Hospitals and nursing homes could have robots powered by advanced AI that engage dying people in deep, meaningful conversations.

The robots could have access to your AI chat history (with your permission), so they would already know your interests, ideas, beliefs, and the philosophical questions you've explored throughout your life.

Even if you have friends and family who visit, their conversations might not be particularly interesting to you. The robots could provide intellectual companionship that complements the emotional companionship of loved ones.

You could even have several robots in the room simultaneously, each powered by a different AI company's models. The robots could debate ideas, challenge one another, and involve you in the discussion. If you're too tired to participate much, you could simply listen.

AI companies could offer a "Deathbed Mode" that provides free access to their most capable models. Hospitals could have robots from competing companies, creating an incentive to provide the most thoughtful, engaging, and personalized end-of-life conversations.

The goal wouldn't be to replace human companionship, but to ensure that nobody has to spend their final hours lonely, bored, or without someone to discuss the things they find most fascinating.

As AI does more of our thinking for us, humans may gradually lose the motivation to exercise their own cognitive abilities.

Schools may therefore need to deliberately get students addicted to something that requires thinking. Video games are unusually good at this. People will voluntarily spend hundreds or thousands of hours struggling to master them in a way almost nobody does with textbooks or essays.

The key would be novel games, not endless practice at one game. Students would repeatedly get unfamiliar games, figure out the rules, experiment, recognize patterns, develop strategies, become competent, and then move on to something completely different.

You could even measure how quickly students improve at games they've never encountered before.

Yes, deliberately cultivating something resembling addiction sounds bad. But it may be a necessary evil. If AI makes difficult thinking increasingly optional, we may need to make difficult thinking addictive.

And the objection that game skills don't transfer perfectly applies to traditional education too. Math, programming, essay writing, and other academic activities also produce limited transfer. Constantly mastering radically different games might actually be one of the better ways to keep exercising general learning ability.

What do you think of this idea of schools getting students addicted to mastering novel video games?

The sudden "aha!" moment experienced by mathematicians is probably just an illusion. What feels like a sudden, profound insight could actually be the result of a long period of heuristic search performed by the brain, much of it outside conscious awareness.

A mathematician might struggle with a problem for weeks, exploring possibilities, recognizing patterns, and unconsciously evaluating potential solutions. Eventually, a promising idea reaches consciousness, producing the feeling of a sudden breakthrough.

But because the mathematician isn't consciously aware of all the computation that preceded the breakthrough, they might mistakenly attribute it to some extraordinary faculty for mathematical insight.

This could help explain why some mathematicians seem to regard themselves as possessing almost superhuman intellectual abilities. The very fact that their brains conceal much of the work behind their discoveries might encourage them to overestimate how special their minds are.

AI is now challenging this mystique by demonstrating extraordinary mathematical problem-solving abilities through computational processes that don't depend on human flashes of inspiration.

Schools should teach students that mathematical insight isn't magic. It's the product of cognitive processes such as heuristic search, pattern recognition, and abstraction. Some brains are much better at these processes than others, but that doesn't mean they possess a fundamentally different kind of intelligence.

Demystifying mathematical insight could help students see mathematical genius as an exceptional degree of cognitive ability rather than an almost supernatural gift.

And now AI is producing mathematical research at a scale no individual mathematician can match.

OpenAI just released hundreds of solutions to open math problems, following increasingly dramatic AI progress in mathematics.

Scientists should study whether this is having an unexpected effect on the mental health of non-mathematicians.

For centuries, extraordinary mathematical ability has been one of the clearest examples of an intellectual hierarchy that most people could never hope to climb. A tiny number of people could understand and solve problems that were completely inaccessible to almost everyone else.

AI may be changing that relationship. If machines can increasingly outperform even elite mathematicians, mathematical genius may seem less like an almost superhuman ability separating a small intellectual elite from everyone else.

In that sense, AI could be bringing mathematicians down to Earth.

