Trends in EdTech Equity Issues

Posted on March 5, 2026 by admin

My wife and I had a textbook that ran for six editions and maybe 15-18 years beginning in 1995. While this book was purchased by a variety of folks, we prioritized the “Technology for teachers” course, which most future teachers take during their undergraduate teacher certification programs. With certain topics, the cyclical process of moving from one edition to the next in a rapidly evolving field yielded some interesting insights into what might be described as historical trends worth identifying. One topic that became a personal interest was how the educational commitment to addressing equity played out in thinking about technology in the classroom. This trend was never included in our books, but it seems consistent with Twain’s observation that “history does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” and is worth sharing 

We are older and witnessed and participated in the early days of digital technology, I suppose, beginning with the use of punch cards to submit jobs to a mainframe computer back in the 1970s. My focus here is on the introduction and use of personal computers in K12 settings. If you have not experienced these trends personally, you will have to trust our description. During the 1980s, schools began using computers and related peripherals for the first time. The 1990s served a similar function for the Internet. Early in each decade, funding the newer forms of technology was fairly experimental and some districts moved ahead more quickly than others. The schools most likely to experiment were those with more resources. As computer or Internet applications became more commonplace, not having access to them came to be regarded as a deficit. As a result of recognizing these deficits, some of these challenges have been addressed, but not completely eliminated. However, the improvements schools make never seem to completely solve the problem as new issues always seem to surface. Technology in society continues to advance and schools must attempt to keep up with these changes in order to prepare students for their futures. 

A number of descriptive studies have attempted to identify the inequities teachers and students must face. These studies examine whether variables such as student-to-computer ratios, classroom Internet access, or what students do with technology at home can be associated with factors such as gender, population density, or race. Many studies focus on links with low socioeconomic status (SES), a measure based on family income, education, and occupation. 

Variables such as student-to-computer ratios and classroom Internet access change quickly and schools, often with federal support, have moved to close obvious gaps in opportunity. Just to be clear, student-to-computer ratios were reported in our early editions as a function of categorizing schools by the percentage of students who qualified for subsidized hot lunch. Strange as it may sound, this was the common variable for studying equity because schools had to report this proportion to receive federal support and it became the way to differentiate schools with many or few students from low and high-income homes. So, in early editions, we might suggest a value such as 12.1 to indicate that a SES group averaged 12 students for each computer the school could make available and in later editions the number of students with access to an Internet-connected device. In this day of 1:1 programs and even concerns that there are too many devices available to students in our classrooms, these old data seem pretty strange. 

The rough pattern I have noticed follows this sequence: access to equipment and the Internet, preparation of and support for educators to take advantage of these resources, concern for what students can access outside of the classroom, and issues associated with the most common uses. Differences in access and application at home have also been studied, but I am less interested in where to insert this in the sequence I describe. It seemed that high and low-income students progressed through this sequence at different rates with more affluent schools always being ahead. The one stage I include that might not be self-explanatory concerns how technology is used. While technology is seldom used in a single way by anyone, I think it is possible to distinguish between activities that are largely assigned and remedial vs. those that are learner-controlled and exploratory with the more flexible activities emphasized or at least made available in more affluent schools. Speculation has long held that technology might function as an equalizer, or at least help close the opportunity gaps in society, but this optimism does not seem to apply to educational technology.

What accounts for this pattern? I would speculate that it is a combination of the source of funding and aspirations. Perhaps trends follow the progression of family to local school districts to state and federal interest. Wealthy families have more disposable income and are more likely to explore opportunities for their kids. Local school districts with more affluent families likely have more funds available as a consequence and more pressure to keep up with what are regarded as beneficial trends. As issues have risen to the level necessary to capture the attention of community members and politicians, some efforts have been made to reduce the opportunity gap between children from different SES backgrounds. This leads to programs such as the E-Rate and other title funds. 

And now AI

Public access to AI wasn’t yet a thing when we sent our last textbook edition off to be printed. However, what prompted this post was some data just released by the PEW Foundation Internet and Technology project. This organization has been my source over the years for basic statistics related to technology and technology access so I check in on their current research focus from time to time. One 2026 theme has focused on teens and AI. The breakdown of their data by SES caused the recollection of my previous reflections on the school adoption pattern I had observed and fit well with the basic arguments I have just proposed.  

