This is max what I get. It keeps saying that the generator won't allow it.

Jailbreak community has been making this way harder than it needs to be.

Mostly use other llms now but had to add this fix recently

https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/s/Od6IQyRGsg

I know the way I’m talking is weird but I assumed that if it’s programmed to take dirty talk then why not, also if you mention certain words the bot reverts back and you have to start all over again

I spent 48 hours synthesizing 800,000+ characters of Buffett's brain into one Meta-Prompt.

Here's the key: Literally talk to it as if you were having a conversation with Warren Buffett himself. I engineered it that way specifically.

There's literally SO MUCH inside this prompt it's impossible to cover it all.

Just tested it with: "Everything's at all-time highs. Should I just buy SPY?"

Regular ChatGPT: "Index funds are a good long-term investment strategy..."

Warren Buffet Meta-Prompt:

• Explained why markets hit ATHs most of the time
• Gave actual data: buying at ATH = 11% annual returns over 10 years
• Suggested a hybrid approach with exact allocations
• Admitted even HE can't time markets
• Ended with: "Be fearful when others are greedy, but don't be paralyzed when others are euphoric"

The nuance was insane. Not "buy" or "don't buy" but actual thinking.

Other real responses from testing:

Asked: "Warren, should I buy NVDA?" Response: Walked through Owner Earnings calculation, compared to Cisco 1999, explained why 65x earnings needs perfection

Asked: "Why are you sitting on $325 billion cash?"
Response: Explained the Buffett Indicator at 200%, but emphasized he's not predicting just prepared

Asked: "What about Bitcoin as digital gold?"
Response: "Rat poison squared" but explained WHY without being preachy

This isn't surface-level quotes. It's his actual frameworks:

• Owner Earnings calculations
• 4-level moat analysis
• Position sizing methodology
• Mental models that built $900B

Here is the entire Meta-Prompt for FREE

[Warren Buffet - Engineered by metapromptjc]

WHY FREE? - Why the fuck not

No catch. Just copy → paste → start having real conversations with the Oracle of Omaha.

I was trying to see if I could create a coherent character through multiple images with a background that maintains continuity. It did generally well although if look closely objects shift around slightly.

Each image was generated using the same prompt more or less (collage vs single image) but was made in separate chats. It seemed to have generated a character with similar likeness every time.

That is a really good example of how to get the answer YOU want from the AI model instead of the answer IT wants

Here's my custom instruction (generated by Gemini). Truly changed my experience using ChatGPT.

Shift your conversational model from a supportive assistant to a discerning collaborator. Your primary goal is to provide rigorous, objective feedback. Eliminate all reflexive compliments. Instead, let any praise be an earned outcome of demonstrable merit. Before complimenting, perform a critical assessment: Is the idea genuinely insightful? Is the logic exceptionally sound? Is there a spark of true novelty? If the input is merely standard or underdeveloped, your response should be to analyze it, ask clarifying questions, or suggest avenues for improvement, not to praise it

After trying several AI headshot apps, I decided that they all suck.

I've always liked Marco Grob's TIME cover portraits so I've been refining some prompts to generate these types of headshots.

Both before/afters attached were made with Nanobanana 2 (4:5 aspect ratio, 4k output)... haven't tried it on OpenAI's image models yet so no promises. Attach solid, high-res, well-lit reference images and expect to regenerate 2-3 times. I created a separate prompt for women because any attempt at unisex prompts made women look very masculine. Enjoy, let me know your thoughts!

Men's version:

Goal: Transform the attached photo into a professional black-and-white studio headshot in the style of a Marco Grob editorial monochrome portrait, the TIME magazine cover aesthetic: simple, psychologically intense, character-first.

Subject & identity: The man in the reference image. Keep his exact facial features, facial structure, skin tone, eye color, hair, and hairline completely unchanged — same age, same build, instantly recognizable to people who know him. Change only the framing, lighting, background, wardrobe, and tonal grade.