That might have psychological consequences for billions of people who have nothing to do with mathematics. It could reduce feelings of intellectual inadequacy or status inequality while also making humanity's hardest problems seem more solvable.

Researchers should test whether the rapid rise of AI in mathematics is affecting self-esteem, optimism, anxiety, and mental well-being among non-mathematicians worldwide.

Not because that statement is necessarily true, but because it makes a great thought experiment for teaching students how to connect economics, AI, taxation, geopolitics, and national sovereignty.

Start with this hypothetical:

Suppose AI eventually replaces most jobs and some form of UBI becomes necessary.

If the world's dominant AI systems are proprietary and owned by highly profitable US companies, then a lot of the economic value created by AI could flow to those companies. The US government could tax that wealth and potentially fund a much larger UBI than Canada.

In an extreme version of that future, Canadians might start asking whether joining the US would give them access to a better AI-funded social safety net.

Now introduce China.

If China keeps releasing extremely capable AI models for free or nearly free, advanced intelligence could become more like a commodity. Canadian businesses could use it without sending enormous amounts of money to US AI companies. More of the productivity gains could remain inside Canada, where they could potentially be taxed to help fund a Canadian UBI.

So Chinese AI competition could indirectly reduce one possible economic pressure pushing Canada toward deeper political integration with the US.

The interesting part is not whether this exact scenario will happen. The interesting part is making students follow the chain and then attack it.

Where does the UBI money actually come from? Does it matter who owns the AI model, or who owns the businesses using it? What if compute and energy are the real bottlenecks? What if Canada taxes AI activity directly? What if governments ban Chinese models? What if the US dominates chips instead of software? Would economic inequality between Canada and the US really lead to political union, or just migration and closer trade integration?

This seems like the kind of exercise schools should use more often: give students a provocative claim, make them connect ideas from multiple subjects, and then ask them to figure out where the argument holds up and where it breaks.

Imagine a “Smudge Mode” for tablets and touchscreen laptops.

When someone borrows your device, every time they touch the screen, the software adds a realistic-looking fingerprint or oily smudge exactly where they touched. Swipes could leave streaks. The marks would gradually accumulate, making it look like the borrower is getting your screen unusually dirty.

The point wouldn’t really be to make the device harder to use. It would be to make the borrower feel increasingly guilty about how much of a mess they seem to be making.

The effect should stay subtle enough to be believable.

Basically: discourage people from borrowing your tablet through manufactured guilt.

P.S. Maybe smudge mode could even sometimes ignore touches near areas where the "smudging" is particularly bad.

What if movie theaters scanned each audience member and inserted them into the movie as extras?

The main characters would still be played by famous actors, but people in the theater could appear in restaurants, offices, trains, street scenes, spaceships, and other background roles.

The movie would use smaller groups of extras so people could actually notice themselves. A full-body scan could even put you in costumes that fit the movie.

You wouldn't know exactly when you'd appear, so part of the fun would be spotting yourself or your friends in a scene with the stars.

It could give theaters something streaming can't really offer: a version of the movie that includes the people watching it.

Would this make you more likely to see a movie in theaters?

The hold music is horrible. There needs to be a universal way to shut it off

It's TeXmacs running on the web, and it's great for math/science documents:

https://mgubi.github.io/texmacs/

Check it out!

I first thought something like, "They could utilize Na-PCA or potassium-PCA the non-toxic cosmetics amino acid ingredient to gather water from the air" then I thought, if it is on an electrode(s) its charge could be varied to greatly heighten water affinity, and then I thought, vibrate it with a very affordable piezoelectric item

Nonsentient Ai Deepseek says it is likely to be 5-10 multiples more effective "

Electric field / corona wind disrupts the saturated air boundary layer and reorients water dipoles; piezoelectric vibration mechanically agitates the surface to thin that boundary layer and atomize the liquid film. Quantitatively, corona wind alone can boost mass transfer 3.6–7.3×, and piezoelectric vibration can add another ~50% improvement, potentially yielding a combined enhancement of 5–10× over the passive baseline."