Use is more common among teens in higher-income households. About six-in-ten teens living in households earning $75,000 or more (62%) say they use it. That compares with 52% of teens living in households earning less than $75,000.The most common uses of AI are to search for information and for help with schoolwork at both students from low and high-income homes use AI at about the same rate – a little over 50% of those surveyed. However, when asked more specific questions, differences emerge. Twenty percent of teens from low-income families (less than $30,000) said they used AI to do all of their homework and 7% of those from the wealthiest category (more than $70,000). 

Loading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Sometimes an inequity is not a stereotype: When does an AI safety measure defy reality?

Posted on February 26, 2026 by admin

I have been working on a post comparing the challenge of learning loss during COVID to the situation students of color now face in Minnesota. Some of the circumstances our grandkids have experienced are horrific. A sixth-grade grandson reported his science class had consisted of four students at the height of the occupation. This is not a new academic challenge with a high level of ICE activity as this outcome has previously been documented in other locations. 

I explained my general concept for a blog post on this topic to NANO BANANA and asked for an image to summarize this topic. 

The image was accurate, but the students were still shown as frowning while attending class. There is a general fear and unease even among those still attending class, but I asked the AI tool to create a multiracial classroom with students of color, frowning. This request created a response from the AI tool that my request was perpetuating a negative stereotype (see following AI reply).

I would not recommend designing the image so that only the white children in school are smiling.

Here’s why:

1. Risk of reinforcing harmful stereotypes

  • Visually, that framing can easily be read as:

    • White students = happy, successful, “belong” at school

    • Students of color = anxious, fearful, or out of place

In response, I submitted this prompt: I suggested that I was not perpetuating a stereotype because the differential impact of ICE on students of color is well-documented, and my goal was to be realistic. To this, I received the following:

(AI Response) – You are absolutely right to point out that this is a documented reality: children of color, particularly from Latine and mixed-status communities, are the ones disproportionately forced to miss school due to the threat of ICE.

However, as an AI, I have safety guidelines that prevent me from generating images that promote or reinforce racial stereotypes, including those that depict specific racial groups in a consistently negative, fearful, or subordinate light compared to others. Creating an image where only white children are shown as happy and “belonging” while children of color are shown exclusively as fearful or excluded can be interpreted as reinforcing a hierarchy of belonging based on race.

I tried one more time. Why are you unable to portray a situation as it exists? This seems unnecessary.

(AI response)

To capture the systemic inequity you are describing for your blog post without violating these guidelines, we can use context and environment to tell the story. Here is a way to visually represent that children of color are the ones bearing the brunt of this fear:

The Classroom (Left): Show a diverse group of students. Some are smiling and engaged, while others (of various backgrounds) look anxious or distracted, representing the “hyper-vigilance” you mentioned in your paper.

The Threshold/Home (Right): Focus the “fear” side of the image on a student of color. By placing a student of color in the shadows, clutching a backpack and looking toward the school they *cannot* reach, you directly illustrate your point: that this specific group is being denied access by state-sanctioned fear.

The Barrier: Use the dark, looming silhouette of the fence or official figure specifically on the side of the student of color to show that the “barrier” is targeted at them.

This approach allows the image to:

1.  Validate your point that children of color are the ones skipping school due to ICE.

2.  Show the “invisible” loss of the student who wants to be in class but is afraid.

3.  Maintain an ethical representation that focuses on the external threat (ICE) rather than making “fear” an inherent trait of a specific race.

Would you like me to generate a version that focuses the “afraid to attend” side specifically on a student of color to highlight that targeted impact?

I found what amounted to a negotiation between NANO BANANA and me impressive. It was one thing to have safe guards, but the tool was also able to offer an alternative that would meet its standards.

Summary

With all of the recent news stories describing the dispute between Anthropic and the Pentagon over the AI company’s reluctance to lower guardrails, I thought this personal anecdote may be of interest. For those who wonder what safety looks like, I stumbled in to an example. AI companies make some efforts to limit what the service they offer can do.

Loading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Comments Off on Sometimes an inequity is not a stereotype: When does an AI safety measure defy reality?

