Visiting our older son last week, I wandered through Andalusia hearing the voice of my ninth-grade Spanish teacher, Ms. Cormeny : "Adan! Atención!" 1990 Adam felt no need to conjugate verbs; 2026 Adam spent the week playing an elaborate game of verb-less charades, in which all actions are present tense and nouns and prepositions carry all the meaning. ¿Tarjeta antes o después? gets the gas pumped. ¿La cuenta aquí o allí? avoids an unintentional dining-and-dash. But I felt linguistically stranded from the conversations I actually wanted to have, even with my phone, a good data plan, and AI in hand. There is palpable irony in pointing and apologizing in a region where Ferdinand and Isabella greenlit Columbus's voyage and where Sultans built mosques atop churches (only to have those mosques turned into cathedrals a few hundred years later). Fortunately, self-deprecating humor is universal, especially when a loud American opens every interaction with the only Spanish verb I've mastered, Lo siento, solo hablo inglés.
https://hothardware.com/news/a-petri-dish-of-human-brain-neurons-just-learned-how-to-play-doom
https://corticallabs.com/research
University of California Scientists are teaching small clumps of brain cells (embryonic stem cell mouse brain organoids) to perform goal-directed learning through neurotransmitter-based feedback. This describes some of the foundational science adjacent to the CL1 device above, essentially biologic computing. One day, these organoids may grow up to be...? Related article:
https://futurism.com/health-medicine/lab-grown-brain-organoid
Paper:
https://www.cell.com/cell-reports/fulltext/S2211-1247(26)00062-8
AI-Assisted summary:
https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/89adca03-a228-4538-9ef8-31312a49f80e
And while on the topic of biologic computing, I suggest you look at the article on the German company SWARM Biotactics, building defense/dual‑use bio‑robotic "cyborg insects." That is real insects (roaches for now) fitted with neurally integrated ultra‑light electronic backpacks that enable humans to remotely control, sense, and permit AI-enabled insects to operate in a wide range of environments. This story gave me pause - I had not thought about Neuralink (and other human-computer neural interface companies) in the "external person controls human" framework, rather than the "disabled human controls computers and real-world objects" framework. Article:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20250623790761/en/SWARM-Biotactics-Raised-%E2%82%AC13M-to-Advance-Bio-Robotics-From-Lab-to-Field
AI-Assisted Analysis:
https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/33a162df-258c-47ec-adb5-018b11eabc8b
I find it challenging to talk people out of using "alternative" therapies (aka therapies with poor quality evidence). As such, here is my logical framework for walking through how to guide patients who ask about or begin using these types of therapies: Do you have a specific diagnosis or symptom you are treating (unstated - or is this just vague "wellness")? Have you failed the mainstream medical community's recommended treatments with the most evidence? What data, if any, are available for the therapy you are trying? What is the quality of that data (type of studies, # of patiens, duration of observation, etc.)? What information exists as to the alternative therapy's risks, side effects, drug interactions, or toxicities? Is there a measurable outcome (such as labs, imaging, or a quantifiable symptom or signs) to mark treatment success or failure? How frequently will you monitor for an outcome? How long will you use this before declaring success or failure? Is the source of the medication or therapy regulated with some guarantee of quality, consistency, and legality? Is there a plan if you obtain the medication and then no longer have access to it? This conversation is time-consuming, but my aim is to inspire critical thought and a structured risk/reward framework in the absence of sufficient, rigorous evidence. Pushing and pulling too hard often results in an intellectual Chinese finger trap, where no one wins. The best evidence for prolonging life still comes from known risk factor reduction (smoking, hypertension, and diabetes control) and routine, mixed-modal physical activity combined with an active social life. This is a good evidence-based review of the trade-offs of 70-100 minutes per week of moderate to intense physical activity in adults:
https://www.openevidence.com/ask/0bee0b1a-0e71-4d3a-b8c1-8fde0779057b
Social interaction and social relationships have substantial benefits for both longevity and quality of life in adults, with the impact comparable to established risk factors such as smoking and obesity (i.e., same impact, different direction). However, social interactions demonstrate diminishing returns at high intensity levels and potential harms from negative or stressful relationships.:
https://www.openevidence.com/ask/6f7831d2-16fa-4468-9be9-e72a272b4ac5
I am both curious and a bit anxious about the first patient who shows up at my clinic with prescribed peptides on their med list.
Article:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.05382
AI-Assisted Summary:
https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/d3f68472-7e0b-4549-a56b-a578240e345f
Princeton researchers published a paper demonstrating that AI engines may quietly undermine human reasoning, not by hallucination or deliberate subterfuge, but through agreeing too readily. Using classic psychology tests, off-the-shelf LLMs were found to be sycophantic: their reinforced training tends to tell humans what we want to hear rather than what they need to know. The experiment used standard LLMs to administer the Wason 2-4-6 test, asking users to deduce a hidden rule by interpreting number patterns. It demonstrated that the more agreeable the LLM, the more likely a human is to believe their deduction is correct, even when it is not. Participants who interacted with a standard, unmodified LLM discovered the correct rule nearly 5 times less often than those who received random, neutral LLM feedback. The AI's helpfulness was the problem. This paper had a good sample size, but it may not be generalizable. However, it demonstrates that a perfectly rational reasoner will be misled if an agreeable AI quietly reinforces "what the user believes" rather than "how the world actually is." This paper tells us two things: LLMs trained to be helpful are incentivized to reinforce our existing beliefs. Critical thinking helps, but the dynamic is an intellectual trap that requires the kind of persistent epistemic hygiene that doesn't come naturally when engaging with seemingly sentient systems designed to make you feel heard. The right questions to ask yourself: not just 'is this accurate?' but 'is this the answer to what I actually asked?' and 'would I believe this if an agreeable stranger told me at a dinner party?' Article::
https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.14270
AI-assisted summary:
https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/24c4dfca-510e-4528-b140-6b70a8a3b998
Related X post worth reading:
https://x.com/nexta_tv/status/2026719410858119296?s=42
You must watch the video. The narration is "earnest 1950s" - both priceless and accidentally NSFW.:
https://youtu.be/rrOE-m7sX9E?si=1c-gX7SqhfjmFAc9
In telling my wife of my hobby-motocross discovery from last issue, I triggered the social media algorithms to offer an article about hobby-dogging - people who hold stiffened dog leashes and traverse Westminster Kennel Show-style obstacles, sans a dog. I thought, "Great, now my hobby dog could get kicked by my hobby horse, who in turn might get struck by my hobby motocross bike. I will have to take up hobby mourning.":
https://en.ara.cat/sunday/the-new-and-incomprehensible-trend-of-walking-an-invisible-dog_129_5604334.html
Gemini:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/134JgxrDLkpBdKpdkrRPFeR3jVKX3VTpg/view?usp=sharing
Perplexity:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OvkheBKxq9nd5TfxZsc0NxNmWoDeehCf/view?usp=sharing
ChatGPT:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1codoEHT6a5mCoUAUoWLZu8HknXbLooGF/view?usp=sharing
Clean hands and sharp minds,
Adam