gets the situation exactly right, AI use becomes meaningful through preserved judgment, not just speed. it's context, constraint, taste, iteration, and responsibility that remain the real creative infrastructure of Human-AI work.
I agree with so much of this. I also found Hassid's tutorials really helpful for developing a style guide from a taste interview -- although the Cowork tutorials he offers are focused so much on volume for content creators that they did not speak to me -- I am currently building out infrastructure to see if Cowork can support my academic and intellectual work as a historian. But the creativity question is also for me a curiosity question. As I've been building out cognitive fitness protocols for AI use, I've definitely appreciated the guardrails -- like establishing a collaboration model and ensuring that I start with my own work and ideas first before engaging with AI-- but the thing that has literally moved me to tears is a Curiosity Incubator I built in Cowork that presents me with a a little tiny cabinet for one curiosity, drawn from my interests. Cowork presents these as little htmls, with its math drawn illustrations. Just a paragraph, a minute or two at most, but several of these have had me thinking and pulling new threads for days after. Ultimately, I think building out these non-efficiency developmental cognitive routines have illustrated the potential for creative and humanity sustaining AI use, especially as these tools gets stronger. For the curious, I introduced the Curiosity Incubator here:https://mivonnewf.substack.com/p/seatbelts-for-pod-racers-cognitive?r=3p2zgl
This is helpful for a couple of reasons, even though I will never do what you’ve done here: it gives us evidence for IT departments and admin about what it would truly take for faculty and staff to work with GenAI well, and it demonstrates the very long and involved process thoughtful use entails.
I’m jealous! But now more than ever convinced I don’t have the time or resources to use this tech for teaching. Use cases are specific, will change as the tech changes, and require a lot of experimentation that a lot of faculty just don’t have time for.
I also wonder what students will think. In a class where you teach students to use the tech it would be fine, but what about cases where an instructor does not want students to use GenAI, or for them to use it sparingly?
gets the situation exactly right, AI use becomes meaningful through preserved judgment, not just speed. it's context, constraint, taste, iteration, and responsibility that remain the real creative infrastructure of Human-AI work.
I agree with so much of this. I also found Hassid's tutorials really helpful for developing a style guide from a taste interview -- although the Cowork tutorials he offers are focused so much on volume for content creators that they did not speak to me -- I am currently building out infrastructure to see if Cowork can support my academic and intellectual work as a historian. But the creativity question is also for me a curiosity question. As I've been building out cognitive fitness protocols for AI use, I've definitely appreciated the guardrails -- like establishing a collaboration model and ensuring that I start with my own work and ideas first before engaging with AI-- but the thing that has literally moved me to tears is a Curiosity Incubator I built in Cowork that presents me with a a little tiny cabinet for one curiosity, drawn from my interests. Cowork presents these as little htmls, with its math drawn illustrations. Just a paragraph, a minute or two at most, but several of these have had me thinking and pulling new threads for days after. Ultimately, I think building out these non-efficiency developmental cognitive routines have illustrated the potential for creative and humanity sustaining AI use, especially as these tools gets stronger. For the curious, I introduced the Curiosity Incubator here:https://mivonnewf.substack.com/p/seatbelts-for-pod-racers-cognitive?r=3p2zgl
right on spot...
This is helpful for a couple of reasons, even though I will never do what you’ve done here: it gives us evidence for IT departments and admin about what it would truly take for faculty and staff to work with GenAI well, and it demonstrates the very long and involved process thoughtful use entails.
I’m jealous! But now more than ever convinced I don’t have the time or resources to use this tech for teaching. Use cases are specific, will change as the tech changes, and require a lot of experimentation that a lot of faculty just don’t have time for.
I also wonder what students will think. In a class where you teach students to use the tech it would be fine, but what about cases where an instructor does not want students to use GenAI, or for them to use it sparingly?