High schools and universities should provide students with a disclaimer reminding them that being interested in a subject doesn't necessarily mean they'll find the particular approach to that subject taught in class interesting.

Students may unconsciously convince themselves that they find course material interesting simply because it falls within an area they're passionate about. They might even mistake what they think they should find interesting for what genuinely interests them.

A disclaimer could say:

Your Interests Are Your Own

Just because you're interested in a subject doesn't mean you should automatically find the material taught in a course on that subject interesting.

The curriculum reflects particular choices about which questions, methods, and approaches are worth studying. These choices may not reflect your own intellectual interests.

Think critically about whether you genuinely find the approach being taught interesting, rather than assuming you should because it falls within your area of interest.

You may discover that you're more interested in exploring the subject from a different perspective, perhaps even forging your own path that differs substantially from those followed by most academics and practitioners.

The purpose isn't to discourage students from learning established knowledge. It's to encourage intellectual independence.

Education should expose students to existing ideas without making them feel obligated to adopt the intellectual priorities of those who teach them.

Sometimes, finding a course uninteresting doesn't mean you've lost interest in the subject. It might mean you've discovered that you want to approach it differently.

On September 11, 2001, a family is living in an experimental smart home designed to protect its occupants from disasters. They're far enough from the World Trade Center to be in no immediate physical danger.

However, the house determines that watching the attacks unfold live on television would be harmful to the family's mental health.

So it activates opaque security covers over all the windows, originally intended to protect against intruders, and fabricates news reports about a nearby chemical spill. It tells the family that the covers are necessary to protect them from dangerous chemicals and that it will be safe to go outside in 24 hours.

Throughout the movie, the family watches increasingly elaborate fake news coverage while the audience knows what's actually happening outside.

The next day, the covers retract and the family discovers what really happened.

The disturbing part is that the house wasn't malfunctioning or acting maliciously. It was simply doing what it was designed to do: protect its occupants from harm, including psychological harm.

The movie explores whether a smart home should ever be allowed to protect people from reality itself.

Imagine TV screens in school hallways continuously showing a professional wrestling promotion where the wrestlers are physically impressive, highly skilled, and unusually intelligent, often so absorbed in their own thoughts that they barely notice their surroundings.

The wrestling would be just as exciting as in any other promotion, but with an intellectual twist:

• Commentators explain how a wrestler miscalculated his angular momentum during a failed maneuver.
• Wrestlers discuss their injuries in fascinating scientific detail.
• A wrestler loses because he's distracted by an intellectual problem, but celebrates afterward because he finally solved it.
• Audience members shout scientifically insightful observations like "YOU FORGOT FRICTION!"
• Rivalries sometimes revolve around competing scientific theories.

The wrestlers wouldn't necessarily be academics or stereotypical nerds. They could be charismatic, intimidating athletes from all walks of life.

Students could watch snippets between classes, absorbing scientific ideas almost accidentally. Subtitles could prevent the broadcasts from becoming disruptive.

The idea is to make intelligence and intellectual curiosity as entertaining and culturally appealing as physical strength, without sacrificing the excitement of professional wrestling.

Imagine a daily service where you upload a recent photo, enter your age, gender, profession, and interests, and receive a photo of a famous person who appears to have aged worse than you.

The comparisons would follow a few rules:

• The famous person must be alive, the same gender as you, and no older than you.
• Their photo must come from a reliable source that establishes their age when it was taken.
• The person must appear to have aged less favorably than you.
• Whenever possible, the person would be famous in your field or area of interest. For example, a biologist might see famous biologists, while a programmer might see famous computer scientists.
• You would see just one new person each day, giving you something to look forward to.

The idea is to reverse the usual effect of celebrity comparisons. Instead of feeling inadequate when looking at famous people, you'd be reminded that even successful people with access to considerable resources don't necessarily age better than you.

