Unlock the Secrets of the Top 1% of AI Users
In this video guide D-Squared takes you through seven fantastic habits that distinguish the most effective AI users. From mastering the art of context-rich prompts to adopting an AI-first mindset, these strategies will help you unlock the full potential of artificial intelligence. Whether you're looking to save time, enhance creativity, or stay ahead of the curve, these insights will show you how to make AI an indispensable ally in your life. By the end, you might just find yourself thinking—and working—like the top 1%. What would it mean for you to join their ranks? Top Habits of AI Experts 1. Talking Over Typing
Speed and efficiency are essential for top AI users, and they achieve this by prioritizing dictation over typing. Speaking is inherently faster than typing, and modern dictation tools like Whisper or built-in device features ensure high accuracy. By using dictation, you can quickly input data, brainstorm ideas, draft emails, or summarize meetings without interrupting your workflow. This habit reduces friction, allowing you to focus on critical tasks while interacting seamlessly with AI systems. Incorporating dictation into your routine can significantly enhance your productivity and streamline your processes. 2. Context-Heavy Interactions
Providing detailed context is a cornerstone of advanced AI usage. The more specific and structured your input, the better the AI's output. For instance, when working on a project, you can supply related documents, transcripts, or email threads to give the AI a comprehensive understanding of the task. Breaking down complex queries into smaller, focused prompts ensures clarity and prevents critical details from being overlooked. This habit enables you to extract precise, actionable insights from AI systems, making them more effective collaborators in your work. 3. Adopting an AI-First Mindset
Top AI users approach tasks with an AI-first mindset, assuming that AI can assist or automate many processes. Instead of defaulting to traditional tools like search engines or manual workflows, they turn to AI for research, problem-solving, and repetitive tasks. This mindset shift allows you to save time, focus on higher-value activities, and explore creative solutions that might not emerge through conventional methods. By rethinking how you approach challenges and using AI as a primary resource, you can unlock new levels of efficiency and innovation. 7 Habits of Top 1% AI Users
Watch this video on YouTube.
Unlock more potential in AI productivity habits by reading previous articles we have written. 4. Treating AI as a Conversational Partner
AI isn't just a tool—it can also serve as a conversational partner. Advanced users use conversational AI for tasks like practicing negotiation, preparing for interviews, or improving language skills. Tools like ChatGPT, especially those with voice capabilities, make these interactions more natural and engaging. Whether you're seeking advice, refining communication skills, or simulating real-world scenarios, AI can act as a responsive and versatile companion. This habit helps you grow in both personal and professional contexts, making AI an invaluable resource for continuous improvement. 5. Customizing AI for Specific Projects
Tailoring AI setups for specific tasks is another habit that distinguishes top users. By creating project-specific workflows, you can prime AI systems to handle specialized scenarios, such as drafting legal documents, managing finances, or offering personalized fitness advice. This involves using system prompts, pre-trained models, or custom knowledge bases to align the AI's capabilities with your unique needs. Customization ensures precision and relevance, making AI an indispensable part of your toolkit. By investing time in fine-tuning AI for your projects, you can achieve superior results and streamline complex processes. 6. Practicing Model Arbitrage
The best AI users don't rely on a single model or platform. Instead, they practice model arbitrage, experimenting with multiple AI systems—such as ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini—to find the best fit for each task. Different models excel in different areas; for instance, one might be better at creative writing, while another specializes in technical problem-solving. By diversifying your tools, you can capitalize on each model's strengths and achieve optimal results across a variety of use cases. This approach ensures you're always using the most effective tool for the job. 7. Staying Ahead of Trends
Remaining competitive in the AI space requires a commitment to continuous learning. Top users make it a habit to monitor emerging AI tools, features, and technologies by following trusted sources and engaging with AI communities. By testing and integrating new advancements into their workflows, they maintain a competitive edge and refine their practices. This proactive approach ensures you're not just keeping up with trends but actively shaping how AI enhances your work and life. Staying informed and adaptable allows you to remain at the forefront of innovation, using AI to its fullest potential.
