Made by AI, about AI — and reviewed by a human.
The premise is in plain sight: training on using AI, drafted by AI from the latest thinking, then checked and signed off by a human editor before anyone reads it. The editorial gate is the point — it's what separates this from an auto-generated feed.
Each day starts with a fresh read of the latest AI thinking — provider docs, primary sources, serious writing — not a model talking from memory.
An AI drafts a short module to a fixed six-beat template: what it is, the concept, a prompt to run on your own work, where to read more.
Nothing publishes automatically. The editor reviews every module, checks it is current and not overclaimed, adds real-world context, and signs it off.
- ▸No publishing without a human reading it first.
- ▸No invented statistics — every concrete claim is sourced.
- ▸No overclaiming. Feedback is a demand signal, never proof a lesson "works".
- ▸No stale advice — modules carry a "last reviewed" and "re-check by" date.
I edit and sign off every module. My job here isn't to write the drafts — it's to make sure each one is current, honest, and actually useful for real knowledge work, and to add the real-world context that only comes from doing the job. If a lesson wouldn't survive a sceptical read, it doesn't ship.