The Artificial Construction of Thought, Before the Tool Itself

We are constantly making requests of artificial intelligence.

“Write this for me.”

“Translate.”

“Find.”

“Summarise.”

Yet very few people ask AI:

“Do you have any questions for me?”

The lack of deeper interaction

And no, no philosophy, people, no Asimovian prompts.

I mean in damnedly practical terms.

For example, suppose I want support with some web pages.

Pages. Plural.

And that alone changes everything: goga mi goga.

AI could ask me:

“What is the page’s real objective?”

• Sell?
• Generate leads?
• Build authority?
• Rank on Google?
• Be cited by AI systems?
• Educate?
• Filter clients?
• Build a recognisable voice?
  

And again: does this instruction apply to a single page, or to the whole project?

Because I may want to use that system for page A, page B, and page C alike.

And so:

• Do I create three separate projects?
• Just one?
• Do I specialise everything?
• Do I create rigid instructions?
• Or do I leave room for adaptation?
  

Designing a cognitive system

And this, I think, completely changes the way we use AI.

Because you are no longer “giving it a prompt.”

𝗬𝗼𝘂 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝗴𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝘀𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺.

And yes, instructions matter—hell, do they matter.

Being specific, providing context, and specialising are all correct—but there is still one 𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗲 𝗵𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗱𝗼 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿: understanding when—and how—a structure needs to be adapted rather than replicated.

Every project has different priorities, contradictions, and [𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘪𝘤𝘦].

That is also why, when I create instructions or projects, one of the first things I ask is:

“𝗗𝗼 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀?”

Some may conflict, others may be vague, and still others may be fundamental to me yet irrelevant to the model—and so on and so forth.

The prompt question

The line:

“give it a prompt and go get yourself a coffee”

is exactly the part 𝗜 𝗱𝗼 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲 about AI marketing.

So yes:

I am starting to teach classes on AI, 𝗕𝗨𝗧 I am not selling coffee breaks.

What genuinely interests me is something else:

how you build the relationship between your brain and these tools.

I, for example, use ChatGPT a great deal.

And yes, I know Claude, Notebook, Deep Search, and other tools.

Some are excellent, but I still prefer ChatGPT because of the way I think.

Because I write, and so I do not need a machine that “writes in my place.”

I need something that helps me think better: find connections, highlight conflicts, or draw my attention to blind spots.

The crucial question

So my question, as a marketing woman, is not:

“𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥?”

𝗧𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗮𝘀𝗸 𝗮 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻.

My question is:

“𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵?”

That is what you ask AI.

You are no longer looking for someone to think in your place; you are trying to understand where a tool can help you think better.

Conclusion: a new approach

In short, our interaction with artificial intelligence needs to go deeper.

We need to learn how to ask meaningful questions and build a dialogue.

This approach not only improves the quality of the work; it also offers new perspectives.

In a world where AI is increasingly present, developing a critical, reflective method is essential.

The next time you interact with an AI, remember to ask:

“Do you have any questions for me?”

You may discover that the answer is more interesting than you expected.