Subscribing to solipsism is inherently flawed because it assumes one's own mind exists. Why could it not be true that what the solipsistic mind considers "thought" is trivial, and they are but themselves a figment of imagination in some other, higher-thinking entity's existence? To carry that idea further, a well-done computer simulation could lead to an AI agent assuming it is itself "real", when in fact nothing in the simulation is "real". In this situation solipsism gives way to a universe with no truly independent actor whatsoever, and all may consider themselves equally creators of the universe--implying all are equally omnipotent.

And to expand on the problem of omnipotence, why is the solipsist not able to affect reality on demand? Did the power to do so evaporate with the creation of the universe? Or is the solipsist bound to rules dictated by a higher power? If the latter, then the solipsist is not the sole occupant of the universe they "created" and is in fact a subjugate entity to another entity. If the former, is solipsism the equivalent of rendering oneself impotent? How does impotence reconcile with the very concept of feeling so powerful as to be the driving force behind everything?

Let us ignore all the above and ask even if one's own mind exists and is the only mind that exists, how can one prove that "existence" is objectively real? It cannot be independently verified, so it can be a theory at best. What the solipsist considers existence in this case may just be, analogous to the first example of trivial thought, as much existence as a dreamer who is truly the only sentient entity in their sleeping state. When the dreamer awakes, does the dream being, who is presumably the center of the dream universe, cease to exist? If so, how can a solipsist ever conclude they are the creator of all reality? If not, does not the fact that the "creator" became nothing more than a memory of a dream rob that creator of its identity?

Ipso facto cum loud, QED SPRD