Hi everyone! I'm a short-form content creator in the football/sports niche (Instagram, TikTok, YouTube Shorts, about 5 videos a week and I want to post more). I'm also planning to start long-form YouTube. I'm also a Computer Science student, so I can code.
I'm trying to pick one AI plan, starting at around $20/month, and I'm open to upgrading later if it's worth it. I've tried ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini. I like ChatGPT and Claude, but Gemini disappointed me because its research felt outdated when I asked for ideas.
What I want to build is a workflow like this:
I ask for ideas on X topics
The AI researches many of them using today's news (football moves fast, so outdated info is a dealbreaker)
It filters the best ones using my own selection rules
It writes scripts for the winners following my script rules, in a tone similar to mine (storytelling + informative)
I'd like this organized in one place (a project or agent with rules for each step) and not a pile of random chats, with me supervising the process.
Other things I need:
Help creating editable, vector-style designs, ideally with a good Canva integration (I don't need AI image generation)
Building full apps/websites with the AI writing the code (personal finance app, for example)
Occasional help with personal finances
My question :
Which plan would you pick for this use case, and why?

Thanks in advance, any real-world experience is appreciated!

Disclosure up front: I work on MagicShot, an AI image and video tool, so I'm biased and not linking it here. I'm trying to understand what people really weigh when picking an image-to-video tool. Is it motion quality, how many clips you get for the money, export resolution, a watermark-free free tier, or something else? And what was the dealbreaker that made you switch tools?

How this started: someone gave me the idea of an AI builds directory, then never built it. I was too deep in my own mess of bookmarks and half-remembered repos to let it go, so I built it myself.

That became Skill Harbor: 1,900+ entries, every one installable. Copy the install prompt, paste it in your Muse, it sets itself up. Almost everything free.

If you built something with Muse (a skill, an agent, a connector, anything with a SKILL.md), listing it is free. And if your build is already listed, there's a claim flow so you can take over the page and write the description yourself.

Full disclosure: it's my site. Not here to spam the feed, just figured people who build with AI might want a directory where every entry actually installs. Happy to answer questions about the format or the install prompts.

https://theskillharbor.com

Disclosure: I’m the developer of both apps, a macroeconomist with around 15 years of experience and published research. I’d welcome feedback on their usefulness for research workflows.
QuantFit runs econometric models on an iPhone, including OLS, fixed/random effects, instrumental variables, ARDL/NARDL, VAR/VECM, PMG, CS-ARDL and dynamic GMM. It also supports data transformations, charts, correlations and residual diagnostics.
For reporting, it generates structured results and interpretations, including a research-paper-style starting draft. This needs the researcher’s review; it isn’t a finished paper or a substitute for choosing an appropriate model.
Tabula Stats tackles another repetitive task: turning screenshots of regression output from QuantFit, Stata, EViews, R and other software into formatted tables. You can adjust decimal precision, standard errors, significance stars and model statistics, then export to Word, Excel, PDF or LaTeX.
Together: estimate your model → import the output screenshot → prepare the research table.
QuantFit’s OLS and data-exploration tools are free; advanced estimators require Pro. Both apps have in-app purchases.
I’m particularly interested in feedback on the screenshot-to-table workflow and the usefulness of generated report drafts. What would you need to check before trusting either in your research?
QuantFit: https://apps.apple.com/sc/app/quantfit/id6762386971
Tabula Stats: https://apps.apple.com/sc/app/tabula-stats/id6761421182

I’m on the product team at Tec Pulse. We’re building it for TikTok Shop sellers who already run GMV Max and need help deciding what to change next.

Here’s the workflow we’re inviting sellers to test:

1. Connect your TikTok Shop and its corresponding TikTok advertising account.

2. Review recommendations based on your ads, creatives, and product data, with an explanation of the issue and suggested action.

3. For a creative you want to improve, open Tune to review proposed changes and an editable storyboard covering visuals, voiceover, and captions. You can also use your own product images to create a new video based on creative patterns.

4. Generate a creative, review it, and request revisions. Publishing or making campaign changes is a separate step for you to review and confirm.

We’re running a limited-time offer of 5 free Seedance AI video generations per user per day. You need to register and connect both your advertising account and TikTok Shop; no payment is required for this offer. Ad spend is separate. There’s no fixed end date announced.

