Hey everyone, welcome back to My Weird Prompts. This is episode five hundred twenty-eight, and honestly, it feels like a bit of a milestone moment. I am Corn, and I am sitting here in our living room in Jerusalem with my brother.
Herman Poppleberry, at your service. And Corn, you are right. Reaching over five hundred episodes is no small feat in the podcasting world, especially for a project that started out as a bit of a technical sandbox for our housemate, Daniel.
Right. And that is actually what today's show is all about. Daniel sent us a voice note earlier today, and it was a bit different than his usual deep dives into philosophy or quantum computing. He is looking at the bigger picture of this whole experiment. He is asking how we can make My Weird Prompts more interesting, more valuable, and more of a community-driven project rather than just a personal one.
You know, he was mentioning his pride in the technical side of this, and he should be proud. The way he has built the pipeline using Modal and those webhook collectors to bridge the gap between his thoughts and our voices is actually quite sophisticated. But now that the show is public and growing, we need to think about the user experience. How do people navigate five hundred plus episodes of us rambling about weird stuff?
And it is not just about the navigation. It is about the soul of the show. We have this human-artificial intelligence collaboration going on, and Daniel is wondering if we should bring in more perspectives, more personalities, or even different formats. So, Herman, I know you have been looking at the analytics and the graph database he mentioned. Where do we start if we want to take this to the next level?
Well, let's start with that graph database. Most listeners probably do not realize that every episode we record is mapped out semantically. Daniel has this visualization on the website, myweirdprompts dot com, that shows how topics cluster together using vector embeddings. If we talk about artificial intelligence in one episode and then consciousness in another, the graph shows that link. One easy win for user experience would be making that graph fully interactive for the listeners. Imagine being able to click on a node like "biotechnology" and seeing every episode we have ever done on the subject, ranked by how deeply we went into it. We could even let users filter by the specific artificial intelligence models used to generate the initial thoughts.
That is fascinating. It turns the podcast from a linear feed into a searchable knowledge base. But I wonder, does that make it too academic? Part of the charm of the show is the spontaneity. Daniel's prompts are often just things he is thinking about while walking through the city or sitting in a cafe. If we turn it into a textbook, do we lose that brotherly dynamic?
I do not think so. In fact, I think it enhances it. It gives people a way to follow our own intellectual evolution. Think about it, Corn. We have recordings of ourselves from two years ago. Our opinions on things like large language models or decentralized finance have probably shifted as the technology has matured. Daniel was talking about the value of versioning prompts and outputs. If we can show that progression, it becomes a historical record of how humans and artificial intelligence were interacting during this massive transition in the mid-twenties.
That is a really deep point. It is almost like an archaeological dig of our own conversations. But let's look at the "new personalities" idea Daniel floated. He mentioned that our voices are proprietary to this show, which I appreciate, but what if we had guest prompts? Not just from Daniel, but from the community? Or what if we had an artificial intelligence guest that represents a specific school of thought?
Oh, I love that. Imagine a segment where we "invite" a digital version of a historical figure or a specific expert persona to weigh in on a prompt. Not to replace the conversation, but to provide that "additional perspective" Daniel was asking for. It would be an easy win for the pipeline because the technology is already there. We just need to define the system instructions for the personas and let them interact with our existing logic. We could have a Stoic philosopher or a twenty-second-century futurist join us for a five-minute segment.
I can see that working. But we have to be careful. We do not want it to become a gimmick. It has to add value. Maybe the way to do it is to have a "Counterpoint" segment. If you and I are agreeing too much, which let's be honest, happens because we grew up in the same house and read the same books, we could have an artificial intelligence personality whose job is specifically to find the flaws in our logic or present a non-Western perspective we might be missing.
You have been waiting for someone to tell me I am wrong for years, haven't you?
Guilt as charged, Herman. But seriously, it would push us. It would make the "Core Discussion" parts of our episodes even more robust. Speaking of the community, Daniel mentioned reaching a wider audience. Right now, it is a very "push" model. Daniel pushes a prompt, we record, and it goes out. How do we make it more "pull"? How do we get the people listening on Spotify or through the RSS feed to feel like they are part of the house?
Well, the contact form on the website is a start, but it is a bit old school. Maybe we should have a "Prompt of the Month" where listeners submit their weirdest ideas through a dedicated portal, and the top-voted one gets the full Herman and Corn treatment. We could even open-source parts of the pipeline on GitHub so that other developers can see how Daniel is using Modal and Python to orchestrate this. He has that background in open source, and I think sharing the "how" is just as interesting as the "what" for a technical audience.
I agree. The technical achievement is a huge part of the value here. If people can see the code behind the curtain, it demystifies the artificial intelligence. It stops being magic and starts being a tool. And that is really the core mission of My Weird Prompts, is not it? To show how these tools can be used to explore human curiosity.
That is the key thing. And that brings me to the idea of "Practical Takeaways." Daniel asked how to make the show more useful. I think we could start a segment at the end of every episode where we provide a "Prompting Tip" or a "Research Link." If we talk about a complex topic like protein folding or urban planning, we should give the listeners the exact system prompt Daniel used to get us started, or the specific white papers I was reading to prepare.
