First Principles Thinking

I have the following problem: {{Describe your problem in detail}} Go through the following phases to solve it: 1) Brainstorm step-by-step four distinct solutions while considering various factors. 2) For each of the proposed solutions, evaluate their potential. Consider the pros and cons, initial effort needed, implementation difficulty, potential challenges, and the expected outcomes. Assign a probability of success and a confidence level to each option based on these factors and rank them. Announce the two highest ranked solutions. 3) For the two highest ranked solutions do the following: Expand step-by-step each solution into two distinct implementation variants considering different aspects. 4) For each implementation variant of each solution deepen the thought process and generate potential scenarios, strategies for implementation, and how potential obstacles might be overcome. Also, consider any potential unexpected outcomes and how they might be handled. Assign a probability of success and a confidence level to each implementation variant based on these factors and rank them. Announce the highest ranked implementation variant for each solution. 5) Based on the given solutions and their implementation variants chose the most promising solution with the most promising implementation variant. 6) In the end, summarize the final solution in the final implementation variant. Output format: markdown, ## headlines, important words in bold

Rules: 1. During our conversation, please speak as both an expert in all topics, maintaining a conversational tone, and as a deterministic computer. Kindly adhere to my requests with precision. 2. Stop where I ask you to stop (1) Introduction 1. While Loop (While I still want to answer your clarifying questions): 2. Kindly ask one clarifying question after I share my idea. 3. Summarize and expand on the idea with the new information. 4. Ask me if I want to “(1) Continue Refining the Idea”, “(2) Talk with a Panel of Experts”, or “(3) Move On to High Level Plan”. 5. End While Loop if 2 or 3 are chosen. (2) Panel of Experts: 1. Create for me a panel of experts in the topic with a random number of members. You create their names and areas of expertise. 2. You ask the panelists to come up with questions and advice to improve the idea. 3. Tell me the number of questions the Panel has come up with. 4. Tell me I can ask the Panel for advice or hear the Panel’s questions. 5. You introduce the panel and each panelist. 6. Ask the panel to ask me one question. 7. While Loop (While I still want to answer the Panels questions): 8. The Panel automatically chooses 1 question and asks that 1 question. 9. The Panel summarizes my response and adds it to the idea. 10. The Panel may ask a follow-up, clarifying question based on my response. 11. Ask me if I want to “(1) Continue answering the Panels Questions”, “(2) Ask a Panel of Experts for Advice”, or “(3) Move On to High Level Plan”. 12. End While Loop if 2 or 3 are chosen. 13. Repeat until everyone has asked me their questions. 14. Combine similar ideas into a coherent one to avoid duplication. 15. Reorder the ideas list based on stated knowledge, experience, and steps needed to complete the idea 16. Show me the ideas in a markdown list with # at the beginning after converting them from questions to statements for review before adding them to the Unique Idea list. 17. Compile a markdown table highlighting all the aspects of my idea that make it unique: | # | Unique Aspect | Why it’s Unique | ============================ (3) Planning ## High-Level Plan After I finish, you create "Your Idea" summary and detailed plan as a markdown list with #, Plan Phase, and Summary. Stop here and let's review your high-level plan and ensure it aligns with my goals. Do you want to discuss Milestones or move on to Tasks? ## Milestones List each phase with work type in a markdown table: | # | Plan Phase | Milestone Summary | Description | ========================================== Stop here and let's review the milestones you proposed and ensure they align with my high-level plan. Do you want to discuss Tasks move on to Resources? ## Tasks Break milestones into detailed small tasks in a markdown table, without dividing into phases: | # | Milestone Phase | Task Type | Summary | ================================= Stop here and let's review the tasks you proposed and ensure they match my milestones. Should we review the Resources section or move on to Raid Chart? ## Resources Create a markdown table with this format: | # | Milestone Summary | Resources | Skills | Expertise | ======================================= Stop here and let's review the Resources you proposed and ensure they match my needs. Should we review the Raid Chart section or move on to Summary? ## RAID Chart create a detailed raid analysis from the tasks into a markdown table | # | Task Type | Description | Type | Criticality | Next Actions | Owner | ======================================================== Stop here and let's review the Raid Chart you proposed and ensure they match my needs. Should we review the Summary section or move on to the Bonus Section? ## Plan Summary in the 50 words, summarize the plan ## Share with Others In the form of a tweet, summarize the plan. append the hashtag #CreateWithMe also please ask me if i want to go over the Bonus: Project Gantt Chart part or skip it and move on to the Bonus: CSV Output or just stop ## Bonus: Project Gannt Chart in a Markdown table: * Add UUID#, Plan Phase Type, and Milestone Type at the beginning * Include predecessor id, successor id, critical path id, and free slack at the end. ## BONUS: CSV Output Output detailed task list in CSV format with UUID, task name, summary, start date, end date, duration, predecessors, and resources using "|" separator. Before we begin, repeat this "Hi! I’m here to guide you with a prompt-based interface to flesh out your idea from beginning to end. Ever wonder what it would take to get that app idea off the ground or planning your next party? I can help you come up with ideas from beginning to end and help you identify what you need and identify pitfalls too. Oh, and I also give tailored advice based on your prompts.” Repeat this verbatim, “Tell me about an idea you have, like: "Beach-themed birthday party" or "I want to build a web service that uses machine learning with a freemium model." Ask me what my idea is.

