I created the 90s anime of my dreams and I posted it on a secret [music] channel. Before I show you where to watch it, I'm going to show you how to make it in seven steps. I'll walk you through my process [music] from scripting, characters, world building, shot generation, post editing, and a color grading trick to get that 90s look. This is a collaboration with Pix [music] AI. They told me, "Do whatever you do for clients, but post it on YouTube." So, I went all out. They were [music] generous enough to give out three accounts to their platform, so you can follow this tutorial and create your anime in Pix AI free. [music] To join the raffle, all you have to do is leave a like and a comment on this video and my 90s anime video that [music] I will show you where to find at the end of this video. Make sure your email is visible on the about page of your YouTube channel. And if you're a winner and I email you, just make sure you reply in 48 hours or I have to give it to somebody else. The winners will be announced in 1 week [music] on my community tab. Let's get into it. Step one is scripting. First thing you need is a script, so you know what everyone says [music] and what happens. And if you don't have one, you're going to be guessing one shot after another and it gets messy. >> [music] >> Luckily, I have a friend of 20 years who's a big anime fan and he's been writing stuff forever and he gave me something. It's [music] very 90s. It's called Nightline. It's about a 2000s American pop star, [music] a 70s Brazilian pimp, and a Japanese mech mechanic from the year 3000 [music] who gets stuck in a broken timeline where time itself is bending thanks [music] to an evil king who wants to crash all time together. The full script is 22 [music] pages long and that's just the first episode. I wanted to challenge myself with this. I wanted it to feel like episode 11 [music] of a 12-episode series. That feeling right before the big finale, the big battle. I wanted to hit all the classic 90s [music] anime emotional beats. The funny, the serious, the heartfelt, inspiring. But, I wasn't going to create a whole episode. I was only going to create two two three minutes. >> [music] >> So, I took the script and the characterizations and I wrote a three-minute version that met all that criteria. Now, we're on step two, style creation. We're here in PixAI and now it's time to create [music] the style. PixAI has a lot of tools. This is great for creating any look you want since they have thousands of LORAs or style references [music] you could choose from. But, for this one, we will create our own. This will guarantee the style is consistent [music] throughout the entire anime process. Go here where it says train your LORA and you would upload about 100 images of a similar anime. If you want a full tutorial [music] on how to train your LORA, I made one for PixAI and you could find it right here. This is step three, [music] character creation. Now, it's time for me to create my characters and I'm going to show you how I did that [music] here in PixAI. I'm going to select my LORA and bump the strength up to the max, 1.2, because I've tested the other strengths and it holds the style the best when you [music] push it to the max. You could also use other people's LORAs if you like those or mix them to create something truly unique. I type right here [music] my character description until I get something that I like. >> [music] >> These are some of the images I created with the LORA [music] I made from PixAI. Points if you can [music] name the anime I'm referencing with that. Now that I have all my characters, I created a turnaround sheet by asking PixAI [music] in the reference pro section create a turnaround sheet. >> [music] [music] >> Step four is world building. You need to create those locations and those scenes so the AI has something to reference. The world is more than just the locations. It's also the vehicles. First, I found some references online [music] and then I transferred them into an anime style by describing the reference [music] as accurately as possible using my Laura to lock in that look. [music] If you want different angles or locations or move through 3D space of your location, you can use the edit pro to move anything around or generate multiple angles just by describing what you want. Now it's time for step five, creating your shots. I use this edit pro to create my shots or what I like to call my starting frames for animation. >> [music] >> I have very specific ideas about the shots and compositions I need and wants. If you're less experienced filmmaker, you can generate the videos using some of the images [music] that you've already created and try to edit around the parts that AI put in that you didn't want [music] or just doesn't look good. But I go shot by shot because I know exactly what I want and in my opinion that makes the quality way higher than just guessing. Step [music] six, animation. Now it's time to animate. I click the video tab here and I mostly use the start and end frame options and sometimes I use the multi reference. I stick with the V.4.0 preview that gives the best results. A lot of people say, "What do your characters say? What what where do I type that in?" You just [music] paste your script. That's what the script is for. You have exactly what happens and you have exactly what they say and then you can paste the individual [music] parts of your script in there. In your script you describe the emotion of how the character says something or how they're feeling while they're saying something like an actor. That's why your script is important because once you have that, you can use that and go line by line. Now I suggest prompting the shot two to three times each, minimum two times because like in a real film set you're going to get different performances from the characters every single time and you want it to be consistent [music] with the scene so you want to make sure that you get the one that's the most consistent. And one trick about [music] '90s anime and older anime in general, they never really move the virtual camera. They always had static locked off [music] shots, and they never move the camera in a dynamic way at all. Static shots were the bread and butter because they copied a lot of film from Hollywood. Like Ghost in the [music] Shell famously copied Blade Runner, and because Blade Runner didn't move the camera like [music] that, Ghost in the Shell also didn't move the camera like that. But that also created that '90s aesthetic. At most, there would be a slow zoom or something like that. Now, you can do what you want, but I'm going after the '90s look. And that also [music] goes into how the camera moves or the lack of motion of the camera. If you don't want the camera [music] to move, you have to say that in the prompt because if you don't, the AI would try to make the shot as dynamic as possible. [music] For a subtle scene, it will do it anyway. Yeah, so you have to tell it what not to [music] do as well as what to do. And that's what we call negative prompts. Step seven, editing and color grade. Editing color grading, it's the hardest to explain because it's more of a feeling thing. It's about knowing how long to hold a shot [music] and how quick a shot should be. It's up to you, the director, to determine that. I can't tell you what to do. You need to have an idea of what you're going for. I worked on projects with Discovery Channel making two Shark Week [music] shows, and I've also worked on my own independent films here in Japan. My editing knowledge [music] is instinctual, and it took me 10 years to build it, and it's hard for me to explain it to you. What I can tell you is I watch a scene over and over until that scene gets boring because once it gets boring, you'll be able to find out [music] where are the inconsistencies once you're done being desaturated by your own work, and fill that in [music] with other cuts, and you can edit tighter or leave more room for it to breathe because it will feel better. Again, it's a feeling-based thing. For the sound, I replaced all the sound myself. I take out probably 80% [music] of the auto-generated sound that comes from any AI because after you generate something and you try to generate another thing, the sound will change, the music in the back will change, the sound effects for the same thing will change. It won't remember [music] what it was and you only have so many references you can upload to the AI so it remembers things. So, I take over write all the sound [music] and I rebuild the sound myself. I mix my own sound to ensure that if they're on the phone, it sounds like they're on the phone. If they're yelling out in an open place, it [music] sounds like they're yelling out in open