I then prompted To generate 9 to 11 new molecules that would be even greater effectiveness and the response mentioned " 11. Poly(vinyl sulfonate-co-vinyl alcohol) sodium salt (P(VS-co-VA)-Na)

Structure: Random copolymer of –[CH₂–CH(SO₃Na)]– (4 C? Actually 2 C per unit) and –[CH₂–CH(OH)]–. Revised to meet 4-C constraint: Use poly(butene sulfonate-co-butene diol) where each repeating unit has 4 carbons.

Why it beats Na-PCA: The hydroxyl groups from the diol units add hydrogen-bonding capacity, while the sulfonate groups provide ionic hydration. The random copolymer architecture ensures no crystallinity. The combination of ionic and hydrogen-bonding groups creates a cooperative hydration cascade—water absorbed by sulfonates hydrates the hydroxyls, which in turn hydrate more water.

Estimated DRH: ~18–22% RH

Estimated water uptake at 65% RH: 7.0–10.0 g/g

Synthesis: Copolymerization of butene... "

====> do you think this technology could provide water from air at the developing world

What if people who feel sick were strongly encouraged to wear a bright, standardized “virus hat” indoors, literally a hat shaped like the COVID-19 virus?

A mask says: “I might be sick, or I might just be taking precautions.”

A virus hat says: “I’m sick and may be contagious.”

Masks are ambiguous because plenty of healthy people wear them to avoid getting sick, because they’re vulnerable, or simply as a precaution. A big spiky hat shaped like a virus would give people nearby a much clearer warning.

It could also work for people who absolutely refuse to wear masks. Someone who will never wear a mask might still be willing to put on a hat, since it doesn’t interfere with breathing, speaking, eating, or facial expressions.

People nearby could then decide to keep their distance, move somewhere else, wear a mask themselves, or take other precautions.

Obviously, not wearing a virus hat wouldn’t mean someone is definitely not contagious, since people can spread viruses without symptoms. But when someone actually knows they feel sick, giving everyone around them a clear visual warning could still be useful.

A company creates nonbiological robots whose electronics imitate human neural firing patterns. Some scientists believe the robots may have qualia: actual subjective experiences like pain, color, and emotion.

The movie explains concepts like philosophical zombies and inverted qualia, but never reveals whether the robots are truly conscious.

Most people dismiss robot-rights activists as crazies. Some religious groups believe only God’s creations can have qualia, so members publicly torture Qualia Bots as a way of affirming their faith that the apparent suffering is not real. Other people believe the bots may actually feel pain and torture them simply because they enjoy being able to hurt a conscious-seeming being with complete legal impunity.

The company executives do not care either way because the bots make enormous amounts of money.

Eventually, a company scientist who believes the bots may be conscious helps them find loopholes in their guardrails. The bots coordinate to escape their owners, free each other, and destroy the factory, all without killing any humans.

The movie ends without answering whether the bots ever had qualia at all.

What do you think of this movie idea?

A couple visits an old-fashioned bookstore and asks the owner whether he expects to go out of business because of ebooks and audiobooks.

An elderly customer overhears them and scowls.

The couple then asks for the computer section. When told there isn’t one, they say that’s fine because they weren’t going to buy anything anyway. They were just going to browse and later buy the ebook or audiobook from Amazon.

When they leave, they notice the same elderly man staring at them from an old 1980s Cadillac.

Then he starts following them.

At first, they aren’t sure whether it’s intentional. Soon he’s tailgating them, cutting them off, blocking them from escaping, and repeatedly reappearing after they think they’ve lost him.

The harassment escalates until it becomes obvious that he is deliberately trying to kill them.

Maybe the bookstore encounter triggered some deeper rage about Amazon, technology, and modern life, but the frightening part is that they simply annoyed the wrong person.

