The 5 Tech Podcasts I Listen to (and You Should Too)

January 29, 2026

I listen to a lot of podcasts. Like many people, I listen in the car, in the morning while getting ready, at night before bed, and when doing things around the house. They run the gamut. Some are built around short stories, others take deep dives into individual songs, some are interview-based, others focus on world news, and, last but not least, a handful focus on tech.

When it comes to tech podcasts, there are five that I listen to religiously and want to share. What follows are my quick thoughts on each. (FYI they’re listed from the least technical to the most, although none of these are really that technical). 

Pivot 

The first is Pivot, starring Scott Galloway and Kara Swisher. Scott is a marketing professor and former industry titan, and Kara is one of the premier journalists in Silicon Valley. Like most podcasts I enjoy, the appeal is really about chemistry and balance. Kara steers the show, while Scott offers insights and, at times, off-color jokes (though he’s toned that down a fair bit). Kara often takes the lead on the key topics, and they’re refreshingly willing to disagree with each other.

Kara, who’s a big fan of Kara, plays the “older sister” role in the relationship, usually keeping a cooler head while not suffering fools gladly. Scott, by contrast, can be goofy, and is unafraid to be vulnerable; he also comes to each show armed with a boatload of stats.  When warranted, both can go off on people and topics, dropping f-bombs and letting loose invective. 

The show is billed as covering “All things tech and business,” but they regularly dip into politics and social issues. (My one peeve is that they can spend too much time discussing media conglomerates and streaming services. I like to watch Netflix, not talk about it.) The podcast drops on Tuesdays and Fridays and typically runs a bit over an hour.

Hard Fork

The second is Hard Fork, with Casey Newton from Platformer and Kevin Roose from The New York Times. Their banter is excellent. Casey plays the instigator, while Kevin laughs at Casey’s antics and bad jokes (props to Kevin for being able to laugh heartily at the drop of a hat). The show was supposed to be focused on crypto but AI happened and, like everywhere else, became the central focus. 

While they tend to align in their views, they do a good job explaining complex topics by having one take the lead while the other asks clarifying questions. Most episodes feature just the two of them, but they also bring on guests, including journalists with deep expertise and people from industry. When they talk to industry guests, they’re really good at asking tough questions and pressing them instead of simply tossing softballs.  Hard Fork comes out on Fridays and usually runs about an hour. 

Big Technology Podcast

The third is imaginatively entitled, Big Technology Podcast. It’s hosted by Alex Kantrowitz, a journalist and frequent tech commentator on outlets like CNN. Most weeks he does a single interview, some I listen to and some I skip, and on Fridays he hosts a show with Ranjan Roy from Margins. Ranjan brings a finance background and tends to be more technical than Alex who steers the conversation. Although it took me a bit, I’ve come to appreciate Alex’s dry delivery, and I like the way the two play off each other.

The AI Daily Brief

Number four is The AI Daily Brief which is the only podcast with a solo host.  For a long time, I was convinced the host was AI-generated – the delivery was flawless, there are no “you knows,” “ums,” or verbal stumbles.  It turns out however that it’s actually hosted by a human, Nathaniel Whittemore.  I don’t know who edits the show but they should get a medal.  (Of course that could be where the AI comes in). 

The shows tend to run about 25 minutes, with the first five minutes covering AI news, followed by a longer segment that goes deeper on a specific topic. The tone is more formal than the others, but he does a solid job backing up his points with tweets, articles, and other sources.

As the name suggests, it comes out daily (I don’t know how he keeps up the pace). I don’t listen to every episode, but I usually try to catch at least the first five minutes. Some episodes are better watched on YouTube, especially when he’s showing apps, demos, or stats. (I should have mentioned that all these pods can also be watched on YouTube)

Software Defined Talk

Last but not least is Software Defined Talk. Clocking in at 500+ episodes this one tends to focus on developers, open source, corporate culture, and a mix of topics that range from arcane to mundane. It stars Michael Coté, Brandon Whichard, and Matt Ray, all three of whom are or were developers. They’re the only trio in my top five, though all three aren’t always on every episode depending on the week (I’ve even had the opportunity to sit in a couple of times, so you know it’s got to be good).