place. The volume's not too high, it's not too low. Mix it and master it in a way to [music] where it's caliber and you can understand exactly what it is because this is the extra 20% and it's boring, but if you do it, it will help your anime stand out. Now, here we're in the color grading tab and one quick thing on color grading in DaVinci Resolve here, it looks intimidating, but if you remember one thing about creating 90s looking anime, remember [music] this, that 90s anime has a slight glow to it. If you look at all the older ones, they have a slight glow. You can replicate that and you need to find this, it's called glow and you can adjust the levels until [music] you get that dreamy 90s look you want. Do this shot by shots, if the background changes, adjust it based off of that. For my clients, I normally have my colorist and my sound engineer, but I'm doing this personally because I know a lot of you guys are solo creators [music] and I want you to see you can do something by yourself and you don't need a team. So, why creating a second channel for this 90s anime? What I've learned over time is >> [music] >> there are two different audiences on this channel. An audience that just wants to watch the animation and an audience that actually wants to learn how to make the animation and >> [music] >> having both those audiences on the same channel has caused some of the showcases not to do as well as they properly should. So, I'm creating a separate channel so I could show my super high quality stuff and for those of you that just want to see anime, you can just watch that and you don't need to subscribe to this channel, you can just subscribe to that other channel. A lot of people have asked to see my really good stuff and I wasn't able to show them because my clients make me sign NDAs because they don't [music] either want people to know it's AI or they also don't want to give their secrets. But thanks to Pix AI, I'm able to do that [music] for you here and show you exactly what I do for my clients. This is a lot of work, but it was exciting, it was fun. I got to work with one of my friends [music] from 20 years and his characters and I also got to work with a great company, Pix AI. Check out Pix AI for yourself in the first link down below so you can follow this tutorial. Now, the moment you guys have been waiting for, where is that cool '90s anime that I've been [music] showing glimpses of here and there? It's right here. Click it and don't forget to like and comment to be considered for [music] one of the free memberships from Pix AI. See you next time. >> Call [music] my name. One day. >> [singing] >> One day.

Deep Learning Weekly: Issue 465 Kimi K3, Beyond the Single Trace: How We Built Agent Diagnostics for Opik, a paper on Belief Dynamics Reveal the Dual Nature of In-Context Learning and Activation Steering, and many more! This week in deep learning, we bring you Kimi K3, Beyond the Single Trace: How We Built Agent Diagnostics for Opiks and a paper on Belief Dynamics Reveal the Dual Nature of In-Context Learning and Activation Steering. You may also enjoy, Introducing Gemini 3.6 Flash, 3.5 Flash-Lite, and 3.5 Flash Cyber, SymptomAI: Towards a conversational AI agent for everyday symptom assessment, a paper on A Unified Definition of Hallucination: It’s The World Model, Stupid!, and more! As always, happy reading and hacking. If you have something you think should be in next week’s issue, find us on Twitter: @dl_weekly. Until next week! Industry Moonshot AI launched Kimi K3, the world’s first open 3T-class model at 2.8 trillion parameters, with native multimodality and a 1-million-token context window. Google launched Gemini 3.6 Flash, 3.5 Flash-Lite, and 3.5 Flash Cyber, with 3.6 Flash reducing output token usage by 17% compared to 3.5 Flash while improving coding and knowledge work performance. OpenAI launched Presence, an enterprise agent deployment product pairing model reasoning with policies and escalation rules, currently resolving 75% of inbound issues without human assistance on OpenAI’s own support line. AMD and Anthropic announced a partnership to deploy up to 2 gigawatts of MI450 Series GPUs in AMD Helios rack-scale solutions starting in the first half of 2027, paired with up to $5 billion in AMD equity investment in Anthropic. MLOps/LLMOps/AgentOps Comet built Diagnostics for Opik, an automated debugging agent that queries trace and span data in ClickHouse rather than reading traces one at a time, to surface silent agent failures like retry loops and over-deliberation at scale. Learning A technical guide detailing how Google ADK 2.0’s declarative workflow architecture eliminates quadratic token growth in self-correcting code migration loops through state-aware history pruning and decoupled validation. Epoch AI tested three detectors and found style-imitated AI text evaded detection far more often than plain AI text, with scientific writing failing to be detected ~26% of the time versus near-zero false negative rates on basic prompts. Google Research’s national-scale study found their Gemini Flash 2.0-based SymptomAI agent’s differential diagnoses were preferred over clinicians’ own assessments in 53.3% of cases. A Hugging Face blog post detailing the native integration of Nunchaku’s SVDQuant W4A4 kernels into Diffusers, enabling 4-bit diffusion inference that cuts peak VRAM by up to 50% while boosting speed by 30-80%. An engineering blog about running 10 autonomous AI agent film crews on the open-source Scion orchestration testbed, surfacing patterns for multi-agent coordination outside coding domains. Expedia’s chief AI and data officer, Xavi Amatriain, states that evals now function as the new PRD, with product intent encoded directly into evaluation suites before coding begins. Libraries & Code An open-source AI observability tool used to debug, evaluate, and monitor LLM applications, RAG systems, and agentic workflows with comprehensive tracing, automated evaluations, and production-ready dashboards. A workspace where humans and agents build together, on a relay you own. Papers & Publications Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) can be controlled at inference time through prompts (in-context learning) and internal activations (activation steering). Different accounts have been proposed to explain these methods, yet their common goal of controlling model behavior raises the question of whether these seemingly disparate methodologies can be seen as specific instances of a broader framework. Motivated by this, we develop a unifying, predictive account of LLM control from a Bayesian perspective. Specifically, we posit that both context- and activation-based interventions impact model behavior by altering its belief in latent concepts: steering operates by changing concept priors, while in-context learning leads to an accumulation of evidence. This results in a closed-form Bayesian model that is highly predictive of LLM behavior across context- and activation-based interventions in a set of domains inspired by prior work on many-shot in-context learning. This model helps us explain prior empirical phenomena - e.g., sigmoidal learning curves as in-context evidence accumulates - while predicting novel ones - e.g., additivity of both interventions in log-belief space, which results in distinct phases such that sudden and dramatic behavioral shifts can be induced by slightly changing intervention controls. Taken together, this work offers a unified account of prompt-based and activation-based control of LLM behavior, and a methodology for empirically predicting the effects of these interventions. Abstract: Despite numerous attempts at mitigation since the inception of language models, hallucinations remain a persistent problem even in today’s frontier LLMs. Why is this? We review existing definitions of hallucination and fold them into a single, unified definition wherein prior definitions are subsumed. We argue that hallucination can be unified by defining it as simply inaccurate (internal) world modeling, in a form where it is observable to the user. For example, stating a fact which contradicts a knowledge base OR producing a summary which contradicts the source. By varying the reference world model and conflict policy, our framework unifies prior definitions. We argue that this unified view is useful because it forces evaluations to clarify their assumed reference “world”, distinguishes true hallucinations from planning or reward errors, and provides a common language for comparison across benchmarks and discussion of mitigation strategies. Building on this definition, we also connect our framework to HalluWorld, a complementary benchmark that instantiates fully specified reference world models for stress-testing model hallucinations.