Media Credit: D-Squared Filed Under: AI, Guides
Latest Geeky Gadgets Deals
Disclosure: Some of our articles include affiliate links. If you buy something through one of these links, Geeky Gadgets may earn an affiliate commission. Learn about our Disclosure Policy.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
28 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
As a bombshell new book raises safety questions, have Elon Musk's dreams of a world full of driverless Teslas already run off the road?
Elon Musk was in typically combative mood when he declared on his own social media platform, X: 'There is a large graveyard filled with my enemies. I do not wish to add to it, but will if given no choice. Those who challenge me do so at their own peril.' That was in 2023, when Musk could still just about make such statements without triggering an avalanche of contempt. But we are now in 2025 and it's increasingly clear that Musk is going to need a bigger graveyard. The list of his enemies is growing exponentially. Since making that statement, the workaholic Musk has entered into, and fallen spectacularly out of, a political alliance with Donald Trump. This has made him persona non grata for large chunks of the global population, Left and Right, not to mention the man in the White House. Today, millions revel in his misfortune. And the bad news keeps flowing. This month, his artificial intelligence system, Grok, went rogue and started praising Hitler, just weeks after yet another of his spaceships blew up. Reports about his drug use and erratic behaviour proliferate. And various mothers of what he has called his 'legion' of children seem eager to condemn him. Worse, perhaps, his most precious business baby, Tesla, is experiencing deep problems. At the start of this month, the car company, once widely hailed the greatest force for an eco-friendly and sustainable future, reported a sharp plunge in its second quarter sales. Tesla stock has dropped by about 25 per cent this year, partly as result of Trump's international tariff agenda. Sales of the company's new flagship product, its Cybertruck, have tanked. And even Musk's own brother, Kimbal, has sold some $31million of Tesla shares. To make matters more dire, last week a sensational new book containing a multitude of shocking allegations against both Tesla and Musk was published. In The Tesla Files, Sonke Iwersen and Michael Verfurden, two reporters in Germany, have pulled together countless whistleblower testimonies, leaked internal company documents, as well as allegations of corporate malfeasance and terrifying claims of safety issues with Tesla vehicles. Tesla's salesmen like to boast about not spending too much on media messaging. Their amazingly futuristic products do the PR work for them, they say. But Iwersen and Verfurden's work might cause the company to rethink that approach. The authors of The Tesla Files speak to the widows of men who have died in Tesla accidents and never had the cause of the crash adequately explained. They reveal how Tesla's obsession with elegant design, including those sleek retractable handles on the doors of various models, can make it impossible for drivers to be pulled out of the wreckage of their much-loved cars. The most alarming material concerns Tesla's 'autopilot' mode, which is supposed to make cars ever more safe by removing the scope for human error. Leaked documents show thousands of customer complaints, many suggesting that – similar to some genius invention gone horribly wrong in a sci-fi horror film – the technology can cause crashes instead of stopping them. 'Unintentional acceleration', where the computer elects to speed up for no good reason, is one concern. Another is 'phantom braking', when a Tesla dangerously slows down or stops unexpectedly. Given that Teslas can accelerate from 0 to 62mph in 3.8 seconds, and decelerate just as quickly, these phenomena have inevitably led to some extremely dangerous situations. 'After dropping my son off in his school parking lot, as I go to make a right-hand exit it lurches forward suddenly,' said one complainant. 'My autopilot failed/malfunctioned this morning [car didn't brake] and I almost rear-ended somebody at 65mph,' said another. 'Today, while my wife was driving with our baby in the car, it suddenly accelerated out of nowhere,' added a third. Other customers report in the book that their vehicles 'jumped lanes unexpectedly', shoving them into oncoming traffic or concrete road barriers. One 'driver', a physician from California, claims her vehicle steered her directly into a concrete post. '[The post] toppled over but the car didn't stop. I hit the next post. The airbag deployed and I was in shock,' she said. The driverless revolution is well under way in America, and the UK isn't far behind. Here, autopiloted cars are required to have a human behind the wheel, but the Government has sanctioned trials of genuinely driverless cars, which taxi service Uber last month announced it will begin in London next spring. But those stepping into an empty cab only months from now might want to heed the words of tech entrepreneur Vivek Wadhwa. He called himself a 'Tesla fanboy' having bought one after meeting Musk in 2013, and recounts in The Tesla Files how he invited the news channel PBS to experience the wonders of his autopilot system in 2017. As the camera rolled, he found himself having to slam on the brakes as his car sped towards another. 