5 items with this tag.
Academic publishing treats scholarship as a finished, individually owned artefact. This post describes a writing and publishing workflow built on a different premise: that a scholarly corpus could work like an open source project — readable, contributable, forkable, and never permanently owned by anyone.
When AI could write everything I'd ever written, I had to ask: what had I been doing all this time? The answer changed how I understand both writing and AI — and what it means to be a scholar in a world where words are cheap.
A field note on building arguments with AI: the brainstorming command I use to engage with any source, with an excerpt showing what a session looks like — Claude surfacing vault notes and Zotero sources, and why the conversation living in markdown matters.
Most discussions of AI in writing focus on output. This post describes a different experience—using AI as a thinking partner to challenge my choices and claims during a writing session.
Academic culture has converged on the peer-reviewed journal article as the default unit of scholarly output, creating a hierarchy that excludes many valuable forms of intellectual work. This post makes the case for essays as a legitimate form of scholarship—not as a lesser alternative to empirical research, but as a distinct mode that enables exploration, synthesis, and engagement with audiences that traditional publishing cannot reach. Drawing on Boyer's model of scholarship, it argues for a more generous conception of what counts as scholarly contribution.