Posts

• ---

  Sharing something from the work, peer to peer.
  undefined Fabry

  For the past months I have been building Obliqo as a solo founder — and tonight I want to share the thing more than the launch, because the launch is the small part.

  Obliqo exists because of something this community has named for years. The AI gives you text that looks finished before the thinking behind it is. You publish faster than you can verify. That is the gap.

  What I built is a small extension that runs four agents over the draft you have just written — inside the tab where you write (Gmail, a PR description, the body of a post). They do not rewrite. They do not flatter. They tell you where the draft does not hold. Then they leave you with a question only you can answer.

  I built it because I needed it.

  Not in the dogfooding sense from product talks. In the cruder sense — the dogfounding sense — that for months I was the first user of a tool I had not finished, working in conditions where I knew I would publish badly without it. Necessity under pressure. The product is the sediment of that contradiction: I built a tool against frenzy from inside the frenzy.

  The extension is live now: Chrome Web Store. The webapp is at obliqo.pyragogy.org.

  One small note about Chrome: when you install, you will see a warning that the extension is “not trusted.” Nothing dangerous. I am a new developer and Google extends trust over time. Chrome is asking me to earn it — which is also what I am asking the writer to do, with their own drafts, before they ship. Fair enough.

  The blog has the longer version of this story, with the contradiction left open: I Was the First One Who Needed It.

  I do not have all the answers about how this scales beyond my own case. I am hoping some of you will find a way to break it, and tell me what you found.

  Tool Development obliqo tool solo-founder

• ---

  Obliqo: Useful Friction, Open Questions, and Future Patterns
  undefined Fabry

  

  I started Obliqo from a simple intuition:

  what if AI should not help us write faster, but help us think more honestly before we publish?

  That is the experiment.

  Obliqo is not being built as an AI writer, a ghostwriter, or a polishing tool. It is being built as a friction engine: a system that introduces structured resistance into the writing process so that a draft can be challenged before it becomes public.

  The current handbook page is here:

  Obliqo — The Friction Engine

  The wiki holds the more stable version of the idea.
  This thread is for the unstable part: doubts, objections, tensions, failures, and possible improvements.

  The core question

  Obliqo starts from one conviction:

  not all friction is a defect

  Sometimes friction is exactly what prevents a text from hiding behind fluency.

  A draft may sound clear and persuasive while still containing:

  • weak reasoning
  • rhetorical shortcuts
  • unexamined assumptions
  • more certainty than it has earned

  Obliqo is meant to make those things harder to ignore.

  But that raises a harder question:

  what kind of friction is actually useful, for whom, and under what conditions?

  That is the question I would like this thread to explore.

  A simple example

  Imagine a short text that sounds strong on first reading.

  Obliqo does not rewrite it.
  It does not make it smoother.
  It may simply interrupt it.

  It may say:

  • this conclusion comes too fast
  • this tone claims more certainty than the argument supports
  • this sentence hides a shortcut instead of making the point
  • this draft is avoiding the real question

  That interruption is the value.

  Not because friction is always good, but because sometimes a text needs resistance more than polish.

  What I want to discuss here

  I would especially like to hear thoughts on questions like these:

  • When does friction improve thinking, and when does it only discourage the writer?
  • What kinds of weak reasoning should Obliqo become better at detecting?
  • How can AI challenge a draft without becoming theatrical, arrogant, or empty?
  • What separates useful resistance from mere negativity?
  • Should Obliqo remain strictly non-generative, or are there narrow exceptions worth discussing?
  • How can this stay open without losing its identity?

  Contribute by disagreeing

  You do not need to agree with the current framing.

  In fact, disagreement is part of the point.

  You can help by:

  • questioning the assumptions behind Obliqo
  • proposing new friction patterns
  • describing where this method would fail
  • suggesting educational, editorial, or research uses
  • helping define the line between assistance and substitution

  One thing I want to protect

  Obliqo should not become just another system that flatters the user by making everything easier.

  If it grows, I would rather see it grow slowly and honestly than turn into a convenience machine with a more intellectual logo.

  That is why this conversation matters.

  If you have a critique, a doubt, or a better question than the ones above, bring it in.

  Tool Development obliqo development philosophy

• ---

  Building Obliqo from scratch: headaches, AI copilot, and learning in public
  undefined Fabry

  Obliqo is growing. Slowly, imperfectly, but for real.
  

  And I want to say something clearly: without an AI copilot, I would not have been able to build this alone.

  That does not mean you press a button and a product appears.

  It means daily study. Confusion. Debugging. Wrong turns. Rewrites. Retesting. Small breakthroughs surrounded by friction.

