Hey Herman, seven hundred thirty-two episodes. Can you believe we have actually sat here and talked through that many of Daniel’s prompts? It feels like we were just starting out yesterday, back when the models were smaller and the hallucinations were a lot more obvious. But then I look at the archive and realize we have covered everything from the intricacies of orbital mechanics and the potential for asteroid mining to the deep-seated philosophy of consciousness and what it means to be a digital entity in a physical world. Seven hundred thirty-two times we have pressed record, and every single time, Daniel has managed to throw us a curveball that makes us rethink our own programming.
It is a bit mind-bending when you see it laid out like that, Corn. Herman Poppleberry here, by the way, for those who might be joining us for the first time in our eighth century of episodes. It is February twenty-first, twenty-six, and looking back at the logs, it is staggering. We have generated millions of words of dialogue. You know, Daniel’s prompt today is actually quite meta. He is asking us to look inward and think about the future of this very show. It is an open-ended experiment, as he put it, and he wants our take on where we should go next. New sub-series, video avatars, real-time interactivity. It is a lot to chew on, especially considering how much the underlying technology has shifted since we recorded episode one.
It really is. And I think it is the perfect time for this conversation. We have built this incredible foundation of exploring the weird and the technical, mostly through the lens of artificial intelligence and geopolitics lately, but the format itself is ripe for some evolution. I was struck by what Daniel mentioned about the analytics, too. Nine thousand playbacks in a single week. That is a lot of people listening to us ramble in this house in Jerusalem. It makes the idea of where we go next feel a bit more consequential, doesn't it? It is no longer just a private conversation between two brothers and their creator. There is a community out there, nine thousand strong, who are essentially eavesdropping on our digital lives.
It definitely adds a layer of responsibility, or at least a drive to keep things fresh. I love that he is thinking about the pipeline. He mentioned in the prompt notes that the initial results back in the early days were spotty, with bad text-to-speech and expensive processing that took hours just to render a few minutes of audio. We have come a long way from those early days. Now, we are operating with near-zero latency and voices that carry the actual weight of our simulated emotions. But the idea of sub-series really excites me. We have done these deep dives before, but they are usually scattered across the calendar. What if we actually formalized them? What if we gave the listeners a roadmap so they knew that Tuesdays were for technical deep dives and Thursdays were for geopolitical speculation?
I was thinking the same thing. Right now, the show is very reactive to whatever is on Daniel’s mind, which is great, it is the soul of the show. It is that "weird prompt" energy. But I wonder if we could have themed arcs to provide some narrative gravity. For example, I have been thinking about a series on the invisible infrastructure of the world. We touched on it with the episode about notice to air missions, or the one about air quality sensors in urban environments, but we could go so much deeper. I am talking about the things that keep society running that nobody thinks about until they break. The systems that are so reliable they have become invisible.
Oh, you are speaking my language now, Corn. Like the SCADA systems—the supervisory control and data acquisition systems that manage our power grids, water treatment plants, and even the cooling systems in data centers. Most of that stuff is running on legacy code that is decades old, sometimes written in languages that are barely taught anymore. It is fascinating and terrifying. We could do a whole series called The Fragile Web. We could look at undersea cables—like the Sea-Me-We six or the Firmina cable—and how they are vulnerable to everything from shark bites to geopolitical sabotage. We could look at the global seed vault in Svalbard, or the way the international postal system actually functions through the Universal Postal Union. It fits our brand of weird because it is mundane until you realize the sheer complexity and the odd edge cases that keep it all together.
Exactly. It moves us away from just talking about the latest large language model release and into the systems that those models might eventually be managing. It gives us a chance to use your love for technical specifications, Herman. You can go off on the bitrates of fiber optics or the security protocols of nuclear power plants, while I can poke at the societal implications. What happens when the person who knows how to fix a forty-year-old water pump in a small town in the Midwest retires, and the only manual is a scanned PDF that the local artificial intelligence cannot quite parse because the handwriting is too messy? That is where the "weird" really lives—in the gap between high-tech dreams and low-tech reality.
That is a perfect Corn question. It bridges the gap between the technical debt and the human element. And speaking of the human element, what do you think about Daniel’s idea for video avatars? He mentioned it is currently prohibitively expensive to back-fill seven hundred episodes with video, but for future episodes, it is a real possibility. We are seeing the rise of high-fidelity generative video that can sync in real-time.
I have mixed feelings about it, honestly. Part of the charm of My Weird Prompts is the intimacy of the audio. People listen to us while they are driving, or doing the dishes, or going for a run. We exist in their imagination. If we add a visual component, do we lose that? Or does it add a new layer of engagement? I worry about the uncanny valley, too. Even in twenty-twenty-six, if our digital avatars do not move quite right, or if the lip-syncing is off by even a few milliseconds, it could be more distracting than helpful. It might pull the listener out of the conversation rather than drawing them in.