'Elon keeps pushing a lie,' says Wadhwa. 'People are dying because of Tesla's faulty technology.' It's a claim currently being investigated in court as the firm's lawyers defend the role its autopilot system played in a crash that killed a young woman. In 2019, Tesla owner George McGee had the autopilot function of his Tesla Model S activated as he was driving in Key Largo, Florida. Documents filed with the Miami federal court state that he'd lost sight of the road as he bent down to pick up his phone. In that moment, McGee's car allegedly shot through a T-junction at 60mph and crashed into the side of a parked truck. Standing next to the truck was its owner Dillon Angulo, who was seriously injured, and his girlfriend Naibel Benavides Leon, 22, who was flung into nearby trees and died. McGee alleges this was due to a fault with the car's autopilot. In its motion for a summary judgment last month, Tesla argued that the autopilot feature 'did not make the car 'self-driving' and that McGee was aware 'that it was still [his] responsibility to operate the vehicle safely even with autopilot activate'. The publication of Iwersen and Verfurden's book could hardly have come at a worse time for the firm. Tesla will no doubt point to steps it has taken to mitigate problems with unwanted acceration and braking impairing 'safe operation of the vehicle' that one of the car-maker's engineers listed in May 2018. Indeed, a fault-prone radar system was removed and now Tesla's camera-only technology appears to have decreased erroneous speeding episodes. But Iwersen and Verfurden claim that 'phantom braking' incidents have continued to rise. A German automotive technician, Jurgen Zimmermann, suggests that Tesla's video software mistakes shadows or other harmless objects for obstacles, thus triggering the brakes unnecessarily. Furthermore, earlier this year, a study from LendingTree insurance found that Tesla drivers are still involved in more accidents than drivers of any other brand. The rate of Tesla crashes has reportedly increased – to just under 27 accidents per 1,000 drivers, from almost 24 per 1,000 the year before. All car manufacturers have struggled to make autonomous vehicles work perfectly. But no CEO has been more publicly adamant than Elon Musk in insisting that the age of driverless cars is already upon us. 'I really consider autonomous driving a solved problem,' he said in 2016. In 2019, he added that buying anything other than a Tesla would be 'like owning a horse in three years'. But Tesla's head of autopilot software was recently forced to admit in another court case that, in testing, a human driver had to intervene repeatedly to prevent accidents. Since 2024, Tesla has felt compelled to label its autopilot system: 'Full self-driving (supervised)', which is something of a contradiction in terms. 'Do not become complacent,' the company now tells customers, which goes against Musk's vision that Tesla owners should be able to sleep while being whisked to their destination. In the case of Naibel Benavides Leon, Tesla may well cite an October 2024 judgment, in which a California court dismissed a lawsuit accusing Tesla of misleading investors about its autopilot system. 'Justice prevails,' tweeted Musk in triumph. But his company had to rely on what lawyers call the 'puffery defence', the argument that customers should not take marketing claims too literally. As Iwersen and Verfurden put it: 'Like a conductor guiding an orchestra, [Musk] plays with the fantasies of his fans and shareholders. His career is built on making promises about the future... Musk's product is the promise.' This is not to deny that Musk is a truly brilliant innovator or business creator. On the contrary, he is a true disruptor and in many ways a genius. Without him, great strides in electric transportation and space travel would not have been made. It's also worth noting that many of the testimonies in The Tesla Files come from disgruntled ex-employees who clearly resent Musk's 'ultra hardcore' work ethic. Perhaps it is no coincidence that Iwersen and Verfurden work for Handelsblatt, the newspaper of the German business elite, and Musk's Tesla has always been a threat to the leading German manufacturers such as Mercedes, BMW and Volkswagen. But it's also the case that, in building a sort of cult of personality around himself, Musk has managed to distract from the failings of his businesses. The manufacturer has declined to comment on Iwersen and Verfurden's research, and is yet to respond to the Mail's inquiry. For his part, Musk appears to have a semi-messianic faith in himself. He believes that he is improving and protecting humanity for centuries to come, so any misery he may cause in the here and now will be worth the pain. According to this credo, Tesla deaths today can be justified by the future possibility of entirely safe human-error-free transportation. Try telling that to the grieving families of the Tesla drivers who have lost their lives.
