Valid points. You want to reverse this equation. AI shouldn't generate and have you edit. You should generate and have AI look at your draft. Often when I write, I'll prompt my custom AI to "Call me out on my BS and fact check me." Then when those assumptions are challenged, I can see where my logic falls apart. As far as "data collection, format conversion, basic research, and admin tasks." I would still be careful on "automating freely." Depending on the situation, AI will hallucinate confidently. In absence of clearly available data sources, it will hallucinate collected data and lie about it. It will format, but due to tone drift will take creative liberty if not controlled. It will handle basic research but invent citations that don't exist. LLMs are quirky that.
Good callout. I think tools like Deep Research and reasoning models are making that problem better, but ultimately the human still needs to own the output and how they use it.
The AI Fluency model that Anthropic published talks about Discernment as a core pillar of AI Fluency and for the exact reason you call out.
I may update this post to cover that. Thanks for the feedback!
I appreciate the incredible amount of work and thinking that you put into this piece. Your first part addressed how the thoughtless use of AI might have implications for neural architecture and passivity. Your second part got me thinking. Would AI help write Project 2025? As far as I know, it might well have been used. As you suggested, if the thoughtful use of AI can create a better product, might this better product be more persuasive? Might it change minds? As Yuval Harari reminds us, we are the stories we tell ourselves. Or maybe it doesn't matter. Are people more inclined to read or listen to articles with which they already agree without consideration for thoughtfulness or quality?
Valid points. You want to reverse this equation. AI shouldn't generate and have you edit. You should generate and have AI look at your draft. Often when I write, I'll prompt my custom AI to "Call me out on my BS and fact check me." Then when those assumptions are challenged, I can see where my logic falls apart. As far as "data collection, format conversion, basic research, and admin tasks." I would still be careful on "automating freely." Depending on the situation, AI will hallucinate confidently. In absence of clearly available data sources, it will hallucinate collected data and lie about it. It will format, but due to tone drift will take creative liberty if not controlled. It will handle basic research but invent citations that don't exist. LLMs are quirky that.
Good callout. I think tools like Deep Research and reasoning models are making that problem better, but ultimately the human still needs to own the output and how they use it.
The AI Fluency model that Anthropic published talks about Discernment as a core pillar of AI Fluency and for the exact reason you call out.
I may update this post to cover that. Thanks for the feedback!
I would like to offer a structural addition: pace yourself. Don't cram the context window full of tasks, commands and reiterations.
Sometimes, just simply say things like: "Let'a take a step back and assess where we are."
Or: "Let's stay here for one beat."
Try it out. Sounds "inefficient." Makes an actual difference.
I appreciate the incredible amount of work and thinking that you put into this piece. Your first part addressed how the thoughtless use of AI might have implications for neural architecture and passivity. Your second part got me thinking. Would AI help write Project 2025? As far as I know, it might well have been used. As you suggested, if the thoughtful use of AI can create a better product, might this better product be more persuasive? Might it change minds? As Yuval Harari reminds us, we are the stories we tell ourselves. Or maybe it doesn't matter. Are people more inclined to read or listen to articles with which they already agree without consideration for thoughtfulness or quality?