AI and Me
My use of artificial intelligence is inseparable from how I process, preserve, and retrieve information.
I have compounded dyslexia. Reading, spelling, numerical operations, and written production can impose substantial mechanical costs that are separate from understanding the underlying subject. I also experience cue-dependent, context-bound retrieval: information that I know may not be immediately accessible without the context in which it was formed or an appropriate retrieval cue.
This produces an unusual asymmetry. I can retain complex events, relationships, processes, and whole-system structures while having difficulty retrieving comparatively simple isolated information on demand. A telephone number may disappear almost immediately. A system, event, or sequence of relationships may remain available in considerable detail.
This distinction has mattered throughout my working life. As a paramedic, I learned to recognize patterns in incomplete and rapidly changing information. As a network engineer, I tended to see systems as flows and bottlenecks rather than collections of individual components. As a chef and restaurant operator, I worked from the coordination of preparation, timing, people, equipment, and service rather than from the recipe alone.
AI did not create that way of thinking. It changed my ability to externalize it.
For me, the important capabilities of AI are therefore not simply spelling correction or faster writing. AI can preserve context, recover prior lines of inquiry, translate between the structure I am holding and the linear language required to communicate it, and provide a persistent external surface against which an argument can be examined.
That distinction is also why retaining data matters so much to me. A lost conversation or missing research context is not merely inconvenient. If the cues surrounding an idea disappear, access to information I already possess can become substantially more difficult. Preservation of provenance, context, and inquiry history therefore has practical importance in how I work.
None of this transfers judgment to the AI. It makes the judgment easier for me to express, inspect, challenge, preserve, and retrieve.
Why this page exists
I created this page to be transparent about how and why I use AI in my work. The use of AI does not remove the obligation to scrutinize research, nor does its absence make research inherently more trustworthy. All research should be examined on its evidence, methods, reasoning, and claims.
“How do you know what you know, and how do you then know it?” is not incidental to my work. It is one of the questions the research itself investigates. If those questions are difficult to answer about a claim, then further inquiry may be required.
When a human researcher cites a source, part of the justification can be traced to that source. AI complicates this relationship. A generated claim may depend on model weights, training data, transformations, and internal processes that are not directly available for inspection. That does not make the claim true or false. It makes the provenance and evidentiary basis of the claim important objects of scrutiny.
That is precisely why I disclose my use of AI.
My work, methods, evidence, and use of AI are presented as transparently as I can make them and may be inspected, questioned, or challenged. I ask only that the same standard of transparency and scrutiny be applied to the basis of those challenges.