This really tracks with what I’m seeing: the advantage is shifting from use to judgment.
The line that lands for me is “AI produces outputs; it doesn’t preserve processes.” In MH / safeguarding / contested narratives, that distinction is everything — because the “process” is where meaning gets tested, corrected, and held with care.
I’ve been calling the missing layer Digital Narrative Care: record integrity, meaning integrity, and aftercare. This piece makes the same architectural point in cognitive terms: position the tool, don’t let it position you.
Restraint is becoming a skill — and I’d add: assurance is a dial, not a switch.
Thank you very much Stephen! You stated it perfectly, “Digital Narrative Care” is spot on, and losing the human touch completely in the process is dangerous in so many ways.
Thanks — really appreciate that! Out of curiosity, where do you personally draw the line in practice: which parts of the workflow do you keep deliberately “human-only” to protect understanding?
Thanks again! It depends on the day because this is not my full time job so I do rely heavily on AI to help me stay consistent posting daily. However, ideas and idea selection are curated, as well as maintaining proper references and citation, and finally taking on somewhat of the role of an editor. That’s basically the workflow for substack.
That’s a really sensible split — AI for consistency/cadence, but human for curation, idea selection, citations, and the editor’s final pass. That’s exactly the boundary I’m trying to name with Digital Narrative Care: keep record integrity and meaning integrity human-owned, then use AI to support throughput.
100%. It's taken me some time but over time i've definitely learned when it actually gets in the way. I think a lot of people need to identify those issues for themselves.
Couldn’t have stated it any better myself! AI can get in the way, for me personally it happens to be some of the loops I get stuck in using it. Also it is absolutely an individuals own experience that will define what that looks like for them. Thanks Chris!!
This really tracks with what I’m seeing: the advantage is shifting from use to judgment.
The line that lands for me is “AI produces outputs; it doesn’t preserve processes.” In MH / safeguarding / contested narratives, that distinction is everything — because the “process” is where meaning gets tested, corrected, and held with care.
I’ve been calling the missing layer Digital Narrative Care: record integrity, meaning integrity, and aftercare. This piece makes the same architectural point in cognitive terms: position the tool, don’t let it position you.
Restraint is becoming a skill — and I’d add: assurance is a dial, not a switch.
Thank you very much Stephen! You stated it perfectly, “Digital Narrative Care” is spot on, and losing the human touch completely in the process is dangerous in so many ways.
Thanks — really appreciate that! Out of curiosity, where do you personally draw the line in practice: which parts of the workflow do you keep deliberately “human-only” to protect understanding?
Thanks again! It depends on the day because this is not my full time job so I do rely heavily on AI to help me stay consistent posting daily. However, ideas and idea selection are curated, as well as maintaining proper references and citation, and finally taking on somewhat of the role of an editor. That’s basically the workflow for substack.
Just wanna say, looking forward to your live today!
Thank you very much, looking forward to seeing you there!
That’s a really sensible split — AI for consistency/cadence, but human for curation, idea selection, citations, and the editor’s final pass. That’s exactly the boundary I’m trying to name with Digital Narrative Care: keep record integrity and meaning integrity human-owned, then use AI to support throughput.
Absolutely, this hits the nail on the head precisely, thanks again Stephen!
Thanks again — really appreciate you saying so🙏🏻 I’ll keep developing my DNC framing and look forward to reading more of your work!
`Knowing when AI helps.
Knowing when it interferes.
Knowing when thinking must remain fully human.`
100%. It's taken me some time but over time i've definitely learned when it actually gets in the way. I think a lot of people need to identify those issues for themselves.
Couldn’t have stated it any better myself! AI can get in the way, for me personally it happens to be some of the loops I get stuck in using it. Also it is absolutely an individuals own experience that will define what that looks like for them. Thanks Chris!!