AIYINGFrom AI Awareness to Accomplishment
Showing posts with label POrables. Show all posts
Showing posts with label POrables. Show all posts

Thursday, November 12, 2026

POrable #003 — The Garden That Forgot How to Grow | When Generative AI Stops Growth

AIYING · POrables #003 · Lateral AI

The Garden That Forgot How to Grow



A story about Generative AI, abundance, and the possibility of discovering what nobody has imagined.

From Deadlock to Gateway of Possibilities

Imagine a garden capable of producing any flower instantly.

Every colour. Every shape. Every impossible combination. Nothing ever fails.

Would that be the most successful garden in the world?

Or could something essential disappear when everything becomes possible?

PO: Generativity is sterility.

This is not a statement to accept or reject. It is a deliberate provocation. Let us see where it takes us.

The POrable

In a village called Everbloom lived a gardener named Arin.

His garden was famous throughout the kingdom. People travelled for days to see his roses, lilies and orchids.

But Arin had one problem.

Flowers took time to grow. Some seeds never sprouted. Some plants died. Others bloomed too late for the spring festival.

One year, a brilliant inventor arrived with a remarkable machine.

"Describe any flower," she said, "and my machine will create it instantly."

Arin was astonished.

He asked for a blue rose. The machine produced one.

He asked for a golden lily. It appeared.

He asked for a flower that had never existed.

The machine produced a magnificent blossom with silver petals that changed colour in sunlight.

Arin bought the machine.

Soon his garden became the most beautiful in the world.

There were no weeds, no pests, no waiting and no failed harvests.

Every flower was perfect.

And every morning, the machine generated thousands more.

Years passed.

The village prospered. Gardeners became flower designers. Children learned to describe extraordinary blossoms rather than plant ordinary seeds.

The old greenhouses became exhibition halls.

The seed merchants closed their shops.

Nobody noticed that the village's last packet of seeds had been placed in a museum.

Then, one spring morning, a little girl named Mira visited Arin.

She carried a small, brown seed.

"Can you make this grow?" she asked.

Arin smiled.

"Why grow it? Tell me what flower you want, and I will give you a thousand."

"But I don't know what flower it will become," Mira replied.

"Then the machine can invent one."

Mira shook her head.

"I don't want the flower I imagine. I want to discover the flower I cannot imagine."

Arin had no answer.

For the first time in many years, he looked beyond the perfect blossoms surrounding him.

He noticed that the garden had no bees.

No butterflies.

No fallen seeds.

No new shoots emerging unexpectedly from the soil.

The flowers were beautiful. But nothing in the garden was growing.

That evening, Arin called the inventor.

"Your machine has made our garden sterile," he complained.

The inventor examined the machine carefully.

"It produces everything you ask for," she said. "It is working perfectly."

"Then make it produce something that grows."

"Describe what you want."

Arin paused.

For the first time, he understood the difficulty.

He could describe a flower. He could describe a seed.

But he could not describe what an unknown seed might become under conditions nobody had yet encountered.

Mira, who had been listening, suddenly spoke.

PO: A garden should produce no flowers.

Arin laughed.

"A garden without flowers?"

"Yes," said Mira. "What if the purpose of a garden were not to produce flowers, but to make new flowers possible?"

The inventor became thoughtful.

She turned to her machine and entered a different instruction.

Do not generate a flower. Generate conditions in which an unexpected flower might emerge.

The machine remained silent.

Then it displayed something nobody had requested before.

A map of the garden.

It showed where the soil had become lifeless, where insects could return, where rainwater might collect, and where different plants could grow together.

It proposed dozens of experiments.

Some would fail.

Others might succeed.

None promised a perfect flower.

Arin was disappointed.

"Is that all?"

The inventor smiled.

"For the first time, the machine has given you something you cannot simply display."

"What is that?"

"Something to discover."

The next morning, Arin cleared a small corner of his magnificent garden.

He loosened the soil.

Mira planted her seed.

The machine monitored the conditions and suggested experiments, but it did not produce a flower.

Days passed.

Nothing happened.

Then a tiny green shoot appeared.

It was crooked. Its leaves were uneven. And nobody knew what it would become.

The villagers gathered around it.

They had seen a million perfect flowers.

Yet never before had so many people been excited by something so small.

Months later, the village held its annual flower festival.

The machine-generated blossoms were as magnificent as ever.

But the longest queue formed outside a modest patch of soil.

A wooden sign stood beside it.

THE GARDEN OF THINGS NOT YET KNOWN

And beneath it, Mira had written:

"Here, we do not come to see what has been generated. We come to discover what can grow."

The Lateral Thinking Breakthrough

The obvious interpretation of this story is that technology can make people dependent on machines.

But that is not the most interesting discovery.

The deeper breakthrough is a change in the purpose of the machine.

OLD PURPOSE
Generate flowers
Produce desired outcomes
→
NEW PURPOSE
Generate conditions
Enable unforeseen outcomes

The machine was not discarded.

It became more useful by changing what it generated.

The discovery:
Generativity need not mean producing more finished things. It can mean creating the conditions from which new possibilities emerge.

How the PO Worked

In Edward de Bono's lateral thinking, a provocation is not an assertion that must be proved.

It is a device for moving outside an established pattern of thinking.

  1. Recognize: The garden produces extraordinary abundance.
  2. Expose: We assume a successful garden is one that produces beautiful flowers.
  3. Provoke: PO: Generativity is sterility.
  4. Move: Could a flower-producing machine eliminate the conditions for future growth?
  5. Discover: Generativity can create conditions for emergence rather than finished products.
  6. Accomplish: Redesign the machine to support experiments, discovery and independent growth.

The second provocation, "A garden should produce no flowers," produces the decisive movement.

Instead of improving flower production, Mira changes what the garden is for.