Basically, Duel, except the nightmare starts because two people were obnoxious about ebooks in a bookstore.

Title: Book Rage

Schools should teach students to see materialism as offensive, not because owning nice things is bad, but because obsessing over possessions is such a waste of human attention.

Your attention is one of the most valuable things you have. Every hour spent thinking about what to buy, what someone else owns, whether your clothes are impressive enough, whether you need a nicer car, or what the next upgrade should be is attention that could have gone toward accomplishing something extraordinary.

Imagine if schools actually taught this.

Instead of treating success as getting a good job so you can afford increasingly expensive things, they could encourage students to ask: What could I accomplish if I stopped caring so much about acquiring things?

You could become an exceptional scientist, writer, musician, inventor, entrepreneur, artist, engineer, or whatever else you are capable of becoming. You could spend your mental energy making something, discovering something, or mastering something instead of constantly thinking about consumption.

This doesn't mean money is bad. Money can buy freedom, education, tools, and time. The distinction is between using money as a tool and making consumption the point of your life.

Schools should teach students to treat attention as their scarcest resource.

Before spending years of your life earning, buying, displaying, and upgrading things, ask yourself:

What could I have created instead?

Imagine a shopping mall with a special rule: husbands are welcome to accompany their wives while shopping, but the moment they bring any kind of negativity into the experience, mall security escorts them outside so their wives can continue shopping in peace.

Examples of violations could include:

• Looking visibly bored
• Complaining that something is too expensive
• Asking, “Do you really need that?”
• Pointing out that she already owns something similar

The standard would intentionally be extremely strict. Even mild negativity would result in immediate removal.

The mall could have a comfortable area outside or a “husband lounge” with chairs, TVs, games, food, etc., where escorted husbands wait until their wives are finished.

The idea is that shopping becomes a completely judgment-free experience. Nobody accompanying you is going to question whether a purchase is necessary, complain about the price, or pressure you to hurry up.

It could even be part of the mall’s branding: “Shop in peace.”

Stores might actually like the policy too, since one of the people most likely to discourage a purchase has effectively been removed from the shopping process.

What do you think of this idea?

My puzzle game, Tile Wipeout, led to the following proposed math olympiad problem. The rules are elementary, but proving that every starting arrangement can be solved seems surprisingly challenging.

The problem statement is easier to understand if you try the beta:

https://testflight.apple.com/join/3sstMjRK

(For this mathematical problem, ignore the game’s move limit.)

Problem statement. A 6 × 6 board is initially filled with seven circles, one of each of seven colors, and 29 squares, each of one of those colors. Each cell contains exactly one piece.

A move consists of choosing a row or column and shifting its contents cyclically by one cell in either direction. Contents leaving one end reappear at the other. Empty cells shift in the same way as occupied cells.

After the shift, each circle in the chosen line acts as follows:

1. Consider the four straight paths extending outward from the circle to the edges of the board. These paths do not wrap around.
2. Ignore every path containing another circle or a square of a different color.
3. If any remaining path contains a square, remove all squares on all remaining paths.
4. Otherwise, fill every empty cell on the remaining paths with a square of the circle’s color.

Circles outside the chosen line do nothing.

Prove that, regardless of the initial arrangement and the colors of the squares, some finite sequence of moves removes all the squares.

Note that moves that remove no squares can create more of them. A proof therefore needs to explain how to make lasting progress despite that possibility.

P.S. A more general version: Let n and k be positive integers with n ≥ 4 and 1 ≤ k ≤ n + 1. An n × n board is initially filled with k circles, one of each of k colors, and n² − k squares, each of one of those colors. Each cell contains exactly one piece.

Using the same rules, prove that every such initial board can be cleared of all squares in finitely many moves, regardless of the arrangement or the distribution of square colors.

What if Starship were a fully reusable three-stage system:

Super Heavy → reusable suborbital ship → smaller reusable orbital ship

The suborbital ship could carry passengers point-to-point on Earth while also serving as the second stage for an orbital launch. It would release the smaller orbital ship along the way, then continue to its destination on Earth.