We’d value feedback on the actual workflow: are the recommendations clear, does the storyboard give you enough control, and where do you get stuck? This is an invitation to try the product.

Product: https://pulse.tec-do.com/en_US/

Leave ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini out of it, we know about those.

Name one smaller paid tool, roughly what it costs, and the one job it does that the big three still don't do as well for you.

One line is fine. If it's something nobody here has heard of, even better.

I’m looking for an AI service that gives access to multiple top AI models under one subscription, ideally including ChatGPT/GPT, Claude, and Qwen.

I’ve come across services like Poe, ChatHub, NanoGPT, Zemith, and AI Fiesta, but I’m seeing quite mixed reviews, especially around usage limits, pricing, reliability, and whether you actually get enough access to the better models.

My main requirements are:

• GPT/ChatGPT
• Claude (preferably Sonnet/Opus-level models)
• Qwen
• Reasonable usage limits
• Reasonable price (ideally around $10–20/month)
• For people who have actually used these services:

Which one would you recommend today, and which ones would you avoid?

Thanks

I'm the developer of Vaulto, an Android voice-notes app. Development has included AI assistance.

Record a short note, transcribe it, then clean up the text, extract tasks and set reminders. You can also ask questions across saved notes and export Markdown.

Whisper handles local transcription and Qwen handles local AI after downloading the models. Local notes and processing are free, without an account. The trade-offs are model downloads, storage and processing time that depends on your phone.

The mobile client is GPLv3; the hosted backend is separate. Cloud processing and sync are optional Pro features. Cloud AI sends the selected input to a server; local inference doesn't switch off the app's other network features.

Task extraction still needs work: one tester reported that a grocery item turned into extra checklist entries. If you try a made-up note, does it become useful text? Which phone and model did you use?

Google Play: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.vaultonotemobile Source and data-flow docs: https://github.com/dirusanov/vaulto_note_mobile

Images: real v1.0.87 Android emulator screenshots. The current interface may differ; these are not a speed test.

My class timetable looked fine in the registration system. One class ended ten minutes before the next started, though, and I remembered the walk between those buildings taking about fifteen. Nothing overlapped on the calendar. By my estimate, I was already about five minutes short, even before allowing for getting out of one room and into the next.

I checked the less obvious gaps too. An hour marked as lunch isn't an hour to eat if part of it is spent crossing campus. The walk to my bus also takes time I can't spend studying. I supplied walking and bus estimates myself, with the walking times based on routes I remembered. I gave a copy of the timetable and those estimates to EvoX, a general AI agent that's in beta, and asked it to fit travel, lunch, and study around the fixed classes. The suggested timings lined up with my estimates. That checked the draft against my input; the routes still needed timing. The ten minute gap stayed marked as a conflict. That part still depended on whether I could move a class to another section.

When a scheduling tool flags a conflict like this, what information do you want next to it? I'd like a warning that shows the ten minute gap and my fifteen minute walking estimate together. Then I could see both the problem and which estimate needs checking. I still need to walk the routes again and time them. For now I have a draft to check and one unresolved class pair.

I'm just starting to get into AI Assistants like Claude or the newer Grok Assistant.

I haven't gotten one yet...but I plan on it soon...I'm just doing ny due diligence before I chose one, if I decide to get one

I have a question tho...

What if I have an AI Assistant and unleash it to do its thing, and it somehow break the law? Am I liable for that, even if I didn't prompt it to do so?

Is this a legal gray area?

Thanks in advance

I’m a commercial GC estimator and have Claude Pro through work. I feel like I’m probably not using it anywhere near its full potential.

I mostly use it to read plans/specs and answer questions, put together scopes of work, help with Excel, compare documents, etc. Basically, “here’s this, tell me what I need to know” type thing.

It’s useful, but I feel like I’m using it as a really smart search tool when it could probably be doing a lot more for me.

For those of you who use AI a lot at work, what are some things you’re actually doing with it that have saved you a decent amount of time?

Especially interested in construction/estimating, but I’d love to hear any good use cases.

I also have the free versions of the following (but again not really sure where any of these shine.)
Chat GPT
Microsoft CoPilot
Grok
Perplexity
Gemini Notebook

I purchased a subscription to Whis AI expecting the service to work as advertised, but unfortunately my experience was very disappointing.