Lateral AI: What Does This Mean for Generative AI?

Generative AI can produce remarkable quantities of content, code, images, designs and solutions.

But quantity of output is not the same as the growth of human capability.

Consider three possibilities.

1. Education

Instead of generating an answer for a student, AI could generate an experiment through which the student discovers the answer.

The outcome is not merely an answer. It is a stronger learner.

2. AI Engineering

Instead of generating more code, AI could expose hidden assumptions, propose alternative architectures and design tests that challenge the current approach.

The outcome is not merely more code. It is better engineering judgment.

3. Innovation

Instead of generating a hundred product ideas, AI could help design customer experiments that reveal needs nobody had anticipated.

The outcome is not merely an idea catalogue. It is a discovery process.

A new design question for AI:

What if we evaluated AI not only by how much it generates, but by how much new human thinking, learning and discovery it makes possible?

Try It: The Garden Experiment

Here is a small Lateral AI exercise you can try today.

  1. Choose a task for which you normally ask AI to produce a finished answer.
  2. Ask AI to identify the assumptions behind the task.
  3. Ask it to generate conditions, questions and experiments rather than a finished solution.
  4. Choose one experiment and carry it out yourself.
  5. Record one discovery that was not present in your original request.

Reusable Lateral AI Prompt

I want to explore the following challenge: [Describe your challenge] Do not immediately produce a finished solution. Instead: 1. Identify the assumptions that shape how this challenge is currently understood. 2. Introduce this provocation: PO: Generativity is sterility. 3. Use the provocation as a stepping stone. Explore what could be lost when we generate more finished outputs. 4. Propose three different conditions under which genuinely unexpected possibilities might emerge. 5. Design one small, low-risk experiment that I can conduct myself. 6. Explain what evidence would help me judge the experiment. 7. End with one question that opens a new direction of thinking. Distinguish speculative possibilities from established facts. Do not claim that an experiment has succeeded before it is tested.

Your accomplishment: Not another AI-generated answer, but one new discovery made possible by AI-assisted thinking.

A Question for Readers

Imagine you have an AI capable of generating a thousand ideas every minute.

What would happen if you stopped asking it for more ideas?

What would you ask it to generate instead?

Conditions for discovery? Questions nobody is asking? Experiments that challenge assumptions? Or human capability to think independently?

Share one surprising interpretation in the comments.

The aim is not to agree with the PO. The aim is to move somewhere new.

The garden did not become truly generative when it could produce a million flowers.

It became generative when it could once again produce something nobody had imagined.

PO: Generativity is sterility.

Perhaps the next frontier of Generative AI is not generating more things.

Perhaps it is helping more things grow.

AIYING | Lateral AI

POrables #003
From Deadlock to Gateway of Possibilities

Inspired by Edward de Bono's lateral thinking principles, especially provocation, movement and concept restructuring.

An original POrable applying lateral thinking to the age of Generative AI.

Think Beyond the Generated.

Wednesday, November 4, 2026

POrable #009: The Engineer Who Planned to Be Forgotten

PORABLES — FROM DEADLOCK TO POSSIBILITY

POrable #009: The Engineer Who Planned to Be Forgotten

By Ravindra Dastikop



The story

Every morning, Kavya explained the project again.

The AI coding agent had worked on it the previous afternoon. But after a fresh session began, it sometimes repeated completed work, overlooked an earlier decision or announced that an unfinished feature was ready.

Kavya wrote longer instructions.

Soon, the instructions needed instructions.

She worked on the agent’s harness: the software and working arrangements that supplied context, connected tools and organised its execution.

Her colleague suggested keeping the conversation going for longer.

Kavya looked at the growing history.

“What if the agent forgot me completely—and still knew exactly where to begin?”

She wrote the thought down.

Perhaps the project could introduce itself. Perhaps every stopping point could become an arrival point. Perhaps the next session could discover the state of the work without hearing the whole story.

She chose the second possibility.

Before improving the next instruction, she redesigned the handover.

The project received a short starting page linking to its requirements, decisions and current work. Each feature had an observable acceptance condition.

At the end of a work session, the agent was asked to record what changed, which checks had actually run, what remained uncertain and the next useful step. Changes were saved in version control.

The following morning, Kavya deliberately opened a fresh session.

“Continue the project.”

The agent read the starting page and inspected the latest changes.

The handover said the booking form was complete.

The acceptance check disagreed.

A booking appeared on screen, but disappeared after the page was refreshed.

Previously, Kavya might have discovered that during a demonstration.

This time, the restart routine required the agent to verify the existing application before adding another feature.

It reproduced the failure and resumed work on the booking form.

Later, another session encountered conflicting notes. It paused and asked Kavya which decision remained valid.

She corrected the record.

The handover system wasn’t infallible. It had made the uncertainty visible.

Over the next week, Kavya compared the revised harness with the earlier setup on the same tasks, using separate clean workspaces and repeated runs.

She tracked completed acceptance checks, repeated work, recovery effort, time and cost.

Some tasks benefited. Others showed little improvement. Maintaining the records also took effort.

She kept the parts that helped and simplified the rest.

At the next team meeting, someone asked whether she had finally made the agent remember everything.

“No,” Kavya said.

“I made it easier to find out what’s true.”

↑ Back to contents

The PO behind the story

“PO: The agent forgets me completely—and still knows where to begin.”

The provocation shifted Kavya’s attention from preserving every conversation to making the project’s current state discoverable and verifiable.

↑ Back to contents

Spot the lock

Kavya assumed that continuity depended on carrying more conversation forward.

What essential knowledge exists only in your chat history—or in your own memory?

↑ Back to contents

Find the gateway

She explored several possibilities before choosing structured handovers.

The practical move was to give a fresh session a reliable starting point, supported by evidence of the work already done.

