🧐 Prompting AI: best practices for using Artificial Intelligence.

[Johnnycomelately]

Feels like fishing used to feel, back when I fished. You cast your lure, you get what bites. Shiny lures catch different fish than worms do.

Here’s a query, prompted by a comment in a vid I was watching, that I crafted to try to get the most informative response. Not sure I aced it, but it was a step up from my previous baby steps. It’s in two steps, my questions denoted by block font.

What is “trim”, in the context of juicing for performance?

In the context of anabolic steroid use ("juicing"), "trim" is usually shorthand for tren, a very potent anabolic steroid. The term is more commonly spelled or pronounced as "tren," but in conversation it can sound like "trim," and some people use the spelling informally.
Trenbolone is known for:

Rapid increases in muscle mass and strength.
Helping preserve muscle while dieting.
Not being approved for human medical use in many countries (it's primarily a veterinary drug in places where it is legally available).
It's also associated with a high risk of side effects, including:
Elevated blood pressure and adverse effects on cholesterol.
Increased risk of heart and blood vessel problems.
Mood changes, irritability, anxiety, or aggression in some users.
Night sweats and insomnia.
Acne and hair loss in susceptible individuals.
Suppression of the body's natural testosterone production.

If you heard "trim" in a different context, it could also refer to:
Trimming body fat (getting leaner while maintaining muscle).
Less commonly, a slang term within a particular gym or online community.

If you can tell me where you heard it (for example, "I'm running test and trim" or "adding trim to a cycle"), I can interpret the specific meaning.

Thank you, I’m sure that it was tren that was intended, even though he seemed to say trim.

The source of my question was a cop-tuber (Eric Lavigne, of chan 2 cops 1 donut) asking a former Blackwater employee (Morgan Lerette) about juicing in frontline combatants.

Could you add anything about juicing and any other performance enhancing drug use by military, police, and any government agencies that require security clearances? Please note which use cases are authorized, which are unauthorized but tolerated, and which are not tolerated/allowed.

I am aware of an incident in Afghanistan where some Canadian soldiers were mistakenly targeted by an American combat pilot who was on authorized (and provided) ~uppers. Am adding this detail to encourage you to dig deep for my query.[/b]

That's an interesting question because it spans three different issues that often get conflated:
Medical performance enhancement (keeping people awake, preventing altitude sickness, treating ADHD, etc.).

Physical performance enhancement (anabolic steroids, growth hormone, EPO).
Illicit drug use (cocaine, methamphetamine, recreational stimulants).
The policies and the reality on the ground are often quite different.

Military

Authorized stimulant use

The best-documented example is the use of "go pills" during long-duration aviation missions.

Historically, the U.S. Air Force and Navy have authorized:
dextroamphetamine ("Dexedrine") for missions where sustained wakefulness was operationally necessary.

More recently, modafinil has increasingly replaced amphetamines for some missions because it generally has fewer cognitive and cardiovascular side effects.
These aren't issued casually. They require:
flight surgeon approval,
mission authorization,
medical screening,
documentation.

Pilots are often also issued "no-go pills" (sleep aids such as temazepam or zolpidem) to help establish sleep before missions.

The Tarnak Farm incident

The incident you mentioned is probably the best-known example.
In April 2002, U.S. Air National Guard pilot Harry Schmidt dropped a bomb on Canadian soldiers conducting a live-fire exercise near Kandahar, killing four and injuring eight. Schmidt had taken an authorized dose of dextroamphetamine before the mission. Investigations concluded that the authorized stimulant was not established as the cause of the friendly-fire incident; the findings focused much more heavily on decision-making, situational awareness, and failure to follow procedures. The case nevertheless intensified debate over "go pills" and their potential effects.

Special Operations

Elite units (SEALs, Delta Force, SAS, JTF2, etc.) generally have the same medical rules as the rest of their militaries.
However, because they may operate for:

24–72+ hours,
severe sleep deprivation,
high altitude,
extreme temperatures,
they are more likely to receive authorized medications such as:
stimulants,
altitude medications,
anti-malaria drugs,
pain medications,
antibiotics.

There is no publicly documented evidence that anabolic steroids are officially issued by Western special operations commands.

Anabolic steroids

This is where things become murkier.
Officially:

Most Western militaries prohibit non-prescribed anabolic steroid use.