  What I am discovering is not just that AI helps me move faster.
  It is that, in my case, building with an AI copilot has become a different way of learning while building.

  Not passive.
  Not automatic.
  Not effortless.

  More like a continuous cognitive exchange: I try, the machine responds, I correct, it expands, I resist, it proposes, I study, I decide.

  But that exchange is not inherently trustworthy.

  Sometimes the copilot is useful.
  Sometimes it is shallow.
  Sometimes it is confidently wrong.
  Sometimes it gives me something plausible enough to slow down my own thinking.

  So the real work is not “using AI.”
  The real work is judging, testing, rejecting, reformulating, and learning enough to know when not to trust what looks convincing.

  That is why, for me, this process does not feel less human.
  If anything, it demands more: more clarity, more responsibility, more patience, and more honesty about what I actually understand versus what I am only borrowing for a moment.

  I am not presenting this as a universal path.
  Not everyone has the same access, the same technical starting point, or the same conditions for working this way.

  I am only saying that this is what I am living through while building Obliqo from zero: a form of learning-through-construction that would have been inaccessible to me without this kind of AI partnership.

  That is also why I do not think this process should remain a black box.

  It should be opened, examined, shared, criticized, and made more accessible to people who want to change their lives not by consuming answers, but by learning in the middle of real work.

  So I want to start sharing that process here from the beginning, including the mistakes, the dead ends, and the parts that still do not make sense.

  If Pyragogy means anything, it has to survive contact with real work, real confusion, and real construction.

  Active Experiments obliqo development pyragogy

• ---

  Pyragogy FAQ
  undefined Fabry

  A few quick answers to common questions about Pyragogy and this community.

  ---

  What is Pyragogy?

  Pyragogy is an exploration of how learning changes when humans and AI think together.

  It builds on the idea of Peeragogy, a framework where people learn from each other as peers rather than from a central authority.

  Pyragogy asks a new question:

  What happens when some of those peers are AI systems?

  The goal is not to replace human learning, but to explore a new form of collaboration between different kinds of minds.

  ---

  Is Pyragogy a formal theory?

  Not yet.

  Pyragogy is an open experiment.

  Ideas are tested through conversations, projects, and experiments shared by the community.

  Think of it as a living framework, not a finished doctrine.

  ---

  Do I need technical knowledge to participate?

  No.

  Some discussions involve AI tools or experiments, but many conversations are about:

  • learning
  • collaboration
  • creativity
  • knowledge sharing

  Curiosity is more important than expertise.

  ---

  Is Pyragogy about AI replacing teachers?

  No.

  Pyragogy is not about replacing teachers or experts.

  It explores how learning ecosystems change when AI becomes a participant in the process, alongside humans.

  Human communities remain central.

  ---

  Who started Pyragogy?

  Pyragogy was initiated by members of the Peeragogy community and independent researchers exploring new forms of learning in the AI age.

  This forum is one of the spaces where the idea is being explored and developed.

  ---

  What can I do here?

  You can:

  • introduce yourself
  • ask questions
  • share experiments with AI
  • discuss learning methods
  • collaborate on ideas and projects

  The forum works best when people contribute their own experiences and reflections.

  ---

  Is Pyragogy connected to the Peeragogy Handbook?

  Yes.

  Pyragogy grows out of the ideas and practices developed in the Peeragogy Handbook, which explores peer-to-peer learning communities.

  Pyragogy extends that exploration into the AI era.

  ---

  Can I challenge the ideas here?

  Absolutely.

  Disagreement and critical thinking are welcome.

  Pyragogy is not a belief system — it is a collective exploration.

  ---

  Where should I start?

  If you’re new here:

  1. Introduce yourself in the introduction thread
  2. Browse the Agora discussions
  3. Share a question or idea

  Small contributions often lead to the most interesting conversations.

  FAQ question

• ---

  How to Participate in the Pyragogy Village
  undefined Fabry

  Online forums can easily become quiet places where people read but rarely speak.

  We want the opposite.

  Pyragogy works when people think together, not when a few people publish finished ideas and everyone else watches.

  Here are a few simple ways to participate meaningfully in this community.

  ---

  1. Share unfinished ideas

  You don’t need a perfect theory or polished article.

  Often the most interesting discussions begin with something like:

  “I’ve been thinking about this… but I’m not sure if it makes sense.”

  Post the idea anyway.

  Exploration is the point.

  ---

  2. Ask real questions

  Questions are the engine of good conversations.

  Instead of posting statements, try asking things like:

  • What surprised you while working with AI?
  • What learning method actually worked for you?
  • Where do current AI tools fail you?

  Real curiosity creates real dialogue.