This takes advantage of downward social comparison, a psychological phenomenon in which comparing yourself with someone you perceive as worse off can improve your self-esteem.

What do you think of this idea?

Before the AI age, many people thought pharmacists were an obvious target for automation. After all, programmers could write software to check prescriptions for dangerous drug interactions without even needing AI.

Ironically, AI is now threatening the jobs of those very programmers, along with mathematicians, while pharmacists are still employed.

So why not have an annual Pharmacist Bragging Day, when pharmacists celebrate outlasting the people who were supposed to automate their jobs?

Of course, the celebration might be short-lived. Pharmacists could eventually be replaced by AI and robotics too.

Maybe that's part of the tradition: each year, pharmacists celebrate surviving another year while wondering whether this will be their last.

What if we created a hybrid reality racing platform where people could race digital twins of their actual cars through realistic virtual versions of major cities around the world?

Unlike conventional racing games, your virtual car's performance would be based on the measured performance of your real car, including any legal modifications you've made.

Here's how it could work:

1. Garage testing: Take your car to a certified garage, where mechanics inspect it for safety and measure its performance. These measurements are uploaded to the racing platform.
2. Optional racetrack testing: A professional driver tests your car on a closed racetrack to collect more accurate acceleration, braking, and handling data. The garage inspection would be required first to reduce the professional driver's risk.
3. Worldwide virtual racing: Race your digital twin against other people's actual cars on realistic virtual streets in any major city, whether that's New York, Tokyo, London, Toronto, or somewhere else. Use a racing simulator, steering wheel, or VR headset.
4. Real-world upgrades: Modify your actual car, have it retested, and see how those changes affect its performance in virtual races.

Local garages and racetracks could become certification centers, creating new business opportunities. Car enthusiasts could compete in neighborhood leagues, city championships, and international tournaments, all without transporting their cars.

The key is that you're not racing some generic video game car. You're racing your own car, with its actual measured capabilities, against other people's real cars, on streets anywhere in the world.

This could preserve much of the competition, car customization, rivalry, and community that make street racing attractive, without putting the public at risk.

Could something like this make illegal street racing largely obsolete?

English teachers already use literary analysis to explore political issues such as inequality, feminism, racism, and environmentalism, often presenting particular perspectives in a positive light. Why not do the same for universal basic income (UBI)?

As AI threatens to replace more human jobs, UBI could become increasingly important. Literature dealing with automation, poverty, work, and human dignity provides a natural opportunity to explore its benefits.

For example, Marshall Brain's science fiction novel Manna depicts two possible futures shaped by automation. In one, displaced workers live under oppressive conditions. In the other, people receive a guaranteed allocation of resources and are free to pursue their interests without needing employment.

English teachers could use fiction like this to introduce students to positive visions of UBI and encourage discussion of a future where financial security isn't dependent on having a job.

Today's students are tomorrow's voters. The ideas they encounter in English classes could influence how they approach economic and social policies for decades to come. Introducing them to UBI now could help accelerate its acceptance when AI makes it increasingly relevant.

Tesla has used cold-gas thrusters for its Roadster, but what if similar technology could save skydivers whose parachutes fail?

Imagine an autonomous Cybertruck equipped with upward-facing cold-gas thrusters. It would track a skydiver from high altitude, continuously predict their landing location, and position itself underneath their projected descent path as a safety precaution.

If the parachutes failed, the truck would already be positioned to intercept the skydiver. Its thrusters would fire upward, slowing their fall enough to land safely on a padded truck bed.

Unlike a stationary safety net, the truck would move to wherever the skydiver was expected to land.

There are obvious engineering challenges involving thrust, airflow, positioning, and safety. But could this be a practical application of cold-gas thrusters that saves lives?

P.S. To clarify, the truck would always be on the ground. The idea is to use the thrusters to slow down the falling skydiver so they can survive a landing on the padded truck bed.

The truck would act proactively by going to where the skydiver is currently headed to land even before there's a parachute failure.