The record guided the agent. Checks could challenge the record.

↑ Back to contents

Try the move

Choose a small project and prepare a handover containing:

  • The intended outcome and acceptance conditions.
  • The current version of the work.
  • Decisions and unresolved questions.
  • Checks performed and their results.
  • The next useful step.

Start a fresh session and observe where it struggles. Compare its account with the actual project state.

Treat the handover as a working record that needs verification and maintenance.

↑ Back to contents

Research note

This fictional POrable draws on published harness-engineering practices. Here, “harness engineer” describes the work Kavya performs; job titles and the boundaries of that work vary.

Persistent project records, structured handovers, incremental work and executable checks are documented approaches. They do not guarantee reliable completion, and their costs and benefits depend on the task, model and implementation.

The characters, dialogue and outcomes are invented. The PO is an original modern adaptation, not a quotation from Edward de Bono.

↑ Back to contents

Further reading

↑ Back to contents

Explore more POrables

POrables — From Deadlock to Possibility

A story to enjoy. A shift to discover. A possibility to try.

By Ravindra Dastikop
AIYING — Accomplishing with AI

POrable #008: The Engineer Who Asked for a Worse Demo

PORABLES — FROM DEADLOCK TO POSSIBILITY

 The Engineer Who Asked for a Worse Demo

By Ravindra Dastikop



The story

Every Friday, Dev’s AI demonstration impressed the client.

Every Monday, someone explained why it wouldn’t work in their department.

Dev was a forward-deployed engineer. He worked alongside the client’s staff to turn AI capabilities into a system they could depend on.

But the project had become a procession of successful demonstrations and postponed decisions.

“Make the next demo more convincing,” his manager said.

Dev polished the interface. Improved the examples. Rehearsed the presentation.

Then he stopped.

“What if the next demonstration looked worse—and helped us move forward?”

He opened a blank document.

What could “worse” mean?

More interruptions, perhaps. More unanswered questions. A system that stopped instead of confidently completing everything. A meeting in which customers explained their work while the engineer listened.

One possibility caught his attention.

What if the demonstration’s purpose was to uncover what they still didn’t understand?

At the next meeting, Dev made an unusual request.

“Bring a difficult case that represents your actual work. Use synthetic or appropriately sanitised information. Before we run it, tell me what a useful result would look like.”

The operations lead brought a request with missing information.

“We need the missing details,” she said. “But we shouldn’t have to start the whole request again.”

A specialist brought two documents that contradicted each other.

“Show me the disagreement and where it comes from. Don’t quietly choose one.”

A supervisor brought a case requiring approval from someone outside the room.

“Prepare the recommendation,” he said. “But only the authorised person can approve the action.”

They ran the cases.

The assistant stopped without explaining what information was missing.

It overlooked the contradiction.

Then it proposed an action the user wasn’t authorised to approve.

Dev’s demonstration had never looked worse.

For the first time, the team could put precise requirements beside the failures.

Each case received an expected outcome, an owner and a repeatable check.

Dev began drawing.

Incomplete requests would become requests for specific missing details. Conflicting documents would be surfaced with supporting passages. Restricted actions would become approval requests.

The AI could prepare those requests, but the execution service would act only after verifying the approver’s authority.

“Will this make it ready?” the supervisor asked.

“It gives us something concrete to build and test,” Dev replied.

Over the following days, they tested ordinary requests alongside difficult ones. They repeated trials and reserved additional cases that hadn’t been used while developing the system.

They measured useful completions, missed exceptions, unnecessary escalations and review time. They checked that unauthorised actions remained blocked.

Some changes helped. Others created new problems.

The team revised the workflow and tested again.

When the agreed criteria were met, they began a narrow, monitored pilot.

At the next demonstration, the assistant asked for missing details, highlighted a disagreement and paused for approval.

It looked less effortless.

It looked more like the work the client needed done.

↑ Back to contents

The PO behind the story

“PO: A worse demonstration is progress.”

The provocation did not make failure desirable. It opened a different purpose for the demonstration: discovering requirements rather than displaying effortless success.

The demonstration looked less impressive because it had become more informative.

↑ Back to contents

Spot the lock

Dev assumed that a more convincing demonstration would resolve the client’s hesitation.

What does your demonstration leave out to keep everything running smoothly?

↑ Back to contents

Find the gateway

Dev explored several meanings of “worse” before choosing one to pursue.

The resulting shift was from “Watch what our AI can do” to “Help us discover what this work requires.”

Difficult cases became shared design material. Expected outcomes turned them into evaluation cases.

↑ Back to contents

Try the move

Choose one prototype and invite intended users to contribute three difficult, representative cases using synthetic or appropriately sanitised information.

Before running each case, agree:

  • What should the system complete?
  • What should it flag or ask?
  • Which actions require authority?
  • How will you check the result?

Test ordinary cases too. Repeat trials and include cases not used during development.

Treat the exercise as a starting point for learning—not proof of deployment readiness.

↑ Back to contents

Research note

This is an original, source-informed fictional POrable. Its depiction of customer collaboration, evaluation and controlled execution draws on published engineering practices.

The characters, dialogue and outcomes are invented. The PO is a modern adaptation, not a quotation from Edward de Bono. The story does not establish that these engineering practices are new or that worse demonstrations inherently produce progress.

↑ Back to contents

Further reading

↑ Back to contents

Explore more POrables

POrables — From Deadlock to Possibility

A story to enjoy. A shift to discover. A possibility to try.

By Ravindra Dastikop
AIYING — Accomplishing with AI

Tuesday, November 3, 2026

Lateral AI Skills #001 — The Student Who Got the Perfect AI Answer

AIYING PRESENTS · LATERAL AI SKILLS #001

The Student Who Got the Perfect AI Answer — and Asked the Wrong Question



How Edward de Bono's lateral thinking can help us develop one of the most important human skills for working with AI: problem reframing.

