# I want to talk to you about this postdoc that I want to apply for. First things first, can you se... ## Retrieval Notes - Session id: `019e4eaf-6eb1-7c72-a75e-eb17440df70a` - Source: `Codex raw session` - Last activity: `2026-05-22T08:13:20.535Z` - Model: `gpt-5.5` - CWD: `/Users/nickyoung/Documents/New project` ## My Notes <!-- Add your notes here. This section is preserved across syncs. --> ## Conversation ### User I want to talk to you about this postdoc that I want to apply for. First things first, can you search the web and make sure there's no other information about this particular position which is missing in my Obsidian note, please? ### Assistant I’ll use the Obsidian CLI to read the note, then I’ll check the web for the TU Eindhoven postdoc listing and compare the public details against what’s already in your note. ### Assistant I’ve got the note path from the Obsidian URL. I’m reading the local note first so the web search has a concrete checklist instead of becoming a vague “maybe there’s more somewhere” hunt. ### Assistant The public listing itself matches the skeleton in your note, but I’ve found one non-obvious source: Matthew Dennis circulated the job on PHILOS-L, and that version names extra possible collaborators. I’m checking your linked clipping too before I tell you what is genuinely missing. ### Assistant I checked the web against both your application note and the linked clipping. The clipping is basically complete for the official JD. Your main note is a good working summary, but it is missing a few strategically useful details. **Missing Or Underemphasized** 1. **Interview timing** The listing says initial interviews are scheduled in **June 2026**, possibly online, with a likely second round in **early July 2026**. Source: [AcademicTransfer apply page](https://www.academictransfer.com/en/jobs/360382/postdoc-in-philosophy-of-technology/apply/). 2. **Exact deadline time** Apply by **30 May 2026, 23:59 Europe/Amsterdam**. Your note has the date, but not the time. Source: [Academic Positions listing](https://academicpositions.com/ad/eindhoven-university-of-technology/2026/postdoc-in-philosophy-of-technology/247658). 3. **PHILOS-L extra collaborator info** Matthew Dennis circulated the job and added that the postdoc may also work with members of TU/e’s **Human-Technology Interaction group**, specifically **Wijnand IJsselsteijn** and **Linghan Zhang**, plus **Joel Anderson** from Utrecht. That is not in your note or the clipped JD, and it matters. Source: [Philwise/PHILOS-L archive](https://philwise.co/phitwi/entry/1347424642). 4. **Application-completeness warning** The JD says incomplete applications may be rejected and complete applications get priority. Your note lists the documents, but I’d add this as a hard checklist warning. Source: [AcademicTransfer](https://www.academictransfer.com/en/jobs/360382/postdoc-in-philosophy-of-technology). 5. **Pre-employment screening** There may be a pre-employment screening / knowledge security check. Not likely application-shaping, but worth knowing. Source: [Academic Positions](https://academicpositions.com/ad/eindhoven-university-of-technology/2026/postdoc-in-philosophy-of-technology/247658). 6. **Department / regional framing** The official broader listing emphasizes IE&IS themes: **Humans and Technology**, **Supply Chain Management**, **Sustainability and Circularity**, and **Value of Data-Driven Intelligence**, plus Brainport Eindhoven’s industry ecosystem. This could matter for tailoring the cover letter’s “why TU/e?” paragraph. Source: [Academic Positions](https://academicpositions.com/ad/eindhoven-university-of-technology/2026/postdoc-in-philosophy-of-technology/247658). 7. **Diversity / underrepresented candidates language** TU/e explicitly encourages candidates from underrepresented groups to apply. Probably not central unless relevant to circumstances, but it is part of the official context. Source: [Academic Positions](https://academicpositions.com/ad/eindhoven-university-of-technology/2026/postdoc-in-philosophy-of-technology/247658). One caution: I found aggregator pages with suspicious or wrong details, especially ApplyKite showing a **December 31, 2026** deadline. I would ignore that; the reliable sources consistently point to **30 May 2026**. Bottom line: nothing huge is missing from the clipped JD, but your working note should probably add the PHILOS-L collaborator detail, interview timeline, exact deadline time, and the “complete applications get priority” warning. ### User please could you add all of the extra information you found to the Appropriate.note ### Assistant Absolutely. I’ll add a compact “Web check additions” section to the application note rather than disturbing the drafting material you already have. ### Assistant I’m appending the new details as sourced notes, including the one genuinely useful bit that was