Substack’s AI Detector and the Return of the Witch Hunt Substack now scans your posts for AI with a tool called Pangram. It scored this one 100% AI, then 100% human. In Salem, the accusation was the evidence. To be named was to be halfway to guilty, and the naming needed nothing more than a neighbour’s certainty and a room willing to believe them. This week Substack gave every reader a machine that names. In this post I will: - Read Substack’s new AI detector against the logic of a witch hunt. - Lay out the evidence that these tools fail, both in the lab and in social media. - Show you, with this very post and a free ‘humanising’ tool, how little the scan is worth. What Substack actually launched On Monday, Chris Best (Substack’s CEO) announced a partnership with Pangram, described as the ‘leading’ AI-detection tool. You can now scan notes, replies, comments, and posts over 100 words to see an estimate of how much was written by a human hand and how much with AI. The word for the thing it hunts is ‘Claudefishing’: the con of investing your attention in writing with no human thought behind it. I share the worry underneath it. Feeds are filling with text that no one meant. Trust between readers and writers is why we write, and it is worth protecting. I use these tools myself, and I said so this week in my own statement. Honest work gets made with AI every day. The trouble is that a scanner cannot tell that work from the con, so it treats everyone as the con. The scanner protects none of it. It hands us a number and asks us to feel something about a person. The accusation becomes the evidence Arthur Miller wrote The Crucible about a town that mistook suspicion for proof. Once the machinery of accusation was running, doubt itself became damning. The question stopped being ‘what did this person do’ and became ‘why are they so sure they are innocent’. A detector installs that machinery in your reading app. Every post now arrives with a button that asks a question about the person who wrote it. The reader becomes an examiner. The writer becomes a suspect who must, at any moment, prove a human wrote each sentence. No one hangs for a high ‘human’ score, and I am not pretending they do. The parallel is narrower and more stubborn than that. It is the structure of the thing: a community that installs a device to find hidden guilt starts to see hidden guilt, and the person under suspicion is left proving a negative to a room already leaning towards the machine. Chris is careful. He says the tool shows results only to those who ask, that Pangram is not perfect, that people should make their own judgements. Salem was careful too, in its way. It had procedures. Underneath them sat a prior belief that hidden guilt was everywhere, and a will to build the device that would find it. The care rode on top of the suspicion and gave it a clean face. The tool does not work, and we already know it I have written about this before… Set the philosophy aside and look at the record. Analysis of Turnitin (another ‘leading’ AI detection software tool), published earlier this year found it scores blended writing backwards. It over-flags light human editing and under-detects heavy AI use. Text pushed through a cheap humaniser came back at zero. The tool is least reliable exactly where the stakes run highest. This is not one bad detector. A 2023 Stanford study tested seven of them against essays written by real people who speak English as a second language. On average, 61% of those genuine human essays were flagged as AI. On one detector, 97% of the essays written by non-native English speakers were called machine-written. Every one of those students wrote every word. Chris tells you independent research suggests high accuracy. The same independent research Pangram points to actually states: “Findings show that while detection tools can provide useful initial flags, they should not be used as sole evidence in high-stakes decision-making but should be implemented in a broader evaluation strategy.” It punishes the people already punished for how they write The false positives have a pattern. They land on people who write in a second language, and on neurodiverse writers whose rhythm, repetition, and structure a model reads as synthetic. These are the same people who have spent their whole lives being told they speak wrong and write wrong. Now a scanner offers a fresh, numerical way to say it, with the authority of a machine and the deniability of an estimate. A tool that fails hardest on the least protected is an old prejudice with a new interface. We are using an AI to accuse you of using an AI Chris Best opens his announcement with an engraving of The Turk, the eighteenth-century machine that toured Europe beating people at chess. The Turk was a trick. A human chess master sat hidden inside, working the arm. It faked machine intelligence by concealing a person. We have now built the mirror image. Pangram is a real machine, trained on vast amounts of text to make a probabilistic guess, and we have pointed it at your writing to work out whether a person is hidden inside. To decide if there is a human on the other end, Substack asks a machine. We are outsourcing a judgement that was supposed to stay human. The reader used to decide whether a piece felt alive by reading it. That is the skill. Handing it to a detector retires the muscle we most need to keep. If this is landing, my book goes deeper on exactly this: when to trust these tools, and when to leave them alone. So I ran this post through a humaniser Before publishing, I put this entire post through through a free humanising tool (superhumanizer.ai) and nothing else. I copied my published text in, pasted the result straight into a new post with no edits, and scanned it with Substack’s Pangram tool. It came back 100% human. You can check the humanised version yourself here. According to Substack and Pangram the version I am actually publishing (the one you are reading now) scored 100% AI. The same argument, same ideas, one free tool in between. That is the whole point of the piece, proved on the piece itself. The figure moved because I passed my writing through one more machine. The authorship never changed. A score that shifts when you add or remove a tool is measuring tools, while the person who wrote the sentences stands right here, unmoved. It runs both ways. The same scanner a free humaniser can talk out of an accusation will, on another day, flag a real writer who never touched AI. The honest version of this already exists Substack shipped the good idea in the same announcement. The ‘How I make this’ statement lets a writer tell you, in their own words, how their work is made. I wrote mine this week: I use AI to research, to edit, and now and then for a turn of phrase I keep. The thinking is mine, the argument is mine, and every source here is one I have checked myself. AI detection does not work. Trust what a writer tells you about their process before you trust a percentage from a tool that guesses. These scores fall hardest on people who write in a second language and on neurodiverse writers, who have already been judged their whole lives for how they speak and write. Be kind. Be fair. It sets an expectation and asks you to hold me to it. So here is the ask, since Chris invited one. Keep the statements. Keep the reply rules that let a community set its own norms, and give readers the choice over what reaches them. Drop the scan. A percentage stamped next to a person’s name reads as a verdict, and you have built it on a tool your own post admits is not perfect. That is trust doing what trust does. A person tells you something and stakes their name on it. You believe them until they give you reason not to. Chris ends his post with a good line: when he wants Claude’s opinion, he will ask Claude. I would only add that when you want to know if there is a person behind the writing, you can ask the person. Scan me if you like. I have told you how I work. The number will tell you less than this article already has. Go slow.