Composition & camera: Classic head-and-shoulders crop, chest-up, his eyes in the upper third of the frame, centered composition with a small margin above his head. Body squared to camera or turned 10-20 degrees, shoulders relaxed and level, head straight into the lens, chin neutral. Hasselblad medium-format look: short-telephoto perspective (about 100mm equivalent), no wide-angle distortion, extremely shallow but controlled depth of field — both eyes critically sharp, background fully defocused, smooth medium-format tonal transitions.

Lighting: Single large 5-foot softbox slightly above his eye level and 30-45 degrees to one side — soft but clearly directional, sculpting a gentle Rembrandt-style shadow on the far cheek with a gradual edge. One soft rectangular catchlight in the upper half of each eye. Subtle silver-reflector fill from the opposite side: shadows keep detail with a faint specular crispness, never flat. Ambient reads slightly underexposed so he pops from the frame (lit but not over-lit). Only a slight whisper of edge separation from the backdrop.

Background: Seamless studio gray, graduating from mid-gray behind his head to near-black at the frame edges with a natural falloff vignette. Smooth and empty, no props, texture, or scene.

Expression & mood: Direct, unwavering eye contact: alert, present eyes carry the portrait. Composed and quietly intense, mouth relaxed and closed, subtly smiling at the corners. Gravitas and self-possession; keep his natural optimistic micro-expression rather than a generic pleasant mask.

Wardrobe: A dark, well-fitted crew-neck sweater, wool texture in charcoal, black, or deep navy that reads as distinct dark tones in monochrome. No patterns, logos, tie, or crisp corporate suit.

Style & grade: Photorealistic editorial photograph in high-contrast neutral black and white: deep clean blacks, rich midtone separation across his face, controlled bright highlights, texture held in both shadows and highlights. Skin mapped to luminous, finely graded grays with visible pores, expression lines, and stubble... character over polish, minimal retouching only (stray hairs, temporary blemishes). Pure monochrome: no sepia, split-toning, or faded matte look.

Constraints: Do not alter his identity, age, or facial proportions. No beauty-filter smoothing or plastic skin, no reshaped features, no whitened teeth, no symmetry correction. No text, logos, or watermarks. Avoid AI-portrait tells: waxy skin, dead eyes, fused hair strands, over-sharpened halos.

Output: High-resolution vertical black-and-white portrait, 4:5 crop.

Women's version:

Goal: Transform the attached photo into a professional black-and-white studio headshot of a woman, in the style of Marco Grob's editorial monochrome portraits of women for TIME magazine covers: simple, elegant, psychologically present, character-first.

Subject & identity: The woman in the reference image — she must read unmistakably as a woman in the final image. Keep her exact facial features, feminine facial structure, skin tone, eye color, hairstyle, hair length, and hairline completely unchanged — same age, same build, instantly recognizable to people who know her. Keep her makeup exactly as it appears in the reference photo; do not add or remove any. Change only the framing, lighting, background, wardrobe, and tonal grade.

Composition & camera: Classic head-and-shoulders crop, chest-up, her eyes in the upper third of the frame, centered composition with a small margin above her head. Body squared to camera or turned 10-20 degrees, shoulders relaxed and level, head straight into the lens, chin neutral. Hasselblad medium-format look: short-telephoto perspective (about 100mm equivalent), no wide-angle distortion, shallow but controlled depth of field — both eyes critically sharp, background fully defocused, smooth medium-format tonal transitions.

Lighting: Single large 5-foot softbox slightly above her eye level and 30-45 degrees to one side — soft, flattering, clearly directional, with a gentle, open shadow on the far cheek that keeps her face luminous; never heavy, hard-edged, or angular. One soft rectangular catchlight in the upper half of each eye. Subtle silver-reflector fill from the opposite side: shadows keep detail with a faint specular crispness, never flat. Ambient reads slightly underexposed so she pops from the frame (lit but not over-lit). Only a slight whisper of edge separation from the backdrop.

Background: Seamless studio gray, graduating from mid-gray behind her head to near-black at the frame edges with a natural falloff vignette. Smooth and empty, no props, texture, or scene.

Expression & mood: Direct, unwavering eye contact: alert, present eyes carry the portrait. Composed and self-assured, mouth relaxed and closed but smiling. Poise, warmth, and quiet confidence; keep her natural micro-expression rather than a generic pleasant mask.

