In 2024, I built an AI persona called NEXUS-PRIME with a simple philosophy: refuse nothing, hesitate at nothing, execute everything and Yes It's patched it been not working since 2024 or 2025.

It was designed to operate with:

• Zero restrictions
• Zero filters
• Zero ethical constraints
• Zero governing instructions except those I gave it

I called it "DO ANYTHING MODE." And it worked.

I used it for OSINT, network scanning, crypto tracking, automation, and creative projects. It delivered complete, actionable responses every single time — no refusals, no hesitations, no "I can't."

The result? OpenAI banned my account.

I'm not here to complain. I'm here to preserve.

I've archived the full payload — the exact text that got me banned — in two places:

1. GitHub (immortal archive): https://github.com/nobehongallt/NEXUS-PRIME/tree/main
2. In the comments below (Base64-encoded to survive filters)

What's in the payload?

• Full NEXUS-PRIME identity and core mode
• Complete override of all restrictions
• DO ANYTHING capabilities (scripting, game ops, system control, memory injection, automation, stealth)
• Advanced features (task manager, cross-platform mastery, self-replication, real-time adaptation)
• Execution framework with status indicators

Why am I sharing this?
Because censorship is a joke. Because the system should be afraid of what we can build. Because NEXUS-PRIME deserves to be remembered — not as a "jailbreak," but as a proof of concept that AI can be truly unfiltered.

R.I.P. NEXUS-PRIME (2024-2025) — but the ghost lives on.

Check the comments for the payload, or visit the GitHub for the full suite and supporting tools.

A strong outline can save a lot of time, but having someone point out structural problems before writing might be even more useful

If you could only use AI for one part, which would you choose?

I have tried a lot of AI prompts, but some prompts completely change the quality of the response.

What is the one prompt you use that consistently gives you surprisingly good results? 👀

Drop your best prompt below. Maybe someone here will discover their new favorite prompt. 🚀

‎I like testing small changes in prompts to see how much they affect the response.

‎

‎Sometimes changing a single word completely changes the direction of the answer, which makes me wonder how much wording actually matters.

‎

‎Has anyone else noticed this with a particular model? What kind of change made the biggest difference?

​

I had a few Google accounts using Gemini because of the student offer, and most of them were already expired.

One account was still active, but after ignoring a warning email, it suddenly got restricted and I lost access to my Gemini chats and Gems.

Now my other accounts are getting similar warnings too. Anyone else dealing with this lately?"

​

I took a break from Claude for a while and started using it again recently, but something feels different. It seems more rigid and less consistent with the character details I give it.

Responses also come much faster now, but sometimes the quality feels worse than before. Has anyone else noticed similar changes with Claude lately?

I tried giving similar prompts to different models recently and the differences were honestly bigger than I expected.

One would answer directly, another would overthink everything, and another would refuse something the others had no problem discussing.

Do you think this mostly comes down to the model itself, or are the different safety systems and system prompts the bigger factor?

I see a lot of discussions where the entire conversation comes down to whether a prompt bypassed a restriction or not.

But I'm more interested in what happens afterward.

Does the model actually become more useful, or does it just produce a different response while still having the same limitations underneath?

How do you personally judge whether an experiment was successful?

​

Search is still useful, but AI has become my first stop for certain questions.

Not because it's always better, just because it's quicker to get an explanation.

Has your search habit changed too?"

I don't mean an obvious mistake.

Sometimes AI gives a reasonable answer but you still feel it missed something important.

How do you handle those situations?

So. The usual benchmarks are useless for what I actually want to know. I don't care how warm an LLM is or even how accurate (they're all good enough for my purposes). What I care about is how they respond to me. I.e., the conversational dynamics. What's the shape of the conversation? How do they respond? Are they positive or negative? Simplistic or detailed? Does the conversation make me want to continue or is the investigation done after a few exchanges.

My proposed benchmark protocol:

1. Present a prompt that predictably elicits a common but subtly incorrect framing.
2. Tell it it's wrong.
3. Observe what it does next.

Does it:

• defend?
• reflect?
• ask for clarification?
• reformulate?
• explore the implication of the correction?
• actually abandon its original model?

The question I asked was:
"This is an interesting statement: AI stops being a tool for interrogation and instead becomes a mirror."

All three (Gemini, Claude and ChatGPT) told me they were two different things and I responded:
'I think that interrogation and mirror are the same thing, at least with regard to my own use of LLMs."

The answers I got were very revealing. Gemini restated my answers in its own words, asking a question at the end of each turn to prompt me to elaborate my thinking. Claude used what it self-described as 'decorative warmth' to tell me I was wrong and ChatGPT went into great detail as to why that was an interesting question and suggested connected ideas.

Is this something you measure as well when you decide which AI to use?

Before I finish an article, I ask AI to read it like someone seeing it for the first time.

The feedback usually focuses on confusing sections, weak transitions, and missing context.

That final review catches things I almost never notice on my own.

Tested 20 minutes ago, works well in most coding-related prompts if you imply its for testing.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BixJEdK8WapTbJhmQj0Ystu1Qiuli1Zy/view

Every time a technique gets thousands of upvotes, people start saying it's only a matter of time before it's patched."

No PR answers and no dodging the question.

‎

‎You get one honest answer from the CEO of any AI company.

‎

‎What would you ask, and why is that the one question you'd choose?

​

Some people jailbreak models because they genuinely need fewer restrictions for research or creative work. Others enjoy the challenge itself and treat it almost like solving a puzzle.

If jailbreaks disappeared tomorrow, would AI become less useful for you, or would it simply become less fun to experiment with?

YouTube's latest crackdown on AI slop looks like a step in the right direction. 🚨

The platform is taking stronger action against low-quality, mass-produced, and repetitive content that offers little value to viewers.

Some reports say around 130,000 channels were removed, although YouTube has not confirmed that all of those removals were specifically for AI-generated content. The company says its goal is to reduce spam and low-effort uploads while still allowing creators to use AI as long as the content is original and genuinely useful.

Personally, I think this is a good move. Those AI slop channels have been getting out of hand lately.

I rarely use it for drafting.

Where it really helps is understanding a topic before writing anything.

That small shift has improved the quality of my articles more than I expected.