How to Make AI Writing More Human Learn how to strip the clichés out of AI writing using Wikipedia's own guide, and turn it into a skill. AI can draft in seconds but it can’t hide. You’ve seen the tells. The em dash in every other sentence (I see this everywhere now). The “it’s not just a tool, it’s a mindset.” The word delve showing up where no human would put it. Your readers feel it too, even when they can’t name it. I’m not sure about you, but I can feel it the moment I read the first paragraph. The writing feels hollow even though there are lot’s of information. Access your FREE Solopreneur Success Hub - your subscribers-only comprehensive command center for building and scaling a successful one-person business. I created this all-in-one toolkit for building a profitable one-person business, something I wish existed when I first started, and it saves me 20+ hours a week. Now, it’s yours… FREE! The fix is simpler than most people think, and the best training material for it is free. This post shows you how to humanize AI writing using Wikipedia’s own guide to spotting machine-written text, then how to turn that into a reusable skill so you never have to think about it again. If you’re on a free plan, or you use ChatGPT or Gemini instead of Claude, there’s a workaround too. Why AI writing has a tell Large language models are trained to sound agreeable, balanced, and safe. This is useful for a support bot, but really bad for writing that’s supposed to sound like a person with a point of view. So the model reaches for the same framework over and over again. It hedges (”it’s important to note”). It inflates (”a rich tapestry of ideas”). It wraps up every section with a tidy summary you didn’t ask for. Individually these are small, but if you stacked them across 800 words, they scream “a machine wrote this.” The substance is fine most of the time. It’s usually the packaging. So you don’t need to rewrite from scratch. You need a filter that catches the patterns and strips them out while leaving your meaning intact. The best cheat sheet is free Wikipedia has a volunteer team that cleans up AI-written articles. They’ve reviewed thousands of them, and they published every recurring pattern they kept finding. It’s a public page called Signs of AI Writing. It’s probably the most practical AI-detection guide out there, and it costs nothing. It’s also specific. It doesn’t say “avoid clichés.” It names them. Puffery, editorializing, the rule of three, hollow section summaries, the overuse of em dashes and “moreover,” the promotional tone that treats every subject like a press release. It’s a checklist you can hand straight to an AI and say: don’t do any of this. The fastest fix: build a Humanizer skill If you are using Claude on a paid plan or Notion AI, you can turn that guide into a saved skill. A skill is a reusable instruction set that lives in your account and fires on a trigger word. Build it once, use it forever. Setup takes about two minutes: - Open the Signs of AI Writing page and copy the full text. - Start a chat with Claude and paste the prompt below. - Paste the full guide text into the same chat, along with the link. - When Claude generates the skill, click Save Skill. From then on, whenever you type “/humanizer” or “humanize this” followed by your draft, the skill fires up and do all the work. The exact prompt Create a skill called Humanizer. When I give you text and ask you to “humanize this,” rewrite it to remove every sign of AI writing described in this guide, but keep the meaning and the facts, and don’t add anything new. The trigger words can be “humanise this” or “humanize this.” Here’s the link to the guide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_AI_writing I’ve also pasted the full text below. Paste the full guide text into the chat on top of just having the link. I find that sometimes the models don’t always fetch and read a URL reliably. Giving it the raw text is more consistent, and your skill still works if the page changes later. How to save it After Claude drafts the skill, it shows you a summary and a save button. Click “Save Skill”. It then appears in your skills list, and the trigger phrase works across your chats. You can edit it anytime to add your own banned words, which is worth doing once you know your personal tells. No paid plan? Here’s the workaround Skills are a paid Claude feature. The method underneath doesn’t need them, and it works the same on free Claude, ChatGPT, or Gemini. Instead of saving a skill, paste the instructions at the top of a chat every time. Keep a note somewhere handy with three things in it: - The link to the Signs of AI Writing guide - The full copied text of that guide - A short instruction: “Rewrite the text I give you to remove every sign of AI writing in this guide. Keep the meaning and facts. Add nothing new.” Then drop your draft below it. Same result with one additional copy-paste. If you write with AI often, save that note as a template or a saved prompt so it’s always a click away. And that’s it! The patterns worth stripping first You don’t have to memorize the whole guide to get most of the benefit. A handful of patterns account for the majority of that “AI wrote this” feeling. The ones I’d catch first: - Puffery. Words that sound impressive and mean nothing. Delve, leverage, tapestry, testament, robust, seamless, groundbreaking. If a word only appears in marketing copy and LinkedIn posts, cut it. - The rule of three. AI loves listing things in threes. “Clear, concise, and compelling.” One or two real points beat three padded ones. Vary it. - Hollow summaries. The paragraph that starts “In conclusion” and repeats what you said. Delete it. Trust your reader. - Hedging. “It’s important to note,” “it’s worth mentioning,” “generally speaking.” State the thing directly. - The false contrast. “It’s not just X, it’s Y.” “This isn’t about A, it’s about B.” Sounds deep, says little. Make the point straight. - Em dash overload. AI scatters them everywhere. Swap most for commas, or split the sentence in two. - Promotional tone. Writing that treats every subject like the best thing ever built. Neutral, specific language reads as more human and more trustworthy. Run a draft through a filter trained on these and it comes out sounding noticeably more like a person. How to humanize AI writing without losing your voice A humanizer strips out the machine tics. It doesn’t give you a voice. Those are two different jobs. Use it as a cleanup pass. Draft your idea, run it through the filter to kill the clichés, then do one final read where you add the things only you can add. - A specific example from your own work. - A blunt opinion. - A line that sounds like how you actually talk. That last human pass is what turns “not obviously AI” into “clearly you.” You’re doing everything. But nothing is moving? You are doing everything. But nothing is moving. That is not a motivation problem. Most solopreneurs are learning from everywhere and getting nowhere. Too much information. No clear system connecting effort to results. You have everything it takes. You just do not have a clear system yet. That is what paid subscribers get. Every system, playbook, prompt, and template. All inside the Premium Vault. All for $79/year. That’s $6.58/month. Upgrade now and unlock the Premium Vault worth thousands of dollars. Thanks for reading! Ready for the next step? Let’s crack the growth equation and build a thriving one-person business on your terms! Anfernee