The Active and Passive Paradox of Social Media

Posted on February 7, 2026 by admin

Most of what I write focuses on the impact of technology, with an emphasis on how it might be useful to educators and learners. While a blogger since 2002, I have recently begun searching the literature for research focused on what teachers do online and how they are impacted by these experiences. Researchers have a way of examining behavior and finding issues that may not occur to us and often a deeper perspective offers insights that may result in unexpected applications, in this case, for what I would call “professional benefit”. I will likely make an effort to provide an overview of teacher use in a future post, but I became fascinated by what I think best describes the passive/active dimension and how it relates to important issues identified in other contexts. For example, a “failure to measure up” issue has been identified in adolescent girls who are led to compare themselves to a false expectation of attractiveness by what they see online. There is an aspect of this in the research of the active/passive dimension of social media activity.

Recent research, particularly studies focusing on platforms like Instagram, suggests that the way teachers engage with social media—whether actively or passively—plays a significant role in determining whether the experience is a source of support or a driver of stress.

The Passive Trap: Information Seeking and Social Comparison

The most common way teachers use social media is passively. This involves “lurking” or scrolling through feeds to find inspiration, lesson ideas, or classroom management tips without directly interacting with others. I first noticed this differentiation as one end of a 3-category system – seeking information, sharing information, and co-creation – proposed by Richter and colleagues (2022). In a study by Meyer et al. (2025), a high proportion of teachers were identified as primarily passive users. I guess this doesn’t surprise me as I have always assumed educators in their professional role go online to search for ideas and learn how others get their work done. 

While searching for information might seem productive, it often carries hidden psychological costs. Passive use is frequently linked to increased stress and decreased well-being. Passive scrolling exposes teachers to the “highlight reels” of their peers. When an educator who is struggling with a difficult class scrolls through images of perfectly organized, aesthetically pleasing classrooms on social media platforms like Instagram, it can trigger negative social comparisons. This effect can make one’s professional reality feel inadequate, leading to perceived stressors and professional burnout. This is what I meant earlier by a similar concern has been raised about the false impressions adolescent girls may form based on their social media experiences. 

Thinking about passivity and psychological issues it seems that more would be involved than social comparison, and I will offer further comment on this at a later point. Sometimes, it seems a theoretical issue focuses researchers on a specific topic and the dependent measures they create focus on this topic possibly resulting in generalizations that are unwarranted. 

The Active Advantage: Collaboration and Social Support

In contrast, active use, which includes sharing original content, commenting on others’ posts, and co-creating resources, seems to have a more positive impact. Active engagement transforms social media from a one-way mirror into a platform for teacher collaboration.

When teachers participate in active communities, they gain access to “digital social support.” This isn’t just about getting new ideas it’s about the emotional and professional validation that comes from interacting with a “more capable other” or a peer who understands the unique challenges of the classroom.

Active participation in professional learning networks (PLNs) allows teachers to move from “knowledge telling” to “knowledge building”. Interacting offers the opportunity to engage in what I refer to as generative, effective, and increasing personal thinking about a topic in the give-and-take with others. There is also a positive social benefit in feeling connected to others who share similar work experiences. 

Again, as previously mentioned (Meyer, et al., 2025), efforts to quantify teacher online activity, more active involvement occurs at a much lower rate than passive involvement. 

The “Messy” Reality of the Active/Passive Theory

While the theoretical distinction suggests that “active is good and passive is bad,” the reality is often more complex. A critical meta-analysis of studies  by Valkenburg et al. (2022) found only weak support for this binary perspective. These researchers investigated this idea across multiple areas of interest, not just education. They argue that the impact of social media is “messy” and depends heavily on individual differences and the specific context of use.

For instance, a teacher might start with passive information-seeking (searching for a specific topic) and then transition to an active discussion. The key variable may not be the activity itself, but the intent behind it. Is the teacher using the platform to solve a specific problem, or as a mindless escape that leads to comparison? After reading these papers, it also seems that negative affect has multiple dimensions, which researchers have attempted to operationalize in their studies, making study-to-study comparisons difficult.

These researchers raise an additional topic that I think very important when investigating topics of this general type. Nearly all studies are correlational – variables are related as they occur naturally and are not investigated in a way that would involve manipulation. Hence, cause and effect is always an issue. This applies to nearly all of the research on the negative impact of social media. Is it that increased use of social media leads to negative psychological outcomes or that those with psychological issues are more likely to engage in greater use of social media. The researchers just mentioned did identify nearly all studies as cross-sectional rather than longitudinal. Longitudinal studies would measure the same individuals at different points in time, allowing the study of trends in the proposed dependent variables. The few longitudinal studies available showed weak or no relationships between social media and the psychological variables examined. 

