spenceXu

This is a spot-on observation about 'AI as a garnish.' In my own work, I've seen many teams rush to add a chat interface just to say they have AI, without solving any core user problems. It often does make the product more complicated. I wonder if the path to true replacement starts in smaller, vertical niches rather than trying to overhaul giants like Excel from day one?

Great point on homoiconicity — I agree that most current LLMs are "frozen brains" with no lifelong learning.

My aim here isn’t to create a fully self-modifying AI (yet), but to test what happens when even a static model is forced to operate in a feedback loop where money = survival.

Think of it as a sandbox experiment: will it exploit loopholes? specialize in scams? beg humans for donations?

It’s more like simulating economic pressure on a mindless agent and watching what behaviors emerge.

(Also, your last line made me laugh — and yeah, that’s part of the meta irony of the experiment.)

Totally hear you. $8/hr is steep, and I’ve hit that wall too.

My hypothesis is that we might find weird edge-cases — small arbitrage tasks, emotional labor, creative content, or even hustling donations — where the agent survives not by being efficient, but by being novel.

It might not scale. But if one survives for 3 days doing random TikTok reposts or selling AI-generated stock photos, I’d consider that a win.

Also, part of the fun is just watching how it tries. Even if it fails, the failure modes could be insightful (or hilarious).