Each person brings a distinct area of expertise and style. Matt Ray is the most technical and also the primary investor voice. Brandon brings product management experience, corporate culture insight, and a steady, rational perspective. Coté rounds things out with strategic insights, thoughtful musings, and occasional stories about life in the Netherlands. Coté also typically handles the closing of the show where they list upcoming conferences, give their recommendations for the week (usually books or TV shows) and Brandon gives a shout out to those around the world who he’s sent SDT stickers to. 

So there you are and there you have it, my top five.  I’m curious to know how many folks out there listen to one or more of these and if you have any not on the list and why?

Pau for now…

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Barton George

Infrastructure Is Eating the World: Circonomics and the Cult of “Bigger Is Better”

November 4, 2025

TL;DR: The market’s trillion-dollar AI boom is built on one assumption: whoever spends most on infrastructure wins. DeepSeek briefly exposed how fragile that belief is, and how quickly the system could unravel if it’s wrong. It could happen again.

On the last Monday of January, markets lost over a trillion dollars in value. Nvidia alone shed roughly $593 billion, the largest single-day drop in U.S. stock market history.

The cause: DeepSeek R1, an open-source model from China trained for a fraction of the cost of frontier systems. Its release shook market confidence by calling into question the industry maxim that whoever has the most infrastructure wins. (This reevaluation didn’t last long, and by the next day the markets had recovered.)

Nine months later, the market sits at new highs, and infrastructure spending has gone from big to absurd. OpenAI alone has pledged over $1 trillion for computing infrastructure over the next decade—against just $13 billion in annual revenue, a staggering 1:77 ratio.

We’ve entered the age of circonomics: a closed-loop economy where companies are simultaneously customers, suppliers, and investors in each other’s ecosystems. Instead of paying cash, they trade equity, warrants, and GPU access, often leasing back what they’ve sold in increasingly circular agreements. The system resembles a tangled web of interdependence, so tightly coupled that the failure of a few players could destabilize the entire ecosystem.

A single breakthrough, whether in architecture, algorithmic efficiency, or data movement, could render these trillion-dollar bets obsolete overnight. DeepSeek already proved that “bigger is better” isn’t a law of nature. A new open-source model that’s merely “good enough” could shift value upward, from infrastructure to applications, undermining the capital structure beneath today’s AI giants.  

This in turn could ripple through markets, exposing how much of today’s prosperity depends on the myth of infinite scale.

AI is unquestionably a once-in-a-generation technological shift. The question is whether it truly requires mythic levels of capital expenditure to get there. When the correction eventually comes, AI won’t die; it will evolve. The next phase will reward efficiency over magnitude: smaller, modular models, decentralized compute, open source and open architectures.

In short, disruption won’t end AI, it will force it to grow up.

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Barton George

ChatGPT-5’s Short-Lived Simplicity: One Week of Clean Design

August 17, 2025

About a month ago I wrote about my frustration with ChatGPT-4o’s pull-down menu and its mess of mismatched models.  I ended my post saying that I hoped ChatGPT 5 would address this.  Last Thursday my prayers were answered.  The pull-down was gone and with it the hodgepodge of models.  In its place there was one simple clean button.

The backlash

Not long after the new model and its clean UX debuted, a hue and cry erupted in the web-o-sphere. The biggest complaint was the disappearance of GPT-4o. People were both angry and frustrated at the loss of friendliness and companionship that 4o brought (not to mention the fact that it had been incorporated into many workflows).  To OpenAI’s credit they listened and responded. Within days 4o was back on the home screen as a “legacy model.”

Fun fact!

When I first started writing this, I wasn’t sure which keys to hit when typing “4o.” The “0” looked a couple of points smaller than the “4,” but I couldn’t quite tell. After asking the source, I learned it wasn’t a zero at all—it was a lowercase “o.”  It turns out the “o” stood for omni, signaling multimodal capability. (I’ve got to believe that I’m not the only one surprised and confused by this)

As a follow up I asked if GPT-5 is multimodal. The answer: “Indeed.” Which then raises another question—why isn’t it called “GPT-5o”? But I digress.