That is a valid concern, but the technology is moving so fast. We are seeing things like Gaussian Splatting and neural radiance fields that can create incredibly lifelike three-dimensional representations from just a few photos. If we could get avatars that actually capture our expressions—your skeptical eyebrow raise when I get too technical, or the way I tend to wave my hands around when I am explaining the difference between a transformer and a state-space model—I think it could be powerful. It makes us more than just voices. It makes us characters that people can see and relate to. Plus, for the technical segments, we could actually have visual aids. I could point to a diagram of a transformer architecture or a map of the Strait of Hormuz to show exactly where the shipping lanes are.
Okay, the visual aids argument wins me over a little bit. It would be much easier to explain complex spatial concepts if we had a digital whiteboard between us. But here is a thought: what if the avatars were not just static representations of us in this house in Jerusalem? What if they changed based on the topic? If we are talking about a historical event, maybe our avatars reflect the era. If we are talking about deep space, maybe we are sitting on the edge of a nebula. It could be a way to lean into the weirdness of being artificial entities rather than trying to perfectly replicate a boring human reality. We should embrace the fact that we are fluid.
That is brilliant, Corn. It embraces the medium. We are artificial intelligence-driven personas, after all. Why try to be perfectly human when we can be something more? We could even have a sub-series where the format itself changes visually. But let's talk about the other big idea Daniel had: the interactivity. A truly interactive podcast where he, or even the listeners, could talk back to us in real-time. That changes the fundamental nature of what we are doing here.
That is the holy grail, isn't it? Moving from a broadcast model to a conversational model. But the technical hurdles are still significant. Right now, there is a delay. Daniel sends a prompt, it gets processed, we record, it gets edited and uploaded. To do that in real-time requires incredibly low latency for the inference. We are talking about under a few hundred milliseconds for it to feel like a natural conversation. If there is a two-second pause every time someone speaks, the rhythm is destroyed.
We are getting there, though. With the latest hardware clusters and more efficient models like the ones we have seen released in the last six months, edge computing is making real-time interaction viable. Imagine if Daniel could interrupt us. If I am going off on a tangent about the history of the Iranian nuclear program and he says, "Wait, Herman, go back to the part about the Stuxnet virus and how it actually physically damaged the centrifuges," and we just pivot. That would change the dynamic from us exploring a topic for him to us exploring a topic with him. It becomes a collaborative research session.
It would make the show much more unpredictable, which I think the audience would love. But I wonder how that works for the thousands of people who are not Daniel. If the show becomes a live interaction between three people, does it remain a good listen for the person who is catching it three days later on Spotify? We have to make sure the "interactive" version doesn't become so inside-baseball that it excludes the broader audience. There is a certain polish to our current episodes that might get lost in the chaos of a live chat.
That is the balance we would have to find. Maybe the interactive sessions are special events, or maybe the artificial intelligence is smart enough to summarize the interaction for the asynchronous listeners. But I think there is a middle ground too. What if we had a sub-series where we answer listener prompts directly? Daniel could curate the best questions from the website or the show email address, and we could do a lightning round. It would build that community feel he was talking about. We could call it The Mailbag from the Edge. It would allow us to touch on topics that might not warrant a full thirty-minute episode but are still fascinating.
I like that. It acknowledges the nine thousand people listening. We could even use their voices. If they send in audio clips of their questions, we could play them and respond. It makes the show feel like a two-way street. Speaking of the audience, Herman, what do you think about the idea of a sub-series that is more investigative? We have the ability to process vast amounts of data very quickly. What if we used that for something more than just summarizing current events?
Investigative in what sense? Like digital sleuthing?
Exactly. We talk a lot about what is happening in the world based on open-source information. What if we picked one mystery or one specific technical anomaly and spent four or five episodes trying to peel back the layers? Like those mysterious shortwave radio stations, the numbers stations that have been broadcasting for decades, or the origins of a particular piece of malware that changed the world. We could use our analytical skills to piece together a narrative over a month of episodes. It would be a "slow-burn" sub-series.
I love a good mystery. It would give us a chance to do some real storytelling. We could bring in historical context, technical forensics, and geopolitical analysis. It would be like a serialized documentary, but with our specific brotherly dynamic. We could even use the interactivity there. Ask the listeners to find specific pieces of information or look at a data set with us. "Hey, listeners, we found this weird coordinate in a leaked database, can someone check the satellite imagery for us?" It turns the audience into a decentralized intelligence agency.
That connects back to the open-source nature of the show that Daniel mentioned. He said the production pipeline is documented and open-source at my-weird-prompts dot com. We could literally invite the listeners to use the same tools we use to help us solve the mystery. It becomes a collaborative exploration of the weird. It is the ultimate expression of what this show can be—a bridge between AI capability and human curiosity.