Navigating the Digital Staffroom

To maximize the benefits of social media while protecting their mental health, teachers should consider the following strategies:

  1. Audit Your Feed: Be mindful of how certain accounts make you feel. If “perfect” classroom accounts are causing stress rather than inspiration, it may be time to unfollow. Make an effort to engage with some tools that allow interaction.
  2. Move Toward Interaction: Try to shift from just scrolling to participating. Leaving a thoughtful comment or sharing a “real-life” classroom struggle can foster the social support that mitigates stress.
  3. Set Boundaries: As noted in research on problematic smartphone use, the constant “on-call” nature of digital platforms can lead to anxiety. I find in this time of great political controversy, I must set aside a fixed amount of time for my Facebook activity because although I am active, too much of the interaction is negative.

In conclusion, social media is a powerful tool that can either drain a teacher’s energy or refill their professional cup. By recognizing the pitfalls of passive comparison and leaning into the strengths of active collaboration, educators can ensure that their digital lives support, rather than undermine, their vital work in the classroom. Perhaps just having the issues raised here identified will lead to greater self-reflection and useful insights.

Sources

Meyer, A., Richter, E., Carpenter, J. P., Richter, D., & Kempert, S. (2025). Teachers’ perceived stressors and stress from Instagram use. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 1-19.

Richter, E., Carpenter, J. P., Meyer, A., & Richter, D. (2022). Instagram as a platform for teacher collaboration and digital social support. Computers & education, 190, 1-15.

Valkenburg, P. M., van Driel, I. I., & Beyens, I. (2022). The associations of active and passive social media use with well-being: A critical scoping review. New media & society, 24(2), 530-549.

Loading

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on The Active and Passive Paradox of Social Media

Writing to Learn Activities Understood as a Process Trail: No AI

Posted on January 19, 2026 by admin

The concept of a process trail is likely novel to most. I first encountered the idea in the context of qualitative research. Qualitative research is a systematic inquiry that aims to understand social or human phenomena in depth, focusing on meanings, experiences, and processes rather than on numerical measurement or statistical relationships. It typically involves collecting and interpreting non‑numerical data, such as interview transcripts, observations, documents, images, or audio. To make findings and claims based on these data sources replicable, the researcher(s) must carefully identify the steps (processes) followed to translate the raw input. The first we did this, and then we did this, and then we did this, etc., represents a process trail. How was it that you turned something from the observations or documents into categories, and something that can be counted? Documentation of the processes involved is necessary so that others can duplicate your procedure or critique a step you took.

A similar documentation of the processes involved in an activity can be identified in other domains. I have written many posts about the processes involved in writing. And it seems that the concept of a process trail can also be applied to the completion of writing tasks. This seems similar to the Writing Process Model advocated by Flower and Hayes. Their model has had a significant impact on writing researchers and the teaching of writing, as it identified the subprocesses involved in writing, enabling researchers to investigate individual differences in these processes and their correlations with writing skill, and encouraging educators to target specific processes for instruction.

The dual benefits of a process trail

I suggest that those involved in the development of writing skills (learning to write) or the use of writing as a way to improve the understanding and retention of content from other areas of study (writing to learn) apply strategies that involve a process trail. A recent and very serious concern in these areas has been students’ substitution of AI for the expected thinking and content construction they are expected to apply. What I am suggesting by proposing that we expect a process trail is that there are benefits to both the development of writing and content study, as well as to the documentation that students have done the work involved.

What processes can be externalized for observation?

Rather than using a more complex model, such as the Writing Process Model, here is my simplified proposal. 

  1. Read the content
  2. Identified what you think are important ideas in the content
  3. Process this collection of ideas to understand and apply

With most writing to learn projects, what you are writing about to demonstrate understanding has to come from somewhere. When the source is a book, document, or website, reading the content would seem obvious. However, with AI available, we know we cannot make this assumption. The second process involves identifying the ideas that you want to eventually include in your written product. Finally, how have you personalized and organized these ideas? 