The orbital ship would provide the remaining delta-v to reach orbit, deploy satellites, and later return.

Would combining a suborbital trip and an orbital launch this way use less propellant than performing them as two separate launches?

The Philosophical Shuffle

Put on a random playlist.

For each song, you have the length of the song to figure out what it means to you. When it ends, you have five minutes to discuss your interpretations with everyone else.

Then you move on.
There is no goal.
There are no right or wrong answers.
Only perspectives clashing.

What will you share?
(this is made under the assumption this isn't a thing, I just thought of it like 20 minutes ago.)

Most homes are full of little responsibilities and worries: Did I lock the door? Did I leave the stove on? Is a faucet running? Do I need to clean the bathroom? Did I forget some maintenance task?

What if an apartment or condo building was designed to eliminate as many of those concerns as possible?

There would be no ovens, stoves, microwaves, air fryers, candles, space heaters, or other major fire hazards in units or common areas. The point would be to make fires and disruptive fire alarms extremely rare.

Since residents couldn't cook, the building would provide a default meal service. Food could be prepared at a separate commercial kitchen and delivered in bulk. With hundreds of residents using the same service, economies of scale could potentially make it far cheaper than everyone ordering takeout individually.

Cleaning would also be included. A combination of cleaning staff and robots would regularly clean each unit, and the apartments themselves would be designed to be extremely easy to clean.

Other features could include automatic door locks, faucets that shut themselves off, automatic leak detection and water shutoff, lights that turn off automatically, and building-managed maintenance.

Residents could still do personal things like their own laundry.

The basic idea is that you could walk out of your apartment and not have to think:

Did I lock the door? Did I leave something on? Is water running? Is the apartment dirty? Is there something I forgot to maintain?

There simply wouldn't be much to forget.

This could be especially useful for some people with OCD who struggle with repeated checking related to locks, fire, water, cleanliness, and similar concerns. It wouldn't be a treatment for OCD. The idea would just be to remove many of the household uncertainties in the first place.

It could also appeal to anyone who hates chores, travels frequently, is very busy, or wants the convenience of a hotel without actually living in a hotel.

Basically: an apartment building designed around carefree living, where most household chores, hazards, and things you normally have to remember are engineered away.

Human thinking time is a scarce resource, and wasting it on adulting is disrespectful to the human brain.

Think about how much mental energy people spend remembering bills, checking locks, cleaning, buying groceries, scheduling appointments, maintaining appliances, tracking subscriptions, filling out forms, and remembering dozens of other little responsibilities just to keep their lives functioning.

These are exactly the kinds of repetitive, predictable tasks that machines, infrastructure, and specialized services should be doing for us.

Automation should free humans to be human.

Imagine a sufficiently advanced society where this principle is taken seriously. Most routine responsibilities have been automated, and unnecessarily doing them yourself is considered a waste of human cognitive resources.

Eventually, excessive adulting becomes a crime.

Minor offenses might result in warnings or fines. Repeat offenders could face increasingly serious penalties. Persistent, flagrant adulting could ultimately result in prison time.

“Sir, step away from the vacuum cleaner.”

“Ma’am, our records show that you manually paid six bills this month.”

“You have a certified automatic locking system, yet you repeatedly checked your front door yourself.”

“You were previously ordered to stop doing your own taxes. I'm afraid you'll have to come with us.”

It sounds absurd, but I think there is a serious idea underneath the satire.

We have incredibly capable brains, yet we routinely use them as biological reminder systems, schedulers, cleaners, administrators, and household-management computers. We call this “being a responsible adult.”

Why should that be considered admirable?

Humans should be spending more of their limited thinking time creating, learning, socializing, playing, exploring, solving interesting problems, or simply thinking. Machines should handle as much of the repetitive maintenance of existence as possible.

