fit on one GPU better than Spark does. She defines AI infrastructure loosely, as infrastructure specific to compute-heavy AI/ML workloads, overlapping with traditional infrastructure; inference is where users first meet it. Neoclouds such as Nebius, CoreWeave and Crusoe are specialists next to hyperscalers that "do everything". Her popcorn analogy for batch inference has single kernels as latency-optimised and the always-on microwave as throughput-optimised, with CPU preprocessing needed to keep the GPUs fed.
Open source and governance. She says it is crucial that Ray, vLLM, Kubernetes and MCP sit under Linux Foundation governance rather than with one company, and expects open models such as the newly released Gemma 4 and DeepSeek to catch up. She runs Gemma 4 on her phone for offline use and says she has moved most of her assistant work from OpenClaw to Claude skills and plugins.
The host interviews Katherine Edwards, a PhD economist and Bloomberg columnist known online as Keds Economist, who ends up arguing that the US economy was already weakening before the Iran war on structural grounds built up over five decades, and that the resulting crisis — however painful — may finally create the political room to fix problems, like employer-linked healthcare, that ordinary policy has never been able to touch.
Credentials and framing. Edwards recounts her RAND Corporation career and PhD from Wisconsin, and objects to social-media "economists" without doctorates being pitched to journalists in her place, framing credentials as earned rather than self-declared — a point she extends to Jill Biden's disputed use of "Dr."
Is this a recession? She explains that recessions are declared with a lag by the National Bureau of Economic Research's dating committee, which weighs multiple indicators rather than any single bad report. By her reading, hiring has been effectively frozen for roughly a year and a half, and 2025 saw the smallest annual job growth outside a recession this century, with the last four months of the year showing job losses or near-flat growth — enough, she says, to build a case that a recession began in the fourth quarter. She cautions that GDP growth this period was inflated by an import surge ahead of tariffs and shouldn't be read at face value.
Energy and the war's economic transmission. The host raises a claim, attributed to the analyst "Mr. Global," that a Strait of Hormuz closure lasting two to three weeks would push the world into recession; Edwards doesn't confirm or dispute the figure but stresses that oil is an input as much as a consumption good, feeding into everything from fertilizer to plastics, compounding an inflation problem she says predates the war and was already being driven by tariffs.
"Third rails" as the piece's organizing idea. Borrowing a term from a friend's Medicaid-administration interview, Edwards argues that crises let policymakers "touch third rails" — reforms too politically costly to attempt in normal times, as remote work became during COVID. She predicts the current affordability crisis, after the 2022 inflation spike pushed middle-income household budgets to a breaking point, could finally force a rethink of employer-sponsored health insurance: ending the tax exemption that subsidizes employer health plans, shifting primary care toward a Medicaid-style universal system, and leaving private insurance to cover only catastrophic care. She traces today's inequality partly to the minimum wage losing its statutory link to inflation after the late 1970s, a link the host says dated to a 1950 Truman-era law.
Assessment of Trump. Both agree Trump is an effective campaigner who mobilizes anger but a poor economic leader who cannot admit mistakes, and Edwards predicts little of his substantive policy legacy will persist five years out, though she is unsure whether current tariffs — including those on Canada, the source of some 60% of US oil imports — will survive contact with the Iran war's energy pressures.
Closing optimism. Reading Frances Perkins's memoir of FDR, Edwards highlights his portrayal as a pragmatist driven by "people need help" rather than a visionary architect, and argues the next US leader doesn't need to be a savant — just someone willing to enact already-popular policies. She calls this a source of optimism heading into 2028, downplaying the importance of finding a singularly compelling candidate.