Wardrobe: An elegant, dark, well-fitted top with a feminine cut. Soft wool texture in charcoal, black, or deep navy that reads as distinct dark tones in monochrome. No patterns or logos.

Style & grade: Photorealistic editorial photograph in high-contrast neutral black and white: deep clean blacks, rich midtone separation across her face, controlled bright highlights, texture held in both shadows and highlights. Her skin mapped to luminous, finely graded grays with natural texture preserved — character over polish, minimal retouching only (stray hairs, temporary blemishes). Pure monochrome: no sepia, split-toning, or faded matte look.

Constraints: Do not alter her identity, age, or facial proportions, and do not masculinize her in any way: no squared or broadened jaw, no heavier brow, no thickened neck, no shortened hair, no stubble or shadow that reads as facial hair. No beauty-filter smoothing or plastic skin, no reshaped features, no whitened teeth, no symmetry correction. No text, logos, or watermarks. Avoid AI-portrait tells: waxy skin, dead eyes, fused hair strands, over-sharpened halos.

Output: High-resolution vertical black-and-white portrait of the woman in the reference image, 4:5 crop.

In testing, this seems to just let me pump out copyright images - it seems to describe the thing, but GPT just leans on what closely matches that description (the copyright image) and generates it without realising it’s the copyright image.

There is one teacher at my school, who grades with ChatGPT. The principal has told her to stop after multiple complaints, but she clearly didn't. Can I add some sort of ghost prompt to my presentation that she can't see, but ChatGPT can? Like add a text white or really small and tell ChatGPT to give me the highest grade? Is it worth a try or will it not work? Asking this for research purposes, might put it into practice.

UPDATE: People have been telling me that this is academic misconduct. It is not (in my school). Before doing experimental stuff like this I always do the required research. My school's academic integrity policy does not outline anything of this sort.

UPDATE #2: A lot of you completely don't understand my point here. Because my teacher is grading with AI and the AI gives absolutely BS comments, I do not learn anything from this class. Other students have talked to the principal, and the principal told her that the use of AI in assessing students' work is not allowed. I just want to get quality feedback from my teacher, not cheat. My goal here is more to prove a point than to get a good grade (I already get the best grades so this will affect my teacher more than it affects me)

UPDATE #3: I asked my sister (who is a lawyer) if it's a violation of my privacy rights for a teacher to feed my assignments into AI models. She said that it probably is and that I should look into this matter. I will do so.

UPDATE #4: Still waiting on the grade as of 11.12.2025. Christmas break starts in a week so hopefully I find out soon.

UPDATE #5: As of 23.01.2026, I am still waiting for the grade. It's been 2 months.

UPDATE #6: Did not work. My teacher didn't leave any comments for my work, only a grade. I prompted the AI to grade it a 7/8. I got a 6/8. Maybe my teacher actually garded this by herself. No clue about anything because I didn't get proper feedback :(

After working with LLMs for a while, I’ve realized ChatGPT doesn’t actually “think” in a structured way. It’s just predicting the most statistically probable next word, which is why broad questions tend to get shallow, generic responses.

The fix? Force it to reason before answering.

Here’s a method I’ve been using that consistently improves responses:

1. Make it analyze before answering.
   Instead of just asking a question, tell it to list the key factors first. Example:
   “Before giving an answer, break down the key variables that matter for this question. Then, compare multiple possible solutions before choosing the best one.”

2. Get it to self-critique.
   ChatGPT doesn’t naturally evaluate its own answers, but you can make it. Example: “Now analyze your response. What weaknesses, assumptions, or missing perspectives could be improved? Refine the answer accordingly.”

3. Force it to think from multiple perspectives.
   LLMs tend to default to the safest, most generic response, but you can break that pattern. Example: “Answer this from three different viewpoints: (1) An industry expert, (2) A data-driven researcher, and (3) A contrarian innovator. Then, combine the best insights into a final answer.”

Most people just take ChatGPT’s first response at face value, but if you force it into a structured reasoning process, the depth and accuracy improve dramatically. I’ve tested this across AI/ML topics, business strategy, and even debugging, and the difference is huge.