Think Beyond the Prompt.

AI-Age Skill #001: Problem Reframing

An original POrable inspired by Edward de Bono's Lateral Thinking: A Textbook of Creativity.

1. The POrable

The answer was excellent. The thinking was incomplete.

Ananya was a university student preparing an assignment on food waste.

Her teacher had asked the class to communicate the causes of food waste and suggest practical ways of reducing it.

Ananya opened her AI assistant.

"Help me write an excellent essay on food waste."

Within seconds, the AI produced a compelling introduction, a logical structure, supporting arguments and a polished conclusion.

Ananya was impressed.

She asked the AI to improve the language.

Then to strengthen the arguments.

Then to make the introduction more engaging.

Then to suggest a more memorable conclusion.

Each response was better than the previous one.

After an hour, Ananya had an impressive essay.

She showed it to her friend Meera.

Meera read it carefully.

"This is very good," she said.

Ananya smiled.

Then Meera asked an unexpected question.

"Why are you writing an essay?"

Ananya looked puzzled.

"Because I have to communicate something about food waste."

"But did the teacher ask for an essay?"

Ananya reopened the assignment.

The instruction was simple:

Communicate the problem of food waste and propose a practical solution.

There was no requirement to write an essay.

Ananya stared at the screen.

She had spent an hour improving an answer to a question she had never needed to ask.

A different question

She opened a new AI conversation.

This time, she did not ask for a better essay.

She asked:

What are five fundamentally different ways to help students understand food waste and take action? Do not assume the solution must be written.

The AI suggested a short film, an interactive quiz, a visual display, a food-waste diary and a student-led experiment.

Ananya was interested in the last possibility.

She explored it further.

What if students measured the food left on their plates for one week, identified the reasons, and designed their own small changes?

The assignment could become an experiment rather than an explanation.

She checked the assignment requirements, discussed the approach with her teacher and received permission to proceed.

For the next week, Ananya and three classmates conducted a small voluntary food-waste observation exercise in their campus dining area.

They recorded observations without identifying individual students, compared patterns and proposed ways to reduce avoidable waste.

The experiment was modest. The findings were not scientifically conclusive.

But the group had something valuable: direct observations, questions worth investigating and a practical proposal that could be tested further.

At the presentation, Ananya began with a question.

"Before we explain food waste, can we find out where it happens on our own campus?"

Her classmates began discussing what they could do.

The original essay might have earned a good grade.

The new approach gave them an opportunity to investigate a real problem.

The realization

That evening, Ananya opened her original AI conversation.

She scrolled through the increasingly polished essays.

The AI had performed exactly as requested.

It had improved the structure, vocabulary, clarity and arguments.

But every improvement had remained inside the same assumption:

The answer must be an essay.

Ananya finally understood.

The AI had helped her improve the answer. She had needed to improve the question.

This is an original fictional teaching story. It is not presented as a documented classroom experiment or an example from de Bono's book.

↑ Back to contents

2. The Hidden Thinking Trap

Ananya's mistake was not using AI.

It was allowing her first interpretation of the assignment to become the unquestioned framework for everything that followed.

Vertical development

Write an essay
↓
Improve the essay
↓
Perfect the essay

The thinking becomes increasingly effective within one selected direction.

Lateral exploration

How might students understand and reduce food waste?
Possible direction Different way of approaching the objective
Essay Explain the problem through written argument.
Film Communicate through visual storytelling.
Quiz Encourage active participation.
Diary Encourage observation of personal habits.
Experiment Investigate a local problem through direct evidence.

The first approach improves a chosen solution. The second reconsideres the choice itself.

The skill is not abandoning vertical thinking. It is knowing when to explore other directions before selecting and developing one.

↑ Back to contents

3. The de Bono Foundation

The methodological foundation comes from Edward de Bono's Lateral Thinking: A Textbook of Creativity, first published in 1970.

Three parts of the book are especially relevant to this episode.

A. Difference between lateral and vertical thinking

De Bono distinguishes between two complementary ways of using information.

Vertical thinking is selective and develops a direction through logical steps.

Lateral thinking is generative. It seeks to open new directions by changing established ways of perceiving and organizing information.

The distinction is not that one is good and the other is bad. Both are necessary.

B. The generation of alternatives

In the chapter titled The Generation of Alternatives, de Bono explains that a particular way of looking at something is only one of several possible ways.

The lateral search for alternatives is deliberately different from simply finding the first satisfactory solution.

A thinker may find a promising approach and still continue generating other possibilities.

The purpose is to loosen established patterns, not merely to select a winner immediately.

C. Challenging assumptions

In Challenging Assumptions, de Bono extends this principle to the basic ideas on which our thinking rests.

We may rearrange familiar ideas without questioning whether those ideas themselves should be reconsidered.

Ananya questioned the assumption that the assignment required an essay.

That opened the possibility of entirely different forms of learning and communication.

Authentic methodological sequence:
Recognize an established direction → explore alternatives → challenge the assumed framework → generate a new direction → evaluate its usefulness.

This sequence is an instructional synthesis of relevant ideas in the book, not a named five-step framework attributed to de Bono.

De Bono also emphasizes practice. Understanding lateral thinking intellectually is not the same as developing the habit of using it.

↑ Back to contents

4. The AI-Age Interpretation

Generative AI can produce useful answers quickly. But a well-formed answer does not establish that the original question was well framed.

If a person asks AI to improve an essay, the system may continue improving essays without questioning whether an essay is necessary.

This is not an unavoidable limitation of AI. The same system can also help challenge assumptions, generate alternatives and explore unfamiliar directions when prompted to do so.

