The #1 Mistake People Make Using AI
They expect AI to โthink.โ
It doesnโt.
It predicts.
YOU provide direction.
The clearer the instruction โ the better the result.
Everyone is resharing that "China pays $700 for your face" post. I went and read the actual report. That number is doing a LOT of heavy lifting.
Real rates on ActID: 99 to 500 yuan per episode. That's 15 to 70 dollars. Platform keeps 10%. Two productions have licensed around 10 faces so far, out of ~300 people who signed up. So most people uploaded their biometrics and got paid exactly nothing.
$700 is the ceiling somebody touched once. It is not the offer.
And here is the part nobody is posting. A face is not a password. Password leaks, I rotate it in 30 seconds. Face leaks, that's it, done, forever. Same face unlocks my phone. Same face on bank KYC. Same face on my ID. There is no reset button on the back of my head.
And the contracts are vague enough that even the lawyers in the story admit you can't tell who ends up with your likeness or what they do with it. You're not renting your face, you're donating training data and getting a receipt for 15 dollars.
Engineer brain on this one: it's a link budget. You never accept a permanent loss on one side for a marginal gain on the other, especially when the probability of the gain is 3%.
Sell your skill. Sell your time. Sell something you built. Your face is not inventory.
Dear @claudeai
If Opus 5 (as per your benchmarks ) is better and even cheaper than Fable, then why we need fable? And why 50% of fable is usable in plan while opus 5 is
100%.
Please someone make me understand ๐ฅบ
Opus 5 vs Fable
Opus 5 is half the price than fable
Opus 5 Performance is better than Fable in all usecases
Opus 5 cost same as opus 4.8 but performance better than Fable 5
GPT sol was very good at verification it took task, completely shake, the best verification and gives your then final output and same for Fable. But now opus 5 has the same stronger verification models and better than Fable. Verification is really a great things as it means looping is good and the output is real/usable
I will test GPT Sol vs Fable vs 4.8 and give you all results here. Follow please
The Opus you use every day quietly became Opus 5 this week, same price as before, and Anthropic now tells everyone to just start with it. https://t.co/LlYegucorh
The Opus you use every day quietly became Opus 5 this week, same price as before, and Anthropic now tells everyone to just start with it. https://t.co/LlYegucorh
Open Ai and Apple are in court
Jony Ive spent nearly thirty years perfecting the screen. The iPhone, the iPod, all of it.
Now he is building a computer for OpenAI that has no screen at all, and you just talk to it.
Full breakdown in the article below. https://t.co/4gaVVvjbuU
I have spent more than 10,000 hours inside AI, and I need to be honest with you
What is actually at risk, what an AI engineer really does, and the ninety day plan I would follow if I lost everything tomorrow. https://t.co/b2dIeDWQLN
What the hell is wrong with ChatGPT Work ?????
Even I asked it that you are allowed for each action but still ask me every single thing. This is pure illogical.
Does someone else faced this issue?
@OpenAI@sama
๐ก Prompt engineering is one layer of a four-layer stack, not the whole stack, and each layer wraps the one before it:
๐นPrompt engineering: the exact wording, instructions, and constraints you type directly into the chat. This is where every AI interaction starts, and where most people stop.
๐นContext engineering: the system instructions, reference files, and conversation history the model reads before it ever sees your prompt. A mediocre prompt with strong context will consistently outperform a great prompt with none.
๐นHarness engineering: the code that routes tools, verifies outputs, and retries automatically so the model checks its own work before it reaches you. This is what makes a system reliable instead of just occasionally impressive.
๐นLoop engineering: a defined goal and stop condition that let the system prompt, check, and adjust itself without you in the loop. This is the difference between a tool you operate and a system that runs on its own.
Each layer catches a different failure mode. A better prompt only fixes what you typed. If the context feeding it is thin, the model is still guessing at facts it was never given. If there's no harness verifying the output, you become the QA step, catching errors by hand every time. And if there's no loop, you're the one re-triggering the whole process on a schedule, which means you never actually left the loop.
This is also the real reason AI projects that impress in a demo often stall in production. A demo only has to survive one good prompt. Production has to survive bad context, tool failures, and edge cases the prompt never anticipated, which is exactly what the other three layers exist to handle.
If you're building with LLMs, the useful audit isn't "is my prompt good enough." It's "which of these four layers am I still doing manually, and what would it take to move it into the system."
#AIEngineering #PromptEngineering #LLMOps #AgenticAI #DataScienceDojo
๐จ Google and NVIDIA both are QUIETLY giving away AI training that companies pay more than $2,000 for ๐๐
Free Certificates (No credit card) and Get Hired!!! It's for people who really want to get hired by big companies
Here are 9 FREE AI courses you need to take in 2026 ๐