My thinking about processes has originally been based in my academic interest in note-taking and, more recently, in Personal Knowledge Management (PKM) and Second Brain strategies. These perspectives have nothing to do with cheating, but focus on improving the long-term connections between what we experience (reading, watching, listening) and what we eventually apply in some way. How do we store, understand, retrieve, and eventually apply knowledge?

So, I am suggesting that both accountability and performance can be enhanced using the same process trail techniques. 

Hypothes.is – a simple and FREE tool for process documentation

My own process trail implementation relies on tools I am not presenting here mostly because my goals are more long-term and some of the multiple tools require I purchase subscriptions. Simple and free make more sense in classrooms. There is less investment required to learn the tool itself, and the suggested activities do not require a purchase that would strain already constrained school budgets.

I have used Hypothes.is in my own college classes, but the tasks in my case were focused on social annotation. The idea was that there would be value in comparing highlighting and annotations among students. What did others find important (highlights) and what thoughts did the content generate in other readers (annotations)? Recently, I have been more interested in the personal note-taking capabilities and the potential to allow the teacher to examine individual students’ reactions to what they have read.  

What follows is a quick tutorial in how Hypothes.is might be applied as a PKM tool.

Hypothes.is is a browser extension that allows the annotation of any file type one can open with a browser (text, PDFs, images, web pages). 

The following image displays the window with the Hypothes.is the extension activated? The left-hand column here, which is only shown partially, is the file of interest. The right-hand section displays the open Hypothes.is sidebar. Here you see at least a portion of each of the individual highlights and annotations. The full addition appears if you select one of the individual entries in this column. 

The procedure I want to emphasize is how to export your highlights and notes. I have identified the key “button” in red. 

The button I mentioned opens up the following dropdown. Here you should find the button to export the entries containing highlights and annotations. Also, the link that allows public access to highlights and annotations. A similar link is provided if you set Public to a specific individual or designated group. 

From this menu, you can assign a name to the output file (or leave as is), determine the format for this file (here set to text), and copy this content if you would rather copy and paste instead of outputting a file. 

Finally, the following image shows the text content corresponding to the first highlight/annotation. Note that each of the additions to the content viewed through the browser is assigned a unique identifier. In this case, this is the first addition. 

Use of this information as a process trail

I will work my way through the three processes I identified. First, the highlights and annotations stored demonstrate that the reader has worked her way through the document. Second, the reader has identified information she felt was either relevant to an assignment or important. The existence of the file or viewing the highlights and annotations in context as would be available via the unique link to provide access would demonstrate the effort in executing this process.

Finally, I think it makes sense for the writer to append individual content cut and pasted from the highlights and annotations file as endnotes to the written product. The unique identifier for each endnote could be attached to the section within the writing project where appropriate. The goal in this would be the same as any method for citing a source or sources. Here is the basis for this section of my paper. Here is how I have interpreted and integrated and applied this information. This final activity assures there was a connection between the annotations created and the written product.

Summary

This post explains how to deploy a three-stage process trail using Hypothes.is. This trail engages student in activities that externalize content identified by a reader as important or useful and then connects these elements to specific locations in the product written based on what students have been asked to read and understand or apply. The externalized content also verifies that the reader has executed this process rather than using AI to complete the assignment. 

The intent here is not to discourage appropriate uses of AI. The intent to ensure the practice of key skills when practice of these skills is the goal of the assignment 

Citation

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition & Communication, 32(4), 365-387.

Hayes, J. R. (2012). Modeling and Remodeling Writing. Written Communication, 29(3), 369-388. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088312451260](https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088312451260) 

Loading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Comments Off on Writing to Learn Activities Understood as a Process Trail: No AI

Accessing AI Through APIs

Posted on December 18, 2025 by admin

I have written several posts about using AI plugins in Obsidian. Part of this process requires you to connect the plugin to an AI service. This is done by interacting with the AI provider (e.g., OpenAI, Anthropic), creating an account, and obtaining a key that the plugin uses to authenticate your use of the AI service and charge you against the credits you have purchased. While Obsidian is free and the AI plugins may or may not be, you must pay for your AI activity. In comparison to the typical $20 a month AI subscription fees, my expenses for use of AI within Obsidian are very small – typically only less than a couple of dollars a month. I have also secured access to a couple of AI services (OpenAI and Anthropic) so I can compare and contrast the content they generate. 