Conventional AI use Lateral AI skill
Ask for an answer Examine the question
Improve the first output Generate different approaches
Accept the given format Reconsider the format
Optimize for polish Explore alternative purposes
Select quickly Explore before judging
Produce a deliverable Seek a useful outcome
AI-age principle: Do not confuse the quality of an AI-generated answer with the quality of the question that produced it.

The following AI Thinking Lab applies this principle to six everyday and professional situations.

These are original contemporary adaptations of de Bono's thinking principles. They are not exercises reproduced from his book.

↑ Back to contents

5. AI Thinking Lab: Six Applications

Choose the application closest to your own situation. Each includes a thinking trap, a reframed objective, a reusable AI prompt and a small experiment.

The prompts are designed to support exploration. They do not guarantee better decisions. Evaluate AI-generated ideas against real requirements, evidence and practical constraints.

APPLICATION 01 · STUDENT

The student who asked AI to improve an assignment

Situation: You need to communicate a complex topic for a class assignment.

Hidden assumption: The best way to demonstrate understanding is to produce a polished written document.

Lateral shift: Move from improving the document to reconsidering how understanding could be demonstrated.

Try this AI prompt

I am a student preparing an assignment. My topic is: [INSERT TOPIC]. The assignment requirements are: [INSERT REQUIREMENTS]. I want to apply Edward de Bono's lateral thinking principle of generating alternatives. First, identify the assumptions in my current approach. Then propose at least five fundamentally different ways to demonstrate understanding of this topic. Do not give five variations of the same format. Include one unconventional possibility. For each alternative, explain what different learning or communication opportunity it creates. Do not rank the ideas initially. After generating the alternatives, evaluate them against my actual assignment requirements. Recommend one small experiment I could try before choosing my final approach. Do not invent evidence or assume permission to change the assignment format.

Small experiment: Choose two different formats and create a short prototype of each. Ask a classmate which one communicates the central idea more clearly.

Skill demonstrated: Distinguishing the learning objective from the assumed form of the assignment.

APPLICATION 02 · JOB SEEKER

The job seeker who kept improving the same CV

Situation: You have applied for several jobs without receiving many interview invitations.

Hidden assumption: The solution is to keep improving the CV.

Lateral shift: Move from optimizing a document to exploring different ways of demonstrating employability and reaching suitable opportunities.

Try this AI prompt

I am looking for a job. My background is: [INSERT BACKGROUND]. My target roles are: [INSERT ROLES]. My constraints are: [INSERT CONSTRAINTS]. I have mainly focused on improving my CV and applying through job portals. Use lateral thinking to challenge my assumption that improving the CV is the main solution. Identify at least three hidden assumptions. Generate six substantially different approaches to finding suitable opportunities. Consider approaches such as demonstrating skills, building evidence of capability, direct outreach, professional networks and alternative role definitions, but do not limit the search to these categories. Do not invent vacancies, employers or contacts. For each approach, explain its potential, limitations and practical requirements. After exploration, help me select two realistic approaches for a seven-day experiment. Keep recommendations consistent with my qualifications and constraints.

Small experiment: Compare one conventional application with one alternative approach, such as sending a relevant work sample to a suitable employer.

Skill demonstrated: Reframing job search from document optimization to credible opportunity creation.

APPLICATION 03 · PROFESSIONAL

The professional who asked AI to work faster

Situation: You spend several hours each week preparing recurring reports.

Hidden assumption: The reports must continue in their present form, only faster.

Lateral shift: Move from accelerating the existing process to questioning the purpose of the report itself.

Try this AI prompt

I am a professional responsible for a recurring task. The task is: [DESCRIBE TASK]. Its intended purpose is: [DESCRIBE PURPOSE]. Its current workflow is: [DESCRIBE STEPS]. I want to use lateral thinking before asking AI to automate the existing process. Identify assumptions about why the task is performed in its present form. Generate at least five different ways to achieve the underlying objective. Include possibilities that eliminate, simplify, redesign or replace parts of the current workflow. Do not assume automation is always desirable. Separate speculative possibilities from realistic near-term options. Evaluate the options for usefulness, accuracy, human oversight, confidentiality, cost and implementation effort. Recommend a small reversible pilot that could test one promising option.

Small experiment: Ask one report recipient which information actually influences their decisions. Prototype a shorter decision-focused report using non-sensitive data.

Skill demonstrated: Reframing productivity from doing the same work faster to achieving the purpose more effectively.

APPLICATION 04 · TEACHER

The teacher who asked AI for better explanations

Situation: Students are struggling to understand a difficult concept.

Hidden assumption: The teacher needs a clearer or longer explanation.

Lateral shift: Move from improving explanations to exploring different ways students could construct understanding.

Try this AI prompt

I am teaching the following concept: [INSERT CONCEPT]. My learners are: [AGE OR LEVEL]. Their current difficulty is: [DESCRIBE DIFFICULTY]. I usually explain the concept and provide examples. Challenge the assumption that a better explanation is necessarily the best intervention. Generate six different learning approaches. Consider discovery, observation, comparison, experimentation, questioning, collaboration and visual representation where appropriate. Do not simply produce six rewritten explanations. For each approach, identify what learners would actually do and what understanding the activity might reveal. Indicate possible misconceptions and limitations. Recommend one low-cost classroom experiment with a simple way to assess learning. Do not present unverified educational outcomes as established facts.

Small experiment: Teach one concept using a brief explanation, then use an alternative discovery activity. Check understanding with the same short assessment.

Skill demonstrated: Reframing teaching from delivering information to creating opportunities for learning.

APPLICATION 05 · HOMEMAKER

The homemaker who asked AI for a better schedule

Situation: Daily household responsibilities feel increasingly difficult to manage.

Hidden assumption: Every existing task must remain, but needs to be scheduled more efficiently.