That includes:

U.S.
Canada
UK
Australia
most NATO members.
If discovered, consequences may include:
administrative action,
loss of deployment status,
mandatory medical evaluation,
discharge,
criminal action in some jurisdictions.
Unofficial reality

Many veterans—including people from infantry, Rangers, Marines, and special operations—have acknowledged that steroid use occurs.

Common motivations include:

recovering from repeated injuries,
carrying heavy loads,
improving strength,
improving appearance,
maintaining muscle during repeated deployments.

The picture resembles elite athletics:
It is almost certainly more common than official statistics suggest, but far less common than internet discussions often imply.

There is no credible evidence that commanders generally encourage steroid use.

Growth hormone

Similar situation.

Official:

prohibited unless medically prescribed.

Unofficial:

occasional individual abuse has been reported.
no evidence of institutional acceptance.
Testosterone replacement therapy (TRT)

This is an interesting gray area.
If someone has documented hypogonadism:

TRT may be medically authorized.
They can often continue serving if they remain medically fit.
Using supraphysiologic testosterone to enhance performance is generally prohibited.
EPO (blood doping)
erythropoietin (EPO) dramatically improves endurance.

Military use:

essentially no evidence of official authorization.
significant clotting and cardiovascular risks.
little practical benefit for most combat tasks.

Police

Policies are usually stricter.

Authorized:

prescribed medications.
ADHD stimulants.
TRT when medically necessary.
Unauthorized:
anabolic steroids.
growth hormone.
illicit stimulants.

The practical concern is liability.
Departments are understandably wary of anything that could be argued to impair judgment or increase cardiovascular risk during critical incidents.

Security clearances

This is a subtle point.
Having a security clearance does not automatically prohibit someone from taking controlled medications.

For example, someone may legally possess:

ADHD medication,
TRT,
post-surgical opioids,
anti-anxiety medications,
provided they are prescribed, disclosed when required, and do not impair performance.
Unauthorized drug use creates problems because it can indicate:

criminal conduct,
susceptibility to coercion,
impaired judgment,
dishonesty if concealed.

Those factors matter more than the drug itself during clearance adjudication.

Contractors (Blackwater, Academi, etc.)

Former contractors have described a culture that could be physically demanding and sometimes more permissive socially than conventional military units.
However:

There is no evidence that companies like Blackwater officially supplied anabolic steroids or encouraged their use.

Individual contractors have certainly admitted using steroids, TRT, or other performance-enhancing drugs, but that appears to have been personal rather than organizational.

How common is steroid use?

Reliable numbers are hard to obtain because users have incentives not to disclose it. Surveys suggest lifetime anabolic steroid use among military personnel is higher than in the general population but still represents a minority. Rates vary widely by branch, occupation, and survey method, making precise estimates difficult. The evidence supports the conclusion that steroid use exists in military populations but is not an officially sanctioned practice.

A broader historical perspective

If you "dig deep," militaries have experimented with pharmacological performance enhancement for over a century:
During World War II, several nations—including Germany, the United Kingdom, Japan, and the United States—issued amphetamines to some troops to combat fatigue during extended operations.

During the Cold War, many militaries continued researching fatigue management, stimulants, and sleep scheduling for pilots and special operations personnel.
Modern Western militaries have shifted toward more controlled, medically supervised use of wakefulness-promoting medications and fatigue-management protocols rather than broad distribution of amphetamines.

One interesting theme across the research is that commanders increasingly recognize that drugs can only partially compensate for sleep deprivation. Even effective stimulants preserve wakefulness better than they preserve judgment, risk assessment, and complex decision-making, so modern doctrine generally treats them as tools for exceptional operational circumstances rather than substitutes for adequate rest.

[petra]

The key seems to be really specific. I didn’t know you could be THAT specific. I feel like I’m witnessing a conversation between two brilliant minds

It’s cute how you said Thank You too. I wonder if it even matters

[The KMan]

Posted by Johnnycomelately (here)
Feels like fishing used to feel, back when I fished. You cast your lure, you get what bites. Shiny lures catch different fish than worms do.

Here’s a query, prompted by a comment in a vid I was watching, that I crafted to try to get the most informative response. Not sure I aced it, but it was a step up from my previous baby steps. It’s in two steps, my questions denoted by block font.

What is “trim”, in the context of juicing for performance?