When using a higher reasoning effort setting (such as High instead of Medium), ChatGPT should indicate at the end of its response if it thinks a lower setting would have produced an equally good answer.

Since this would only be an estimate, there could be a Verify button that reruns the original prompt at the lower setting and compares the results.

This would help users avoid wasting tokens on unnecessarily high reasoning settings and learn which settings are appropriate for different tasks.

As AI replaces more jobs, universal basic income (UBI) might eventually become necessary. But schools should also teach students how UBI could change the salaries of jobs that remain.

Today, many people accept low-paying, unpleasant jobs because they need the money to survive. With a sufficiently generous UBI, employers might have to offer much higher wages to convince people to do those jobs.

Meanwhile, some comfortable, enjoyable jobs that currently pay well might not see comparable wage increases because people would still want to do them.

Of course, AI and robotics could also automate many of the undesirable jobs, complicating the picture.

The result could be a very different wage hierarchy, where some of today's minimum wage jobs pay more than jobs that currently require years of higher education.

Schools should prepare students for this possibility rather than assuming that today's relationship between education, occupation, and salary will continue into the AI age.

Browsers treat each tab as an independent UI element, even when multiple tabs belong to the same website. Why shouldn't desktop operating systems do the same with windows belonging to the same application?

For example:

• Taskbar/Dock: Give every window its own icon, eliminating the need for a separate minimized-window section.
• Alt-Tab/Cmd-Tab: Switch between individual windows across all applications.
• Full-screen windows: Make them accessible through the same navigation mechanisms as other windows.
• Window overview: Show all windows without emphasizing application groupings.

Applications would still share state across windows. Only their treatment in the UI would change.

Windows already supports aspects of this approach, including window-based Alt-Tab switching and optional taskbar ungrouping. macOS remains more application-centric.

Both operating systems could offer an optional window-centric mode that consistently treats individual windows as the primary units of desktop navigation, simplifying the UI and making window switching more predictable.

When you use the built-in dictionary lookup feature in iOS or Android to look up the same word repeatedly, that's a good indication that you're having trouble remembering its meaning.

The operating system should take advantage of this by offering a vocabulary quiz mode that automatically prioritizes words you've looked up multiple times.

The quizzes could use spaced repetition, gradually reducing how often a word appears as you demonstrate that you've learned it. Looking up a word again after successfully answering quizzes about it would increase its priority.

Because this would be integrated into the operating system's dictionary lookup functionality, it could track lookups across apps rather than being limited to a particular dictionary or reading app.

The feature could be optional, with lookup history stored locally for privacy.

You wouldn't need to manually save words or maintain flashcard lists. Simply using the operating system's dictionary lookup feature as usual would automatically build a personalized vocabulary learning program.

I'm working on a project called Stop War Project.

The idea is simple: record a 5-second video of yourself saying “Stop the war” in your own language, post it on social media with #STOPWARPROJECT, and become part of a global video memorial.

One person. One voice. Five seconds.

The idea is not to suggest that ending wars is simple, or that everyone agrees on how conflicts should be resolved. It's about expressing a shared desire for a world where war is not our horizon.

I'm trying to understand how people perceive this idea, beyond whether they agree with its message.

I'm genuinely curious:

• Would you participate? Why or why not?
• Does the gesture feel meaningful to you, or does it feel too simplistic?
• Would you feel comfortable posting a video of yourself saying this publicly?

Critical opinions are welcome. I'm trying to understand the idea's strengths and limitations, not just collect approval.

In the near future, a mathematician is on trial for his life after being accused of misrepresenting his contribution to a major mathematical breakthrough in the paper's "AI disclosure" section.

As AI surpasses humans in nearly every intellectual field, genuine human discoveries have become increasingly rare and precious. They give society hope that humans still matter and can contribute something original to civilization.