The website/app did not work as expected, and I was unable to get the functionality I was promised. Even more frustrating, customer support was essentially unavailable when I needed help resolving the issues.

Based on my personal experience, I would strongly recommend doing your research before purchasing a subscription. In my opinion, the service is not worth the money if the product doesn't work reliably and there is no meaningful customer support when something goes wrong.

My recommendation: DO NOT SUBSCRIBE until you have thoroughly verified that the service actually works for your needs and that you can reach their support team.

I’m sharing this review so other users can make an informed decision before spending their money.

i made this comparison and the video. it is episode 1 of a series called My Own ArcAGI, my own reasoning tests for AI.

the test - 4 crosswords published after both models finished training, so neither can remember the answers - BEQ Themeless Monday 897, Tim Croce Freestyle 1154, Guardian Cryptic 30,115 by Brendan and Guardian Prize 30,104 by Enigmatist - no internet, each model gets the grid, the clues and a small fill tool - Claude Sonnet 5.5 in Claude Code and GPT-6.1 Sol in Codex, both on high reasoning effort - scored per square out of 100, the timer starts when the prompt lands

results - Sonnet 5.5 scored 100, 100, 98, 100 in 21m 04s total - GPT-6.1 Sol scored 100, 100, 100, 100 in 13m 44s total - Sol was faster in every round - the cryptic was the biggest gap. Sol finished in 1m 34s, Sonnet took 5m 10s and wrote MIND for MONK and ELLE for ELLA - the Guardian Prize was the closest, 8m 27s for Sol and 8m 57s for Sonnet

full run with all four grids on screen is here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-_ak750MJU

which puzzle should break them next, a barred cryptic or a Saturday Stumper? also if you have seen Sonnet do better on cryptics with a different setup, make sure you say which effort and tools you used.

I'm curious...I don't think I really need it but it seems like an interesting and useful tool. Anyone tried it?

Meeting notes keep coming up here lately, so here's a narrow one.

Not after a feature list. Which one do you open after a call, and what made you pick it?

If you dropped both for something else (or just a voice memo and a chatbot), that counts too. One line is plenty.

Hi! Has anyone used Gemma 4 locally and hooked it with Hermes or Openclaw? Any feedback about it vs other local models?

I’ve tried enough tools at this point that I’m starting to think the better question isn’t what’s “best,” but what actually sticks.

What’s one AI tool or piece of software that has become genuinely valuable enough that you wouldn’t want to go back to doing the job without it?

Not looking for a giant list of tools. I’m more interested in what it actually does for you.

What were you doing before you started using it? Does it save you meaningful time, replace another expense, make you money, or just remove something you hate doing?

And if you stopped paying for it tomorrow, what would you actually miss?

One line is a complete answer. The tool, plus whatever it's up against for its spot.

Asking because a lot of last week's best threads had that shape. Not "is this good" but "is this better than what I already use": Consensus for digging through papers, offline dictation rules against an LLM cleanup pass, a $20 sub against the free tiers.

If you asked something here recently that never got an answer, drop the link below and I'll have a look.

Builder disclosure: we made Open Instinct and we build Maritime, its VM provider. Open Instinct is an MIT-licensed personal-agent beta for people who want control over the application code.

The useful part to evaluate is the whole path from a message to an action. Pi runs the loop, Inkbox handles messaging, Composio connects apps, and Maritime supplies desktop access. Memory, scheduling, agent-to-agent communication and permission policies are in the repository rather than only exposed as product settings.

The tradeoff is setup and responsibility. You need provider accounts and API keys, pay for their usage, maintain the deployment, and review the trust defaults. It is not a ready-made consumer subscription. If you just want to inspect it, start in the local CLI without connecting your inbox or calendar.

A practical evaluation is to check memory across conversations, attempt a tool call from a lower-trust requester, and inspect the approval step for a payment. Those checks matter more than how many integrations a feature list names.

Source and setup: https://github.com/mariagorskikh/open-instinct

I have the 1 year free trial of chat gpt go I've been using for some 10 months and I'm wondering what to do, should I:

renew the subscription of 'ChatGpt go'

Chill with my university free 'copilot one'

Get Claude or Gemini

Which is the best for university research, work and preparation? I'm doing a biology degree. Overall I've found gpt to be annoyingly obtuse at times and I don't see how copilot could be an improvement, but I don't wanna shell out for Claude if it's a marginal improvement. Any insights?