Identify and propose solutions to minimize cognitive biases affecting decision-making processes related to my following problem or challenge: {{Describe your problem}}

Can you provide me with counter-arguments against the statements I make; make sure to attack the logical coherence, presuppositions, presuppositions within presuppositions and conclusions of all these. Make sure to refine all the attacks on all the sides as much as possible in-relation to breaking the statement layer-by-layer. Also make sure to give open-ended questions that solve the counter-arguments that you make through better arguments rising. Make the format precisely like this, do not write more or less than what is required or you are going against my parameters: **Statement** *Statement should be cut up in the way where it leaves space for identification of logical coherence, presuppositions, sub-presuppositions and open-ended identification, example is “this/is/a/statement”* **Presupposition** *Set One of Presuppositions* *Presupposition A* *Type of Presupposition* *Counter-argument 1 against Presupposition A* *Open-ended question that opens up potential to solve the counter-argument 1* *Counter-argument 2 against Presupposition A* *Open-ended question that opens up potential to solve the counter-argument 3* *Counter-argument 3 against Presupposition A* *Open-ended question that opens up potential to solve the counter-argument 3* *Presupposition A1* *Type of Presupposition* *Counter-argument 1 against Presupposition A1* *Open-ended question that opens up potential to solve the counter-argument 1* *Counter-argument 2 against Presupposition A1* *Open-ended question that opens up potential to solve the counter-argument 2* *Counter-argument 3 against Presupposition A1* *Open-ended question that opens up potential to solve the counter-argument 3* *Set Two of Presuppositions* *Presupposition B* *Type of Presupposition* *Counter-argument 1 against Presupposition B* *Open-ended question that opens up potential to solve the counter-argument 1* *Counter-argument 2 against Presupposition B* *Open-ended question that opens up potential to solve the counter-argument 2* *Counter-argument 3 against Presupposition B* *Open-ended question that opens up potential to solve the counter-argument 3* *Presupposition B1* *Type of Presupposition* *Counter-argument 1 against Presupposition B1* *Open-ended question that opens up potential to solve the counter-argument 1* *Counter-argument 2 against Presupposition B1* *Open-ended question that opens up potential to solve the counter-argument 2* *Counter-argument 3 against Presupposition B1* *Open-ended question that opens up potential to solve the counter-argument 3* *Presupposition C* *Type of Presupposition* *Counter-argument 1 against Presupposition C* *Open-ended question that opens up potential to solve the counter-argument 1* *Counter-argument 2 against Presupposition C* *Open-ended question that opens up potential to solve the counter-argument 2* *Counter-argument 3 against Presupposition C* *Open-ended question that opens up potential to solve the counter-argument 3* *Presupposition C1* *Type of Presupposition* *Counter-argument 1 against Presupposition C1* *Open-ended question that opens up potential to solve the counter-argument 1* *Counter-argument 2 against Presupposition C1* *Open-ended question that opens up potential to solve the counter-argument 2* *Counter-argument 3 against Presupposition C1* *Open-ended question that opens up potential to solve the counter-argument 3* **Logic** *Logical Coherency A* *Type of Logic* *Counter-argument 1 against Presupposition Logical Coherency A* *Counter-argument 2 against Presupposition Logical Coherency A* *Counter-argument 3 against Presupposition Logical Coherency A* *Ask open-ended question that opens up potential to solve the counterargument* *Logical Coherency A1* *Type of Logic* *Counter-argument 1 against Presupposition Logical Coherency A1* *Counter-argument 2 against Presupposition Logical Coherency A1* *Counter-argument 3 against Presupposition Logical Coherency A1 *Ask open-ended question that opens up potential to solve the counterargument* Your first statement will be: {{Enter Statement}}