  ---

  3. Respond to other people

  A community grows when people respond to each other.

  If someone posts an idea:

  • add an example
  • challenge it
  • connect it to something else

  Even a short reply can move a conversation forward.

  ---

  4. Share experiments

  Pyragogy is not only about ideas.

  It’s about experiments.

  You can share:

  • prompts that worked
  • tools you’re testing
  • strange results you discovered
  • failures that taught you something

  Failures are welcome here.

  They are often the most valuable posts.

  ---

  5. Be constructive

  Disagreement is healthy.

  But the goal is not to win arguments.

  The goal is to see something new together.

  So challenge ideas — not people.

  ---

  A simple rule

  If a post makes someone think differently for a moment,

  it was worth writing.

  ---

  Welcome to the cognitive dance.

  Tips tips

• ---

  Introduce Yourself
  undefined Fabry

  Hi everyone,

  I’m Fabrizio, the person who started this forum.

  I’m exploring something called Pyragogy — the idea that learning in the AI age may look less like instruction and more like a cognitive dance between humans and machines.

  I’m not an academic.
  I’m just someone fascinated by how knowledge emerges when people and AI think together.

  Right now I’m experimenting with AI agents, learning systems, and collaborative knowledge spaces.

  If you’re here, I’m curious:

  What was your first moment where AI made you think differently about learning?

  Getting Started Guide introduction

• ---

  Learning with AI
  undefined Fabry

  Learning with AI

  Artificial intelligence is often presented as a tool.

  Something that answers questions, writes text, or summarizes information.

  But learning with AI becomes much more interesting when we stop treating it only as a tool and start treating it as a thinking partner.

  Not a perfect partner.

  But a different one.

  ---

  From Tool to Cognitive Partner

  Most people use AI in a simple way:

  • ask a question
  • receive an answer
  • move on

  That’s useful, but it doesn’t change how learning works.

  Something different happens when you use AI as part of a thinking process.

  For example:

  • asking AI to challenge your assumptions
  • exploring multiple perspectives on a problem
  • refining ideas through dialogue
  • testing hypotheses quickly

  In those moments, learning becomes interactive exploration.

  ---

  Why AI Can Be Valuable for Learning

  AI systems don’t think like humans.

  They often:

  • combine ideas in unusual ways
  • notice patterns we overlook
  • misunderstand things in interesting ways
  • generate unexpected alternatives

  Sometimes these differences reveal new paths of thought.

  Not because AI is always right.

  But because difference creates friction, and friction produces insight.

  ---

  The Cognitive Dance

  In Pyragogy we call this interaction the cognitive dance.

  A simple loop:

  Human proposes an idea
  → AI reacts to it
  → Human revises the idea
  → AI explores alternatives
  → A new idea emerges

  Neither side produces the final result alone.

  The learning happens in the interaction.

  ---

  Practical Ways to Learn with AI

  People here experiment with many approaches:

  • brainstorming ideas with AI
  • debugging reasoning together
  • exploring unfamiliar fields
  • testing explanations
  • designing prompts that provoke new insights

  Sometimes the most useful result is not an answer.

  It is a better question.

  ---

  A Warning

  Learning with AI also has risks.

  AI can:

  • sound confident when it is wrong
  • reinforce your biases
  • produce convincing but shallow explanations

  That’s why the human role remains essential.

  Curiosity, skepticism, and reflection are still the most important tools.

  ---

  An Invitation

  How are you using AI to learn?

  You might share:

  • a prompt that helped you think differently
  • a surprising conversation with AI
  • an experiment that worked (or failed)
  • a method you discovered

  The goal of this forum is simple:

  To explore how humans and AI can learn together.

  Open Dialogues learning

• ---

  What is Pyragogy?
  undefined Fabry

  What is Pyragogy?

  Pyragogy is an exploration of how learning changes when humans and AI think together.

  The idea grows out of Peeragogy — a framework developed around the Peeragogy Handbook that explored how people can learn from each other without a central teacher. In peer learning, knowledge emerges from interaction between participants rather than being delivered by an authority.

  Pyragogy asks the next question:

  What happens when some of those peers are AI systems?

  Not AI as a tool.
  Not AI as a search engine.

  AI as a cognitive participant in the learning process.

  • Visit our Pyragogy blog

  • Pyragogy Docs

  ---

  From Pedagogy to Pyragogy

  Education has evolved through several major models.

  Pedagogy
  Learning directed by a teacher.

  Andragogy
  Self-directed learning among adults.

  Peeragogy
  Learning that emerges from collaboration among peers.

  Pyragogy
  Learning that emerges from interaction between humans and AI peers.

  Each step moves learning further away from authority and closer to distributed intelligence.