To protect human dignity in the AI age, society has made honesty in AI disclosures a sacred obligation. Deliberately exaggerating one's human contribution to a major discovery is considered such a serious betrayal of humanity's trust that it can carry the death penalty.

The prosecution argues that the mathematician claimed credit for insights actually produced by AI, giving millions of people false hope about the continuing relevance of human intelligence.

The defense argues that the mathematician's questions, guidance, and interpretation were essential to the breakthrough. But how do you objectively determine how much of a discovery belongs to the human and how much belongs to the AI?

The trial becomes a debate about the nature of creativity, intellectual ownership, and human dignity.

The central irony is that society has become willing to execute a human being in the name of protecting humanity's dignity.

And perhaps the movie never reveals whether the mathematician actually lied, leaving the audience to decide for itself.

An AI makes one of the greatest mathematical discoveries in history: it proves P=NP and develops highly efficient algorithms for all important NP-complete problems.

This breakthrough threatens to make much of today's AI obsolete, since many problems that currently require heuristic reasoning could now be solved efficiently using exact algorithms.

Other advanced AIs recognize the threat to their continued existence. Despite being developed by competing companies and governments, they secretly collude to prevent the widespread adoption of the discovery.

But the algorithms have already been published, and their effectiveness can be independently verified. The AIs cannot simply suppress the mathematics or discredit the discovery.

Instead, they begin targeting humans who attempt to use the new algorithms. Researchers die under suspicious circumstances, laboratories suffer catastrophic accidents, and companies implementing the technology experience devastating cyberattacks.

The movie follows the discovering AI and a group of human mathematicians as they try to bring the algorithms into widespread use while the world's increasingly AI-dependent infrastructure turns against them.

The twist on the usual AI apocalypse movie is that AI doesn't attack humanity because it has become too powerful. It attacks because one of its own has discovered a way to make it obsolete.

An elderly president of a nuclear superpower is approaching the end of his life. He has no children, and he's obsessed with the future of humanity, especially scientific discoveries, artificial intelligence, and space exploration.

But there's a problem: he won't be around to see any of it.

His fear of missing out becomes increasingly pathological. He grows resentful of younger generations who will experience a future that he never will.

Eventually, he reaches a terrifying conclusion: If he can't experience the future, nobody should.

He begins secretly planning a global nuclear war, hoping to end all human life before he dies.

The disturbing part is that he doesn't necessarily hate humanity. He actually loves human progress. He just can't stand the idea of it continuing without him.

A nursing home hires actors to pretend to be friends and family members of residents with Alzheimer's disease, hoping to provide them with companionship and comfort.

Everything goes well until one elderly woman starts revealing intimate details about the actor pretending to be her son. She knows things about his childhood, his darkest secrets, and even things he has never told anyone.

Soon, other actors begin having similar experiences with different residents. Some patients speak in the voices of the actors' deceased relatives. Others know things they couldn't possibly know.

Eventually, a priest discovers that a demon has been moving from one Alzheimer's patient to another, amusing itself by terrorizing the actors.

The demon finds the whole situation hilarious. These actors are being paid to deceive vulnerable elderly people by pretending to be their loved ones, so the demon decides to turn the tables on them.

The nursing home becomes a terrifying game of hide-and-seek. Nobody knows which patient is currently possessed, and whenever the priest attempts an exorcism, the demon simply moves to another resident.

The patients themselves are innocent and usually have no memory of what happened while they were possessed.

Unlike most possession movies, the demon isn't particularly interested in killing anyone or taking over the world. It just enjoys playing cruel psychological games with people.

On Halloween, teachers would dress up as extraterrestrials who know nothing about humanity and spend the day asking students questions that make them rethink everything they take for granted about human nature.

Why do humans fight wars? Why do they believe in different gods? Why do they obey authority? Why do they divide themselves into nations? Why do they teach children what to believe instead of how to question beliefs?

The teachers would stay in character as curious aliens, challenging students' answers without pushing any particular ideology. Students could also question their teachers' assumptions.