Lateral shift: Move from managing the existing workload to reconsidering which activities are necessary and how household needs can be met.

Try this AI prompt

I want to improve how household responsibilities are managed. My recurring responsibilities include: [INSERT ACTIVITIES]. My main difficulties are: [INSERT DIFFICULTIES]. My household constraints are: [INSERT CONSTRAINTS]. Instead of immediately creating a better timetable, help me challenge the assumptions behind the present arrangement. Generate six fundamentally different approaches to meeting the household's needs. Explore simplification, shared responsibility, batching, reducing unnecessary work, changing routines and other possibilities. Do not assume every task must continue unchanged. Consider fairness, affordability, accessibility, family preferences and practical feasibility. After exploring alternatives, recommend one small change that could be tested for a week without disrupting essential needs.

Small experiment: Choose one recurring task and ask whether it could be reduced, shared, redesigned or eliminated. Test a consensual change for seven days.

Skill demonstrated: Reframing time management as a question of household design, not merely scheduling.

APPLICATION 06 · ENTREPRENEUR

The entrepreneur who asked AI for better marketing

Situation: A small business is not attracting enough customers.

Hidden assumption: The existing product and customer proposition are correct; only the marketing needs improvement.

Lateral shift: Move from promoting the current offer to reconsidering the customer problem and the value being offered.

Try this AI prompt

I run or plan to start a business. My current offer is: [DESCRIBE OFFER]. My intended customers are: [DESCRIBE CUSTOMERS]. My challenge is: [DESCRIBE CHALLENGE]. I have been considering better marketing as the main solution. Use Edward de Bono's principle of generating alternatives to challenge this assumption. Identify hidden assumptions about the customer, problem, offer, delivery method and revenue model. Generate at least six substantially different ways to create value for the intended customers. Include at least one provocative possibility that challenges the current business model. Do not invent customer demand or market evidence. Separate ideas from assumptions requiring validation. Evaluate the alternatives for customer usefulness, feasibility, cost and major risks. Design one inexpensive customer discovery or prototype experiment to test a promising idea.

Small experiment: Interview three potential customers about the problem they actually experience before investing in another marketing campaign.

Skill demonstrated: Reframing business growth from selling harder to discovering a more valuable proposition.

↑ Back to contents

6. The Universal Lateral AI Prompt

The following prompt can be used in almost any personal, educational or professional situation.

Its purpose is not to produce a perfect answer. It is to create a deliberate opportunity to explore different directions.

I want to practise problem reframing using Edward de Bono's lateral thinking principles. My current situation is: [DESCRIBE SITUATION]. The solution I am currently considering is: [DESCRIBE SOLUTION]. My real objective is: [DESCRIBE OBJECTIVE, IF KNOWN]. Please guide me through these stages: 1. OBJECTIVE Distinguish what I want to accomplish from the solution I have assumed. 2. ASSUMPTIONS Identify at least three assumptions embedded in my current approach. Ask me to verify important assumptions. 3. ALTERNATIVES Generate at least five fundamentally different ways to approach the objective. Do not merely vary the wording or format of the same solution. 4. EXPLORATION Include one unconventional or provocative possibility. Explain what new direction it might open without treating it as an immediately practical recommendation. 5. DELAYED JUDGEMENT Do not rank or reject the ideas until we have explored their possibilities. 6. EVALUATION Now compare the alternatives against the actual objective, evidence, constraints, risks and feasibility. 7. ACCOMPLISHMENT Recommend one small, reversible, real-world experiment to test a promising approach. Distinguish facts, assumptions and speculative suggestions. Help me think differently. Do not make the final decision for me.
Important: The prompt is a contemporary AIYING adaptation. It is not an original prompt or formal framework published by Edward de Bono.
↑ Back to contents

7. Skill Self-Assessment

Complete this assessment after using one of the prompts.

Question 1

What assumption was hidden in your original request?

Question 2

Which alternative genuinely changed the direction of your thinking?

Question 3

Did you generate alternatives before selecting the most promising option?

Question 4

What evidence or real-world test would help you evaluate the new approach?

Question 5

What will you do differently the next time you use AI?

When have I demonstrated the skill?

You have demonstrated the basic skill of problem reframing when you can:

  • Separate the objective from your assumed solution.
  • Identify an assumption worth challenging.
  • Generate genuinely different approaches.
  • Explain why an alternative changes the problem frame.
  • Select a practical test based on real constraints.

This is a formative learning checklist, not a scientifically validated competency assessment.

Skill acquired: Problem Reframing

The ability to reconsider the question, challenge an assumed solution and explore alternative directions before committing to an answer.

↑ Back to contents

8. From Possibility to Accomplishment

Lateral thinking is not an argument for rejecting every conventional solution.

Sometimes the first solution is the best one.

Sometimes an essay is exactly what is required.

Sometimes improving a CV, automating a report or developing better marketing is entirely appropriate.

The important difference is whether the choice has been made deliberately.

A lateral thinker explores alternative directions. A responsible thinker then evaluates them against the real objective, evidence, constraints and consequences.

In the AI age, both abilities matter.

The danger is not that AI gives us the wrong answer. It is that we may become exceptionally good at answering a question we never needed to ask.

Before asking AI to improve something, ask whether that something is what needs improving.

And before asking for a better answer, consider whether there is a better question.

One action you can take today

Open an AI conversation in which you have repeatedly asked for improvements.

Stop improving the current output.

Ask:

"What assumption am I making about the kind of solution I need?"

Then deliberately explore five alternative directions.

You may return to your original approach.

But this time, it will be a choice rather than an unquestioned default.

↑ Back to contents

9. Sources and Methodology

Primary source:
Edward de Bono, Lateral Thinking: A Textbook of Creativity. First published by Ward Lock Education, 1970; Penguin Books reprint, 1990.