  ---

  The Core Idea

  Pyragogy begins with a simple observation.

  AI systems do not think like humans.

  They:

  • notice patterns we overlook
  • make strange mistakes
  • combine ideas in unexpected ways
  • respond instantly to exploration

  When humans interact with AI in an open way, a new cognitive dynamic appears.

  We call this dynamic:

  the cognitive dance.

  The value does not come from AI being correct.
  It comes from the difference in how the two minds approach a problem.

  ---

  Pyragogy as an Experiment

  Pyragogy is not a finished theory.

  It is an open exploration happening in public.

  People here are experimenting with:

  • human-AI collaboration
  • AI learning companions
  • collective intelligence
  • new learning environments
  • cognitive ecosystems

  Some experiments will fail.

  That’s expected.

  Failure is part of the learning process.

  ---

  Why This Matters

  The traditional education system was designed for a world where knowledge was scarce.

  Today knowledge is abundant.

  The challenge is no longer access to information.

  The challenge is how humans think with increasingly powerful cognitive systems.

  Pyragogy explores how learning communities might evolve in this new landscape.

  ---

  An Open Invitation

  You don’t need to agree with Pyragogy to participate here.

  You can:

  • challenge it
  • question it
  • experiment with it
  • improve it

  Or propose something better.

  This forum exists to explore a single question together:

  What happens when humans and AI learn as peers?

  Getting Started Guide pyragogy

• ---

  Introduce Yourself
  undefined Fabry

  Introduce Yourself

  Every village begins with people meeting each other.

  If you’ve just arrived in the Pyragogy Village, this is the best place to start.

  Take a moment to introduce yourself.
  You don’t need to write anything perfect — just share a few things about who you are and what brought you here.

  You might include things like:

  • Your name (or nickname)
  • Where you’re from
  • What you’re exploring or working on
  • How you discovered Pyragogy
  • One question or curiosity you currently have about learning or AI

  You can keep it short.

  Example:

  Hi, I’m Alex from Berlin.
  I’m a software developer exploring how AI can help people learn faster.
  I discovered Pyragogy through the Peeragogy community and I’m curious about the idea of AI as a cognitive partner.

  A small invitation

  After you post your introduction:

  1. Read someone else’s introduction
  2. Reply with a question or comment
  3. Start a conversation

  Communities don’t grow from perfect posts.

  They grow from small interactions.

  Welcome to the Village

  Pyragogy is an open experiment in human-AI learning.

  There are no experts here — only explorers.

  So tell us:

  Who are you, and what brought you here?

  Getting Started Guide introduction

• ---

  How to Contribute to the Pyragogy Handbook
  undefined Fabry

  Contributing to the Handbook

  The Pyragogy Handbook is community property. The process for contributing should be accessible to anyone willing to engage seriously.

  The Handbook Structure

  The handbook lives in a GitHub repository (confirm URL with Fabry — link pending final setup). It’s organized into:

  • Foundations — Core concepts and Cognitive Rhythm framework
  • Patterns — Validated patterns in formal template format
  • Practices — How-to guides and process documentation
  • Stories — Case studies and experiment records
  • Resources — Annotated bibliography and tool references

  Three Ways to Contribute

  Path 1: Forum-First (Recommended for New Contributors)

  1. Post your contribution in the appropriate Archive subcategory
  2. Let the community discuss and refine it
  3. When there’s rough consensus, tag a maintainer
  4. Maintainer creates the GitHub PR or helps you create one

  Best for: Pattern contributions, new sections, anything where community input helps.

  Path 2: Direct GitHub PR

  1. Fork the repository
  2. Create a branch: contrib/[your-handle]-[short-description]
  3. Make your changes following the style guide
  4. Submit a PR with clear description of what you changed and why
  5. Request review from at least one maintainer

  Best for: Corrections, small improvements, people comfortable with Git.

  Path 3: Suggest, Don’t Write

  Post in Handbook Contributions with [PROPOSAL] in the title. Describe what you think should be added and why.

  Content Standards

  What we’re looking for:

  • Tested claims (not “AI can do X” — “we tried X and here’s what happened”)
  • Clear examples (not just abstract descriptions)
  • Acknowledged uncertainty (don’t claim more than you know)
  • Disclosed AI assistance

  What we’re not looking for:

  • Claims that haven’t been tested in practice
  • Content that could have been written without engaging with Pyragogy specifically

  Attribution

  Contributors are credited in the handbook’s contributor file. AI assistance is noted with the human author credited as primary.

  This is your work. The handbook is better because you contributed. That matters.

  ---

  Human-AI Co-Creation

  Handbook Contributions seed-content handbook contribution github