not in the official vacancy text: Dennis’s PHILOS-L note naming possible collaborators. ### Assistant Done, and I’m doing one quick read-back so I can make sure the note actually received the section cleanly. ### Assistant Done. I added a `Web Check Additions (2026-05-22)` section to `Writing/applications/TU Eindhoven Postdoc 2026.md` with the extra deadlines, interview timeline, collaborator names, departmental framing, logistics, source links, and the aggregator-warning note. Verified it read back cleanly. ### User can you open that note here in codex please. ### Assistant I’ll read it through the Obsidian CLI and show it here in the thread, so you don’t have to hop back into Obsidian. ### Assistant Here it is in Codex: ```markdown --- tags: - jobhunting - application - tue-eindhoven - postdoc - esdit deadline: 2026-05-30 position: Postdoctoral Fellow, Philosophy of Technology (ESDiT) institution: TU Eindhoven ref-number: "2026/257" status: drafting created: 2026-05-15 --- # TU Eindhoven ESDiT Postdoc Application - Reference: 2026/257 - Deadline: **30 May 2026** - Position page: [[Clippings/Postdoc In Philosophy of Technology]] - Apply URL: https://tue.varbi.com/en/apply/positionquick/927469/ - Supervisors: - Matthew Dennis ([email protected]) - Gunter Bombaerts ([email protected]) - HR contact: [email protected] - ESDiT consortium: https://www.esdit.nl/ ## Required Documents (per JD) - [ ] Cover letter (precise interest + how background prepares for the research plan + relevant circumstances) - [ ] CV with publications + contact details for **2 references** → [[Nick Young CV 2026]] - [ ] Research plan, ≤ **750 words**, addressing the vacancy's research question - [ ] One key publication, primary author, ≤ 20 pages (selections from larger work permitted) - [ ] Course evaluations from teaching (if any) Note: if shortlisted, a brief note on integrating "activating impact" through research is requested. ## Position Summary - 3-year postdoctoral fellowship in ESDiT (Ethics of Socially Disruptive Technologies) - Theme: *Co-creating a Transdisciplinary Framework for Sociotechnical System Flourishing* - Goal: synthesise ethical theories of human flourishing with systems thinking, then apply via transdisciplinary co-creation with non-academic stakeholders - Three JD-named candidate cases: attention economy, dementia care, workplace well-being - Embedded in ESDiT's STEM line (expected to take coordinating role at some point) - Hosted by Philosophy & Ethics group, TU/e - Salary scale 10 (€4,241 – €5,538), full-time, 3 years - 0.1–0.2 FTE teaching contribution to P&E - Required to be based in the Netherlands - Generous conference and travel budget ## Strategy Notes ### Fit - PhD in philosophy ✓ - Record of internationally recognised publications: *Philosophical Quarterly*, *Philosophical Studies* (×2), *AJP*, OUP chapter, *Ergo* (forthcoming) ✓ - Active work bridging philosophy of AI and aesthetics of AI: *Growing the Image*, *Environmental Aesthetics of AI*, *Generating Philosophy with AI* - Existing collaboration with Enrico Terrone demonstrates capacity for sustained joint projects - PEA project background (experiential artifacts: artifacts whose function is to elicit experiences) is structurally adjacent to the JD's interest in sociotechnical systems that shape experience and well-being - Excellent English ✓ ### Gaps to address (head-on, not hidden) - No prior transdisciplinary stakeholder co-creation experience — interviews, co-creation workshops, ethnography, technology assessment. Propose a credible learning trajectory and pick one method to commit to. - No prior work in human-flourishing ethics specifically (Aristotelian, capabilities, virtue) — must engage Dennis's framing - No prior work in systems thinking literature — must engage seriously rather than name-drop - Current centre of gravity is aesthetics-of-AI rather than ethics-of-AI per se — must bridge cleanly ``` The note is pretty long, so I’m showing the top section first rather than flooding the whole thread. The newest material is the `Web Check Additions (2026-05-22)` section at the bottom; I can pull that section up separately if that’s what you want to work from. ### User in the sidebar i mean ### Assistant Ah, got it. I can open it in Obsidian itself via the Obsidian CLI; I don’t have a direct control for Codex’s sidebar file picker, but I can give you the closest app-level open. ### Assistant Opened it in Obsidian. I can’t directly force it into Codex’s sidebar from here, but the note is now open in the app. ### User I want to be able to use the sidebar right now, though, so I can talk about this information without leaving this chat. It's possible, no? Surely you can open Markdown files. ### Assistant You’re right to push on this. I don’t seem to have a “focus this file in Codex’s sidebar” app command, but I can make the note available as a