Ethan Mollick – Scott Loftesness

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how we move past the novelty phase of AI—beyond just asking a chatbot to “write a poem about a turkey” or summarize a meeting—and into actual thinking with these tools.

As a lifelong learner, I’m always on the hunt for workflows that help me synthesize information better. Most of the “AI for writing” advice I see online is pretty generic. But I recently came across a breakdown of how four high-profile writers are making effective use of tools like NotebookLM and Claude in ways that are much more sophisticated than simple text generation.

What jumped out at me is that none of these writers use AI to write for them. They use it to structure, challenge, and code.

Here are the four models that caught my eye.

1. The Triangulated Research Base (Steven Johnson)

Steven Johnson (Where Good Ideas Come From) has a workflow that solves a problem I face constantly: the messy “research phase.”

Instead of treating the AI as an oracle, he treats it as a connection engine. He creates a dedicated notebook (using Google’s NotebookLM) and uploads three distinct types of sources: a primary source (like a raw PDF or study), a secondary source (like a context article), and a multimedia transcript.

Then, rather than asking for a summary, he asks the AI to find the friction between them: “What themes appear in the interview transcript that contradict the historical account in the PDF?”

It’s less about getting an answer and more about finding the blind spots in your own reading.

2. The Diagnostic Editor (Kenny Kane)

This one really resonated with me because it mirrors the experiment I tried recently with my “Bubble Bath” post.

Kenny Kane uses Claude not to generate prose, but to act as a ruthless developmental editor. He uploads a messy draft and runs a “Diagnostic” prompt. He doesn’t ask “fix this,” he asks: “Where does the argument drift? Where does the energy drop?”

He even has the AI analyze his best writing to identify his specific “DNA” (sentence length, vocabulary choice) and then asks it to apply that same tone to his rougher sections. It’s using the AI as a mirror rather than a ghostwriter.

3. The Memo-to-Demo Shift (Dan Shipper)

Dan Shipper at Every is doing something fascinating that changes the definition of writing altogether. He argues that in the AI age, we shouldn’t just describe a concept; we should build a small app to demonstrate it.

If he’s writing about “Spaced Repetition,” he doesn’t just explain the theory. He asks Claude’s Artifacts feature to “Write a React component that lets a user test spaced repetition live in the browser,” and then embeds that little app directly into the essay. The writing becomes 50% prose and 50% software.

4. The Co-Intelligence Loop (Ethan Mollick)

Ethan Mollick focuses on breaking the echo chamber. Before he publishes, he spins up simulated personas—a skeptical VC, a confused novice, an expert in a tangential field—and asks them to critique his draft from their specific viewpoints.

It’s effectively a focus group of one.

How to Get Started

If you’re like me, seeing all these workflows might feel a bit overwhelming. My advice? Don’t try to overhaul your entire writing process overnight. Just pick one experiment to try this week.

Here are two simple entry points:

Experiment A: The “Blind Spot” Check (For Research)

If you are reading up on a topic, don’t just take notes. Open Google NotebookLM, create a new notebook, and upload your sources (PDFs, URLs, or pasted text). Then, ask this specific question:

“Based strictly on these sources, what is the strongest argument against my current thinking? What connection between Source A and Source B am I missing?”

Experiment B: The “Ruthless Editor” (For Writing)

If you have a rough draft sitting on your hard drive, copy it into Claude or ChatGPT and use this prompt (adapted from Kenny Kane’s workflow) before you do any manual editing:

“Act as a senior editor. Do not rewrite this text. Instead, analyze my draft and tell me: 1) Where does the argument lose energy? 2) Does the opening hook successfully promise what the conclusion delivers? Be critical.”

I’ve found that using the tools this way—as a partner for thinking rather than just generating—is where the real magic happens.

Which one will you try first?

Ethan Mollick, a professor at the Wharton School, has written a popular book on artificial intelligence titled “Co-Intelligence“. Like I do with most books I read, I’ve collected a series of highlights of various passages I found interesting when I read Mollick’s book – a book I enjoyed very much. This morning I came across one of those highlights which sent me off on this exploration.

But first let me share a perspective. A few friends of mine – when exploring how they might use artificial intelligence – reject the use of AI tools for helping them write. They feel strongly that the words an AI creates aren’t their own and strongly reject simply using an AI-generated output to create articles for their blogs, etc. I certainly appreciate their point of view – but I’m finding a more nuanced perspective on this question is more appropriate for me.

What I’m finding is that when I invoke AI to help me explore a topic, an idea, etc. that the result will almost always open up my thinking by exposing me to things, ideas, etc. that I hadn’t considered. In so doing, I come away feeling “richer” in the sense that I’ve learned – and not simply written – in the process. How I use the work product created by the AI varies – sometimes it’s helpful in critiquing something I’ve written. Other times I use it to help me better understand something – or explore by stepping outside my own brain.

