Generative AI 101

Thursday, January 8, 2026

9:28 AM

Most people use generative AI like a search bar, type two vague words into the box, and then blame the model when it hands back beige, forgettable text. In this episode, host Emily Laird makes the case for treating AI like a colleague who needs a real assignment: a named deliverable, the right source material, and a clear picture of what finished looks like. She breaks down the Goal, Context, Source, Expectations framework, explains grounding (and how it prevents administrative fan fiction), and looks at 2026 research suggesting generic prompt advice can actually slow people down. The real upgrade isn't prompt wizardry: it's learning to write a clear assignment.
 

🎯 JOIN THE AI WEEKLY MEETUPS

https://www.uwstout.edu/ai-weekly-meetup

 

📩 EMAIL REMINDERS FOR THE MEETUPS

https://app.e2ma.net/app2/audience/signup/2101263/1779703/

 

💬 CONNECT WITH EMILY LAIRD ON LINKEDIN

http://www.linkedin.com/in/meet-emily-laird

Six tech giants signed the White House Accord on Super Intelligence, a four-layer oversight pledge the president called "morally binding" (and published with the country's name misspelled under his signature). In this episode, host Emily Laird separates the ceremony from the machinery: what Google, Anthropic, Meta, OpenAI, xAI, and Nvidia actually committed to, why "nonbinding" is the word that matters, and what changed five days later when Washington launched the Super Intelligence Force. The real stakes are no longer about what AI companies promise, but about who is responsible when something goes wrong. Washington has given itself 120 days to figure that out.
 

🎯 JOIN THE AI WEEKLY MEETUPS

https://www.uwstout.edu/ai-weekly-meetup

 

📩 EMAIL REMINDERS FOR THE MEETUPS

https://app.e2ma.net/app2/audience/signup/2101263/1779703/

 

💬 CONNECT WITH EMILY LAIRD ON LINKEDIN

http://www.linkedin.com/in/meet-emily-laird

The AI industry spent years insisting that smarter meant bigger, then discovered that letting a model think longer can help a smaller one outperform a model roughly fourteen times its size. In this episode, host Emily Laird breaks down test-time compute (the extra reasoning a model does after you hit enter), why "think harder" settings are suddenly everywhere, and why more thinking can also mean more cost, more lag, and machines that overcomplicate easy questions. She explains when maximum reasoning actually earns its keep, why "think step by step" has become a ritual worth retiring, and how a simple generate, audit, revise loop gets better answers out of the same model. Bigger brains and longer thinking are not the same thing, and knowing the difference is now part of using AI well.
 

🎯 JOIN THE AI WEEKLY MEETUPS

https://www.uwstout.edu/ai-weekly-meetup

 

📩 EMAIL REMINDERS FOR THE MEETUPS

https://app.e2ma.net/app2/audience/signup/2101263/1779703/

 

💬 CONNECT WITH EMILY LAIRD ON LINKEDIN

http://www.linkedin.com/in/meet-emily-laird

Anthropic's leaked IPO prospectus reveals a $42 billion loss, a two-trillion-dollar valuation, and $518 billion in take-or-pay computing contracts it owes whether it uses them or not. In this episode, host Emily Laird reads the fine print: why most of that loss is an accounting charge, what the word "adjusted" is quietly cropping out, and how Amazon, Google, and Microsoft became landlord, customer, competitor, and shareholder all at once. The money moves in a circle, and this IPO is the door that lets your retirement account step inside. Here's what to watch for when the official filing finally lands.
 

🎯 JOIN THE AI WEEKLY MEETUPS

https://www.uwstout.edu/ai-weekly-meetup

 

📩 EMAIL REMINDERS FOR THE MEETUPS

https://app.e2ma.net/app2/audience/signup/2101263/1779703/

 

💬 CONNECT WITH EMILY LAIRD ON LINKEDIN

http://www.linkedin.com/in/meet-emily-laird

On this episode of Generative AI 101, host Emily Laird looks at Jensen Huang's sit-down with Ezra Klein, where the Nvidia CEO shrugged off forgetting basic math, called Geoffrey Hinton's warnings irresponsible, and then proposed shutting down any lab that can't contain its own experiments. The catch: he wants the labs themselves to decide when that rule applies. Using a concert crowd that can't sit back down, Emily explains the collective-action problem and why self-policing breaks down when everyone is racing for the same view. It's a reality check on who writes the rules for AI, and whether the man selling the chips should be the one grading the safety test.
 

🎯 JOIN THE AI WEEKLY MEETUPS

https://www.uwstout.edu/ai-weekly-meetup

 

📩 EMAIL REMINDERS FOR THE MEETUPS

https://app.e2ma.net/app2/audience/signup/2101263/1779703/

 

💬 CONNECT WITH EMILY LAIRD ON LINKEDIN

http://www.linkedin.com/in/meet-emily-laird