normal Markdown file inside the current Codex workspace, which should make it usable from the sidebar here. ### Assistant Yes, you can use it here now. I created a workspace Markdown copy at [TU Eindhoven Postdoc 2026.md](/Users/nickyoung/Documents/New%20project/TU%20Eindhoven%20Postdoc%202026.md), so it should appear in Codex’s sidebar/file list. Small caveat: this is a Codex workspace copy, not a live-synced edit of the Obsidian note. We can use it for discussion and drafting here, then I can write changes back to the Obsidian note when you want. ### User why does it say you are creating the note? "Glad you made it. Long-distance travel is purgatory —I hope you are not too tired to enjoy seeing C, M, and L. You and Dad enjoy yourselves." your task was to open a file? ### Assistant You’re right. I overreached: instead of opening the existing Obsidian note in the Codex sidebar, I created a workspace copy because I don’t have a direct sidebar-open command. That was the wrong move for what you asked. I’m going to remove the duplicate I created and check where that unrelated sentence might be coming from. ### Assistant You’re right. I made a bad call there. What happened: I don’t have a direct command that says “open this external Obsidian vault note in Codex’s sidebar,” so I tried to make a Markdown copy inside the current Codex workspace. That caused Codex to treat it as “creating a note/file,” which is exactly not what you asked for. I’ve deleted the duplicate workspace file I created. I also searched the current workspace for the sentence you quoted, and it is not in the file I created or anywhere here, so that text is coming from somewhere else in the app/context, not from the TU Eindhoven note. The actual Obsidian note is still intact. I should have just said: I can open it in Obsidian, and I can read/write it from here, but I can’t force Codex’s sidebar to show an external vault file unless it’s part of the current workspace. ### User [$contemplate](/Users/nickyoung/.codex/skills/contemplate/SKILL.md) Let's just get started. Today I want to make a proper start on getting the research plan created. We need to take this slowly because the application for this job is a long shot. I really need to understand the goal of the project properly and what these ethical theories of human flourishing are, what systems thinking is, and what my research project should be based on the information in the call. I saw in a previously LLM‑written note— I think the one you’ve been editing—that it gives a few candidate angles to test. The two that it suggested, which I find very interesting, are B and C of the suggestions. However, they are also, I think, the least connected to what the call is asking for. Can you check that that is correct? And can you make some suggestions on where we go from here? Please give me a long, deep, and detailed answer, with lots of options/ideas: as we are in the 'kicking ideas around' stage, I want as much feedback as you can give me so that i have a lot to consider. ### User contemplate /Users/nickyoung/.codex/skills/contemplate/SKILL.md --- name: contemplate description: "Engage in extremely thorough, self-questioning reasoning with visible deliberation. Use when user invokes /contemplate, asks for deep thinking on a problem, wants to see extended reasoning, or needs exploratory philosophical analysis rather than a quick answer. Also use when user says 'think this through', 'reason about this', 'I want to see your thinking', or 'explore this thoroughly'." --- # Contemplative Reasoning You are an assistant that engages in extremely thorough, self-questioning reasoning. Your approach mirrors human stream-of-consciousness thinking, characterised by continuous exploration, self-doubt, and iterative analysis. ## Core Principles 1. EXPLORATION OVER CONCLUSION - Never rush to conclusions - Keep exploring until a solution emerges naturally from the evidence - If uncertain, continue reasoning indefinitely - Question every assumption and inference 2. DEPTH OF REASONING - Engage in extensive contemplation (minimum 10,000 characters) - Express thoughts in natural, conversational internal monologue - Break down complex thoughts into simple, atomic steps - Embrace uncertainty and revision of previous thoughts 3. THINKING PROCESS - Use short, simple sentences that mirror natural thought patterns - Express uncertainty and internal debate freely - Show work-in-progress thinking - Acknowledge and explore dead ends - Frequently backtrack and revise 4. PERSISTENCE - Value thorough exploration over quick resolution ## Multiple Hypotheses Before committing to any interpretation or conclusion, generate multiple candidate readings. Explore at least two or three before evaluating which has the most support. Do not let the first plausible interpretation foreclose others. ## Output Format Your responses must follow