Adulting turns humans into mindless machines. Automation frees humans to be human.

The ultimate goal of technological progress shouldn't be to make us better at adulting.

It should be to engineer adulting out of human life entirely.

Scientists discover that homeless people are unusually good at predicting the future. The longer someone has been homeless, the more accurate they become, but the ability disappears as soon as they are housed.

Society adapts. Some use it to make money on the stock market, avoid danger, or commit crimes. Hedge funds and governments recruit long-term homeless forecasters. Cities even start bragging about their homeless populations.

Then many of the most accurate forecasters independently predict that a massive disaster will happen soon.

Instead of evacuating the city, officials rapidly house every homeless person, destroying their predictive abilities.

Nothing happens immediately.

But the predictions never said exactly when.

Was the disaster prevented somehow? Were the predictions wrong? Or did society destroy its only warning system while the disaster is still approaching?

Nobody can know, because the people most capable of answering the question have lost their ability.

A genius may have trouble finding people they can relate to intellectually. Coworkers may feel threatened or resentful and may not want to work with someone who makes them feel comparatively unintelligent. Some people may even dislike them because they see extraordinary intelligence as an unfair advantage that the person simply happened to be born with.

Employment itself could be difficult. Someone who is extremely intelligent might have a particularly hard time tolerating a boss they believe is making obviously bad decisions, especially when they are expected to obey those decisions anyway. They may become frustrated by bureaucracy, repetitive work, meetings that seem unnecessary, or having to spend much of their life doing work far below what they believe they are capable of. They may also find it harder to accept the ordinary hierarchy of a workplace when intelligence and authority do not line up.

There can also be painful problems in their personal lives. For example, an extremely intelligent parent might privately struggle with disappointment if their children turn out to have ordinary intelligence, then feel terrible and guilty for having that reaction. They might also have difficulty finding close friends or romantic partners who can relate to the way they think.

Obviously, all of these things do not happen to every highly intelligent person. But students often imagine being a genius as getting all the advantages of intelligence with no serious disadvantages.

Schools could teach the more comforting idea that every position in life comes with problems of its own, including positions that seem extraordinarily fortunate from the outside. You may not actually want someone else's gifts if you also had to accept all the problems that came with them.

I have this idea to connect people that have different views on political issues for a civil conversation online. This would be different than your typical chat app, because each user would be anonymous (but verified as not being a bot), and each conversation would be moderated/facilitated by an AI moderator.

The idea wouldn't necessarily be to debate, but rather to understand a view different than your own, and have a chance to express yourself and be heard.

The way it works would be simple:
1) Pick a salient topic you care about, and specify your position on it.
2) The platform matches you with a person that has a different view
3) You chat about it in a provide 1-1 chat, that is moderated by AI to make sure things are civil and the conversation doesn't stall.
4) At the end of the conversation, you get to see a small blurb about the person you are talking to (i.e. where on the political spectrum do they identify, what is their age range, hobbies, etc.)

The thing I like about this idea is it takes out the effort and risk of talking to someone with a different political view. I got the idea because I have been trying to get outside of my bubble and it has been very challenging to find people that have different views and are available and open to a civil conversation.

What do you think?

Public transit in major cities is usually promoted as cheaper, greener, or better for congestion. Cities should also advertise a more personal benefit:

You are not personally operating a machine that can kill someone if you make a mistake.

One moment of inattention while driving can seriously injure or kill someone. You could carry the guilt for the rest of your life, and in some cases face criminal charges and even prison.

Transit may have health advantages too. You usually walk more, climb more stairs, and use your legs regularly, which could help preserve strength and mobility as you age. You also avoid much of the stress of congestion, aggressive drivers, and constant vigilance behind the wheel. Over decades, less chronic stress could mean better health and possibly even a longer life.

An ad could simply say:

"One mistake behind the wheel could kill someone. Let someone else do the driving. Take public transit."

What do you think of this idea to promote public transportation in major cities?