In the context of anabolic steroid use ("juicing"), "trim" is usually shorthand for tren, a very potent anabolic steroid. The term is more commonly spelled or pronounced as "tren," but in conversation it can sound like "trim," and some people use the spelling informally.
Trenbolone is known for:

Rapid increases in muscle mass and strength.
Helping preserve muscle while dieting.
Not being approved for human medical use in many countries (it's primarily a veterinary drug in places where it is legally available).
It's also associated with a high risk of side effects, including:
Elevated blood pressure and adverse effects on cholesterol.
Increased risk of heart and blood vessel problems.
Mood changes, irritability, anxiety, or aggression in some users.
Night sweats and insomnia.
Acne and hair loss in susceptible individuals.
Suppression of the body's natural testosterone production.

If you heard "trim" in a different context, it could also refer to:
Trimming body fat (getting leaner while maintaining muscle).
Less commonly, a slang term within a particular gym or online community.

If you can tell me where you heard it (for example, "I'm running test and trim" or "adding trim to a cycle"), I can interpret the specific meaning.

Thank you, I’m sure that it was tren that was intended, even though he seemed to say trim.

The source of my question was a cop-tuber (Eric Lavigne, of chan 2 cops 1 donut) asking a former Blackwater employee (Morgan Lerette) about juicing in frontline combatants.

Could you add anything about juicing and any other performance enhancing drug use by military, police, and any government agencies that require security clearances? Please note which use cases are authorized, which are unauthorized but tolerated, and which are not tolerated/allowed.

I am aware of an incident in Afghanistan where some Canadian soldiers were mistakenly targeted by an American combat pilot who was on authorized (and provided) ~uppers. Am adding this detail to encourage you to dig deep for my query.[/b]

That's an interesting question because it spans three different issues that often get conflated:
Medical performance enhancement (keeping people awake, preventing altitude sickness, treating ADHD, etc.).

Physical performance enhancement (anabolic steroids, growth hormone, EPO).
Illicit drug use (cocaine, methamphetamine, recreational stimulants).
The policies and the reality on the ground are often quite different.

Military

Authorized stimulant use

The best-documented example is the use of "go pills" during long-duration aviation missions.

Historically, the U.S. Air Force and Navy have authorized:
dextroamphetamine ("Dexedrine") for missions where sustained wakefulness was operationally necessary.

More recently, modafinil has increasingly replaced amphetamines for some missions because it generally has fewer cognitive and cardiovascular side effects.
These aren't issued casually. They require:
flight surgeon approval,
mission authorization,
medical screening,
documentation.

Pilots are often also issued "no-go pills" (sleep aids such as temazepam or zolpidem) to help establish sleep before missions.

The Tarnak Farm incident

The incident you mentioned is probably the best-known example.
In April 2002, U.S. Air National Guard pilot Harry Schmidt dropped a bomb on Canadian soldiers conducting a live-fire exercise near Kandahar, killing four and injuring eight. Schmidt had taken an authorized dose of dextroamphetamine before the mission. Investigations concluded that the authorized stimulant was not established as the cause of the friendly-fire incident; the findings focused much more heavily on decision-making, situational awareness, and failure to follow procedures. The case nevertheless intensified debate over "go pills" and their potential effects.

Special Operations

Elite units (SEALs, Delta Force, SAS, JTF2, etc.) generally have the same medical rules as the rest of their militaries.
However, because they may operate for:

24–72+ hours,
severe sleep deprivation,
high altitude,
extreme temperatures,
they are more likely to receive authorized medications such as:
stimulants,
altitude medications,
anti-malaria drugs,
pain medications,
antibiotics.

There is no publicly documented evidence that anabolic steroids are officially issued by Western special operations commands.

Anabolic steroids

This is where things become murkier.
Officially:

Most Western militaries prohibit non-prescribed anabolic steroid use.

That includes:

U.S.
Canada
UK
Australia
most NATO members.
If discovered, consequences may include:
administrative action,
loss of deployment status,
mandatory medical evaluation,
discharge,
criminal action in some jurisdictions.
Unofficial reality

Many veterans—including people from infantry, Rangers, Marines, and special operations—have acknowledged that steroid use occurs.

Common motivations include:

recovering from repeated injuries,
carrying heavy loads,
improving strength,
improving appearance,
maintaining muscle during repeated deployments.

The picture resembles elite athletics:
It is almost certainly more common than official statistics suggest, but far less common than internet discussions often imply.

