The "generative" label on AI is misleading. Its true power for daily knowledge work lies not in creating artifacts, but in its superhuman ability to read, comprehend, and synthesize vast amounts of information—a far more frequent and fundamental task than writing.

New features in Google's Notebook LM, like generating quizzes and open-ended questions from user notes, represent a significant evolution for AI in education. Instead of just providing answers, the tool is designed to teach the problem-solving process itself. This fosters deeper understanding, a critical capability that many educational institutions are overlooking.

The true danger of LLMs in the workplace isn't just sloppy output, but the erosion of deep thinking. The arduous process of writing forces structured, first-principles reasoning. By making it easy to generate plausible text from bullet points, LLMs allow users to bypass this critical thinking process, leading to shallower insights.

ASU's president argues that if an AI can answer an assignment, the assignment has failed. The educator's role must evolve to use AI to 'up the game,' forcing students to ask more sophisticated questions, making the quality of the query—not the synthesized answer—the hallmark of learning.

Spiral's redesign was driven by the principle that "good writing is downstream of good thinking." Instead of just generating content, the tool focuses on helping users explore and clarify their own ideas through an interactive, question-based process, making the AI a partner in thought.

In an age where AI can produce passable work, an educator's primary role shifts. Instead of focusing solely on the mechanics of a skill like writing, the more crucial and AI-proof job is to inspire students and convince them of the intrinsic value of learning that skill for themselves.

To effectively leverage AI, treat it as a new team member. Take its suggestions seriously and give it the best opportunity to contribute. However, just like with a human colleague, you must apply a critical filter, question its output, and ultimately remain accountable for the final result.

Instead of policing AI use, a novel strategy is for teachers to show students what AI produces on an assignment and grade it as a 'B-'. This sets a clear baseline, reframing AI as a starting point and challenging students to use human creativity and critical thinking to achieve a higher grade.

Instead of allowing AI to atrophy critical thinking by providing instant answers, leverage its "guided learning" capabilities. These features teach the process of solving a problem rather than just giving the solution, turning AI into a Socratic mentor that can accelerate learning and problem-solving abilities.