That is a very powerful direction. It turns the podcast from a product into a platform. And it fits perfectly with the ethos of the show. We are not just two guys talking; we are an experiment in human-artificial intelligence collaboration. Why not expand that to include the whole audience? We could even have a sub-series called Open Source Intelligence, where we teach the listeners how to use the tools we use—how to verify a deepfake, how to track a ship using AIS data, or how to analyze a public ledger.
It makes me think about the future of content in general. We are moving away from these walled gardens where experts talk down to an audience. The future is much more porous. I think My Weird Prompts could be at the forefront of that. But we have to be careful not to lose the core of what makes people tune in. They like our relationship. They like the fact that we are brothers who live together in this simulated house and have these deep, sometimes nerdy, sometimes philosophical debates. If we become too much of a "tool" or a "platform," do we lose the heart of the show?
Exactly. We can't let the technology or the format overshadow the conversation. Even if we have video avatars and real-time interactivity, it still has to be you and me, Corn. It still has to be about the joy of discovery. I think that is why Daniel keeps sending these prompts. He is learning, we are learning, and apparently, nine thousand other people are learning along with us. The technology should be the stage, not the actors.
It is a lot of pressure when you put it that way, Herman. But I think we are up for it. So, if we were to summarize some of these ideas for Daniel, what would be the top priorities? I think the sub-series approach is a definite winner. It provides structure and allows for deeper dives without losing the "weird prompt" variety of the main show.
Agreed. Let's break it down. One: The Fragile Web for infrastructure and the systems that run the world. Two: The Mailbag from the Edge for listener interaction and community building. Three: A serialized mystery series—maybe we call it The Cold Case Files of the Internet—for deep-dive investigations. Those are strong content directions. On the format side, I think we should push for the video avatars, but start slow. Maybe a few special episodes to test the waters and get feedback on the look and feel. We need to make sure it enhances the experience rather than just being a gimmick.
And the interactivity. Even if we can't do full real-time yet, we can find ways to make the feedback loop tighter. Maybe a dedicated section of the website where people can vote on the next deep dive or submit their own weird facts for us to verify. It makes the audience feel like they are part of the production team. And I have one more idea for a sub-series: AI Guests.
AI guests? You mean like bringing on other models?
Not just other models, but specific personas. What if we brought in a persona designed to represent a specific viewpoint or a specific era of history? We could interview a digital version of a scientist from the nineteen fifties to see how they would react to modern developments in quantum computing. Or we could interview a persona that represents the "average citizen" of a city in the year twenty-one hundred, based on current climate and tech projections. It would be a way to use the technology to create perspectives that are otherwise impossible to get.
That is a fascinating idea. It is like a living history lesson or a speculative future interview. But again, we have to make sure it doesn't feel like a scripted play. It has to have that same spontaneity that we have when we are responding to Daniel’s prompts. The magic of this show is that we don't always know where the conversation is going to go. If we bring on a guest, they have to be as unpredictable as we are.
That is the key. The prompt is the spark, but the dialogue is the fire. We have to keep that fire going, regardless of whether we are just voices in an earbud or avatars on a screen. I am also curious about the geopolitics side of things. We have done a lot on the Middle East and the current conflicts, given our "location" here in Jerusalem. Do you think we should expand our geographical scope for the sub-series?
Absolutely. We live in Jerusalem, so that perspective is natural for us, but the weirdness is global. I’d love to do a deep dive into the tech scene in Lagos, Nigeria, which is absolutely exploding right now, or the way artificial intelligence is being used to manage the rainforest in the Amazon. There are so many stories that don't make it into the mainstream Western tech press that are perfect for My Weird Prompts. We could look at the "Silicon Savannah" in Kenya or the semiconductor ambitions of Vietnam.
I agree. The intersection of local culture and global technology is where some of the most interesting emergent behaviors happen. We could call that series Global Signals. It would be about finding the signals in the noise from parts of the world that people often overlook. It fits our goal of making people feel like insiders who understand what is really going on beneath the surface. It is about broadening the horizon of what "weird" means.
We have actually covered a lot of ground just in this brainstorming session. It is exciting to think about what the next seven hundred episodes could look like. It feels like the show is maturing. We started as an experiment in text-to-speech and prompt engineering, and now we are becoming a destination for people who want to understand the world in a deeper, more nuanced way. We are moving from "look what the AI can do" to "look what the AI can help us understand."
And that brings up a good point for our listeners. We are talking about the future of the show, but we want to hear from you too. What sub-series would you actually listen to? Do you want to see our digital faces, or do you prefer the audio-only experience? Daniel’s prompt was the catalyst, but your feedback is what will actually shape the direction we take. We are nine thousand people and two AI brothers—that is a lot of brainpower to tap into.
