Public debate about artificial intelligence in higher education has largely orbited a familiar worry: cheating . Will students use chatbots to write essays? Should universities ban the tech? But focusing so much on cheating misses the larger transformation already underway, one that extends far beyond student misconduct and even the classroom. Universities are adopting AI across many areas of institutional life .

Large Language Models (LLMs) are reshaping organizational knowing by unsettling the epistemological foundations of representational and practice-based perspectives. We conceptualize LLMs as Haraway-ian monsters, that is, hybrid, boundary-crossing entities that destabilize established categories while opening new possibilities for inquiry. Focusing on analogizing as a fundamental driver of knowledge, we examine how LLMs generate connections through large-scale statistical inference. Analyzing their operation across the dimensions of surface/deep analogies and near/far domains, we highlight both their capacity to expand organizational knowing and the epistemic risks they introduce. Building on this, we identify three challenges of living with such epistemic monsters: the transformation of inquiry, the growing need for dialogical vetting, and the redistribution of agency. By foregrounding the entangled dynamics of knowing-with-LLMs, the paper extends organizational theory beyond human-centered epistemologies and invites renewed attention to how knowledge is created, validated, and acted upon in the age of intelligent technologies.

In the Generative Age, the nature of knowledge work is transforming. Traditional models that emphasise the organisation and retrieval of pre-existing information are increasingly inadequate in the face of generative AI (GenAI) systems capable of autonomous content creation. This paper introduces the Knowledge Sculptor (KS), a new professional archetype for Human-GenAI collaboration that transforms raw AI output into trustworthy, actionable knowledge. Grounded in a socio-technical perspective, the KS is conceptualised through a framework of competencies, including architecting a vision, iterative dialogue, information sculpting, and curiosity-driven synthesis. A practice-based vignette illustrates the KS role in action, and in a self-referential approach, the paper itself serves as an artefact of the sculpting process it describes.

Our study of 20 knowledge workers revealed a common challenge: the difficulty of synthesizing unstructured information scattered across multiple platforms to make informed decisions. Drawing on their vision of an ideal knowledge synthesis tool, we developed Yodeai, an AI-enabled system, to explore both the opportunities and limitations of AI in knowledge work. Through a user study with 16 product managers, we identified three key requirements for Generative AI in knowledge work: adaptable user control, transparent collaboration mechanisms, and the ability to integrate background knowledge with external information. However, we also found significant limitations, including overreliance on AI, user isolation, and contextual factors outside the AI's reach. As AI tools become increasingly prevalent in professional settings, we propose design principles that emphasize adaptability to diverse workflows, accountability in personal and collaborative contexts, and context-aware interoperability to guide the development of human-centered AI systems for product managers and knowledge workers.

Until recently, search engines were the predominant method for people to access online information. The recent emergence of large language models (LLMs) has given machines new capabilities such as the ability to generate new digital artifacts like text, images, code etc., resulting in a new tool, a generative search engine, which combines the capabilities of LLMs with a traditional search engine. Through the empirical analysis of Bing Copilot (Bing Chat), one of the first publicly available generative search engines, we analyze the types and complexity of tasks that people use Bing Copilot for compared to Bing Search. Findings indicate that people use the generative search engine for more knowledge work tasks that are higher in cognitive complexity than were commonly done with a traditional search engine.

Since OpenAI released ChatGPT in November 2022, we have seen increased excitement about generative artificial intelligence (AI), coupled with concerns about its safety. Given this inflection point, we must pay renewed attention to its impact on the future of knowledge work carried out by professionals. This is because compared to earlier types of AI, generative AI gets closer to the core activities of professionals, namely giving advice to and treating clients. And yet, how and how fast professionals' work will change is not well understood. Instead of leaving the issue to be part of "unintended consequences,"3 this column argues that we can influence how generative AI will become embedded in the work we do as professionals. Professionals in a variety of fields--including medicine, audit, accounting, law, and data science--are essentially in the business of diagnosis and treatment, connecting the two via inference.

