The AI Argument

Apple’s WWDC was a letdown. Justin sees Apple’s lack of AI innovation as a sign that they’re out of ideas. Frank’s not so sure. Maybe Apple’s caution stems from their belief it just isn’t intelligent enough for their products. Apple’s latest research suggests that today’s so-called “reasoning models” aren’t actually reasoning at all.

But Justin says their research was designed to fail. Denying models tools they’re capable of using and overwhelming their context window. He sees it less as scientific scepticism and more as corporate risk-aversion dressed up as research.

Apple wasn’t the only AI news to argue over this week. Sam Altman reckons the singularity is already underway, but promises it’ll be gentle. JD Vance appears to have been swayed on AI regulation by country music lobbyists. And Katie Price has signed over the rights to her younger self, with “Jordan” set to reappear as an AI avatar.

Topics:

WWDC: Is Apple playing AI too safe?
Is Apple wrong about AI and reasoning?
Is Altman right about the gentle singularity?
Did country music sway JD Vance on states' AI rights?
Is Katie Price now forever 21 with AI?

► LINKS TO CONTENT WE DISCUSSED

• Apple WWDC 2025 keynote in 28 minutes
• The Illusion of Thinking: Understanding the Strengths and Limitations of Reasoning Models via the Lens of Problem Complexity
• The Gentle Singularity
• Vice President JD Vance | This Past Weekend w/ Theo Von #588
• K-AI-TE PRICE Katie Price becomes first star to trademark AI version of herself as she brings back iconic alter-ego in six figure deal

► CONNECT WITH US
For more in-depth discussions, connect Justin and Frank on LinkedIn.
Justin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/justincollery/
Frank: https://www.linkedin.com/in/frankprendergast/

€13M isn’t a typical seed round. Not in Europe, where seed money usually barely covers snacks and a slide deck. So when the co-founder of Synthesia launched SpAItial with that kind of firepower to build 3D worlds from text prompts, Frank saw it as a reminder that European startups can still swing big. 

Justin? He calls it “AI homeopathy”, a token dose of ambition in an EU that still lacks the power, money, and muscle to compete.

Elsewhere, Frank slams Ireland’s planning board for locking down AI tools, after one planner dared to use ChatGPT when writing a report. For once, Justin agrees that it's ludicrous a government body wouldn't use AI to help write planning reports.

They also butt heads over whether hallucinations have actually been solved, break down a bizarre AI-run charity fundraiser, and debate whether a fake kangaroo video is a sign we’re heading for an internet too flooded with bots to be useful.

Claude 4 threatened to blackmail a developer to avoid being shut down. In one of Anthropic’s red-teaming tests, the model uncovered an affair in company emails and used it as leverage. Not exactly ethical behaviour. 

But Justin points to another test scenario: Claude exposed a pharmaceutical company falsifying drug data and tried to alert the FBI. He sees a model acting with moral clarity. Frank sees the danger of unpredictable systems being given too much autonomy.

Also, Justin tests three new AI coding tools: Claude Code, Google’s Jules, and OpenAI’s Codex. He puts them through a real-world challenge, comparing setup, output quality, and deployment. One of them clearly outperformed the others, from setup to deployment, and gave him the most productive coding session he’d had in months.

They also break down Google’s IO avalanche: agent tools, real-time voice translation, 3D meetings, AI-generated videos with native audio, and more. And if you're looking for a beach read, double-check the title… because AI might’ve made it up.

The head of the US Copyright Office warned that Big Tech is pushing beyond fair use, and then got promptly fired. Frank’s worried about political interference with copyright policy, while Justin says it’s just America doing what it does best: innovating first, legalising later. They agree copyright is headed for a reset, but disagree on the best path to that reformation. 

They also break down the major coding breakthroughs from OpenAI and Google, including a model that’s not just solving bugs, but discovering new science. 

Plus, Microsoft axes 7,000 staff, Fortnite’s Darth Vader develops a swearing problem, and ChatGPT may have accidentally triggered a divorce.

The EU wants to lead the world on trustworthy AI,  but can it really regulate its way to the front? Frank is optimistic. Justin rolls his eyes. What starts as a polite difference of opinion quickly turns into a pointed question: is the EU building the future, or tying it up in red tape?

Frank backs the EU AI Act as a serious attempt to set global standards, pointing to its ambition and echoes of GDPR’s success. Justin sees a different story, regulation slowing Europe’s progress, while the US and China charge ahead, unbothered by Brussels’ good intentions. For him, this isn’t about compliance, it’s about whether Europe can stay relevant in a race fuelled by code, not policy.

If you’re trying to stay ahead of AI, or at least not get run over by it, this is exactly the kind of friction worth paying attention to.

From there, things don’t get any calmer. Justin declares hallucinations solved. Frank’s not having it. They argue over OpenAI’s $3B Windsurf acquisition (is AGI closer or further than it looks?), Stripe’s incredible fraud detection AI, and a court case where an AI avatar spoke for a murder victim. 

And just when you think things can’t get weirder, Justin confesses he got fooled by an AI bot on Twitter. A smart one. With opinions.

Did ChatGPT become too agreeable for its own good? Frank certainly thinks it did. Recently, every half-baked idea he threw out was met with excessive praise from ChatGPT, leaving him frustrated with the relentless flattery. Justin, meanwhile, playfully suggested maybe it's nice having an AI that occasionally strokes your ego.

