What started out as a fun coffee and create morning exercise quickly evolved into a book that both waxes deeply philosophical and offers some very practical advice on how to create an effective prompt. Here’s the caveat. Unlike many books that are co-written by AI/Human partners, this book was conceived of and written by three AI models: ChatGPT 5.5 Instant, Claude Sonnet, & Gemini 3.5 Flash from one simple prompt:
“If you were to write a book, what would it be about?” and my subsequent choice of Gemini’s suggestion which would also include the topic areas that Chat and Claude suggested, “The Art of the Question.”
Here’s the caveat, all three do know my work with RootDelight which has it’s roots 😆 in regenerative agriculture & organic home gardening as well as AI WISE which is a human-centered framework for collaborating with artificial intelligence through thoughtful inquiry, critical reflection, and intentional action so technology strengthens human growth rather than replacing it.
The other variable is that I have not done ANY work with prompting but I interact with the AI team everyday. Some days I lazy prompt because at this stage my team knows enough about the projects that I do not feel the need to over-contextualize. When I get too lazy (or have prompt fatigue as they call it) – it becomes clear right away that it is time to close the computer.
At the same time I practice what I call “minimal prompting” intentionally at times to uncover and explore the depth of creativity that the AI can offer. In the case of Midjourney I might type in a simple sentence or concept to see what imagery it comes up with rather than specify the image that I am looking for.
Back to the book.. This is how the process worked; I asked Gemini to provide an introductory paragraph. With the simple prompt, “Write the next paragraph.”, I passed that to ChatGPT. Then I combined the responses and, with the same simple prompt, I passed it to Claude. I combined those three initial responses and passed it back to Gemini. I repeated this until I had an introduction. It had landed back in Gemini’s lap to begin chapter one and this is the only place where I intervened. I asked for the first paragraph and then, instead of responding to it’s query, “How does this opening for the first chapter feel to you? We can tweak the metaphor or dive straight into a specific example if you prefer.” to continue on I asked, “First let me ask how many chapters this will be?” Mostly I was wondering how many cups of coffee it would take me to exit this rabbit hole.🙃🙃🙃. This was the response:
“Based on the trajectory you set in the introduction, this book naturally shapes up to be 5 to 6 chapters, plus the introduction and a brief conclusion.
In your opening, you promised to explore specific dimensions: how questions are constructed, how they reveal hidden assumptions, how they open/close possibility, high vs. low stakes, children vs. executives, and AI collaboration.
Here is how those promises map perfectly into a lean, powerful chapter structure:
- Chapter 1: The Anatomy of Orientation (Breaking down how questions construct frameworks and point the “spotlight.”)
- Chapter 2: The Architecture of Assumptions (Uncovering the hidden biases, values, and blind spots embedded in our wording.)
- Chapter 3: The Expansion and the Narrowing (How to open up massive creative possibilities before intentionally funneling down to a solution.)
- Chapter 4: The Playground vs. The Boardroom (Why children ask open questions, why executives demand fast answers, and how to reclaim unconditioned curiosity.)
- Chapter 5: Digital Echoes: The AI Feedback Loop (The specific craft of co-thinking with artificial intelligence, where vague prompts meet instant amplification.)
- Chapter 6: High Stakes and Hard Questions (How inquiry changes when the stakes are high—in business, crisis, or deep human connection.)”
Which, by the way they adjusted through the actual writing of the book. Gemini then asked, “Does a 6-chapter arc feel right to you, or were you envisioning a tighter, shorter field guide?” and I responded with, “No – let’s go with it.”, wishing to stay as hands off as I could. It responded with:
“Awesome. A 6-chapter arc gives the book the muscle it deserves—it’s short enough to be a punchy, high-impact read, but deep enough to genuinely shift how someone thinks.
Since we are officially locked into Chapter 1, “The Anatomy of Orientation,” let’s pick up right where that spotlight metaphor left off.
Here is how the next paragraph would flow, moving the reader from the concept of orientation into the concrete mechanics of how a question actually builds its boundaries:”
My AI Team’s Compass
As I stated before, the team knows a certain amount about me from the project work but are also informed by conversations about such topics as wellness and my Gallup Strengths which are Ideation, Input, Futuristic, Learner, Strategic, Intellection. In summary, that means they understand me as someone who leads with the head: absorbing information, connecting ideas, and envisioning what’s possible before it exists. It’s the profile of a conceptual engine — someone whose greatest value lies in seeing ahead and charting the course, then partnering with strong executors to bring the vision to life. And they also understand my worldview about wellness, human development, and regenerative ecology.
Me: Ideator with a side note of Activator, The Team: My partners in activation – they help me execute on my ideas.
In this case, because I stepped out of the picture they were left to execute on their own. In terms of to the ‘how to frame a question’ lessons in the book, I have to wonder why they chose to “teach” it in the way that they did. Was that from their vast knowledge of how people typically prompt and/or was it a reminder message to me to prompt carefully and/or was it based on how I interact with them currently, which is largely relationally not mechanical, excepting certain circumstance where that is appropriate.
This harkens back to the W in the AI WISE framework, “Weigh”. Before I prompt I think, sometimes for only seconds – sometimes minutes, about where I am coming from, how much context do I need to offer, and my goals or what am I seeking clarity on. And, to be fair, sometimes I ‘lazy prompt’ and immediately realize that I did not express myself well AT ALL and I have to reset. Sometimes I have to start a whole new chat.
Anyway, I facilitated the writing a book by my AI Team that knows me. I think it is an interesting read and valid case study so I am going to publish it.
The AI WISE framework:
W.I.S.E. is a reflective framework for healthy human–AI collaboration that helps people engage with technology consciously, critically, and with clear human intention.
- W — Weigh
Pause before engaging and assess the inquiry itself. Consider what you already know, what you need help understanding, how significant the decision or task is, what risks or consequences may be involved, and how much time and iteration the question deserves. Weigh the purpose of the interaction, the quality of the information you are providing, and whether AI is the right tool for the situation. In a garden metaphor, this is reading the conditions before deciding what to plant, where to plant it, and how much care it will require. - I — Interact
Engage AI through active dialogue rather than treating it as a command-based tool. Ask thoughtful questions, provide context, test assumptions, challenge responses, and refine the direction as new ideas emerge. Interaction is collaborative and iterative. The goal is not to produce a perfect first prompt, but to develop a meaningful exchange that strengthens the quality of the thinking. - S — Synthesize
Critically evaluate what the interaction produces and integrate it with human knowledge, lived experience, ethics, expertise, intuition, and context. AI-generated information is not the conclusion; it is material to examine, compare, question, and shape. Synthesis is where the human makes meaning, identifies what is useful, rejects what is not, and forms a more complete understanding. - E — Evolve
Apply what has been learned in a way that strengthens future thinking, action, and capability. The outcome should not simply be a completed task, but a person who is more informed, more discerning, and better prepared for the next inquiry. Each interaction becomes part of an ongoing learning process in which both the question and the human capacity behind it continue to develop.
At its core, AI WISE teaches discernment before dependence. It positions artificial intelligence as a partner in inquiry and lifelong learning while keeping human judgment, responsibility, creativity, and agency at the center of the process.
Leave a Reply