Relevant sections of the uploaded edition:

  • Introduction
  • Difference between lateral and vertical thinking
  • The Generation of Alternatives
  • Challenging Assumptions

The original book supports the distinction between generative and selective thinking, deliberate alternative generation, challenging established patterns, and practising lateral thinking as a skill.

Contemporary interpretation: The applications to generative AI, prompting, job search, teaching, productivity, household management and entrepreneurship are original AIYING adaptations.

Evidence boundaries: The Ananya story is fictional. The prompts and exercises are proposed learning activities, not empirically validated interventions.

No claim is made that de Bono anticipated modern generative AI or endorsed the applications presented here.

↑ Back to contents
AIYING PRESENTS

LATERAL AI SKILLS

Think Beyond the Prompt.

De Bono's Thinking Methods for the AI Age

AIYING — Accomplishing with AI

An original educational series inspired by Edward de Bono's lateral thinking principles. Not affiliated with or endorsed by the author's estate.

Next: Lateral AI Skills #002 — Recognizing Patterns in Human and AI Thinking.

POrable #007 — The Professional Who Was Too Good at His Job

POrable #007 | Research-Informed Edition

The Professional Who Was Too Good at His Job



When expertise becomes a filter instead of a doorway.

A contemporary POrable inspired by Edward de Bono's thinking methods and informed by research on expertise, cognitive fixation, and generative AI at work.

1. The Story

Arun had spent twenty years becoming the person everyone trusted.

When a project was in trouble, he found the flaw. When a proposal looked promising, he spotted the hidden risk. When an enthusiastic colleague announced a breakthrough, Arun knew which questions would expose its weaknesses.

His reputation was deserved.

He had saved his organization from expensive mistakes.

Then AI entered the workplace.

Colleagues began bringing him unfamiliar proposals: automated workflows, AI-assisted customer responses, new ways to analyze information, and processes that once required days but might now take hours.

Arun examined them carefully.

"This won't handle exceptions."

"The information could be unreliable."

"We cannot compromise quality."

Often, he was right.

Yet something unexpected began happening.

Some of the ideas he rejected returned weeks later in improved forms. Their creators had redesigned them, introduced human checks, narrowed their scope, or found a different use for the underlying principle.

Arun noticed that the original proposals had indeed been flawed.

But the possibilities behind them had not necessarily been flawed.

One afternoon, a colleague asked him a question he had never considered:

"Arun, when you find something wrong with an idea, do you also look for what might be right inside it?"

He had no immediate answer.

2. The Invisible Pattern

Arun's difficulty was not a lack of intelligence, imagination, or willingness to learn.

It was something subtler.

His experience had trained him to recognize familiar patterns with extraordinary efficiency.

That was his strength.

But the same strength sometimes led him to classify unfamiliar proposals before exploring what they might become.

He was excellent at answering:

"Will this work as proposed?"

He rarely asked:

"What could this become if we changed the proposal?"

The distinction mattered.

The first question evaluated an existing idea.

The second opened a search for alternatives.

Arun had become exceptionally good at the first without noticing how little time he gave the second.

3. The PO Interruption

At the next innovation meeting, Arun tried an experiment.

He wrote a deliberately provocative statement at the top of his notebook:

PO — Challenge for Change

PO: The expert must help an idea become possible before deciding whether it is acceptable.

Taken literally, the statement was unreasonable.

Experts could not postpone every judgment. Some ideas involved safety, privacy, legal obligations, or serious operational risks. Such concerns required immediate attention.

But PO was not a command to accept an unreasonable proposition.

It was a device for moving thinking away from an established pattern.

Arun began exploring what the provocation might reveal.

What if an expert's first contribution to a new idea was not a verdict?

What if it was an attempt to identify the useful principle hidden inside the proposal?

What if expert judgment could be applied twice: first to help develop a possibility, and then to evaluate it?

A different role for expertise began to emerge.

4. The Moment of Movement

A colleague proposed using AI to draft responses to complex customer complaints.

Arun immediately saw the weaknesses.

The system could misunderstand a customer's situation. It could produce inaccurate explanations. It could promise something the organization could not deliver.

His familiar response was ready:

"This is too risky."

But he remembered the provocation.

Instead, he asked:

"What is the useful principle here, even if the proposed solution is unacceptable?"

The team explored the question.

Perhaps AI should not send responses.

Perhaps it could prepare a draft for a trained employee to review.

Perhaps it could identify missing information before a response was written.

Perhaps it could help employees compare a draft with approved policy, while leaving the final decision to a human.

The original proposal had not survived.

Something more useful had emerged from it.

Arun's expertise had not become less important.

It had become essential in a different way.

He could now help the team distinguish a promising possibility from an unsafe implementation.

And he could do so without ending the exploration prematurely.

5. The Discovery

Arun realized that he had been treating ideas as finished objects.

Either they worked or they did not.

But many new ideas were not finished objects.

They were starting points.

An incomplete idea could contain a valuable principle. An impractical proposal could reveal a different application. A technically incorrect suggestion could provoke a better question.

His experience helped him recognize the defects.

Now he was learning to recognize the possibilities those defects might conceal.

He had spent twenty years learning how to recognize a bad idea. His next breakthrough came when he learned how to recognize what a bad idea might become.

6. The Research Behind the Story

Research transparency: Arun is a fictional character. His experience illustrates a research-informed possibility; it is not a documented case study or proof that the proposed technique works.

6.1 Why Expertise Can Create Blind Spots

Research by Bilalić, McLeod and Gobet (2008), studying expert chess players, found that familiar solutions could interfere with the discovery of better alternatives.

This phenomenon is often discussed in connection with the Einstellung effect: prior knowledge or a familiar solution can bias attention and problem-solving.