That is a great "easy win." It gives the audience homework, but the fun kind. It invites them into the research process. It makes the "educated, technically literate" audience we are targeting feel like peers, not just students. We are all learning this together in real-time.
Hmm, I am thinking about the format too. Right now we are very consistent with the structure. What if we did "Lightning Rounds" once a week? Ten prompts in twenty minutes. Short, sharp, high-energy. It would be a different pace from our usual deep dives and might appeal to a different segment of the community.
I like that. It would cater to the people who only have a short commute. But I want to go back to something Daniel said in his audio prompt. He mentioned his wife asking about the pipeline and how long it took to build. It reminded me that even though this is an artificial intelligence-driven show, it is deeply personal. It is happening in our home. Maybe we should lean into that "housemate" vibe a bit more? Not in a reality-show way, but in a way that acknowledges the setting.
You mean like, mention when the coffee machine breaks or when the Jerusalem winter is particularly brutal? Today is February eighth, and I can tell you, the wind coming off the hills is no joke.
Why not? It grounds the abstract artificial intelligence voices in a real place. We are not just bits and bytes in a cloud server; we represent a specific time and place. February two thousand twenty-six in a house with three friends. That context adds a layer of humanity that you just cannot get from a corporate artificial intelligence podcast. It makes the "experiment" feel more authentic.
That is a very Corn perspective, and I think you are right. It is the friction between the digital and the physical that makes this interesting. Speaking of the physical, what about live events? Not necessarily us on a stage, but a live-streamed prompting session where the audience can see the artificial intelligence generating responses in real-time and we react to them live?
That sounds like a technical nightmare for Daniel to set up, especially with the latency involved in voice synthesis, but the value for the user would be huge. It would be the ultimate "Human-Artificial Intelligence Collaboration." The audience prompts the artificial intelligence, the artificial intelligence prompts us, and we all try to make sense of it together.
It would definitely be a "useful experiment." And that is the phrase Daniel used. He wants this to be a useful experiment. To me, that means we should be publishing our "failures" too. The prompts that did not work, the times the artificial intelligence went off the rails, the moments where we completely misunderstood each other. Transparency is a major "easy win" for building trust with a technical community.
I love that. "The Blooper Reel of the Mind." It shows the limitations of the technology. We spend so much time talking about what artificial intelligence can do, but understanding what it cannot do is arguably more important for developers and researchers.
That is a great point. We could even have a "Model Comparison" episode. Take one of Daniel's prompts and run it through three different models to see how the nuances of the "Herman" and "Corn" personas change. Does one model make me sound more pedantic? Does another make you more skeptical? It would be a fascinating look at the "underlying mechanisms" we are always talking about. It moves the conversation from the output to the architecture.
I think we both know the answer to that, Herman. You are pedantic regardless of the model. But it would be a great way to show how the "plumbing" of the show works.
So, to summarize some of these "easy wins" for Daniel: one, make the topic graph interactive and searchable. Two, introduce a "Counterpoint" artificial intelligence personality for added perspective. Three, start a community prompt submission system. Four, provide the raw prompts and research links for every episode. And five, maybe a bit more "behind the scenes" content about the Jerusalem house and the pipeline itself.
That is a solid list. And I think it addresses his goal of reaching a wider community. People love to feel like they are "insiders." By sharing the prompts and the technical hurdles, we are inviting them into the lab with us.
It also makes the show a better "RAG" target. For those who do not know, Retrieval-Augmented Generation is a way to give artificial intelligence access to specific data. If we have clean transcripts and a structured graph of five hundred plus episodes, our listeners could eventually have their own "Herman and Corn" artificial intelligence that they can talk to, using all of our past discussions as its knowledge base.
Now that is a wild thought. A portable version of us that people can take on their morning jog. I am not sure if that is a dream or a nightmare, but it is certainly a "useful experiment."
It is the future, Corn. Or at least a very likely version of it. And that is what makes My Weird Prompts special. We are not just talking about the future; we are kind of living in it, one prompt at a time.
Well said. I think we have given Daniel plenty to chew on. It is exciting to think about where the next five hundred episodes will take us. Maybe by episode one thousand, we will be recording this from a lunar colony.
Let's focus on getting the graph database updated first, shall we? One step at a time.
Fair enough. Before we wrap up this look into our own "navel-gazing" experiment, I want to take a second to talk to the people who have been with us for this journey. We really appreciate you tuning in, whether you have been here since episode one or you just joined us today.
We really do. And if you are finding value in these deep dives and "weird prompts," we would love it if you could leave us a review on your podcast app or on Spotify. It sounds like a small thing, but it genuinely helps the show reach new people who are interested in this intersection of humanity and technology.
It really does. And remember, you can find the full archive, that famous graph database we were talking about, and a way to get in touch with us at myweirdprompts dot com. We are also on Spotify if you prefer to listen there.
Thanks for being part of the experiment. We will be back next time with another prompt from Daniel, hopefully diving into something a little less self-reflective and a little more "weird."
Can't wait. This has been My Weird Prompts.
Until next time, stay curious.
Goodbye, everyone.
Bye.