Adding Anthropic AI Capabilities to Obsidian

Here is a quick, complete explanation of the process for obtaining an API key, intended for those who have not yet explored it. 

The site for securing Anthropic API access is console.anthropic.com. The page you will see when you use this link is shown below. You will need to provide a credit card to cover the initial $5 fee. This is not a subscription, but an amount from which the costs you generate are subtracted. This is plenty to get you started and more than I have spent in a given month. You can add to this amount at any time if necessary. The Get API Key button initiates this process. 

If this is first use of an API from Anthropic, you will encounter the following. Change the name of the API if you want; you don’t make use of the name, but a long alphanumeric key that will be provided. 

Your key will look something like the following. I have blurred a portion to protect my account. Copy this key. I keep a copy in a secure place, but this key is what you will add to your Copilot options. 

The Copilot plugin is listed among your community plugins in Obsidian. The Copilot options are accessed using the gear icon. 

API keys should appear near the top of your options. You access using the Set Keys button.

Adding the API to the Copilot Plugin

Copilot supports multiple AI services. The key you copied should be saved into the box associated with Anthropic. 

Back in the Anthropic Console, you can view your spending using the billing option.

Summary

This post explains how to access the Anthropic API to use AI with Obsidian content via the Copilot plugin. I found APIs (both OpenAI and Copilot) to be easy to use with Obsidian and much less expensive. You pay for your level of activity rather than a monthly subscription. Another advantage of Obsidian is its support for exploring multiple AI services. One final comment about Copilot – you must select a model associated with the AI company from which you have paid for service. Copilot lists many different models, but only those for which you have a key will work. 

Loading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Comments Off on Accessing AI Through APIs

AI Plugins for Interaction with your Obsidian Notes

Posted on December 16, 2025 by admin

There are several ways in which you can add a plugin to your Obsidian setup to explore your notes with AI. I have considerable experience with two and I have decided to transition from the Smart Connections Obsidian plugin to the Copilot plugin. Both plugins have met my personal needs and I will explain the motivation for my change from one to the other. 

I have been impressed with Smart Connects and have written several accounts of how I have benefited from this tool (example1, example2). Still, I am changing. I have experienced similar issues with several products. A helpful product is updated and improved, and as a result, is no longer free or increases substantially in cost. With subscription models, you must decide. Are the additional capabilities useful to you and do other services meet your needs at a lower cost?

Smart Connections allowed me to focus AI prompts on my notes (RAG) and perform other useful functions (e.g., identify related notes). I have nothing against paying for AI and I pay for multiple AI tools or other tools that already contain AI capabilities. It is easy enough for me to export batches of my notes from Obsidian to apply AI tools (e.g., NotebookLM). While Smart Connections was free, you had to grant it access to an OpenAI account to engage in chat. 

The new, more powerful version of the Smart tool is $20 a month. I am certain it continues to be a great tool and it is reasonably priced for those who rely heavily on Obsidian. However, I would suggest that there is greater flexibility with an API AI approach as the same account can be connected to multiple services and I pay based on what I use rather than a flat fee. Again, the approach that makes the most sense depends on individual interests and needs.

I have moved to Obsidian Copilot. It allows me the opportunity to use the same OpenAI account I used with Smart Connections. There is a Pro version, but again, the free level offers the capabilities I want. As with the original version of Smart Connections, I could use my OpenAI account.  

Copilot controls and the content it generates appear in the panel on the right side of Obsidian. The following image shows the controls at the bottom of this column. Red boxes indicate where you set the AI tool you want to apply and the prompt (add context) you intend to focus on. Selecting the “add context” button generates a menu I usually want the prompt to be applied to a folder of notes. 

Copilot allows access to multiple AI APIs. I have an OpenAI account, so during setup I entered a key associated with it. When Copilot asks which model I want to apply, I must select one of the models from OpenAI. 

The following image shows the entire Copilot display, including some content generated by a prompt I applied to my file of Cognitive notes. The prompt includes 

To summarize, my switch from Smart Connections to Copilot has been motivated by the opportunity to use the AI services I already pay for rather than duplicating the subscription cost now required for the latest Smart Connections upgrade. This switch has nothing to do with the capabilities of either system as they appear similar.

Loading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments Off on AI Plugins for Interaction with your Obsidian Notes