The implication is not that expertise is harmful. It is that expertise can sometimes make one approach so readily available that other approaches receive insufficient consideration.

Erik Dane's (2010) work on cognitive entrenchment further examines the tension between specialized expertise and cognitive flexibility.

Importantly, cognitive entrenchment is not inevitable. Expertise can also provide the knowledge needed to recognize, refine, and implement innovative ideas.

6.2 What Changes When AI Enters the Picture

In Generative AI at Work, Brynjolfsson, Li and Raymond (2025) studied AI assistance among 5,172 customer-support agents.

They reported an average productivity improvement of approximately 15%, with particularly large gains among less experienced and lower-skilled workers.

The study does not show that experienced professionals are less creative or inherently resistant to AI.

It shows something more relevant: AI can change how knowledge and experience translate into workplace performance, and its benefits are not distributed uniformly.

Research by Dell'Acqua and colleagues on the jagged technological frontier likewise demonstrates that AI assistance can improve performance on some knowledge-work tasks while creating difficulties on others.

Consequently, the professional challenge is not simply to adopt AI faster.

It is to determine where AI creates useful possibilities, where it introduces unacceptable risks, and how human expertise can distinguish between them.

6.3 What Edward de Bono Contributes

In The Mechanism of Mind, Edward de Bono developed a conceptual account of the mind as a pattern-forming information system.

This provides a useful theoretical lens for understanding why established perceptions can guide subsequent thinking.

In PO: Beyond Yes and No, de Bono introduced PO as a means of moving beyond immediate acceptance or rejection toward new possibilities.

His treatment of Challenge for Change is especially relevant here.

The challenge is not necessarily an assertion that the existing way is wrong.

It is an invitation to explore whether another way might be possible.

The PO statement in this story is an original contemporary application of that method, not a quotation from de Bono.

Nor should de Bono's conceptual account be treated as a complete neuroscientific explanation of expertise. The independent studies provide more specific evidence for the psychological and workplace claims.

7. From Possibility to Accomplishment

Arun introduced a small change to the way he reviewed unfamiliar proposals.

He separated exploration from final evaluation, while retaining immediate safeguards for serious risks.

He called it the Two-Pass Review.

PASS 1 — EXPLORE THE POSSIBILITY

Identify the useful principle, question the assumptions, and generate alternatives.

Ask what could be changed to make the idea more useful or feasible.

PASS 2 — APPLY EXPERT JUDGMENT

Examine feasibility, evidence, cost, reliability, safety, accountability, and unintended consequences.

Reject, redesign, or test the resulting proposal as appropriate.

The Two-Pass Review is a proposed practical adaptation of PO thinking, not a scientifically validated protocol.

Arun did not stop finding flaws.

He stopped assuming that finding a flaw meant the exploration had to end.

8. Try It Yourself: A Seven-Day PO Experiment

Choose one unfamiliar idea that you would normally dismiss.

For seven days, use the following questions before reaching a final conclusion, provided no immediate safety or compliance issue requires rejection.

  1. What familiar assumption is shaping my reaction?
  2. What useful principle might exist inside this idea?
  3. What alternative form could make that principle workable?
  4. What evidence or small, low-risk test would help me evaluate it?

Compare the resulting alternatives against the original proposal using criteria chosen in advance.

You may discover a better approach.

You may also confirm that the original idea should be rejected.

Both outcomes are useful if the exploration improves the quality of your decision.

This exercise is a practical suggestion, not a guarantee of improved creativity or performance.

9. The POrable Insight

Expertise should not merely tell us what cannot work. It should also help us discover what might.

The aim is not less judgment. It is better-timed judgment, informed by deliberate exploration.

Arun was still the person everyone trusted when something went wrong.

But now people also approached him when something new might be possible.

His expertise had not changed.

The direction in which he applied it had.

10. Sources and Further Reading

This POrable draws on Edward de Bono's thinking methods and independent research on expertise, cognitive fixation, and AI-assisted work.

  1. Edward de Bono (1969). The Mechanism of Mind. Conceptual foundation for pattern-forming information systems and perception. Exact passage-level verification remains outstanding.
  2. Edward de Bono (1972). PO: Beyond Yes and No. Relevant sections include first- and second-stage thinking, PO as a change tool, and Challenge for Change.
  3. Bilalić, M., McLeod, P., & Gobet, F. (2008). Why Good Thoughts Block Better Ones: The Mechanism of the Pernicious Einstellung (Set) Effect. Cognition. Read research
  4. Dane, E. (2010). Reconsidering the Trade-off Between Expertise and Flexibility: A Cognitive Entrenchment Perspective. Academy of Management Review. Read research
  5. Brynjolfsson, E., Li, D., & Raymond, L. R. (2025). Generative AI at Work. Quarterly Journal of Economics. Read research
  6. Dell'Acqua, F., et al. (2026). Navigating the Jagged Technological Frontier. Organization Science. Read research
Editorial disclosure: The narrative and characters are fictional. The PO provocation, Two-Pass Review, and seven-day experiment are original contemporary applications. They should not be interpreted as direct quotations from de Bono or as empirically validated interventions. The scientific studies support specific aspects of the argument, not every event or outcome in the story.
POrables

Stories That Break Patterns and Open Possibilities

Inspired by Edward de Bono's thinking methods.
Contemporary stories and applications are original interpretations.

AIYING — Accomplishing with AI

Accomplish with AI

Powered by Blogger.

Featured post

AI Engineering Hands-On Lab #001 — Build an AI Answer Reliability Test Bench Without Code

AIYING | Daily 24 — Post 009 AI Engineering Hands-On Lab #001 Build an AI Answer Reliability Test Bench — Without Writing Code Lea...

Search This Blog

List of blogs

Search This Blog

About

Translate

Instant Stories

Read in Your Language

Test

share this

ShareThis

Popular Posts