When it comes to supercharging your creativity, Jeremy Utley swears by team efforts. Collaborating with multiple GenAI chatbots lets the Stanford professor develop and hone new concepts.

Staring at the massive redwoods in morning fog from the Pacific is Jeremy Utley's natural screen saver. The director of executive education at Stanford University's d.school does most of his creative work in a little cabin west of Palo Alto. As his four daughters play before their day of homeschooling begins, Utley fires up his computer and starts talking to ChatGPT at a rapid-fire clip as if he were in the room with an indefatigable human co-worker. "Think of the typist in the movie Darkest Hour where Winston Churchill sits in the bathtub and yells out ideas," Utley jokes. "Wouldn't it be great if we could all do that – capture ideas right as they occur to us?"

Sessions at his stand-up desk often take hours, with the academic and author dictating, typing asides for a second chatbot to critique the first and vice versa. Not to mention furiously scribbling sticky notes that are strewn all over his desk. Utley believes in the power of his voice, calling his fingers his "bottlenecks" as they slow down his stream of consciousness: "There are no bad ideas. When you treat GenAI as a collaborator and sparring partner, not an oracle, the answer is always yes." Utley let Think:Act observe his interactions with two chatbots.

First prompt from Utley to ChatGPT:
So I've got an idea for a blog post and I just want to start by doing a little bit of verbal vomit. I want you to act as an expert newsletter copy editor with the knowledge of my background, particular interests and area of expertise. I'd like for you to: One, workshop the material with me; Two, help me think of what the relevant material is across my various sources; Three, give me feedback. I want to come to consensus between me, you and Claude on what the best output is.

ChatGPT:
Got it! You're looking to verbally brainstorm a blog post. Ready when you are — let the verbal vomit begin!

Utley:
I did kind of a standard keynote this weekend and I found myself saying, as a next step, everybody should block 15 minutes on their calendar per day to try something they've learned. I think that's the takeaway for the piece.

ChatGPT:
Got it! You're focusing on encouraging people to actively apply what they've learned, specifically by blocking 15 minutes daily to try out new ideas. That's your "so what." You've got a compelling core message: The real value of learning comes from implementing knowledge, not just passively nodding along.

Utley:
Okay, this is really cool. Now be my editor who's giving instructions to my copywriter exactly how to think about approaching this piece. Could you craft that set of instructions? If you're like a Russian supercritical judgmental editor and if you were to do a harsh critique of this brief before we give it to the writer, what would you say are the two glaring errors?

ChatGPT:
In true Russian supercritical fashion, here's a brutally honest critique and a missing piece of guidance that would elevate it to masterpiece level: (… chatbot responses have been shortened for clarity and space).

Jeremy moves to Claude for feedback. Unlike ChatGPT, Claude does not yet allow dictation on the desktop. Utley therefore has to type much shorter thoughts, or copy and paste documents to drive the conversation with the second chatbot.

Utley:
Hey! I've been having a great conversation with ChatGPT about a potential blog post. Would you please read the conversation and critique ChatGPT's approach to the "assignment brief." Be brutal, honest and don't hold back.

Claude:
Here's my brutally honest critique of ChatGPT's approach:

Major structural issues: (…)
Missing psychological framework: (…)
Tactical oversights: (… )
Voice and tone misalignment: (…)
The brief doesn't capture your authentic voice as someone who is actively experimenting and learning alongside your audience.
Here's my specific recommendation for improvement: (…)

Would you like me to rewrite the full brief incorporating these elements, or would you prefer to explore any of these critiques in more detail first?

Utley:
I like your insight about positioning the piece as the capstone ... but feel capstone is the wrong word, as my hope is that someone feels they're "not done but begun." Is there a better metaphor?

Claude:
Here are a few alternative metaphors to "capstone" that might better capture your intent: (…)

Would any of these resonate better with your vision, or should we explore other metaphors that better capture the "not done but begun" spirit?

Utley:
I asked ChatGPT the same question and here's what it said (below) - what do you think? (…)

Claude:
Looking at ChatGPT's additional suggestions alongside mine, I notice some interesting patterns: ChatGPT's suggestions are generally more open-ended and nature-oriented. Given your emphasis on organic learning and experimentation, ChatGPT's approach feels more aligned with your voice. (…)

Would you like to explore how any of these could be woven more deeply into the piece's structure?

Jeremy moves back to ChatGPT. The constant back-and-forth between Utley and two chatbots provides him with ongoing critiques of their output and lets him ask for adjustments.

Utley:
Awesome. I asked Claude if it would give feedback on the synthesis so far, so please read that below and then let me know what you think about Claude's assessment of the piece. Be reflective, be honest, be critical of your own work, be humble – but also feel free to challenge anything that you think is wrong (…)

ChatGPT:
Claude's critique is insightful and well-structured, especially in identifying areas where the brief could be even sharper. Here's a reflective analysis of Claude's feedback: Strengths in Claude's critique (…)
Areas where I’d challenge or adapt Claude's feedback (…)
Suggested rewrite of the brief based on Claude's input (…)

Here's an updated version of the brief with Claude's most actionable points integrated (...)

Utley:
So I'm just riffing here. I agree with Claude's assessment that your metaphors were more organic and open-ended and kind of consistent with my voice more than the mechanical metaphors that it used. That being said, I don't know that we're totally there, so here's some thoughts (…)

ChatGPT:
These reflections really add clarity to your direction. Here's what I'm gathering from your riff: (… )

Here's the updated assignment brief, now positioning the post as the "trailhead" for readers' journey of discovery (...)

Jeremy moves to Claude for feedback.

Utley:
I asked ChatGPT to work on updating the brief and it created this – please tell me what you think as you compare yours with its, identify the key strengths of ChatGPT's and incorporate those into a revision of your brief:

Claude:
Let me analyze ChatGPT's brief compared to mine and then identify its key strengths: superior organization, language precision and journey integration.

Let me synthesize these strengths with the unique elements from my brief into a revised version. This revision maintains the strengths of my original brief while incorporating ChatGPT's superior structure and standalone positioning.

Back to ChatGPT:
Hey! I asked Claude for feedback on this draft and I thought some of the feedback was dead-on. Can you incorporate this feedback into an iteration of the post?

ChatGPT:
Here's the revised draft with Claude's feedback woven in, creating a sharper, more conversational opening, tightening metaphors and adding punchy, direct language throughout.

Let me know if there are any further adjustments you'd like to make to keep it aligned with your voice and objectives!