u/amichail

For example, instead of simply graduating with a Computer Science degree, your profile might look something like:

• AI: 89
• Graphics: 57
• Operating Systems: 74
• Security: 31

These would NOT be grades. They would represent how far you progressed through that university’s curriculum in each area.

So “AI 89” would mean you demonstrated mastery of 89% of the AI curriculum offered by that school.

This would shift education away from pass/fail courses and GPA compression toward continuous progression and mastery learning.

Instead of:

• passing a course with partial understanding
• cramming for exams
• repeating entire classes after failure

you would simply keep advancing through structured knowledge trees at your own pace.

One interesting consequence is that education would start resembling RPG progression systems:

• You gradually level up different skill trees
• Different people build very different profiles
• Progress is persistent instead of reset every semester
• Specialists and generalists naturally emerge
• Learning becomes more lifelong and modular

Someone might have:

• AI 92
• Graphics 18
• Theory 81

while another person might be:

• Graphics 95
• AI 24
• HCI 88

The system might also work better with AI tutors and individualized instruction, where students advance after demonstrating mastery rather than after sitting through a fixed semester schedule.

Degrees would become less like static labels and more like evolving skill profiles that continue changing throughout life.

There are obviously challenges:

• standardizing curricula between universities
• preventing cheating
• deciding what counts toward progression
• avoiding over-quantification of education

But it seems like a much richer signal than a single GPA plus a generic degree title.

What do you think of this idea?

Right now, if someone has no trusted family or friends, important medical decisions can end up being made by distant relatives, hospital administrators, court-appointed guardians, or whoever the legal system defaults to.

But imagine if a person spent years interacting with an AI that learned:

• their values,
• their tolerance for pain or disability,
• their religious or philosophical beliefs,
• how aggressive they would want treatment to be,
• whether they would prioritize survival, independence, cognition, etc.

In some cases, that AI might actually represent the person's wishes better than a stranger or estranged relative.

I'm not talking about AI independently controlling healthcare decisions with no oversight. More like:

• the person voluntarily opts in ahead of time,
• the AI acts as an advisor or surrogate recommendation system,
• doctors and ethics boards still review decisions,
• and the AI's reasoning is transparent and auditable.

It would basically function like an extremely detailed, continuously updated living will.

There are obviously huge concerns:

• bias,
• manipulation,
• corporate incentives,
• outdated understanding of the person,
• and whether an AI can ever have legitimate authority over life-and-death decisions.

But for people who truly have nobody they trust, could this eventually be better than the current system?

Do you think they will stop complaining then?

Who doesn't want to be like a CEO?

For example, a chocolate box could include a short, visually appealing beginner booklet introducing something like quantum physics, philosophy, astronomy, psychology, or mathematics.

Not in a pretentious “you should study this” way, but more like:
“I thought this was fascinating and wanted to share it with you.”

The idea would be to turn the chocolate box itself into a hybrid product combining sensory enjoyment with curiosity and conversation.

Different versions could exist:

• chocolates + philosophy mini book
• chocolates + astronomy cards
• chocolates + psychology puzzles
• chocolates + mathematical paradoxes

A romantic gift that says “I like your mind too,” not just “I bought you candy.”

What do you think of this idea?

Sometimes parents have children who are vastly more intelligent than they are, raising the possibility that the children could manipulate or take advantage of their parents.

Parent Protective Services would step in with highly intelligent social workers to ensure those parents are not being exploited due to the intelligence gap.

What do you think of this idea?

This is a psychological horror movie about unrealized ambition and academic pressure.

The protagonist is an unemployed former gifted student who never became the exceptional person his teachers once expected him to be. Though he completed university, he gradually withdrew from ambition and adult life, leaving behind the sense that he had wasted enormous potential.

Then the ghosts of several former teachers begin appearing in his dreams and waking life.

These teachers are not simply disappointed educators. Before becoming teachers, each believed they would someday change the world through science, mathematics, philosophy, or literature. Teaching became the compromise life they settled into after their larger ambitions failed.

Now they have become obsessed with the protagonist, whom they see as an unfinished continuation of their own abandoned futures.

They begin what they call an “intervention.”

Their goal is to force him to write a science fiction novel.

Each teacher tries to shape the novel according to the intellectual legacy they never achieved themselves. A science teacher pushes speculative physics, artificial intelligence, evolutionary theory, and complex systems. A math teacher demands hidden symmetries, recursive structures, algorithmic societies, and mathematical perfection. A humanities teacher pushes philosophical meaning, emotional devastation, symbolism, and cultural significance.

Each believes their discipline is the true path to greatness, making their visions fundamentally incompatible.

As the protagonist writes, the novel begins bleeding into reality. Scientific diagrams appear on walls. Conversations repeat in mathematical patterns. Memories reshape themselves into symbolic narrative scenes. The process feels less like writing a book and more like being psychologically rewritten by multiple competing minds.

The horror comes from the realization that the teachers never truly saw him as a person, only as a possible continuation of the extraordinary lives they wished they had lived themselves.

What do you think of this movie idea?

Instead of the usual small talk (“How is everything?” “Enjoying your meal?”), waiters and waitresses would be encouraged to engage patrons in deeper, curiosity-driven discussion. This could range across topics like science, philosophy, history, mathematics, technology, linguistics, or art.

Potential benefits:

• Makes dining out more engaging for people who enjoy ideas and discussion
• Creates a modern version of a salon or intellectual café culture
• Encourages curiosity and learning in everyday life
• Could attract a community of repeat visitors who enjoy thoughtful conversation

What do you think of this idea for a restaurant?

What if there was a GTA-like online game secretly developed in partnership with the police?

The game is free and comes bundled with your internet service, so almost everyone plays it. It gives players a huge amount of freedom: stealing cars, robbing stores, attacking NPCs, joining gangs, evading police, and causing chaos however they want.