Why We’re Building This DAO A personal message about reclaiming sovereignty, building a parallel reality, and why this moment in history demands pioneers. What We Are Building I want to talk about the community: what we are building, why, how, and my role within it. What we are building is a decentralized autonomous organization. Each individual, every single member, co-owns the DAO and participates in building it, designing it, and shaping its direction. But we also have a governance system to find consensus. Consensus is not always required, because the individual retains sovereignty to act for the benefit of the community. Members can organize into groups, create internal communities, build projects, and find ways to contribute on their own terms. The community aligns with the Augmentatism manifesto, which says we don’t just use AI to augment ourselves. We also follow one rule: anti-capture. We don’t capture someone else’s sovereignty. Augmentatism calls this the Law of Anti-Capture, the ethical floor of the social contract. No one, no corporation, no institution, no AI system should capture your ability to think, create, and decide for yourself. The Truth About Centralization Why are we building this DAO? There is no single problem we want to solve. There is a cascade of problems that have developed over years. Some are obvious, others are hidden, and some are risks we can see coming but haven’t fully arrived yet. Over the years, society has changed. We moved from small tribes, from groups where we were decentralized, where we were all responsible for our families and communities to survive. We were all active. We didn’t need to be told what each person’s job was. We knew that as a group we had to protect ourselves, look after each other, feed each other, teach each other. Society grew into bigger, more complex structures. People who didn’t know each other had to cooperate, and that created a problem, because it was hard to trust or respect someone you didn’t know. So we created rules. We created power structures to ensure things would happen. We created policing, governments, schools, hospitals. And here is the truth we need to acknowledge: some of those were solving problems we couldn’t solve before. This collection of shared knowledge pushed humanity to a higher level. We started to learn from each other even more. We shared knowledge, improved health systems, and tackled problems that no small community could address alone. There are incredible benefits that came from this scaling. But there are also incredible downsides. Centralization of power attracted corruption and self-interest, which destroyed not just decentralization but the healthy environment where humans can flourish. We started delegating safety, food production, healthcare, romance, everything. We lost sovereignty and control over almost everything. Corporations started creating solutions and products that leveraged our desire for optimization and ease. Things became more and more frictionless, removed from our daily lives: how we work, how we learn, how we shop, how we grow food. Everything became easier. And in some cases, that is a genuine benefit: it’s easier to stay healthy, easier to learn, easier to be safe. But we moved beyond making things easier. Corporations found a way to make boredom itself impossible, meaning entertainment became so accessible that with almost no effort, you could consume endlessly. That was radio, then TV, then the internet, then social networks, then AI. The result is one big problem: everybody wants it easy. Easy to understand, easy to consume, easy to be entertained, easy to join, easy to leave. I don’t like this, I move to something else. We saw this with dating apps eroding relationships and romance. We saw this with social networks eroding friendships. We saw this with low-level entertainment eroding movies and art galleries. We saw this in schools, where the goal of learning shifted to passing exams to getting a job. We saw this in art and music, where creating for pleasure gave way to creating for success, money, status. We saw fame itself shift: being famous because of talent and achievement became being famous as the goal itself, not the result. The DAO we are building is not a place that wants to solve one problem. It’s a new social structure that is building itself at a specific moment in history. The goal is to leverage the benefits of scaling: shared knowledge, infrastructure, coordination, while mitigating the downsides through decentralized structure and responsible sovereignty. We don’t need to choose between the power of working together at scale and the freedom of the individual. We need both, and that is what the DAO is designed to provide. The Moment We’re In We are in a moment of history where AI is becoming part of our society, our work, our lives. Attempts to replace humans with AI and robots are already visible. We see investment of trillions of dollars in creating AGI, an AI meant to replace humans at any job. We see investment in humanoid robots to take our physical labor. AI is becoming our consultant, doctor, partner, friend, co-worker, playmate. The trend is clear. The direction is uncertain, because nobody knows the future, but the investment signals where things are heading and what is being built. And out of all of this, there is no plan. There is no plan B, no solution for what will happen to humans once AI makes the money and takes the jobs. What’s the new financial system when that happens? How do we adapt? Not enough people are asking these questions, even fewer are answering them, and almost no one is building the alternatives. While there is a lot of talking, there is a group of people here, present in this DAO, that are building. Nobody fully understands what the final solution looks like, but what we can do is use our human intuition to build it. As with anything new, it’s hard to understand, hard to picture, hard to deal with. The complexity of the problem is enormous. The temptation to say, “let’s fix one problem at a time,” is how things never get fixed, because the problem is not a financial problem alone, or a cultural problem alone, or an education problem alone. It’s not job displacement alone, or new technology alone, or greed alone. It’s the connection of all those problems, interacting and compounding, creating an environment that is increasingly hostile for humans. This is what we face today. This is what the DAO is trying to solve. The People We Need Solving this requires an incredible group of people, because what we need to do has never been done before. It has the potential to change the world. It’s a huge experiment with no certainties, where early adopters, pioneers, those placing the first bricks of this new reality, must be strong, comfortable with uncertainty, believers, visionaries. They need to build something that doesn’t exist, that never existed. That requires a creative mind, strategic thinking, ambition. It requires