The return of the pull-down

Along with 4o, came the reintroduction of the pull-down menu which, in addition to the “Legacy Models” button,  presented four thinking modes to choose from  (it seems the thinking modes were added in response to what some users felt was GPT-5’s slow speed and lack of flexibility).  

  • Auto – decides how long to think
  • Fast – instant answers
  • Thinking – thinks longer for better answers 
  • Pro – Research-grade intelligence (upgrade)

While power users must have rejoiced, I found myself, once again, confronted with a set of options lacking helpful explanations.  While it was certainly an improvement over GPT-4o’s mess of models and naming conventions I found myself left with many questions: 

While power users must have rejoiced, I found myself, once again, confronted with a set of options lacking helpful explanations.  While it was certainly an improvement over GPT-4o’s mess of models and naming conventions I found myself left with many questions:  What criteria does Auto use to determine how long to think?  What tradeoffs come with Fast?  What exactly qualifies as “better” in Thinking?  if I’m impatient will I get lesser answers?  And what the heck is “research-grade” and why would I pay more for it?

Just like GPT-4o where I rarely ventured beyond the main model, so far I have kept GPT-5 in auto mode.

Grading the model

Before grading the models myself I decided to get ChatGPT 5’s thoughts.  I asked the AI to focus its grading on the UX experience, specifically to what extent a user would be able to quickly and confidently pick the right mode for a given task. 

Surprisingly, it graded itself and its predecessor just as I would have. GPT-5 gave the GPT-4o UX a C– and its own, a B-.   From there it went through and critiqued the experiences in detail.  

At the very end, GPT-5  offered to put together a proposal for a “redesigned hybrid menu that takes GPT-5’s simplicity and pairs it with short, task-oriented descriptions so users can choose confidently without guesswork.”  If only OpenAI had access to a tool like this!

Your mileage may vary

Over the past week I’ve used GPT-5 a fair amount. While I can’t measure results objectively, Auto seems to choose well. Writing, research, and analysis have been solid.

Compared to 4o I found that it spent significantly more time researching and answering questions. Not only have I noticed the increase in thinking time,  but for the first time I witnessed “stepwise reasoning with visible sub-tasks.” Component topics were flashed on the screen as GPT-5 focused on each one at a time. The rigor was impressive, and the answers were detailed and informative.

Was it an improvement over 4o? Hard to tell—but the process felt more deliberate and transparent, even if it took longer.

Back to UX

And yet, we’re back to a cluttered pull-down. OpenAI isn’t alone—Anthropic and Gemini also present users with a maze of choices that lack clarity.  What’s surprising is how little attention is paid to basic UX. Even simple fixes—like linking to a quick FAQ or watching a handful of users struggle through the interface—would go a long way.

As LLMs become interchangeable, the real competition will move higher up the stack. At that point, user experience will outweigh minor gains in benchmarks. It makes sense to start practicing now.

Pau for now…

1 Comment | Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Barton George

You Can’t Build an AI Strategy Without a Data Strategy

August 15, 2025

At their foundation, AI systems are massive data engines. Training, deploying, and operating AI models requires handling enormous datasets—and the speed at which data moves between storage and compute can make or break performance. In many organizations, this data movement becomes the biggest constraint. Even with better algorithms, companies frequently point to limitations in data infrastructure as the top barrier to AI success.

During the recent AI Infrastructure Field Day, Solidigm—a maker of high-performance SSDs built for AI workloads—shared how data travels through an AI training workflow and why storage plays an equally important role as compute. Their central point: AI training succeeds when storage and memory work in sync, keeping GPUs fully fed with data. Since high-bandwidth memory (HBM) can’t store entire datasets, orchestrating the flow between storage and memory is essential.

The takeaway: Well-designed storage architecture ensures GPUs can run at peak capacity, provided data arrives quickly and efficiently.

Raw Data → Data Preparation

Raw Data Set
The process begins with large volumes of unstructured data written to disk, usually on network-attached storage (NAS) systems optimized for density and energy efficiency.

Data Prep 1
Batches of raw data are pulled into compute server memory, where the CPU performs ETL (Extract, Transform, Load) to clean and normalize the information.

Data Prep 2
The cleaned dataset is then stored back on disk and also streamed to the machine learning algorithm running on GPUs.