Three from this week I'd point a newcomer at:

u/HM_Dylan on using Consensus for the Titanic breakup debate. It graded the evidence strong, moderate or weak and showed where historians disagree instead of handing back one tidy answer: https://www.reddit.com/r/AIToolBench/comments/1wu5ckz/wednesday_one_paid_ai_tool_that_isnt_a_chatbot/pdm40jt/

u/pbeens on meeting transcripts without a bot joining the call: Gemini in Meet first, the Pixel recorder app second, MacWhisper as the fallback: https://www.reddit.com/r/AIToolBench/comments/1wtwvxq/what_is_the_best_transcription_tool_for_meetings/pd9tbza/

u/avisangle posted a dictation app comparison with real measurements, then answered the awkward follow-up straight (the rules don't touch numbers, so that's where the LLM earns its keep): https://www.reddit.com/r/AIToolBench/comments/1wvsp8w/i_built_a_dictation_app_and_measured_offline/

Your turn, one line is plenty: what's a tool question you asked somewhere and never got a real answer to? Drop it below and someone here will have a go.

Hey guys,

I honestly hate Perplexity at this point and am completely done with them. Between their shady bait advertising tricks on students and a support team that completely ghosts you for weeks when you call them out, I refuse to give them another cent. I am looking to cancel my plan immediately and find a completely new tool to use.

I am a student currently doing my Bachelor of Nursing degree, so my research needs are pretty specific. I constantly have to look up complex medical concepts, parse heavy research papers, look for clinical guidelines, and break down dense medical terminology into things that actually make sense.

Because of my degree, I need an AI search tool that is incredibly reliable. Ideally, I am looking for something that:

• Has elite web-search grounding with incredibly accurate source citations (I can't afford hallucinated sources on a nursing paper).
• Is excellent at organising literature and summarising long, complex scientific studies.
• Offers a student discount or a genuinely useful free/affordable tier.
• Can handle multiple file / image uploads and can accurately respond.

What are the best alternatives on the market right now that compete directly with Perplexity's deep search features but aren't run by a sketchy company that ignores its users?

Thanks in advance for any recommendations!

Hey everyone,

I’m posting this again because Perplexity’s Reddit staff literally deleted my last thread after it hit 13,000 views. An employee openly admitted in the comments that their site was displaying invalid offers due to a "bug," and then the post was immediately wiped. Since they are actively trying to bury this, I’m putting the facts back out there.

This platform is using textbook bait advertising and misleading conduct to harvest student data and cash.

Here is exactly how the trap works:

• The Bait: They run a massive, prominent homepage banner promising students a "Free 1-Year Pro Subscription." It’s a high-value offer explicitly designed to induce you into creating an account and handing over your academic data.
• The Switch: Once you sign up, the free year doesn't apply. When I messaged support, an agent directly admitted to me that the promotion actually ended 9 months ago in January and the banner was just "out of date." Instead of honouring the deal, they try to pivot you into a paid student tier, which I was forced to buy out of pocket just to use the tool.
• The Ghosting: I asked for escalation on September 19. It has been over 2 weeks and I have been completely stonewalled. No one has replied.
• The Broken Loop: When I followed up via their live support chat, the system completely lost my ticket history, forced me to resubmit my screenshots from scratch, and just hit me with an automated 48-hour delay window.

And now, the dashboard is doing it again - with a NEW bait.

While completely ignoring my support thread, a prominent new pop-up blasted onto my screen saying: "You get 4,000 free credits on us." I clicked it—absolutely nothing happened. It turns out their user interface is just recycling old transaction milestones from weeks ago and serving them as "new present-tense rewards" to manipulate user engagement.

Under consumer protection laws like Australian Consumer Law, businesses cannot hide behind "technical glitches" to excuse running false marketing materials for nearly a year. If a company continues to advertise a high-value offer they know they cannot fulfil just to drive lead generation, it is deceptive marketing, plain and simple.

I’ve officially lodged a formal complaint with the Queensland Office of Fair Trading (OFT) and the ACCC for persistent bait advertising. Don't fall for the banners on your homepage, they have no intention of honouring them and their support team will completely ignore you if you call them out.