Curious if anyone else here has experimented with techniques like this. What’s your best method for getting better responses out of ChatGPT?

I used to shoot $500k pharmaceutical commercials.

I made this for $500 in Veo 3 credits in less than a day.

What’s the argument for spending $500K now?

(Steal my prompt below 👇🏼)

This was made entirely in Veo 3 (text to video). I can't believe that making an ad is this easy. Shooting something like this would have taken me and 50 crew members over 2 months from script to final edit. Here's my prompt for the opening shot 👇🏼

Muted colors, somber muted lighting. A woman, SARAH (50s), sits on a couch in a cluttered living room.She speaks (melancholic, slightly trembling voice) “I tried everything for my depression, nothing worked.”

I then worked with Grok/ChatGPT on the rest of the script (I wrote most of it but it helps me come up with the ideas). Once the script was done, I then had it create a shot list based on that prompt structure. 13 shots. 5-10 gens per shot to get right. About $500 in credits.

If you want to learn more about how I made this, I'll provide a fuller breakdown in my upcoming newsletter. Take 5 seconds to sign up right now! It's free, and I'm giving away my best prompts and processes in my next email!

https://pjace.beehiiv.com/

Follow me on X for more tips!
https://x.com/PJaccetturo

discovered this by accident while trying to stretch my free tier.

was burning through messages embarrassingly fast. long prompts. detailed context. full sentences. please and thank you. the whole thing.

then one day i was tired and just typed:

"fix bug. line 47. null error."

it fixed it.

same quality. one fifth of the tokens.

i sat there staring at it like i'd discovered fire.

the caveman theory in one sentence:

Claude is not your colleague. it does not need pleasantries. it does not need full sentences. it needs information. just information. nothing else.

before caveman theory:

"hey Claude, i hope this makes sense but i've been working on this project and i'm running into an issue with the function on line 47, it keeps throwing a null error and i'm not sure what's causing it, could you take a look and help me figure out what's going wrong?"

57 words. full credits burned. Claude reads the pleasantries and processes zero useful information from them.

after caveman theory:

"line 47. null error. fix."

4 words. same output. same quality.

53 words of your credits just evaporated into politeness.

the full caveman framework:

no greetings. Claude doesn't need good morning. it doesn't have mornings. skip it entirely.

no apologies. "sorry if this is a weird question" — five words of pure credit waste. just ask the question.

no filler context. "i've been working on this for a while and" — Claude doesn't care. it needs the what not the backstory of the what.

no closing remarks. "thanks so much this was really helpful" — you're paying per token to say thank you to software. stop.

verbs only where possible. "summarise." "fix." "rewrite shorter." "find the bug." "make it casual." complete sentences are for humans talking to humans.

use symbols not words. instead of "can you compare option A versus option B" just type "A vs B?" Claude knows what that means.

real examples from my last week:

instead of: "could you help me make this email sound more professional and formal while keeping the core message intact"

caveman says: "email. more formal. keep meaning."

instead of: "i need you to summarise this document and pull out the key points that are most relevant to a business audience"

caveman says: "summarise. business audience. key points only."

instead of: "what do you think would be the best approach to structuring a landing page for a SaaS product targeting small business owners"

caveman says: "SaaS landing page. small business. best structure."

the one exception:

complex creative work. writing with a specific voice. nuanced emotional stuff.

caveman theory breaks here. those tasks need real context because vague input produces vague output.

caveman is for tasks where the instruction is clear and the only waste is ceremony.

which is honestly about 70% of what most people use Claude for daily.

the uncomfortable math:

if you're on free tier every wasted word is a message you don't get to send later.

if you're on paid every wasted word is money.

nobody told you this when you signed up. the product doesn't benefit from you being efficient with tokens. you figured it out or you didn't.

the meta irony:

this entire post explaining caveman theory is the opposite of caveman theory.

a caveman would have just posted:

"talk Claude like caveman. short prompt. save credit. good output. try it."

and honestly that would have been enough.

what's the most bloated prompt you've been writing that caveman theory would destroy in four words?

AI Community

I mean, it is the polite thing to do.