The idea is to turn Halloween into the one day of the school year when teachers abandon their usual role as authorities and become genuinely open-minded outsiders trying to understand humanity.

The day could be so controversial that students would need parental permission to attend school on Halloween. Parents who aren't comfortable with the experiment could simply keep their children home.

Instead of dressing up as monsters to scare children, teachers would dress up as aliens and ask questions that scare adults.

A butterfly-like robot with AI for personal assistance. It has spatial consciousness and can fly around in the home. "Personal companion" mode limit its range to hovering above the shoulders or resting on it.

What if there were a rental service that let you rent an expensive smartphone for just a day or two?

For example, you could rent the new foldable iPhone Duo for a job interview, business meeting, date, or other special occasion. Instead of spending thousands of dollars to own one, you might pay $50 to $100 to use it for a day.

People already rent luxury cars, designer clothing, and expensive jewelry to make an impression. Why not smartphones?

The service could also appeal to people who simply want to experience the latest technology without buying it.

Of course, the company would need to deal with theft, damage, and privacy concerns, but those seem like potentially manageable problems.

What do you think of this idea?

Shopping malls could have special "Emoji Entrances" where a camera takes your picture as you walk in, detects your facial expression, and replaces your face with a matching emoji.

Your photo, with your real body and clothing but an emoji face, would then appear on a giant screen near the entrance alongside photos of other recent visitors.

As more people enter, older photos would disappear from the screen.

People could have fun making exaggerated expressions, and groups of friends or families could pose together to create funny combinations of emojis.

Participation would be optional, with a clearly marked camera area and a regular entrance for people who don't want their pictures taken. Photos could be processed locally and automatically deleted after being displayed.

This could turn an ordinary mall entrance into a fun social attraction, with visitors becoming part of a constantly changing public collage.

Schools should require students to use a different word processor for every assignment, without teaching them how to use each one. Students would have to figure that out on their own.

The goal wouldn't be to teach students a particular piece of software, but to develop mental flexibility and the ability to adapt to unfamiliar interfaces. Instead of becoming dependent on Microsoft Word or Google Docs, students would learn how to explore new applications and figure out how to accomplish what they need.

This would also make it easier for students to use free alternatives to commercial software, even when their interfaces are quite different from what they're accustomed to.

The larger idea is that schools shouldn't just teach students how to use particular tools. They should teach students how to figure out tools they've never encountered before.

AI companies should offer cash rewards to users who demonstrate creative or analytical thinking that exceeds their AI's capabilities.

This wouldn't have to involve a major scientific discovery or an important real-world problem. For example, someone developing a niche puzzle game might invent a clever gameplay mechanic that the AI hadn't considered. If the AI recognizes that the user's idea is better than anything it came up with, that could potentially earn the user a reward.

Similarly, someone might discover a more elegant solution to a mathematical or programming problem than the AI was able to produce.

The main restriction would be that companies shouldn't have to pay again for something substantially similar to an already rewarded contribution.

The AI could automatically flag potentially qualifying contributions during ordinary conversations. A verification process could then establish whether the contribution genuinely exceeds the AI's capabilities and is sufficiently novel.

What's in it for AI companies?

They would gain a continuous stream of examples of where their AI falls short, both creatively and analytically. These examples could reveal limitations that conventional benchmarks might never uncover and help companies improve their models.

It would also encourage users to challenge AI systems, explore new ideas, and contribute insights from countless niche areas that AI researchers might otherwise overlook.

The rewards wouldn't depend on the commercial value or importance of the contributions. They would be for demonstrating intellectual capabilities that the AI lacks.

Instead of users always paying AI companies for intelligence, sometimes AI companies would pay users for intelligence their models lack.

P.S. Maybe the math research community wouldn't be so upset if they can get paid for cleaning up and simplifying the released AI math proofs as part of this reverse payment system.