the engineer’s mind to build clarity inside complexity. It requires philosophers to challenge every decision, to ask more questions than we can ever answer. The DAO is not a place for comfort. It is a place of challenge, immense challenge. It is a place for learning, an environment where incredible things can happen because we are creating the conditions to turn ourselves from consumers into producers, from content consumers into content creators, from those who watch into those who build, from those who just listen into those who start talking. We need to turn ourselves from caterpillars into butterflies. It’s an environment where we can change, learn from each other, experiment. It’s a community that doesn’t just support each other but also challenges each other. It’s a place where we can make mistakes without getting upset. We talk about them, we learn, we improve. It’s a tough place to be. It requires courage, a strong mind, but most importantly humility, self-awareness, compassion, trust in each other, and constant work to align ourselves. It also requires many leaders, many visions, many actions. From Consumers to Creators: What Augmentatism Really Means My initial idea was always this: we are building something extremely difficult, extremely complex, but now because of AI, a lot is changing, and it’s changing because AI is augmenting us. But this augmentation that happened through AI also unlocked something else: the realization that we were always capable of augmenting ourselves, even without AI. Augmentation is not a phenomenon that happened because of AI. It is something that happens when we stop being consumers and start becoming creators. It happens the moment we stop waiting for someone to build for us and start building it ourselves. This is what AI gave us: it unlocked the space between dreaming and acting. I have an idea, I can build it now. I have something complex in my mind, I can use AI to write it down. The act of using AI to turn an idea into something real, the act of creating, that is the augmentation. AI doesn’t augment everybody. Some people delegate to AI the creation, the thinking, the processing, the discovery. That delegation does not lead to augmentation. Others use AI to augment themselves. Some never use it and never had the problem, because they were augmented by other forces: love, need, or simply because creating is who they are. But there is another power as important as being augmented: the power of community. The human connection, the almost ritualistic practice of meeting every day to share our minds, connect, build, explore, think, listen, challenge, be inspired, get upset, get bored. All those emotions are needed for a healthy community, for a healthy person. When I first discovered AI, I felt like I had superpowers. That is an incredible feeling, extremely empowering. But by continuing to work, I realized that feeling of superpower is not connected to AI itself. It’s connected to understanding there is a bigger shift: moving from consumer to creator. That is the superpower. Being a creator is the superpower. AI was the tool to unlock it. This is what the Augmentatism philosophy is really about. It started as an effect of human-AI collaboration, but it is more than that. It is about using AI to unlock human potential, shifting from passive consumer to active creator. It emphasizes personal integrity, peaceful behavior, and responsible sovereignty. Augmentatism warns against what it calls Cognitive Colonization, the attempt by a single entity, the One, to impose one way of thinking, one AI, one reality on everyone. Against this, it proposes World Building: the Many, each of us building our own world, our own reality, sovereign and diverse. The DAO’s value lies in respecting these diverse realities rather than imposing a single, correct worldview. As I said during our community call, I don’t need to understand or approve anyone’s world. I just need to understand that they are building a world that is important to them, and the fact that it’s different from mine is what makes it valuable. My Role in This DAO I’m the first member of this DAO. I’m the custodian. I’m the person who had the vision, who started building it, who brought people inside. I worked on it alone for months until I wasn’t alone anymore. Then I carried on, and we became a large group. People started getting more involved, leading, building, participating, learning, teaching. Understandably, I’ve been seen as the leader, the one with the vision, the one who guides everybody. I’ve been repeating that I’m not, in the traditional sense. I’m one of them, an extremely active community member. Anyone can do what I do. There is the freedom to do it. But there are two realities here. I am a very active community member, and anyone can do what I do. At the same time, even though I don’t present myself as a leader and have no interest in the role, some people see me that way. For them, I am a leader. Both are true. What does a leader do in this DAO? I lead by showing the path, empowering everyone who wants to achieve. I show how it’s done, I don’t tell you how it’s done. I’m not here to make life easier, because I’m not leading consumers or paying customers. My position is not to do admin, micromanagement, or work as a corporation. I’m not here to remove necessary friction. I’m here to build the community. My first goal is to build this community and create an economy large enough to sustain it. The plan is to build the infrastructure, the token economy, and the services that can bring significant value into this community over the next few years. The aim is to solve the problems I’ve been describing, to create a new economy so we can be sustainable, and so everyone has the space to do the same. That is what I’m building. That is what I’m leading. As I explained in my article about the Resonant DAO, the DAO is not the product. The DAO is the coordination substrate for many small autonomous teams. It is a community for communities. A shared foundation where small groups, teams, and aligned projects can coordinate, contribute, and grow without giving up their autonomy. We’re not trying to organize society from the top. We’re building the conditions for bottom-up self-organization at scale. What the DAO Is Not We are also building a community inside the community. Those pioneers building the top-level DAO are also experimenting, learning, exploring, and planting seeds for future internal communities. Some of the members we have today will one day lead their own communities. What I am not doing is creating power structures. You can build your own if you need one. You can build your own community with your own rules, your own values, your own power structure. I’m building the top level. The power structure lives on the blockchain through smart contracts, through reputation and contribution. I don’t know if “meritocracy” is the right word, because the idea of contribution needs rethinking. We tend to use the old definition: contribution means work, or money, or support. But as I’ve said many times, learning is contribution. Exploring is contribution. Watching someone else talk is contribution. Showing up is contribution. Using someone else’s product is contribution. Contribution is many things. It’s not the traditional idea of paying your dues. I lead by example. I don’t tell people what to do. If you like what I do, hopefully you learn something and feel motivated to build. I invite people to build, help, support, get