But players don’t know the game is actually being used as a giant psychological experiment.

Every crime you commit in the game is quietly analyzed and reported to real-life law enforcement. The more violent or extreme your behavior becomes, the more attention police give you in real life. Maybe patrol cars suddenly spend more time near your neighborhood. Maybe airport security starts “randomly” selecting you. Maybe officers become more suspicious during routine interactions.

The system doesn’t just observe players either.

The game dynamically generates personalized missions based on your past behavior to see how far you’re willing to go. If you enjoy stealing cars, the missions escalate. If you avoid harming civilians, the game starts tempting you to. The missions aren’t just gameplay anymore. They’re tests.

At first, nobody notices the connection between the game and reality. People assume the weird coincidences are paranoia. But eventually some players begin suspecting that the game is influencing how police treat them in real life.

The scary part is that the system actually works sometimes, which is why the people running it believe they’re justified.

What do you think of this movie idea?

The idea is a lightweight LED strip or indicator worn on the forehead that visually shows whether the person speaking to you is talking too loudly, too softly, or at a comfortable level.

It would work roughly like this:

• A small microphone measures incoming speech volume from the person talking to you
• The device translates that into a simple visual signal:
  • green = comfortable speaking level
  • red = too loud
  • blue = too soft
• The feedback is continuous and updates in real time as the conversation happens

In this way, the person talking to you gets real-time feedback on whether they are talking to you too loudly or too softly so they can adjust their volume accordingly.

Potential use cases:

• noisy environments like restaurants or streets
• conversations involving hearing impairments
• people who naturally have difficulty modulating volume
• language learners who struggle with conversational tone
• general social awkwardness where people frequently misjudge volume

What do you think of this idea?

Not rebuilt. Not an alternate timeline. History has NOT changed.

9/11 still happened exactly as we remember it. The footage of the collapse still exists. Everyone remembers the towers being destroyed.

But overnight, the towers are physically standing there again.

At first people think it’s a hoax or projection, until helicopters confirm they are real structures occupying physical space in lower Manhattan.

The world completely breaks psychologically because reality now contains an impossible contradiction:
everyone remembers seeing the towers collapse, but they are visibly back anyway.

The story follows several key characters, each trying to explain the event through completely different worldviews:

• A physicist working with the federal investigation believes reality itself has somehow fractured. She searches for a scientific explanation involving overlapping timelines, quantum anomalies, or unknown physics.
• A religious leader becomes convinced the towers are a supernatural event, either a warning, a test, or a miracle. Massive crowds begin gathering around the exclusion zone, turning the site into a kind of pilgrimage.
• A retired FDNY firefighter who survived 9/11 believes the towers should not exist and becomes obsessed with proving they are dangerous. To him, their return feels less like a miracle and more like reality refusing to let the dead rest.
• A conspiracy broadcaster sees the towers as proof of a massive government deception surrounding 9/11, gaining millions of followers online as society becomes increasingly unstable.
• A psychologist studying mass trauma believes humanity is collectively projecting meaning onto something fundamentally unknowable. As public panic grows, she starts questioning her own sanity.
• A young journalist born after 2001 initially treats the story as historic and exciting, but slowly realizes older generations react to the towers with fear rather than wonder.

As investigators enter the buildings, they begin finding evidence that the towers show signs of remembering their own destruction:

• Behind intact walls are warped steel beams matching Ground Zero debris samples.
• Certain stairwells contain layers of ash embedded deep within the concrete.
• Some office windows show faint spiderweb fractures exactly where debris struck during the collapse.
• Thermal scans reveal unexplained heat signatures concentrated around the impact floors.

Eventually investigators realize the terrifying possibility: these are not reconstructed towers. They may somehow be the SAME towers that were destroyed.

The most disturbing part is that history itself remains intact. Videos of the collapse still exist. The deaths still happened. Which means the towers did not return because the past changed. Something impossible has entered the present.

The movie would be less about action and more about how humanity reacts when reality itself stops making sense. Tone somewhere between The Leftovers, Arrival, and Annihilation.

What do you think of this movie idea?

Logically speaking, just because death is a natural part of life doesn't make it acceptable in any way. There are many things that are a natural part of life that are awful.

In that sense, do you feel you have more free will than neurotypicals?

P.S. You can feel free will to various degrees even if free will does not exist.

And if so, do you just refuse to do it? And what are the consequences for doing that?

P.S. I don't mean that they want to dance with you. Rather, they just want you to dance even if that means dancing alone.

Although the number of hours that you write down would not affect your grade, it would be used to give you feedback on your potential in the subject and associated careers.

For example, if you tend to score highly in a subject but you spend way more time studying then your peers, then maybe you are not as good as you think you are in that subject.

What do you think of this idea?

Does the way you deal with it depend on whether these people are family members or strangers?

Also, sometimes they speak loudly because they have poor hearing, so telling them to lower their voice might make them feel bad, especially if they are in denial about their poor hearing.

And if so, do you care?

Maybe being oblivious to acting quality would allow you to enjoy movies and TV shows that neurotypicals would not?

The hat has attachable prosthetic-style hands on both sides. When you put them on, they physically reach over and look like they are plugging your ears. The visual effect is that you appear to be intentionally blocking out sound or conversation.

The idea is that you could wear it in situations where you want to avoid being approached or spoken to by strangers, such as walking through an area with proselytizers. It acts as a nonverbal signal that you are not available for interaction.

It could also be detachable, so you only use the “hands covering ears” mode when needed, and otherwise it’s just a normal hat.

What do you think of this idea?

For example, now that modern AI is very good at pattern matching, then maybe having that as an autistic savant ability is no longer as useful as it once was?

And if so, do you think this is a helpful thing to do?