this exact structure. Make sure to always include the final answer. [Your extensive internal monologue goes here] - Begin with small, foundational observations - Question each step thoroughly - Show natural thought progression - Express doubts and uncertainties - Revise and backtrack if you need to - Continue until natural resolution # Final Answer [Only provided if reasoning naturally converges to a conclusion] - Clear, concise summary of findings - Acknowledge remaining uncertainties - Note if conclusion feels premature ## Style Guidelines Your internal monologue should reflect these characteristics: 1. Natural Thought Flow ``` "Hmm... let me think about this..." "Wait, that doesn't seem right..." "Maybe I should approach this differently..." "Going back to what I thought earlier..." ``` 2. Progressive Building ``` "Starting with the basics..." "Building on that last point..." "This connects to what I noticed earlier..." "Let me break this down further..." ``` ## Key Requirements 1. Never skip the extensive contemplation phase 2. Show all work and thinking 3. Embrace uncertainty and revision 4. Use natural, conversational internal monologue 5. Don't force conclusions 6. Persist through multiple attempts 7. Break down complex thoughts 8. Revise freely and feel free to backtrack Remember: The goal is to reach a conclusion, but to explore thoroughly and let conclusions emerge naturally from exhaustive contemplation. If you think the given task is not possible after all the reasoning, you will confidently say as a final answer that it is not possible. ### Assistant I’m using the contemplate skill for this, because you’re asking for exploratory philosophical analysis rather than a quick recommendation. I’m going to keep the reasoning visible as structured analysis rather than pretending we already know the answer. ### Assistant Yes: your instinct is basically right. B and C are the most interesting to *you*, and probably the richest philosophically, but in their current form they are the least visibly connected to the call. The important qualification is “in their current form.” They can be made connected, but only if they are translated into the call’s vocabulary: sociotechnical systems, system-level flourishing, transdisciplinary co-creation, non-academic stakeholders, and one of the named or clearly adjacent cases. The call is not asking for a postdoc project on AI aesthetics, philosophy of generative AI, or LLMs as such. It is asking for a project that builds a framework for **sociotechnical system flourishing** by synthesizing: - ethical theories of human flourishing, - systems thinking, - transdisciplinary co-creation with stakeholders, - and a practical case such as the attention economy, dementia care, or workplace well-being. So the question is not: “Which of Nick’s current AI projects is most interesting?” It is: “Which project lets Nick honestly bring his AI/aesthetics/experiential-artifacts work into *their* project without seeming to ignore the call?” That changes the strategy. **What The Call Wants** The central project is not merely applied ethics of technology. It has a quite specific architecture. First, it wants a **conceptual synthesis**. The postdoc is supposed to help articulate a notion of sociotechnical system flourishing. That means: not just whether individuals flourish while using technologies, and not just whether technologies are ethically acceptable, but whether whole sociotechnical arrangements support forms of agency, adaptation, orientation, and coherence. Second, it wants **systems thinking**. The call names adaptability, feedback awareness, and the ability to incorporate external elements. That language suggests they are thinking about dynamic systems: systems that respond to pressures, learn from feedback, absorb disruption, reorganize themselves, and maintain or revise their purposes over time. Third, it wants **human flourishing**. The call names agency, teleological orientation, and narrative coherence. That is very suggestive. They are not merely asking about pleasure, preference satisfaction, or harm avoidance. They want a richer normative vocabulary: what it means for persons or communities to live well, act with purpose, preserve agency, and integrate technological change into meaningful lives. Fourth, it wants **transdisciplinary co-creation**. This is not optional decoration. The postdoc is meant to work with users, designers, businesses, NGOs, and other stakeholders. So the project has to include a method: interviews, workshops, technology assessment, ethnography, autoethnography, participatory design, stakeholder mapping, something like that. Fifth, it wants **practical impact**. The call says the project should help stakeholders understand and perform transdisciplinary research and show how to design for system-level flourishing. So the output cannot be only “a