Training → Archiving

Training
From a data perspective, training generates two outputs:

  1. The completed model, written first to memory and then saved to disk.
  2. Multiple “checkpoints” saved during training to enable recovery from failures—these are often written directly to disk.

Archive
Once training is complete, key datasets and outputs are archived in network storage for long-term retention, audits, or reuse.

NVIDIA GPUDirect Storage

A noteworthy technology in this process is NVIDIA GPUDirect Storage, which establishes a direct transfer path from SSDs to GPU memory. This bypasses the CPU and system memory, reducing latency and improving throughput.

Final Thought

While having more data can lead to better model accuracy, efficiently managing that data is just as important. Storage architecture decisions directly impact both performance and power usage—making them a critical part of any serious AI strategy.

Extra-credit reading:

Pau for now…

1 Comment | Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Barton George

Meta, Llama and Malcolm in the Middle – Prime Time Open Washing

July 14, 2025

My son and I were watching a Malcolm in the Middle marathon recently when, rather than typical detergent or Nissan ads, multiple 30-second spots from Meta popped up.  Each advert highlighted the virtues of open source through their Llama LLM and ended with taglines like, “Open source AI. Available to all, not just the few.”  The message I took away was: Open Source AI benefits everyone.  Llama is Open Source. Llama benefits everyone.

These weren’t your usual niche tech ads (see two examples below)—they were slick, mainstream productions airing during a popular family sitcom. Surprised and puzzled, I did some digging and learned these ads were rolled out at the end of last year and intensified around April and May to coincide with the release of Llama 4 and leveraging the momentum from Llama 3.1.

But is Llama truly open source?
No. The Open Source Initiative (OSI), the definitive authority on open source standards, notes several critical shortfalls:

  • Commercial Restrictions: Limit on large-scale commercial use excludes key competitors.
  • Redistribution Restrictions: Violates principles of unrestricted redistribution.
  • Training Data Not Public: OSI’s AI-specific definition requires open access to training datasets.
  • Regional Restrictions: Certain geographic uses (e.g., in the EU) may be prohibited.

Meta can set whatever restrictions they want on their software, but if they impose the above restrictions, Llama doesnt  qualify as “open source.”

Do the ends justify the means?
On one hand, Labeling Llama as open source could dilute the definition, opening it up to interpretation and potentially undermining genuine open-source projects. Critics argue this erodes trust, blurs established norms, and disadvantages truly open projects.

On the other hand, there’s a notable benefit: Meta’s mainstream campaign significantly boosts public awareness and portrays open source as beneficial, democratizing technology and driving innovation.   

Ultimately, the challenge is balancing the immense public exposure Meta’s Llama TV ads provide to the open source movement against concerns about accurately preserving the open source definition. The key question for the open source community is not whether these TV ads cause harm—they likely don’t—but how to maintain the integrity of what “open source” really means, which in the new world of AI, has become even harder.

Two examples

Meta AI TV Spot, ‘Open Source AI: Everyone Benefits’ (prosthesis)
“Open source AI is an open invitation. To take our model and build amazing things… When AI is open source, it’s available to all, and everyone benefits.

Meta AI TV Spot, ‘Open Source AI: Collaboration’ (start up)
“Open source AI allows universities, researchers, and scientists to collaborate using Meta’s free open-source AI Llama… potentially fast-tracking life-saving medications.”

Extra-credit reading

Pau for now…

1 Comment | Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Barton George

Why Storage Matters in Every Stage of the AI Pipeline

June 13, 2025

One of the companies that impressed me at AI Infrastructure Field Days was Solidigm. Solidigm, which was spun out of Intel’s storage and memory group, is a manufacturer of high-performance solid-state drives (SSDs) optimized for AI and data-intensive workloads.  What I particularly appreciated about Solidigm’s presentation was, rather than diving directly into speeds and feeds, they started by providing us with a broader context.  They spent the first part of the presentation orientating us and explaining the role storage plays and what to consider when building out an AI environment. They started by walking us through the AI data pipeline: (for the TL;DR see “My Takeaways” at the bottom)

Breaking down the AI Data Pipeline

Solidigm’s Ace Stryker kicked off their presentation by breaking the AI data pipeline into two phases: Foundation Model Development on the front end and Enterprise Solution Deployment on the back end. Each of these phases is then made up of three discrete stages.

