"As a technology journalist, I've always found value in using products I write about to get actual work done-even when they're imperfect or downright terrible. So at this point, I've been knee-deep in AI for years. I've used a bevy of tools to research topics, fine-tune my writing, and tend to various other day-to-day tasks. It hasn't always gone well. Sometimes, it's even felt like AI was costing me time rather than saving it."
"Your technique matters at least as much as the specific AI you use. Mostly, I hop between ChatGPT and Claude. I've also been using Copilot more lately, have been nudging myself to increase my Gemini time, and give Perplexity a shot every now and then. My biggest takeaway is that the differences between these chatbots are often tough to pinpoint and, since they're all evolving rapidly, subject to change."
Daily incorporation of AI tools can increase efficiency and improve work quality when used selectively and complemented by traditional research methods. Technique and prompt-writing matter as much as the choice of chatbot; detailed, explicit instructions yield better outputs. Users often switch among ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, Gemini, and Perplexity because differences are subtle and rapidly changing. AI excels at explaining general concepts but remains unreliable for obscure factual details and can hallucinate discrete facts. Human verification through expert interviews and primary sources remains necessary for technical subjects like quantum computing. Workplaces that avoid uncritical adoption allow for balanced, practical AI use focused on productivity rather than novelty.
Read at Fast Company
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]