The question "How do we use AI?" has shifted from the zeitgeist to a deafening noise where all answers feel equally valid and equally absurd. "It is a tool." "It is a partner." "It is cheating." "It is devaluing work." We are exhausted by the debate because we are focusing on the wrong side of the equation: we are looking at what the technology can do, rather than what we can do with the technology. To the instrumentalist, this is a matter of utility: How do we make it faster? To the cognitivist, this is a question of ontology: What does it do to the thinker?

If I design the argument, does it matter who types the words?

I started with a thesis on Macbeth that I had written in a Faculty meeting exploring how to scaffold student's higher thinking through sophisticated thesis creation. I was curious what could develop if I explored it fully with my AI.

So I put my thesis in and asked the AI to write the essay that the thesis suggested. It could have ended there, it gave me a more than adequate essay.

Had I stopped at that point, I may have gone into a fear spiral about how students would replicate that process and how the human race was doomed.

Luckily, I kept going.

There is an industry growing around the idea that we need "Perfect Prompts" to get good results from AI. They sell us libraries, cheat sheets, and structural guides.

They are lying to us.

AI doesn't need perfect grammar: it needs Context.

Below is the raw, unedited log of a session I ran 15 minutes before a lesson.