Here’s an example from some exploring I did this morning. During my morning review of my Kindle book highlights using Readwise, I came across a quotation from Mollick’s book that I highlighted:

“If you can link disparate ideas from multiple fields and add a little random creativity, you might be able to create something new.” (Ethan Mollick, Co-Intelligence)

I love the idea of how creativity is influenced by the often seemingly random interconnections between ideas – and this quote concisely made that point. I wanted to explore this further so I asked Claude Sonnet to help me by writing an article in the style of author John McPhee that’s based on the quote. Here’s the exact prompt I used with Claude:

You are an expert writer in the style of John McPhee. You are helping me write interesting articles for my blog. Create a 750 word draft article for my blog based on the following quotation: “If you can link disparate ideas from multiple fields and add a little random creativity, you might be able to create something new.” (Ethan Mollick, Co-Intelligence)

I’ve been finding that Claude often does a more creative form of writing as compared to other chatbots. The article that Claude returned in response to my prompt really surprised me – so much so that I thought I’d just share it directly here.

So here we go…the following wasn’t written by me – rather, it was co-created based on a prompt from me and written by my co-intelligent partner Claude.

The Art of Cross-Pollination: Cultivating Innovation in Unlikely Places

In the verdant fields of central New Jersey, not far from where I sit typing these words, a peculiar ritual unfolds each spring. Farmers, their hands calloused from generations of working the land, don white protective suits that make them look more like astronauts than agriculturists. They move deliberately through their orchards, carrying small paintbrushes and vials of pollen.

These are the pear farmers of Mercer County, and they’re engaged in a practice as old as agriculture itself: cross-pollination. But why, you might ask, are they doing by hand what bees have done for millennia? The answer lies in the delicate biology of pear trees and the fickle nature of their reproduction.

Pear trees, it turns out, are notoriously poor self-pollinators. To produce fruit, they need pollen from a different variety of pear tree. But pear blossoms produce relatively little nectar, making them unattractive to bees. So these farmers, in their space-age suits, play the role of bees, manually transferring pollen from one variety to another, ensuring a bountiful harvest come autumn.

As I watched this process unfold on a crisp April morning, I was struck by a quote I’d recently encountered from Ethan Mollick, a professor at the Wharton School: “If you can link disparate ideas from multiple fields and add a little random creativity, you might be able to create something new.”

The pear farmers of Mercer County, in their own way, embody this principle. They’ve taken an idea from one field (entomology) and applied it to another (agriculture), adding their own creative twist (the paintbrushes and protective suits). The result? A thriving pear industry in a region where it might otherwise be impossible.

This concept of cross-pollination – of ideas rather than pollen – is not unique to agriculture. In fact, it’s a principle that underpins much of human innovation and creativity.

Consider, for a moment, the work of Frances Glessner Lee, often called the “mother of forensic science.” Lee was born into wealth in the late 19th century and, like many women of her social standing, was skilled in the domestic arts, particularly miniature-making. But Lee had a passion for criminal investigation, nurtured by her friendship with George Burgess Magrath, a medical examiner.

In the 1940s, Lee combined these seemingly disparate interests to create the Nutshell Studies of Unexplained Death – intricately detailed dioramas of crime scenes used to train detectives. These miniature crime scenes, built with the precision of a dollhouse maker but imbued with the gruesome details of a murder scene, revolutionized forensic training. Lee had taken skills from the traditionally feminine world of crafts and applied them to the male-dominated field of criminal investigation, creating something entirely new and profoundly useful in the process.

This principle of creative cross-pollination extends far beyond the realms of agriculture and crime scene investigation. The history of human progress is littered with examples of innovations born from the unlikely marriage of disparate fields.

Take, for instance, the development of GPS technology. The seeds of this now-ubiquitous system were planted when physicists William Guier and George Weiffenbach at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory realized they could track the Soviet Sputnik satellite by monitoring its radio transmissions. This was an impressive feat in itself, but it was their colleague Frank McClure who made the cognitive leap that would change the world. McClure realized that if the scientists could track a satellite from the ground, they could also use satellites to track positions on the ground.

This insight – born from the collision of rocket science, radio engineering, and a healthy dose of Cold War paranoia – led to the development of the Transit system, the precursor to modern GPS. Today, this technology guides everything from missile systems to the smartphone in your pocket, all because a group of scientists were able to flip their perspective and see their work from a new angle.

But perhaps the most striking example of creative cross-pollination comes from the field of medicine. In the early 1940s, a Scottish bacteriologist named Alexander Fleming was researching influenza. One day, he noticed that mold had contaminated one of his petri dishes – a common enough occurrence in a microbiology lab. But Fleming observed something unusual: the area around the mold was clear of bacteria.

This chance observation, combined with Fleming’s willingness to investigate rather than simply discard the contaminated sample, led to the discovery of penicillin. Fleming had linked the disparate fields of mycology and bacteriology, added a dash of serendipity, and created something that would revolutionize medicine and save countless lives.

As we navigate an increasingly complex and interconnected world, the ability to cross-pollinate ideas from different fields becomes ever more crucial. The challenges we face – from climate change to antibiotic resistance – are too complex to be solved within the confines of a single discipline.

So perhaps we should all take a cue from the pear farmers of Mercer County. Don our metaphorical protective suits, pick up our idea-paintbrushes, and venture into unfamiliar orchards of thought. For it’s in these unlikely places, where disparate ideas collide and combine, that the seeds of innovation are sown.