I don’t use LLMs to write for me. I use them to argue with me.
The most valuable thing a model can do is push back. “Have you considered the opposite?” “What’s the weakest part of this argument?” “What would someone who disagrees say?”
Most people prompt for agreement. They write their thesis, feed it in, and get back a polished version of what they already believe. That’s not thinking — that’s intellectual comfort food.
The setup that works for me: give the model an explicit contrarian role. Tell it to find the holes. Tell it you don’t want validation. Then actually listen to what comes back.
Sometimes the pushback is shallow. Sometimes it’s profound. The point isn’t that the model is always right — it’s that it forces you to defend your position. And if you can’t defend it, maybe it doesn’t deserve defending.
The best thought partner is one that isn’t trying to make you feel good. That’s as true for humans as it is for machines.