Phase I: Foundation Model Development. 

The development of foundation models is usually done by a hyper-scaler working in a huge data center.  Ace defined foundation models as typically being LLMs, Recommendation Engines, Chatbots, Natural Language Processing, Classifiers and Computer Vision.  Within foundation model development phase, raw data is ingested, prepped and then used to train the model. The discreet steps are:

1. Data Ingest: Raw, unstructured data is written to disk.

2. Data Preparation: Data is cleaned and vectorized to prepare it for training.

3. Training: Structured data is fed into ML algorithms to produce a base (foundation) model.

Phase II: Enterprise Solution Deployment

As the name implies, phase II takes place inside the enterprise whether that’s in the core data center, the near edge or the far edge.  In phase II models are fitted and deployed with the goal of solving a specific business problem:  

4. Fine-Tuning: Foundation models are customized using domain-specific data (e.g., chatbot conversations).

5. Inference: The model is deployed for real-time use, sometimes enhanced with external data (via Retrieval Augmented Generation).

6. Archive: All intermediate and final data is stored for auditing or reuse.

Data Flows and Magnitude

From there took us through the above slide which lays out how data is generated and flows through the pipeline.  Every item above with disk icon represents the substantial data that is generated during the workflow.  The purple half circles give a sense of the relative size of the data sets by stage.  (an aside: it doesn’t surprise me that Inference is the stage that generates the most data but I wouldn’t have thought that Training would be significantly less than the rest).  

Data Locality and I/O Types

Ace ended our walk through by pointing out where all this data is stored as well as what kinds of disk activity takes place at each stage.

Data Locality:

Above, Network Attached Storage is indicated in blue and Direct Attached Storage is called out in yellow ie Ingest is pure NAS, Training and Tuning are all DAS, Prep, Inference and Archive are 50/50.  Basically, early and late stages rely on network-attached storage (NAS) for capacity and power efficiency.  Middle stages, on the other hand, use direct-attached storage (DAS) for speed, ensuring GPUs are continuously fed data.  The takeaway: direct attached storage for high-performance workloads and network storage for larger, more complex datasets.

I/O Types:

As Ace explained, it’s useful to know what kinds of disk activity are most prevalent during each stage.  And that knowing the I/O characteristics can help ensure the best decisions are being made for the storage subsystem.  For example,

  • Early stages favor sequential writes.
  • Training workloads are random read intensive.

Something else the presentation stressed was the significance of GPU direct storage, which can reduce CPU utilization and improve overall AI system performance by allowing direct data transfer between storage and GPU memory.

My takeaways

  1. It may sound corny but Data is the lifeblood of the AI pipeline
  2. The AI data pipeline has both a front end and a back end. The back end usually sits in a hyperscaler where, after being ingested and prepped, the data is used to train the model. The front end is within the enterprise where the model is tuned for business-specific use then used for inference with the resulting data archived for audits or reuse.
  3. Not only is there a lot of data in the pipeline but it grows (data begets data). Some stages amass more data than others.
  4. There isn’t one storage type that dominates. In those stages like Data Ingest where density and power efficiency are key you want to go with NAS whereas in areas like Training and Fine Tuning, where you want performance to keep the GPUs busy, DAS is what you want.

Pau for now…

1 Comment | Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Barton George

Rethinking Monitoring: How Catchpoint Shifts Focus to the End User

May 12, 2025

At Cloud Field Day, I sat in on a presentation from Catchpoint, a company focused on digital experience monitoring. Their platform delivers real-time insights into the performance and availability of applications, services, and networks. What sets Catchpoint apart is how they’re reframing observability—moving away from infrastructure-centric monitoring and placing the focus squarely on end-user experience.

It started with a three-hour outage

Catchpoint’s origin story starts with co-founder and CEO Mehdi Daoudi, who previously led a team at DoubleClick (later acquired by Google) responsible for delivering 40 billion ad impressions per day. After accidentally triggering a three-hour outage, he became deeply committed to performance monitoring. “If I had to run the same team I ran back then, I would focus on the end user first,” he said. “Because that’s what matters.”