There is no credible evidence that commanders generally encourage steroid use.

Growth hormone

Similar situation.

Official:

prohibited unless medically prescribed.

Unofficial:

occasional individual abuse has been reported.
no evidence of institutional acceptance.
Testosterone replacement therapy (TRT)

This is an interesting gray area.
If someone has documented hypogonadism:

TRT may be medically authorized.
They can often continue serving if they remain medically fit.
Using supraphysiologic testosterone to enhance performance is generally prohibited.
EPO (blood doping)
erythropoietin (EPO) dramatically improves endurance.

Military use:

essentially no evidence of official authorization.
significant clotting and cardiovascular risks.
little practical benefit for most combat tasks.

Police

Policies are usually stricter.

Authorized:

prescribed medications.
ADHD stimulants.
TRT when medically necessary.
Unauthorized:
anabolic steroids.
growth hormone.
illicit stimulants.

The practical concern is liability.
Departments are understandably wary of anything that could be argued to impair judgment or increase cardiovascular risk during critical incidents.

Security clearances

This is a subtle point.
Having a security clearance does not automatically prohibit someone from taking controlled medications.

For example, someone may legally possess:

ADHD medication,
TRT,
post-surgical opioids,
anti-anxiety medications,
provided they are prescribed, disclosed when required, and do not impair performance.
Unauthorized drug use creates problems because it can indicate:

criminal conduct,
susceptibility to coercion,
impaired judgment,
dishonesty if concealed.

Those factors matter more than the drug itself during clearance adjudication.

Contractors (Blackwater, Academi, etc.)

Former contractors have described a culture that could be physically demanding and sometimes more permissive socially than conventional military units.
However:

There is no evidence that companies like Blackwater officially supplied anabolic steroids or encouraged their use.

Individual contractors have certainly admitted using steroids, TRT, or other performance-enhancing drugs, but that appears to have been personal rather than organizational.

How common is steroid use?

Reliable numbers are hard to obtain because users have incentives not to disclose it. Surveys suggest lifetime anabolic steroid use among military personnel is higher than in the general population but still represents a minority. Rates vary widely by branch, occupation, and survey method, making precise estimates difficult. The evidence supports the conclusion that steroid use exists in military populations but is not an officially sanctioned practice.

A broader historical perspective

If you "dig deep," militaries have experimented with pharmacological performance enhancement for over a century:
During World War II, several nations—including Germany, the United Kingdom, Japan, and the United States—issued amphetamines to some troops to combat fatigue during extended operations.

During the Cold War, many militaries continued researching fatigue management, stimulants, and sleep scheduling for pilots and special operations personnel.
Modern Western militaries have shifted toward more controlled, medically supervised use of wakefulness-promoting medications and fatigue-management protocols rather than broad distribution of amphetamines.

One interesting theme across the research is that commanders increasingly recognize that drugs can only partially compensate for sleep deprivation. Even effective stimulants preserve wakefulness better than they preserve judgment, risk assessment, and complex decision-making, so modern doctrine generally treats them as tools for exceptional operational circumstances rather than substitutes for adequate rest.

Hi Johnnycomelately,

Good thread and a good example to open it with. I actually think you have uncovered something important here as you did several things right without really labelling them. First, you removed the ambiguity by sorting out "trim" versus "tren". Then you explained where the question came from. Then you clearly defined the distinctions you wanted: authorised, tolerated and prohibited.

That last part is something many people underestimate. When you define the categories and framework yourself the AI tends to organise its response around your framework rather than giving a generic answer. Adding a real historical incident also gave it a reference point for the depth and context you were looking for.

The other thing you did was ask in stages rather than trying to create one massive prompt. Each answer became context for the next question. In my experience, that back and forth is where most of the value comes from. So without labelling them, you have already demonstrated three practices worth naming:

1. Remove the ambiguity first.
2. Build the conversation in stages.
3. Define your own categories rather than accepting the AI's.

I would add a fourth practice to the list: Ask the AI to audit its own answer.

I often ask AI to separate what it has written into three groups: documented fact, reasonable inference and speculation. Then I ask where the evidence is weakest.

You could try it on the answer you already have. Go back to that same conversation and ask it to sort its military and police response into those three piles. My guess is the official policy sections hold up as documented fact while the parts about what soldiers do unofficially get reclassified as inference. That is worth knowing before you quote any of it in a discussion.