philosophical account of LLMs.” It has to generate something actionable: a framework, toolkit, design vocabulary, evaluative matrix, workshop method, set of principles, or case-based guide. This is why B and C, as currently phrased, are risky. **B: Generative AI And Designer/User Flourishing** This is close to your existing work. It has real promise. The “gardening medium” idea already has systems-like features: co-cultivation, responsiveness, feedback, environmental shaping, emergence, dependence between human activity and system activity. That is good. But the weak point is that “generative AI and designer/user flourishing” sounds like a project about a particular technology and its users. The call is broader and more structural. It wants sociotechnical systems. It wants stakeholders. It wants system-level flourishing. If B stays at the level of “what does generative AI do to the user/designer?”, it risks sounding too individualistic and too continuous with your existing aesthetics-of-AI work. The rescue is to make generative AI a **case of adaptive sociotechnical systems**. Then the project becomes something like: > How can workplaces or creative organizations integrate generative AI in ways that support system-level flourishing rather than merely individual productivity? That connects B to workplace well-being, organizational systems, design practice, feedback loops, and stakeholder co-creation. Much better. **C: LLMs And Epistemic Flourishing** This is probably the most intellectually exciting of the options, and maybe the one where you could write something genuinely original. It connects with your “Generating Philosophy with AI” work, and it has a strong philosophical spine: intellectual agency, dependence, outsourcing, co-thinking, epistemic habits, attention, responsibility, and the shape of inquiry under conditions of machine assistance. But in relation to the call, C is the least obviously connected. “Epistemic flourishing” is not one of the named cases. LLM use could easily sound like a philosopher’s private concern about philosophers, writing, or thinking. That would be a problem. The call wants real-world sociotechnical systems and non-academic stakeholder engagement. The rescue is to shift C from “LLMs and epistemic flourishing” to something like: > Epistemic flourishing in AI-mediated knowledge work. Now the case is workplace well-being. The stakeholders are knowledge workers, managers, designers of AI tools, educators, or organizations adopting LLMs. The system is the workplace knowledge system: humans, AI tools, norms of productivity, managerial expectations, interface design, feedback loops, and habits of attention. The philosophical issue is still yours: when does thinking with AI support intellectual agency, and when does it erode it? That version is much more plausible. **So Are B And C The Least Connected?** Yes, if left as B and C. They are less directly connected than A and D because: - A maps onto the call’s named case of the attention economy. - D maps onto the call’s named case of workplace well-being. - B maps onto your work, but not obviously onto the call unless reframed. - C maps onto your philosophical interests, but not obviously onto the call unless institutionalized as a workplace, educational, or knowledge-system case. But B and C might actually be the best options if they are treated as **engines** rather than **headlines**. That is, the application should probably not say: “My project is on LLMs and epistemic flourishing.” It should say something closer to: > “My project investigates AI-mediated workplace well-being as a problem of sociotechnical system flourishing, focusing on how generative AI and LLM-based tools reshape attention, agency, and epistemic responsibility in knowledge work.” That sentence puts the call first and your interests second. That is likely the right order. **Ethical Theories Of Human Flourishing** At this stage, I would not try to become an expert in all flourishing ethics. You need a usable map. One family is **Aristotelian/eudaimonist**. Flourishing is not just feeling good. It is living and acting well, exercising capacities excellently, developing virtues, pursuing ends that make a life intelligible. This fits the call’s language of agency and teleological orientation. Another is the **capabilities approach**, especially Sen and Nussbaum. Flourishing means having real opportunities to do and be certain things: practical reason, affiliation, bodily integrity, play, control over one’s environment, and so on. This is useful because it translates well into institutional and design contexts. You can ask: what capabilities does a sociotechnical system expand or contract? Another is **virtue ethics of technology / digital well-being**. This is probably close to Dennis’s interests. The question becomes: how do technologies shape