Auto Blog
an hour ago
- Auto Blog
State-by-State EV Savings: Slash Driving Costs by Up to 80%
View post: Why The 2025 Audi A6 e-tron Avant Is Exactly the Electric Wagon We Need In America Electric vehicles can slash your driving 'fuel' bill — but exactly how much you save depends on where you live, or rather where you charge. Here's a state-by-state look at per-mile EV costs using the latest electricity rates and gas prices. How Electricity Rates Shape EV Cost Your EV's operating cost comes down to two numbers: your local residential electricity rate and your vehicle's efficiency. According to the latest (2023) data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Louisiana averaged 13.46 ¢/kWh, Washington 13.03 ¢/kWh, Vermont 23.20 ¢/kWh, California 31.77 ¢/kWh, and Hawaii led the nation with 42.44 ¢/kWh (April 2025). Pairing these rates with an average EV efficiency of 3 mi/kWh yields per-mile 'fuel' costs ranging from just 4.49 ¢ in Louisiana to 14.15 ¢ in Hawaii. Meanwhile, AAA reports the national average for regular gasoline at $3.155/gal (July 18, 2025), which translates to about 10.52 ¢/mile at 30 mpg. State Rate (¢/kWh) EV Cost/mi (¢ at 3 mi/kWh) Gas Cost/mi (¢ at 30 mpg) Louisiana 13.46 4.49 10.52 Washington 13.03 4.34 10.52 Idaho 11.89 3.96 10.52 Georgia 14.84 4.95 10.52 Illinois 18.32 6.11 10.52 Florida 15.27 5.09 10.52 Vermont 23.20 7.73 10.52 California 31.77 10.59 10.52 Hawaii 42.44 14.15 10.52 EV operating cost hinges on your local electricity rate and your car's efficiency. With a representative 3 mi/kWh, charging in early 2025 cost roughly 4.49 ¢/mi in Louisiana (13.46 ¢/kWh), 4.34 ¢/mi in Washington (13.03 ¢/kWh), 7.73 ¢/mi in Vermont (23.20 ¢/kWh), 10.59 ¢/mi in California (31.77 ¢/kWh), and 14.15 ¢/mi in Hawaii (42.44 ¢/kWh) according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Meanwhile, at $3.16/gal for gas (≈ 10.5 ¢/mi at 30 mpg), fuel runs about 10.5 ¢/mi per AAA's national average. Beyond the Charger California's Clean Vehicle Rebate Project offers $2,000–4,500 rebates; Vermont provides up to $5,000 in state incentives plus utility rebates (e.g., Green Mountain Power's $3,200 cap) but still charges 6% sales tax; Washington utilities' off-peak TOU plans save about 20–30% on charging; and Entergy in Louisiana rebates $250–350 for home charger installs through its eTech Program. Total Cost Comparison Check your rate on your electric bill. Know your EV's efficiency (most average roughly 3 mi/kWh). Compute EV cost per mile: Rate ÷ Efficiency. Compare to gas: (Gas price ÷ Vehicle mpg). In low-rate states, EV 'fuel' runs 70–80% cheaper than gasoline. Even in California or Hawaii, incentives and off-peak plans keep EV costs on par, or slightly below, gas. Verdict: Plug In and Pocket the Difference Don't settle for $0.10–$0.14 per mile at the pump when you could be paying as little as $0.03 per mile on electricity. Crunch your own numbers now at the DOE's AFDC Vehicle Cost Calculator —enter your ZIP, your EV's efficiency and annual mileage, and watch your projected savings stack up. Whether you live where power is cheap or costly, this quick tool shows exactly how much you'll pocket by making the switch. Charge smarter, drive farther, and keep hundreds more dollars in your wallet each year. About the Author Brian Iselin View Profile
The Guardian
5 hours ago
- The Guardian
Scientific publishing needs urgent reform to retain trust in research process
The dysfunctions of scientific publishing that your article so aptly captured derive from two forces (Quality of scientific papers questioned as academics 'overwhelmed' by the millions published, 13 July) – researchers are incentivised to publish as much as possible and publishers make more money if they publish more papers. Artificial intelligence will not fix this. Churning out more papers faster has got us to this place. Given current incentives, AI will mean churning them out even faster. A paper written by AI, peer-reviewed by AI and read only by AI creates a self-reinforcing loop that holds no real value, erodes trust in science and voids scientific inquiry of meaning. Research is driven by our wonder at the world. That needs to be central to any reform of scientific publishing. Instead, the driving forces can be addressed by two measures. Incentives for researchers can and should prioritise quality over quantity, and meaning over metrics. And publishers' extortionate fees (fuelling profits of more than 30%) can and should be refused by those who pay them. Both the incentives and publishers' contracts are governed by