I think your fishing analogy still holds up. The lure matters but so does knowing which fish you are trying to catch before you cast.

[The KMan]

Continuing the thread's quest for best practice, or perhaps I should say "Better Practice", since I doubt anyone ever reaches best, I will add a fifth practice. This one changed how I use AI more than any prompt technique did and that is to Give different AIs different jobs.

For a long time I treated AI as one assistant that should do everything. What works much better is treating them like a toolbox. One AI is strong at research and finding sources. Another AI is better at challenging my thinking and finding holes in an argument while another AI is good at reviewing documents, frameworks and processes for logic and structure.

Note, none are perfect at everything and once you stop expecting one tool to do every job, the results improve noticeably.

Where this eventually led us may interest people here. In the business I help run, it did not stay just a personal habit. We have now added an Artificial Intelligence (AI) Governance Policy to our company policies along with specific guidelines on how to use AI effectively. The core rule our staff work under is one this thread has already arrived at and that is Do not accept an AI response at face value.

Nobody in our company prepares a paper with AI assistance and presents it to me and our directors as gospel. Whoever presents the work owns the work which means they have verified it, challenged it and can defend it.

The fourth practice from my earlier post, asking the AI to audit its own answer, is essentially written into our policy.

The process always has the same shape:

1. One AI produces.
2. Another challenges.
3. A person reviews and signs off everything before anything is considered for adoption.

The AIs explore the angles but the decision point never leaves the accountable person. The moment you let the tool become the decision maker, you have stopped using it and started following it.

To stretch Johnnycomelately's fishing analogy one more time: after a while you stop looking for the one perfect lure and start carrying a tackle box.

And as a keen fisherman I do have different rods, reels, lure and hook sizes and line strengths for different fish I am targeting.

[Johnnycomelately]

Thanks petra and KMan, for your affirmations of the value of this line of study. I think it should be a main consideration in dealing with this bonkers new facility.

OK, never too soon for fun ©️, here’s a joke at our Pythonic pal Paul. How ‘my doin?:

Posted by Johnnycomelately (here)

Posted by ThePythonicCow (here)
Oh dear ... I hope they didn't take down any of my favorite channels

Please say that in Latin, and provide with a Sumerian intro a list of all the AI chans which you are fine with deletion. Then do same for the AI chans that you hope not to lose.

Also, please devise and include a Venn Diagram showing your proximity to regular thinkers and to flat Earthers. Use Hollywood B-movies as the motif, but only westerns and ones that involve being seduced in space flight or on our Moon or on one of the other moons in our solar system.

Thank you for helping to make this planet more green, by your use of kazillions of electrons, for which lots of combustion has provided power.

[Denise/Dizi]

Hey there Johnny Boy!

I HAVE taken Provigil... Modofinil (spelling?)... It was due to a lack of energy when my MS would flare... I have stopped all medications for the treatment of my MS since then, and just adopted a cleaner more healthy lifestyle, and EXERCISE... Physical therapy helped a LOT.

BUT... The "Go Pills" as the military calls them, can be tricky... When I took the Provigil, it made me alert, I wasn't scatter brained at all... It allowed me the energy to stay working a full time job at that time... It was cost prohibitive when I stopped working however... So they gave me amphetamine salts, which were HORRIBLE... All types of side effects, jitter, no sleep, and just the overall feeling of not being well... I stopped them fairly quickly... They were meant to help me maintain a decent life, not incapacitate me in other ways... I wanted to be well, not shaking like a leaf, unable to eat or sleep...

But the Provigil, well that was something else entirely. I was told they gave them to pilots when they gave them to me... I was told they affect the brain differently than typical "Uppers"... And they did. (As I experienced the salts later and absolutely they were extremely different)... I was alert on the Provigil, but not scatterbrained and just "Awake"... I had physical energy without feeling any type of downside when they would wer off, I just felt as if I worked hard all day and it was time for bed...

I suppose the doses matter, and I presume I was on a low dose, as I was just trying to maintain basic functioning in life...

I have side effects when I am given steroids. I get the knot in the back of my neck, which takes forever to disappear, I become hypotensive and have to be monitored in the hospital in the cardiac ward because my pulse drops very low... Not fun... So I no longer allow those in my body as well...

I am not sure if the thread is for discussion of the topic, or how Ai treated it, so I will stop here, but both topics are interesting!