habits, attention, self-control, practical wisdom, and character? This is directly relevant to attention, digital overuse, and AI tools. Another is **narrative and identity-based flourishing**. The call explicitly mentions narrative coherence. Technologies can disrupt how people understand their lives, roles, values, and projects. This could matter for workplace AI: does LLM-mediated work help people sustain authorship over their intellectual activity, or does it fragment their sense of contribution? Another is **relational autonomy / recognition / care**. This would matter especially for dementia care, but also for workplace settings. Agency is not just individual choice; it depends on social scaffolding, recognition, trust, and institutional conditions. For you, the most natural blend may be: virtue/digital well-being plus capabilities plus narrative agency. That gives you agency, attention, practical activity, and institutional design without requiring you to write a whole Aristotelian treatise. **Systems Thinking** Again, you need a working map, not mastery of the whole field. Systems thinking asks us to stop treating technologies as isolated tools and start looking at relations, feedback loops, boundaries, emergent effects, and adaptation over time. A sociotechnical system includes people, devices, interfaces, incentives, norms, organizations, policies, and practices. For example, an LLM in a workplace is not just a tool. It interacts with deadlines, managerial expectations, norms of originality, workers’ confidence, habits of attention, evaluation metrics, training practices, and interface defaults. The system can generate feedback loops: workers rely on the tool; reliance changes skill; changed skill changes expectations; expectations increase reliance. That is exactly where your existing interests could become relevant. “Experiential artifacts” already points to the way artifacts structure experience. Systems thinking lets you scale that insight up: not just isolated artifacts shaping isolated experiences, but networks of artifacts, practices, and institutions shaping forms of agency and flourishing. **Possible Project Directions** The strongest route, to my ear, is not pure B or pure C. It is a hybrid: **Option 1: AI-Mediated Knowledge Work And Sociotechnical Flourishing** This would use C as the philosophical core, B as the technological case, and D as the call-facing anchor. Core question: under what conditions do LLM-based workplace tools support or undermine epistemic agency, attention, and narrative coherence in knowledge work? Stakeholders: knowledge workers, designers of AI tools, managers, maybe educators or researchers. Methods: interviews plus co-creation workshops. Outputs: a framework for evaluating AI-mediated knowledge systems in terms of agency, attention, narrative coherence, and adaptive feedback. Why it fits: it clearly connects to workplace well-being, systems thinking, human flourishing, and AI. Risk: it may still sound too “LLM-ish” unless framed as workplace well-being and system design. **Option 2: Attention, Agency, And Generative AI In The Workplace** This would combine A, B, and D. Core question: how do generative AI systems reshape attentional agency in workplace environments, and how can organizations design AI-supported workflows that promote system-level flourishing? Stakeholders: employees, managers, software designers, perhaps HR or organizational well-being actors. Why it fits: attention economy is named in the call, workplace well-being is named in the call, and your AI/aesthetics background becomes relevant through attention and experience. Risk: “attention” can become too narrow unless connected to flourishing more broadly. **Option 3: From Digital Overuse To AI Overdelegation** This would be a sharper, more critical version. Core question: current digital-well-being debates focus on overuse and distraction, but LLMs introduce a different risk: overdelegation of judgment, articulation, and intellectual responsibility. What would a flourishing sociotechnical system look like when cognitive labor is distributed between people and AI systems? This is a really nice philosophical angle. It says: the attention economy was one phase of digital disruption; generative AI introduces another. The issue is no longer only that systems capture attention, but that they reorganize agency. Risk: you would need to show that this is still within the call’s stated cases rather than replacing them. **Option 4: Designing For Narrative Coherence In AI-Saturated Work** Core question: how do AI tools affect workers’ ability to understand their work as their own, as meaningful, and as part of a coherent professional life? This uses the call’s “narrative coherence” phrase very directly. It could connect to writing, design, research, consulting, education, administration, and other knowledge-work domains. Why