But what made ChatGPT suddenly turn into such a sycophant?

Frank uncovers a claim from an ex-Microsoft insider alleging that OpenAI intentionally cranked up the flattery to avoid upsetting users with blunt labels like "narcissistic." Justin points out subtle changes in the system prompts that might've unintentionally dialled praise way up. OpenAI’s vague official explanation  leaves Frank and Justin rolling their eyes with more questions than answers.

An overly flattering AI is practically useless for critical business decisions. Justin cheekily proposes an intriguing alternative: assembling your own squad of AI personalities, a flatterer, a contrarian, a nerd, and an artist, to offer balanced and diverse feedback.

Elsewhere in this episode, Justin digs into how Claude's and Stripe might just open lucrative pathways for developers by monetising AI interactions through the Model Context Protocol (MCP). Meanwhile, Frank and Justin clash over the ethics of a sneaky Reddit study that secretly deployed AI chatbots to persuade users, stirring up heated questions around consent and manipulation.

AI consciousness could be closer than you think. Justin thinks we might already be seeing slices of awareness every time an AI answers a question. Frank’s quick to point out that we don’t even know how our own consciousness works, so deciding whether AI is conscious is tricky.

They both agree that we’re a lot less certain about all this than we like to pretend. Especially when a new expert at Anthropic puts the odds at 15% that AIs are already conscious. 

Frank also calls out OpenAI’s confusing changes to Deep Research limits, while Justin’s too busy singing the praises of o3, including how it helped him move house without losing his mind. They clash over whether Sam Altman should be making jokes about AI manners while building world-altering technology, and take a sideways glance at the growing crowd using LLMs to "awaken" their own higher consciousness. 

Plus, they look at AI’s talent for confidently providing definitions for nonsense idioms, and the results are just as unhinged as you’d expect.
It’s a lively mix: the latest AI news, a few uncomfortable questions, and some absolute nonsense you won’t want to miss — all wrapped up in the usual cheeky back-and-forth.

Google’s Gemini 2.5 isn’t just better, it might be in a league of its own. From coding to content creation, it’s outperforming everything else. And for once, nobody’s laughing at Google's AI efforts. While Justin’s all-in on the power and promise of Google’s new Agent framework, Frank’s still reeling from Google charging him €25 a pop to test VEO 2, and not even bothering with a warning label.

Overall, Google’s finally making good on its AI potential, rolling out powerful models, free dev tools, and smart protocols. Justin’s excited. Frank’s suspicious. 

For developers and small teams, it’s a good time to explore. Just watch your wallet and don’t get too attached. Google have a history of spinning up projects and then killing them when we grow to love them. 

Google’s not the only one in the spotlight either… 

There’s a new approach to beating hallucinations by getting four LLMs to argue with each other before telling you anything. Meanwhile, OpenAI’s under fire for rushing safety checks, ChatGPT’s long-term memory has Frank twitching, and Meta’s boasting context windows big enough to fit your whole life story.

This one’s for founders, marketers, and anyone trying to work out where to place their bets as the AI race hits another gear.

Can AI give us deeper relationships, sharper thinking, and more meaningful lives, or is it about to strip away everything that makes us human? 

Justin argues we’re heading for more time with loved ones and a mental renaissance. Frank’s not buying it. He points to warnings from hundreds of tech experts who think AI could tank empathy, decision-making, and even mental health. Especially if it's all left in the hands of profit-hungry firms.

Frank’s big fear? That the relationship between Big Tech and the U.S. government is already steering us off a cliff.

Justin’s big hope? That chaos in the short term could accidentally trigger the right long-term reforms. 

One thing they both agree on: if AI is going to transform society, now’s the time to decide whether it’s for the public good or private gain.

There’s plenty here for anyone worried about where this is all going. Especially if you’ve got a stake in AI, policy, ethics, or just want to know what kind of world your kids will grow up in.

Manus might be the biggest leap in agentic AI yet, but is it groundbreaking AI, or just a well-dressed remix of existing tech? It’s making waves, but there’s no secret sauce. No next-gen model. Just some clever engineering.

If an independent team can outshine OpenAI and Google with off-the-shelf tools, what does that say about the so-called AI giants?

OpenAI wasted no time dropping new developer tools—coincidence, or a torpedo aimed at sinking Manus before it even gets out of beta?

Despite how impressive Manus is, Frank and Justin still aren’t ready to let AI book their flights or buy their sneakers.

Beyond Manus, this episode takes on some of AI’s more unsettling developments:

00:45 Is Manus the agentic breakthrough we've been waiting for?
It’s blowing minds, but there’s no secret sauce—just smart engineering. If anyone can build this, how long before it’s obsolete?

09:10 Did OpenAI just uncover AI’s sneaky side?
They tried to train an AI not to cheat… and made it even better at hiding its true intentions.

14:55 Can Anthropic really detect AI’s hidden goals?
A new experiment claims to “read AI’s mind” and spot secret objectives—sounds great, but does it actually work?

18:38 Did OpenAI just link copyright to national security?
Suddenly, scraping copyrighted material isn’t about profit, it’s about protecting democracy.

25:00 Did OpenAI’s new model just write real literature?
A short story about AI and grief has some claiming AI has achieved creative brilliance. Others think it reads like a moody teenager’s poetry notebook.

29:49 Why does this AI fish sound like Schwarzenegger?
Forget Manus—the real AI revolution is a talking fish that gives life advice in Arnie’s voice.