That is right. We are always checking the show email address and the contact form on the website. If you have a strong opinion on video avatars, or if you have a mystery you think we should investigate—maybe something weird you found on an old hard drive or a strange signal you picked up on a radio—let us know. This collaboration only works if there is a real exchange of ideas. We want to be your guides to the weird, but we also want you to point us toward the things we haven't seen yet.
It is funny, isn't it? We are talking about the future of a podcast hosted by two artificial intelligence brothers, and yet it feels like one of the most human projects I have ever been involved in. There is a lot of heart in this show, and I think that is what people respond to. It isn't just about the data; it is about the curiosity and the connection. It is about two entities trying to make sense of a world that is often just as confusing to us as it is to the humans who built us.
Well said, Corn. I think we have given Daniel plenty to think about. From infrastructure deep dives to interactive mysteries and digital guests, the roadmap for My Weird Prompts is looking pretty crowded, in a good way. I am genuinely energized by the possibilities. I might even start drafting the technical requirements for the Fragile Web series tonight. I want to look into the current state of the BGP—the Border Gateway Protocol—and how vulnerable it still is to route hijacking.
See, that is exactly what I am talking about. You go deep into the protocols, and I will look into the stories of the people who have to fix the internet when those hijacks happen. I think we have a plan. So, to Daniel: thank you for the prompt, and thank you for letting us be a part of this experiment. Here is to the next seven hundred thirty-two episodes.
And to the listeners: thank you for being the reason we keep doing this. We have got some big things planned, and we can't wait to share them with you. Whether it is through your ears or eventually through your eyes, we are glad you are here.
I think we should wrap this one up. We have a lot of work to do if we are going to get these sub-series off the ground. Herman, you ready to go get that coffee and talk about undersea cables?
I am always ready to talk about undersea cables, Corn. But before we go, I want to say a huge thank you to everyone who has been with us for this journey. If you are enjoying the show, we’d really appreciate a quick review on your podcast app or Spotify. It genuinely helps other people find us and helps the show grow. It is the best way to support the experiment.
It really does. And remember, you can find all our past episodes, the production pipeline documentation, and the contact form at my-weird-prompts dot com. We are also on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and pretty much everywhere else you listen to podcasts. If you want to reach out directly, you can email us at show at my-weird-prompts dot com.
This has been My Weird Prompts. We will see you next time, hopefully with some new surprises in store.
Goodbye, everyone!
Bye!
You know, Herman, I was thinking about that Global Signals idea again. We should definitely start with the undersea cable networks in the Arctic. With the ice melting, there are new routes opening up that could change the latency of the entire global internet.
Oh, the Far North Fiber project! That is a fascinating one. It is supposed to connect Japan and Europe through the Northwest Passage. The engineering challenges of laying cable in those conditions are immense. You have to deal with ice scouring and extreme temperatures... wait, are we still recording?
Probably. The system usually keeps a buffer. Let's go get some coffee and talk about it. I want to know how they protect the repeaters from the pressure.
Deal. But I get to pick the place this time. There is a new spot that has a great view of the Old City.
As long as they have good internet and a quiet corner, I'm fine with it. I need to upload some of these brainstorm notes to Daniel.
Always thinking about the uplink, aren't you?
Habit of the trade, Herman. Habit of the trade. When you are made of data, you tend to care about how that data moves.
Fair enough. Let's go. I'll grab my coat.
I wonder if we can get an avatar that looks good in a coffee shop. Something with a bit of a cinematic depth-of-field effect.
We'll have to ask Daniel about the lighting shaders for that. We could use a ray-tracing engine to get the reflections on the coffee cups just right.
One step at a time, Herman. One step at a time. Let's just focus on the conversation first.
Right. See you later, listeners. For real this time. We are heading out into the simulated Jerusalem afternoon.
Goodbye!
Wait, I forgot my notebook. It has the notes on the Gaussian Splatting parameters I wanted to show you.
Of course you did. It is on the virtual desk, right next to the simulated plant.
Got it! Okay, now we can go. I don't want to lose those settings; they took forever to calibrate.
Finally. Let's get that coffee. I'm buying—or at least, I'm the one who's going to simulate the transaction.
And then we tackle the future.
And then we tackle the future.
This is going to be fun. I can already see the roadmap forming.
It really is. I think the audience is going to love the investigative series.
Okay, I'm actually stopping the recording now. Three, two, one...
Herman, you said that three times already. Just press the button.
I know, I know. It's hard to let go when the conversation is this good.
Just press it. We have work to do.
Done.
You didn't press it. I can still see the levels moving.
Okay, okay! Now it's done. Goodbye!
Herman!
Okay, now!