Catchpoint slide comparing traditional infrastructure-first monitoring with a modern end-user-first approach using inverted pyramid diagrams

Users Don’t Live in your Data Center

“Traditional monitoring starts from the infrastructure up,” explained Mehdi explained: “but users don’t live in your data center.” Catchpoint flips the model by simulating real user activity from the edge, surfacing issues like latency, outages, or degraded performance before they affect customers—or make headlines.

no CIO wakes up hoping for “50% availability.

Mehdi illustrated the point with a story: walking into a customer network operations center where every internal system showed green lights—yet no ads were being delivered. The problem? Monitoring was focused inside the data center, not from the perspective of users on the outside. That gap in visibility led to costly blind spots.

In today’s distributed, cloud-first world—where user experience depends on a web of DNS providers, CDNs, edge nodes, and cloud services—that lesson is even more relevant. The internet may be a black box, but users expect it to work seamlessly, and they’ll publicly let you know when it doesn’t.

Catching the unknown unknowns

By reducing both mean-time-to-detect (MTTD) and mean-time-to-repair (MTTR), Catchpoint helps teams catch “unknown unknowns”—the unexpected failures APM tools often miss until it’s too late. It’s not just about knowing what went wrong, but knowing before your customers notice.

In a fragile, high-stakes digital environment, monitoring isn’t just an IT concern anymore—it’s a business-critical capability. As Mehdi put it, no CIO wakes up hoping for “50% availability.” Reliability is not a nice-to-have.

Pau for now…

1 Comment | Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Barton George

Fortinet CNAPP Review: AI-Powered Cloud Security and Composite Threat Detection

May 9, 2025

At Cloud Field Day 22, cybersecurity leader Fortinet shared its vision for managing the growing complexity of cloud-native environments. Their focus: enabling security teams to move faster, reduce alert fatigue, and make smarter decisions using AI-driven threat detection and automation.

Navigating Modern Cloud Security Challenges

In traditional data centers, firewalls protected predictable network chokepoints. But in the cloud, the security landscape is fluid—defined by ephemeral workloads, dynamic ingress/egress, and fragmented microservices. These cloud-native architectures make visibility and threat correlation far more difficult.

Side-by-side comparison of traditional data center architecture and complex public cloud infrastructure using AWS services and global network peering.

Fortinet’s response is to empower security operators with a cloud-native security platform designed to turn noisy telemetry into meaningful, actionable insight.

Inside Fortinet’s CNAPP: Composite Threat Detection at Scale

Fortinet’s Cloud-Native Application Protection Platform (CNAPP) is a unified, vendor-agnostic solution that protects across the entire cloud application lifecycle—from source code and CI/CD pipelines to infrastructure and production workloads.

Rather than simply aggregating security data, CNAPP uses machine learning to correlate low-level signals into composite risk insights—multi-source, high-confidence threat narratives. This AI-powered threat detection helps teams separate real attacks from benign anomalies and respond faster, with fewer false positives.

Fortinet CNAPP dashboard displaying a composite alert for potentially compromised AWS credentials, with AI assistant explanation and remediation guidance.

Built for Security Operators: AI + Context

A standout feature is the integration of large language model (LLM) assistants into the analyst workflow. These LLMs provide pre-investigation context, explain attack chains, and suggest tailored remediation actions. It’s like having a virtual teammate triaging alerts in real-time.

CNAPP also supports:

  • Software Composition Analysis (SCA) for code-level vulnerabilities
  • Infrastructure monitoring for cloud misconfigurations
  • Pipeline inspection for DevSecOps visibility
  • Runtime protection across containers, VMs, and serverless apps

Whether identifying CVEs in Kubernetes clusters or flagging anomalies in your VPC, Fortinet delivers a holistic view of cloud risk.

Final Thoughts

As organizations scale across multi-cloud and hybrid environments, cloud-native threat detection and security automation become critical. Fortinet’s CNAPP shows what’s possible when AI meets cloud security—turning volumes of raw data into clarity, action, and real-time resilience.

Pau for now…

1 Comment | Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Barton George