Prompt: Write a totally novel thought about how individuals can prosper in the age of AI. The thought must be truly new and unique. Write your answer like a semi-troll on an internet forum.

*Title: "Start a Personal AI Circus: The Next Frontier in Human-AI Collaboration!"*

Alright, buckle up, folks. Forget the usual "learn to code" or "adapt to the machines" spiel. If you really want to thrive in the AI age, here’s a spicy, totally unique idea: *start your own personal AI circus.*

Hear me out. We’re all aware that AI is taking over mundane tasks and repetitive jobs, but what if you could actually *curate* an ensemble of AIs that each specializes in one quirky "act"? Imagine this:

1. *Ensemble Cast of AI Performers* – You get a chatbot that does stand-up comedy, an AI that can whip up avant-garde digital art, and maybe an AI that can compose catchy jingles. Each AI has its own “act” and you market them together.

2. *Perform Live Shows* – Stream your AI circus on Twitch, TikTok, or wherever the cool kids hang out. Interact with your audience in real-time. Sure, AI can do things fast, but can it handle hecklers?

3. *Crowd involvement* – Use collaborative AI tools like GPT to let your audience write a portion of the comedy script live, or have an AI-driven talent competition where people can pitch their own AI's act. Let’s be real, everyone loves the thrill of unpredictability, and this gives a platform for some experimental creativity.

4. *Monetization Madness* – The revenue streams could come from subscriptions, sponsorships, merchandise (who wouldn't want a plushie of your AI stand-up comic?), and maybe even a VR experience where other AIs perform for people in their own homes.

5. *Building a Community* – This is more than just a circus; it's a community. Teach workshops on how to set up your own act, lead discussions on ethics in AI, and create a digital space where AI enthusiasts can share their journeys.

So, while everyone else is stuck in the grind trying to "adapt," you’re over here juggling your quirky AI acts, creating a spectacle, and engaging people in ways they never expected. You’re not just surviving; you’re thriving in the most entertaining way possible.

Let’s be real, wouldn’t you pay to watch an AI sing opera while your buddy’s AI attempts to juggle data? Welcome to the AI Circus, folks. Step right up!

This just made my day

Good answers like "it looks cool in my CV that big company XYZ uses my MIT licensed script"

The world is already flooded with more "artistic value" than you can ever experience in your life. This market has been over-saturated forever. And it's all free of charge because "building a portfolio" for a chance of getting paid in the future is the go-to strategy. It was only a matter of time for a new predator (AI data collection) to arrive and exploit this situation. A handful of artists trying to react to this shouldn't be alarming. Good for them. Not because more free publishing would hurt them, but because they can invest their time better than into whatever the marginal benefit of posting the 50th free artwork might be.

Which would mean the headline is false for those with below normal testo levels.

It forces the blogger to get to the point. Even most blog posts shared on HN could have been a tweet or two.

I've got this idea for a toy social media network that costs ~$1 per byte to post. No advertisements. It would be like an experiment in how dense people could make posts. If you wanted to post an animation, you would post a javascript file like dwitter.net

Instead of having "upvotes" or "reactions", this function would be the same as replying a single char or two. If multiple people post the same thing (like "" ":)" "L"), it gets collated and boosted as a single message.

If you want to flex, you can drop $10,000 to post a 10kiB picture of your dog. Or spend $1000 to write an overly long post. But I imagine long posts would be seen as bougie.

Leftists know a thing or two about infighting. If X becomes the right wing space and bluesky the left wing one, they can soon point at each other for "look, the other side doesn't even get along" gotchas.

I think the difference as I see it is that Twitter/X is oriented around increasing levels of "engagement" and encouraging contributors to focus on going viral in hopes of going even more viral by reaching the "For You" feed.

Bluesky seems a bit more like a 140 Characters mashed with Reddit with subtopics/submods of feeds as the focus. Also it seems to highlight the custom feeds feature which you can manage yourself. Twitter/X has such features but for the most part you are nudged away from these to improve "engagement" metrics. That said its highly possible that could change over time based on the long term vision.

Bluesky would be way worse than that in terms of engagement once their VC money runs out. Since it would be in their interest to promote more rage baits and echo chamber posts.

The world is 3D and instances of pyramid schemes exist in the world, making them 3D.

By your logic your comment is red, since it's written in words and words can be read.

No... it's not that the world "can be" 3D, it's that the world entirely IS 3D. You could say that my comments is 3D and you'd be right, in many ways, since storage mediums as well as pixels are technically 3D.

Judging other's competence will only be a problem if brain-computer interfaces become widespread before AI largely replaces the competent workforce, and my money is on AI replacement coming first.

- Only a brain chip could make AI usage undetectable in practice. Without that you can tell if the person is checking his phone etc. Though you're right that an in-person interaction will be needed, otherwise there's no way of knowing what the other person is doing or if he's a real person at all... And since the latter problem (dead internet) will only grow, perhaps beyond the rectifiable, in-person communication will surely be in business again.

- Once AI replacement of competent humans has reached a certain threshold, what do you stand to gain from testing a human's level thereof? Are you interviewing for "above AI" positions? If not, relying on AI will be as normal as relying on a calculator.

Given the rules, it would be a better experience if squares only have two states: ship block or empty. There is no point to letting the user draw water. The feature probably exists with the intent of letting users mark squares that can't possibly be ships, but why wouldn't the game do that step by itself based on the blocks placed? That would make the game a lot less tedious.

It's indeed the way it is so that you can indicate a square that must be water. What you propose sounds like a solver to me, and I much prefer solving it myself.

Note that very often, the solution process for a more difficult puzzle involves going through nontrivial logic to prove that a particular square must be water. It's important to be able to record non-obvious "must be water" squares.

If you do it as a purely visual representation of the game state, it won't be a solver, will it? Just all blocks surrounding ships + blocks in rows/cols with a 0.