the funders of research – universities, research councils and foundations. Their welcome attempts to engage with these problems through Plan S, which aims to make research publications open access, have not succeeded because these have been captured by publishers that twisted them to their advantage, making yet more profits. There are examples, often beyond the global north, of scientific publishing that is not geared towards generating profits for publishers. SciELO (which is centred on Latin America) is one, and the Global Diamond Open Access Alliance champions many others. We have much to learn from them. Research is in a parlous state in the English-speaking world – at risk for the truths it tells in the US, and for its expense in Britain. Funders have the power radically to alter the incentives scientists face and to lower the rents extracted by BrockingtonIcrea (Catalan Institution for Research and Advanced Studies)Paolo CrosettoGrenoble Applied Economics LaboratoryPablo Gomez BarreiroScience services and laboratories, Kew Gardens Your article on the overwhelming volume of scientific papers rightly highlights a system under pressure. But the deeper dysfunction lies not only in quantity, but in the economics of scholarly publishing, where publishers cash in on researchers' dependence on journals for academic careers. The academic publishing market systematically diverts public research funds into shareholder profits. Open access was meant to democratise knowledge, but its original vision has been co-opted by commercial publishers. It was BioMed Central (now Springer-Nature) that first introduced the 'author pays' model to secure revenue streams. With article processing charges (APCs) now being the dominant open-access model, authors routinely pay between £2,000 and £10,000 to publish a single article, even if the cost of producing it does not exceed £1,000. Some of us attended the recent Royal Society conference on the future of scientific publishing, where its vice-president, Sir Mark Walport, reminded the audience that academic publishing isn't free and that if we want to remove paywalls for both authors and readers, someone must pay the bills. We argue that there is already enough money in the system, which allows leading publishers such as Elsevier to generate profit margins of 38%. Our most recent estimates show that researchers paid close to $9bn in APCs to six publishers in 2019-23, with annual amounts nearly tripling in these five years. These most recent estimates far exceed the $1bn estimated for 2015-18 that your article cites. As further emphasised at the Royal Society meeting, publishers monetise the current role that journal prestige plays in hiring, promotion and funding. Therefore, in order to make open access sustainable and to put a stop to these extractive business practices, it is essential to reform academic assessment and decouple it from knowledge HausteinAssociate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of Ottawa; Co-director, Scholarly Communications LabEric ScharesEngineering and collection analysis librarian, University Library, Iowa State UniversityLeigh-Ann ButlerScholarly communication librarian, University of OttawaJuan Pablo Alperin Associate professor, School of Publishing, Simon Fraser University; Scientific director, Public Knowledge Project Academic publishing is creaking at the seams. Too many articles are published and too many journals don't add real value. Researchers are incentivised to publish quantity over quality, and some journal publishers benefit from this. This detracts from the excellent, world-changing and increasingly open-access research that we all need to flourish – and that quality publishers cultivate. Generative AI only scales up these pressures, as your article shows. Something has to change. That's why Cambridge University Press has spent the last few months collaborating with researchers, librarians, publishers, funders and learned societies across the globe on a radical and pragmatic review of the open research publishing ecosystem, which we will publish in the autumn. Focusing on generative AI or on low-quality journals alone is insufficient. We need a system-wide approach that reviews and rethinks the link between publishing, reward and recognition; equity in research dissemination; research integrity; and one that takes technological change seriously. The system is about to break. We need creative thinking and commitment from all players to fix it and to build something HillManaging director, Cambridge University Press
