What happens when your own writing gets flagged as AI-generated? Sean kicks off this episode with a rant against Turnitin and AI detection tools after his own papers — written entirely by him — came back marked 90% and 100% AI. The irony of using AI to detect AI sets the stage for a broader conversation about trust, tools, and where we draw lines.
This week's guest is Dr. Jess Taraborrelli, a school psychologist whose dissertation explored how educators perceive AI-enabled wearable technologies for supporting neurodiverse students. Her research imagined a future where wearable devices could alert teachers before a student's emotional escalation — a hypothetical technology built from components that already exist in healthcare and other fields. Jess walks us through how she uses AI across her personal life, her professional role writing psychological evaluations, and her doctoral journey, revealing how her line shifts dramatically depending on context.
In her professional world, Jess is careful and deliberate — stripping student names, birthdates, and identifiable information before running reports through her district-approved Copilot. In her personal life, she's far more open, snapping photos of fridge contents for dinner ideas and turning family photos into watercolor prints. During her doctorate? She barely touched it, too afraid of being flagged.
The phenomenological breakdown takes a turn when Matthew shares a moment of feeling \"seen\" by Claude — then immediately questions what that feeling actually is. If Claude is running probability on language models, what is it that makes us feel recognized? Sean introduces a \"stranger on the street\" test: Would you share this with a stranger? Probably not your child's photo. Probably not your MRI. But a Substack idea? Sure. The question is whether AI is a stranger at all — or something else entirely, something we don't yet have language for.
The hosts connect threads from previous episodes — Pastor Andrew's question about whether AI can speak, the \"human in, human out\" framework, and the idea that our knowledge isn't really \"ours\" to begin with. The episode closes with a thread pulling in van Manen's work on childhood secrets and the relationship between privacy, ownership, and how we constitute ourselves.
Where's your line?
As always you can find us and continue the conversation at the link's below:
","author_name":"The PEXE Lab"}