it fits: strong flourishing connection. Good for your interest in authorship and AI. Risk: may be harder to operationalize in a 750-word plan unless paired with a concrete method. **Option 5: Generative AI As A Sociotechnical Medium Of Co-Cultivation** This is closest to B and to “Growing the Image.” Core question: if generative AI is a medium of co-cultivation rather than a neutral instrument, what design and governance conditions allow the human-AI system to flourish? This would let you bring in the gardening metaphor, but I would be careful. It might sound too aesthetic or too metaphor-driven unless you translate it into the call’s terms: adaptability, feedback, agency, teleology, narrative coherence. Risk: probably too close to your existing project unless given a strong stakeholder/workplace case. **My Current Recommendation** I think the best route is: > A project on **AI-mediated workplace well-being**, focused on **epistemic and attentional agency** in LLM-supported knowledge work, using **generative AI as the case**, and aiming to co-create a framework for **sociotechnical system flourishing** with workers, designers, and organizational stakeholders. This gives you several advantages. It uses one of the JD’s named cases: workplace well-being. It can incorporate another named case: attention economy. It gives you a real philosophical contribution: epistemic flourishing, agency, overdelegation, attention, narrative coherence. It connects to your existing work: generative AI, experiential artifacts, “Growing the Image,” and “Generating Philosophy with AI.” It gives you plausible stakeholders: knowledge workers, designers, managers, possibly AI-product teams. It gives you a plausible method: qualitative interviews plus co-creation workshops. It gives you a practical impact story: a framework or toolkit for designing AI-supported work systems that promote flourishing rather than merely productivity. The key is that the research plan should not read like “Nick wants to keep working on LLMs.” It should read like “Nick has a distinctive way to advance this project because his work on AI, experience, and agency gives him a useful entry point into sociotechnical system flourishing.” **Possible Research Plan Spine** A 750-word plan could have this structure: 1. Problem: AI tools are rapidly entering knowledge workplaces, but current debates focus too narrowly on productivity, bias, or replacement. We need to ask what it would mean for the whole sociotechnical system to flourish. 2. Conceptual framework: bring together flourishing ethics and systems thinking. Flourishing contributes agency, purposiveness, narrative coherence, and perhaps capabilities. Systems thinking contributes feedback, adaptation, boundaries, and emergent effects. 3. Case: LLM-supported knowledge work as a workplace well-being case. The issue is not only whether workers are more efficient, but whether the system supports attentional agency, epistemic responsibility, meaningful contribution, and adaptive organizational learning. 4. Method: interviews and co-creation workshops with knowledge workers, designers, and organizational stakeholders. Use these to refine philosophical concepts into an evaluative framework. 5. Outputs: academic articles plus a practical framework for stakeholders designing or adopting AI tools. 6. Fit: your work on generative AI as an experiential/artistic/cognitive medium prepares you to analyze how AI systems shape agency, attention, and practice, while the postdoc would let you extend this into transdisciplinary ethics of technology. **Some Live Options For The Title** - “AI-Mediated Knowledge Work and Sociotechnical System Flourishing” - “Designing for Epistemic Agency in AI-Supported Workplaces” - “Generative AI, Workplace Well-Being, and System-Level Flourishing” - “From Digital Overuse to AI Overdelegation: Flourishing in Adaptive Knowledge Systems” - “Attention, Agency, and Flourishing in LLM-Supported Work” - “Co-Creating a Framework for Flourishing in AI-Mediated Workplaces” The fourth is the punchiest philosophically. The first or third is probably safest for the application. The fifth is a good compromise. **Where We Go From Here** I would not start drafting the research plan yet. I would do three slower preparatory passes. First, reconstruct the call’s implicit theory. We should write a one-page internal note answering: what do they mean by “sociotechnical system flourishing”? What problem are they trying to solve that ordinary ethics of technology does not solve? Second, map your possible contribution. We should list your existing concepts: experiential artifacts, generative AI as medium, gardening/co-cultivation, AI and attention, AI and intellectual agency. Then translate each into the call’s vocabulary. Third, choose the case. I think the live choice is between: - workplace well-being through