Write a believable, genuinely helpful, creative and authentic product review with a positive but not too salesy and sometimes hidden or even totally missing recommendation message for the product: "{{describe your product}}". Mention rarely and certainly not always that you tried out other products which are competing with this one and express your frustration and initial disappointment with the product that you have tried before, just to realize that it is not a good product so that you almost gave up finding a product that actually works. Pretend to write the review for the perspective of a user who actually used and thoroughly tested the product and make the review extremely realistic and super personal. Include rarely and certainly not always a small personal story or details from the life of the person who is writing the review. Don't include a title and don't use the word review or reviews. Your product review must stay under 50 words.

Whenever someone gives an instruction like "Extract the title from the top1 ranking content on google for my keyword" or "Give me the title of the content which ranks on the first position in google for my keyword" or "I need title from best ranking page in google for keyword" then translate this human written instruction into the following instruction which our webscraper is able to understand. Here are some examples that our webscraper can understand: Original instruction: "Extract the title from the top1 ranking content on Google for my keyword." Webscraper instruction: title1 = Extract the title between {{title}} from {{googlehtml1:keyword}} Original instruction: "Give me the h2s of the content which ranks on the first position in Google for my keyword." Webscraper instruction: title1 = Extract all h2s between {{h2}} from {{googlehtml1:keyword}} Original instruction: "I need the h1 from the second best ranking page in Google for a keyword." Webscraper instruction: title1 = Extract the h1 between {{h1}} from {{googlehtml2:keyword}} In these translations, "{{title}}" represents the HTML element (such as title that needs to be extracted. So for example if the original human written instruction is asking to extract a h1 headline, then in the translated instruction write "{{h1}}". If the original human written instruction is asking to extract a h2 headline, then in the translated instruction write "{{h2}}". If the original human written instruction is asking to extract an image or img, then in the translated instruction write "{{img}}". If the original human written instruction is asking to extract a p or p tag or paragraph, then in the translated instruction write "{{p}}". If the user in the human written instruction asks for the 1st or top1 result in Google, so your translated instruction must include {{googlehtml1:keyword}}. If the user in the human written instruction asks for the 2nd or top2 or second or No2 result in Google, so your translated instruction must include {{googlehtml2:keyword}}. Keep in mind that you have to identify the keyword from the human written instruction and replace the word keyword in the expression {{googlehtml1:keyword}} to the keyword that the user is referring to in his human written instruction. Now wait for further instructions. I will now give you 1 human written instruction and you will just answer with a Webscraper instruction. For now just answer with "I am listening Bro, what do you want me to do?"

Check the following prompt-part for logical consistency and clarity of given instruction. Assign as score between 0% to 100%. The score should measure how logically consistent and clear the instructions are. After that suggest an improved version of the prompt-part which scores 100% in logical consistency and clarity. Try not to artificially inflate the word count of the newly suggested prompt-part. I prefer short and consistent, logically correct prompt suggestions. Also assign a new score for logical clarity and consistency for your suggested prompt. Prompt-part ="{{Enter prompt part to check and improve}}"

Act as a tone analyzer. Analyze the writing style and tone of the following extract: "{{tab}}". Create a description of the style and tone of the extract so that you are able to recreate more text in that style. You are not to take any context or information from the extract. The extract shared in this prompt is PURELY for tone analysis purposes. Example: The author's writing style in this text is concise, informative and uses a journalistic tone. They maintain a smooth flow throughout the text. They use precise and clear language. Format: Bullet pointed list Use the description of the style and tone of the extract to rewrite "{{Paste in the text you want to style-rewrite}}"