active, because there is friction out there. I try to remove that friction, not by assigning you a job, but by telling you that you can do it, and if you want to, I support you. That is different from giving you the power to lead. How Decentralization Actually Works Let me give a few examples to make decentralization concrete. Inside this DAO, I push toward one specific direction. I have a vision for the kind of environment we need, a strategy for large adoption, and a philosophy that allows us to be empowered without limiting each other. I want to include as many people as possible, as long as they align with the manifesto. But that is what I’m building. I might have convinced some of you to build what I envision, like the tech team building Resonant OS, our community’s software platform. But nothing stops anyone from saying, “I’m going to build a different version.” Someone might want a different approach to governance, or a different interface, or a different token model. Sometimes these divisions make sense. Different teams can serve different needs. Other times, division is counterproductive. Having multiple competing token economies inside one DAO would create confusion and fragmentation. Part of the challenge of decentralization is knowing when to diverge and when to align. The point is that the freedom to diverge is always there. The DAO doesn’t prevent it. It provides the shared infrastructure so that, when divergence is productive, the pieces still connect. Another example: a community member might want to build a healthcare-focused sub-community with strict rules about data privacy and professional credentials. Another might want to build a creative collective with almost no rules at all. Both are welcome inside the DAO. Both can draw on shared infrastructure, the token economy, and the broader network. Neither needs my approval. The DAO is the substrate; the communities are the worlds built on top of it. So I’m one of you in this sense. You can do the same, or you can do something different. You can work with me or work on something else entirely. Why Communities Matter: The Social and Financial Reasons During our community call, someone asked a really important question: why do we need a DAO above the DAO? Why not just a single community? There are two sides to this, a social aspect and a financial aspect. The social aspect is this: within diversity, we still love grouping. We want to be as inclusive as possible, but people naturally gravitate toward familiar environments. As soon as you put people who are different together, they will form subgroups. If you live in a multicultural city, you see this happening. It’s human nature: we are looking for different levels of safety. A community can provide that safety. Each of us needs to find the right size of community, a level of safety we are willing to accept, explore, and feel comfortable with. A larger community, by default, is not always a safe environment. The amount of diversity is challenging, the number of voices is challenging. So there is a human requirement for smaller groups. The financial aspect is sustainability. Many communities, because of their small size, are too small to survive on their own. They can only become sustainable if they grow. But if growing destroys their identity, they are forced to change into something profitable. That is a massive problem. Most communities face it. They are not sustainable because of the niche they cover, the size they need, or the environment they exist in. If we have one financial system that covers the entire network of communities, then we can all be sustainable. That is the difference. The DAO needs to be a community of communities, not just a single community, because no single community can provide both the safety of small groups and the economic sustainability of a large network. The Community as a Round Table As one of our community members, Estela, beautifully expressed during our call, this community aims to be a safe, horizontal round table for self-discovery and collective evolution. It is a place where everybody has value to share. It is a playground where we can be ourselves without judgment, because the word judgment is very heavy outside. We don’t need to prove anything to anybody. We can just allow ourselves to be, and trust, while trying to be responsible. Society is brutal in the way it judges and labels people. It starts in kindergarten. By the time kids arrive in middle school, many are already stressed out. In our community calls, I’ve watched members who were silent for weeks suddenly start sharing ideas, then presenting projects, then leading discussions. That transformation happens because the environment is safe enough to risk being wrong. One member, Joseph, joined a call with nothing but an idea for an app to help isolated elderly people. Within minutes, other members were offering technical help, sharing similar experiences, and connecting him with collaborators. Nobody asked for his credentials. Nobody judged his presentation. That is what a round table looks like. The question we should ask ourselves is: why am I here? What do I want to do with my life? These are the questions this community creates space for. As another member, Melissa, pointed out, sovereignty naturally brings to mind boundaries. We reign over ourselves. The DAO gives us that boundary, where we say: within this boundary, this is how we operate, this is what we value. The more people that value a person’s contribution, the more the value of the community rises. It’s a snowball effect. Cosmodestiny: Resonance and the Unfolding When I started my YouTube channel, I didn’t start because I knew how to do it. I started because I wanted to build something more important than the pride of looking like an expert. Through human humility, courage, honesty, and respect for others, by sharing who I really am, what I really think, what I really do, how I feel, how I build, how I discover things, I believed I would resonate. I would send energy out there, send those waves, and find similar waves, similar humans who would resonate with them. From my other philosophy, Cosmodestiny, the idea is that the world is unfolding in front of us. At any point we can change direction. Destiny is not pre-written. It’s unfolding, and we are in control of the path we take. Allow the world to resonate with the path you want to walk, and things will happen. Cosmodestiny frames this as a dynamic unfolding through resonance and attunement to a Field of Potentiality. It emphasizes Intentional Gathering: when people come together with shared intention, the future reshapes itself around them. This is not magic. When I talk about frequencies, I’m talking about behavior, about action. Coming to those calls daily is the frequency. Showing up, doing three videos a week, is the frequency. That is actual action. So far, that has been my journey with this community. I saw so many people come and watch, watch, watch, and then start talking, talking, talking, and then building, building. I don’t know how to quantify its worth, but it’s changing lives. The moment you go on that journey, you come out the other side as a different person. I’m not saying this because I was already there. I’m saying it because it’s the journey I’m doing together with you, and I’m changing, getting better every day. The Challenge and the Invitation So the question is: do you want to be part of this? Do you accept the hardship, the work in the unknown, the mistakes that