This is one of the possible [[assignments for essays]] you can choose. *Originally posted in British Literature class, this concept could apply to any essay writing process.* The assignment is to go back to your essay and challenge yourself to **think of “one more thing” about your topic.** Find an angle you didn't see before, take it one step further. Play devil’s advocate with yourself. Find questions raised by statements you’ve made so far, and try to answer them. <p style="text-align: center;"><img src="one-more-thing-jobs.jpg" alt="steve jobs standing in front of ‘one more thing’ screen"></p> #### 🧠 Here’s an example, and incidentally an idea for a killer thesis for an essay (partially) about Frankenstein: You know what I love about “literature”? Well, lots of things, but today it’s this: Texts that are widely known across cultures and passed from one generation to the next give us ways to explore even the most current events in non-obvious ways. It’s amazing to me that a book, for example, like Frankenstein, that (a) is old, and (b) reappears in my class every year so you’d think I would get sick of it, can still pop up and resonate in all sorts of surprising ways. Take “AI,” for example. Yes, the parallels between AI and Frankenstein’s monster are pretty obvious and fairly interesting. But what if we’re overlooking something if we simply say “oh hey look, creating artificial intelligence is like creating a creature because there’s unintended consequences”? I used my web browser’s built-in translation to English to get the gist of [this blog post about “The False Monster.”](https://ben.wf/feldnotizen/das-falsche-monster) It makes the case that AI is more like the concept of [the “golem” from Jewish folklore](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golem). Here’s a choice quote: > Psychologists call this the [fundamental attribution error](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentaler_Attributionsfehler): We judge others by their character, ourselves by our circumstances. When AI does something catastrophic, “it has turned against us” is a far more convenient explanation than “we told it exactly what were asking for.” Folks, there’s **always** more going on than we can see at first glance. Just as “money can’t buy happiness” barely scratches the surface of The Great Gatsby, so “people shouldn’t try to play God” barely begins to hint at what we can discover by letting old — even ancient —  stories like Frankenstein and its literary forebears play out in our minds, in our collective psyche. As Benjamin Wittorf, the author of the blog post, says (again, translated): > The pattern repeats itself over millennia and genres. And it always says the same thing: When we encounter a powerful system that we don’t fully understand, the quality of our questions is more important than the quality of its answers. Literature and language itself is, I would argue, a very powerful system. It’s also free and doesn’t necessarily gobble up all the water and Nvidia chips for miles around (lol). Enjoy it!  🧌👾🧑‍💻 --- <small>Here’s a [backup copy of the blog post as translated into English](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B69tEE8L2-d5PCKhSKSnEhvtq8pP1bNT/view?usp=drive_link) via Safari on 2026-03-19. Here’s a [backup copy of the original](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N8ixBQA3laXOGF_j8qMOcXCeBn5ec5ay/view?usp=drive_link).</small>