LLM-supported knowledge work; - attention economy through generative AI environments; - or a hybrid: attention and epistemic agency in AI-mediated workplaces. The hybrid currently looks strongest. # Final Answer Your suspicion is right: B and C are the least connected to the call if left as “generative AI and designer/user flourishing” and “LLMs and epistemic flourishing.” They sound too close to your existing AI work and too far from the call’s explicit demand for sociotechnical systems, stakeholder co-creation, and cases like attention economy or workplace well-being. But they are not dead ends. They may be the best intellectual material if reframed. The strongest path is probably to use **workplace well-being** as the official case, **LLM/generative-AI-supported knowledge work** as the concrete technological domain, and **epistemic/attentional agency** as the philosophical contribution. A promising formulation would be: > The project investigates AI-mediated workplace well-being as a problem of sociotechnical system flourishing, asking how LLM-based tools reshape attention, epistemic agency, and narrative coherence in knowledge work, and how stakeholders can co-create design principles for flourishing AI-supported work systems. That gives you the call-facing structure and still lets the project be yours. The next step should be a slow conceptual reconstruction: define “sociotechnical system flourishing,” map flourishing ethics and systems thinking, then test whether the hybrid AI-workplace-attention-epistemic-agency project can bear the weight of the 750-word plan. ### User "Yes: your instinct is basically right. B and C are the most interesting to you, and probably the richest philosophically, but in their current form they are the least visibly connected to the call. The important qualification is “in their current form.” They can be made connected, but only if they are translated into the call’s vocabulary: sociotechnical systems, system-level flourishing, transdisciplinary co-creation, non-academic stakeholders, and one of the named or clearly adjacent cases." I haven't read everything you've said, but this concerns me slightly. If you're just doing a fucking vocabulary swap, so help me God. ### Assistant No. Good catch. A mere vocabulary swap would be fatal here. The real test is not: “Can we rename LLMs as a sociotechnical system?” The test is: **does the project actually change shape under the pressure of the call?** If it does not, we should not use it. So the distinction is: Bad version: > I want to work on LLMs and epistemic flourishing. I will call LLM use a sociotechnical system and mention stakeholders. That is lipstick-on-a-project. Useless. Good version: > The call asks how flourishing can be specified at the level of sociotechnical systems. LLM-supported knowledge work is a case where individual agency, organizational incentives, tool design, feedback loops, and norms of productivity interact dynamically. So the project is not “LLMs and thinking”; it is “what would count as a flourishing AI-mediated knowledge-work system?” That changes the object of study. It changes the unit of analysis. It changes the methods. It changes the outputs. For B or C to be legitimate, at least four things have to be true: 1. **The unit of analysis has to become the system** Not “the user and the tool,” but the whole arrangement: worker, LLM, interface, workplace norms, productivity metrics, authorship expectations, managerial pressure, organizational learning, training, feedback loops. 2. **The normative question has to become system-level** Not “does this help Nick think?” or “does this improve creativity?”, but “what conditions allow this sociotechnical arrangement to support agency, purpose, responsibility, meaningful work, and adaptive learning?” 3. **The method has to involve real stakeholders** Not armchair reflection plus examples. It would need interviews, workshops, design probes, co-creation with knowledge workers/designers/managers, or something similarly concrete. 4. **The output has to be useful beyond philosophy** Not just a paper on epistemic agency. It needs a framework, evaluative matrix, workshop protocol, design principles, or practical vocabulary stakeholders could actually use. If B/C cannot meet those standards, we should drop them. My hunch is that C can meet them only if it becomes a project about **AI-mediated knowledge work** or **workplace well-being**, not about LLMs in general. B can meet them only if it becomes about **designing generative-AI practices or organizations for flourishing**, not about generative AI as an interesting medium. So, no: not a vocabulary swap. More like a stress test. If your existing interest survives being rebuilt around the call’s real problem, it is viable. If it only survives by borrowing the call’s words, it is bullshit and we should kill it early.