🚨 BREAKING: Claude can now perform stock market research like a top-tier consulting firm — for free. Here are 10 Claude prompts that replace $100K/year stock analysts. (Save this for later) 📌

🚨 BREAKING: Claude can now perform stock market research like a top-tier consulting firm — for free. Here are 10 Claude prompts that replace $100K/year stock analysts. (Save this for later) 📌

arXiv Just Banned Researchers for AI Hallucinations arXiv hosts 2.4 million scientific papers. On May 14, 2026, it announced it would ban researchers for up to a year if hallucinated citations were found in their work. Then academics lost their minds. A small group of researchers went on the offensive after arXiv clarified that authors are responsible for hallucinated citations found in papers submitted under their names. "So this means you expect every author to check every citation and make sure that every citation is real and accurate?" an economics professor at Smith College replied in shock. Read that sentence one more time. A professor at a named institution expressed shock, genuine shock at the idea that they should verify the citations in their own academic paper before submitting it to be permanently entered into the scientific record. That shock is the story. Not the policy. The reaction. Even in 2026, there are still plenty of researchers who refuse to use AI to publish their research papers. Others use the tech for tasks like sourcing journal articles for references, editing copy, or formatting citations but they face pressure to verify every claim. A vocal minority of academics argue they should be able to use AI to write original research while remaining immune from any hallucinated claims or data that make their way into the final product. Immune. That is the word they used. Immune from responsibility for the contents of their own papers. Here is the mechanism behind the outrage that nobody in the mainstream coverage explained clearly. AI citation hallucination is not rare. The Columbia University study published in The Lancet in May 2026 scanned 2.5 million medical papers and found 4,046 fabricated references across 2,810 published papers with the rate increasing from 4 per 10,000 papers in 2023 to 57 per 10,000 by early 2026. A 12-fold increase. Perfectly correlated with the adoption of AI writing tools. Which means researchers have been submitting papers with hallucinated citations and passing peer review at accelerating rates for three years. And at least some of them knew. Because checking your own citations manually is not difficult. It is tedious. The AI made it easier not to check. arXiv drew a line. Authors are responsible for the contents of papers published under their names. The line should be unremarkable. It is the basic standard of academic integrity that has existed since the first journal published the first paper. The shock at being held to it reveals how thoroughly that standard has already eroded. The scientific record is permanent. The papers published with hallucinated citations are still there. They have already been cited. Those citations have already been pulled into other papers. The contamination is already in the literature. The ban does not undo any of that. It just establishes that going forward, the person who puts their name on a paper is the person responsible for what is in it. That this needed to be announced and that the announcement was met with outrage is the most alarming part of the entire story. Source: arXiv announcement · Thomas Dietterich · May 14, 2026 · Futurism coverage · (Link in the comments)

Claude can now teach you to create viral AI videos with 10K views. No experience. Free. 6 prompts to make stunning AI videos:

Google owns one of the most powerful learning tools in the world. It’s free. It’s been available for months. Yet 95% of people still use it the wrong way. Here are 8 NotebookLM use cases that can save you hours of time. 🔖 Bookmark this — you’ll thank yourself later.

Two economists just published a mathematical proof that AI will destroy the economy. Not might. Not could. Will — if nothing changes. The paper is called "The AI Layoff Trap." Published March 2, 2026. Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. Boston University. Peer reviewed. Mathematically modeled. The conclusion is one sentence. "At the limit, firms automate their way to boundless productivity and zero demand." An economy that produces everything. And sells it to nobody. Here is how you get there. A company fires 500 workers and replaces them with AI. A competitor fires 700 to keep up. Another fires 1,000. Every company is behaving rationally. Every company is following the incentives correctly. And every company is building a trap for itself. Because the workers who were fired were also customers. When they lose their jobs faster than the economy can absorb them, they stop spending. Consumer demand falls. Companies respond by cutting costs — which means automating more workers — which means less spending — which means more falling demand — which means more automation. The loop has no natural exit. The researchers tested every proposed solution. Universal basic income. Capital income taxes. Worker equity participation. Upskilling programs. Corporate coordination agreements. Every single one failed in the model. The only intervention that worked: a Pigouvian automation tax — a per-task levy charged every time a company replaces a human with AI, forcing them to price in the demand they are destroying before they pull the trigger. No government has implemented this. No major economy is seriously discussing it. Meanwhile the numbers are already tracking the curve. 100,000 tech workers laid off in 2025. 92,000 more in the first months of 2026. Jack Dorsey fired half of Block's workforce and said publicly: "Within the next year, the majority of companies will reach the same conclusion." Nobody is doing anything wrong. Companies are following their incentives perfectly. That is exactly the problem. Rational behavior. At scale. Simultaneously. With no mechanism to stop it. Two economists built the math. The math leads to one place. Source: Falk & Tsoukalas · Wharton School Boston University · arxiv.org/pdf/2603.20617

A famous neurologist says: The first sign of early dementia isn't memory loss. It's something much smaller, and it starts at age 45:

I GAVE CLAUDE MY SALARY AND IT GAVE ME A PLAN. Use these 15 prompts to turn your paycheck into a strategy:

12 Websites that pay you daily 💸💸 1. arise.com 2. kellyconnect.com 3. gaggle.net 4. paidwork.com 5. toptal.com 6. transcriptionhub.com 7. preply.com 8. omniinteractions.com 9. rev.com 10. taskrabbit.com 11. swagbucks.com 12. nexrep.com 13. clickworker.com Follow me @ameliahazelai for more AI Update.

Best YouTube Playlists to learn Programming: C youtube.com/playlist?list=… C youtube.com/playlist?list=… Python m.youtube.com/playlist?list=… Java youtube.com/playlist?list=… C# m.youtube.com/playlist?list=… SQL m.youtube.com/playlist?list=… Go m.youtube.com/playlist?list=… PHP youtube.com/playlist?list=… Swift youtube.com/playlist?list=… Kotlin m.youtube.com/playlist?list=… Dart youtube.com/playlist?list=… Ruby youtube.com/playlist?list=… Rust youtube.com/playlist?list=… TypeScript youtube.com/playlist?list=… R youtube.com/playlist?list=… React youtube.com/playlist?list=… Next.js m.youtube.com/playlist?list=… Node.js youtube.com/playlist?list=… HTML/CSS youtube.com/playlist?list=… Machine Learning youtube.com/playlist?list=… Deep Learning youtube.com/playlist?list=… DSA youtube.com/playlist?list=…