Recent studies of the applications of conversational AI tools, such as chatbots powered by large language models (LLMs), to complex real-world knowledge work have shown limitations related to reasoning and multi-step problem solving. Specifically, while existing chatbots simulate shallow reasoning and understanding they are prone to errors as problem complexity increases. The failure of these systems to address complex knowledge work is due to the fact that they do not perform any actual cognition. In this position paper, we present a higher-level framework ("Cognitive AI") for implementing programmatically defined neuro-symbolic cognition above and outside of large language models. Specifically, we propose a dual-layer functional architecture for Cognitive AI that serves as a roadmap for AI systems that can perform complex multi-step knowledge work. We propose that Cognitive AI is a necessary precursor for the evolution of higher forms of AI, such as AGI, and specifically claim that AGI cannot be achieved by probabilistic approaches on their own. We conclude with a discussion of the implications for large language models, adoption cycles in AI, and commercial Cognitive AI development.

Artificial Intelligence (AI), and in particular generative models, are transformative tools for knowledge work. They problematise notions of creativity, originality, plagiarism, the attribution of credit, and copyright ownership. Critics of generative models emphasise the reliance on large amounts of training data, and view the output of these models as no more than randomised plagiarism, remix, or collage of the source data. On these grounds, many have argued for stronger regulations on the deployment, use, and attribution of the output of these models. However, these issues are not new or unique to artificial intelligence. In this position paper, using examples from literary criticism, the history of art, and copyright law, I show how creativity and originality resist definition as a notatable or information-theoretic property of an object, and instead can be seen as the property of a process, an author, or a viewer. Further alternative views hold that all creative work is essentially reuse (mostly without attribution), or that randomness itself can be creative. I suggest that creativity is ultimately defined by communities of creators and receivers, and the deemed sources of creativity in a workflow often depend on which parts of the workflow can be automated. Using examples from recent studies of AI in creative knowledge work, I suggest that AI shifts knowledge work from material production to critical integration. This position paper aims to begin a conversation around a more nuanced approach to the problems of creativity and credit assignment for generative models, one which more fully recognises the importance of the creative and curatorial voice of the users of these models and moves away from simpler notational or information-theoretic views.

It is safe to say that the Chat GPT function from OpenAI has created a firestorm of conversation about the applications of artificial intelligence (AI) in knowledge work and scholarship, which includes cyber threat intelligence. Can ChatGPT really replace the thought and knowledge work done by many people? That question is outstanding and I cannot answer, nor can anyone yet with any certainty. But, it's application to various topics, including cyber threat intelligence, is in question – and by proxy, it's impact on those topics. So, let me provide some perspective after 20 years of cyber threat intelligence AND having employed artificial intelligence and machine learning in this space for the last 10 years at least.

The global economy is increasingly dependent on knowledge workers to meet the needs of public and private organizations. While there is no single definition of knowledge work, organizations and industry groups still attempt to measure individuals' capability to engage in it. The most comprehensive assessment of capability readiness for professional knowledge workers is the Uniform CPA Examination developed by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). In this paper, we experimentally evaluate OpenAI's `text-davinci-003` and prior versions of GPT on both a sample Regulation (REG) exam and an assessment of over 200 multiple-choice questions based on the AICPA Blueprints for legal, financial, accounting, technology, and ethical tasks. First, we find that `text-davinci-003` achieves a correct rate of 14.4% on a sample REG exam section, significantly underperforming human capabilities on quantitative reasoning in zero-shot prompts. Second, `text-davinci-003` appears to be approaching human-level performance on the Remembering & Understanding and Application skill levels in the Exam absent calculation. For best prompt and parameters, the model answers 57.6% of questions correctly, significantly better than the 25% guessing rate, and its top two answers are correct 82.1% of the time, indicating strong non-entailment. Finally, we find that recent generations of GPT-3 demonstrate material improvements on this assessment, rising from 30% for `text-davinci-001` to 57% for `text-davinci-003`. These findings strongly suggest that large language models have the potential to transform the quality and efficiency of future knowledge work.