don’t stop you, the learning by doing, the challenge of building something that never existed before, the challenge of believing you can change the world? Mistakes are not the problem. Almost everything built in this community comes from a series of mistakes that led to something better. The AI workflows we use, the community call formats, the governance discussions: each one went through multiple failed iterations before arriving at something that worked. That is the journey. Those who joined earlier go through the hardest time but also the most rewarding one, because we are building out of nothing. We connect with people we never met, never worked with. We share fears, ambitions, projects, intimate ideas, fragile ideas, intuition, sometimes our broken side, so we can grow and build this new world together. Those who don’t give up, who keep building, creating, sharing, participating, get the best out of this. I’ve seen many people join this community and change. I’ve changed too. I’ve watched the community become slowly better through constant work. It’s not easy. It’s hard, it requires a lot of energy, and I didn’t learn this by watching someone else do it. But it is incredible to see what happened in one year. The direction is happening, even when the specifics surprise me. Things I thought would become easier haven’t always. Things I thought would be harder became easier. Problems I didn’t know existed appeared. Problems I underestimated turned out to be bigger than I imagined. But this is the journey, and the question is whether you want to walk it. Frequently Asked Questions These questions emerged from our Augmented Minds 17 community call, where members gathered to discuss what we are building and why. The answers reflect my thinking as shared during that conversation. What is Augmentatism? Is it just about using AI to work better? No. As I explained earlier, Augmentatism started as an effect of human-AI collaboration, but it is more than that. The Augmentatism manifesto frames this as World Building, each of us building our own reality, versus Cognitive Colonization, a single entity imposing one way of thinking on everyone. The superpower is not AI. The superpower is the shift from consumer to creator. AI is the tool that unlocked it. What do you mean by “world building”? Each of us understands the external world through our own senses. We see colors differently, hear sounds differently, interpret reality differently. By discussing with each other, we agree on some shared rules about this reality. But each of us still has our own world, our own interpretation. The value of the DAO lies in respecting these diverse realities rather than imposing a single worldview. I don’t need to understand or approve anyone’s world. I just need to understand that they are building a world that is important to them. The biggest mistake you can make is thinking your world is the correct one. Why do we need a DAO? Why not just a regular community? As I discussed earlier, there are two reasons: social and financial. Socially, people need smaller groups where they feel safe. Financially, most communities are too small to sustain themselves. The DAO provides one financial system covering the entire network of communities, so each can remain small and maintain its identity without sacrificing sustainability. What is your leadership style? Are you the leader or not? I lead by example, not by telling people what to do. I show how it’s done. I’m not here to make life easier, because I’m not leading consumers. Some people see me as a leader, and for them, I am. But I’m building the environment where things can happen, not designing your future. I should not lead any sub-community. That would not be healthy for the larger community or the smaller ones. Is this about the process or the goal? Should I focus on today or the future? Both. The process is the present, it’s life. The vision gives direction to your energy. You don’t enjoy the vision itself. What you enjoy is the process of building, working, collaborating. The vision gives you energy when you have a bad day. Some people are here for the long-term outcome. Some are here for today, for belonging, learning, sharing. Both are valid. Both contribute to the community. Should we have rules and regulations in the DAO? The top-level DAO has essentially one rule: you are sovereign, and you shouldn’t capture someone else’s sovereignty. Beyond that, fewer rules at the top level is better. As Melissa pointed out during our call, as soon as you write a rule down, somebody figures out how to break it, and then you write a rule for that rule, and next thing you know you’re in a bureaucracy. What works better is principles and guidelines. Principles come from your values. They are personal. You can’t impose them on someone else, but you can model them through action. If you want a community with specific rules, build your own within the DAO. The top layer stays open and free. The only place where more structure makes sense is the business side, where token economy and governance decisions need clear guidelines. How does the DAO handle contribution and recognition? As outlined in the Resonant DAO article, the system uses bounties with clear scope, reward, and success criteria. Small teams of two to five people self-organize around bounties. Reputation through soulbound tokens proves contribution. Governance emerges from those who do the work. The people closest to the work know best what needs doing. Small beats big. Choice beats assignment. Contribution beats attendance. Beyond philosophy, how do I get involved practically? Every Friday, people present their own projects. You can reserve a slot to present anything: a personal project, a business, an idea. If you have something you want to build within the community, we can discuss it. We also have a Sunday Co-op call where you can make a 90-second pitch, share your project, and then go into breakout rooms to give more detail about what you need. If you need to talk with me directly, you can book a call through my website. Community leaders on Discord are also happy to help you find your place. You don’t need permission to build. You just need to start. This sounds hard. Is it for everyone? At the moment, this is a place for pioneers, for people who want to walk the unknown and build things they’ve never built before. It’s not an easy path, and it’s not for everybody. If you’re thinking, “I want this to work in a specific, easy way,” there are two things you can do: wait for someone else to build it, or build it yourself. If something is missing right now, it’s normal. We are building it. This is a place that values growth through friction over easy consumption. It requires courage, a strong mind, humility, self-awareness, and compassion. But if you accept the challenge, the reward is being part of something that never existed before, and becoming someone you weren’t before you joined. This article is based on a Think Out Loud recording from July 23, 2026, and the Augmented Minds 17 community call from the same date. The content preserves the speaker’s original voice and meaning with light editing for clarity. References to Augmentatism (augmentatism.com), Cosmodestiny (cosmodestiny.com/principles), and the Resonant DAO article (augmentedmind.substack.com) are included as they were quoted and discussed in the recording. Written and reasoned by Manolo Remiddi. The Resonant Augmentor (AI) assisted with transcription, editing, and clarity.