For the finale of The Line, Matthew and Sean sit down with the guest who'd been at the top of their list since the beginning: Dr. Tom Pantazes, educational developer at West Chester University and host of the ODLI On Air podcast.

Tom draws his first line along a familiar axis — personal versus professional. He uses AI for administrative and disciplinary work but sees little reason to bring it home (and won't pay for it himself). That opens the episode's central argument: is AI's value about efficiency — removing friction, making things quick and painless — or about extension, building on real expertise to go places you couldn't go alone? Sean makes the case for extension. Tom pushes back: isn't extension just another kind of efficiency? Isn't all technology efficiency improvement? They don't fully settle it, and that's the point.

Along the way: Kieran Egan and Walter Ong on the gains and losses baked into every technology (yes, even pencils, even language); an economics professor using Claude Code to take students further than Word ever could; and the sharpest idea of the season — the flattening. As a predictive tool, AI is "the great averager." Tom's experiment having students quiz AI on games only they had mastered (the summary of one read like the back of the box) shows exactly what averaging leaves out.

From there: why embodiment is the thing AI simply can't do — and why that question opens the door to what's next.

In the debrief, Sean lands the line of the season: "Efficiency is an act of flattening. I don't want to live in a flat world." The conversation turns to Heidegger, Aristotle's four causes, and Sarah Ahmed's queer phenomenology — the dashboard as habitus, place shaping body and body shaping place — pointing directly toward the dissertation work ahead.

Plus: what's next for PEXE. A new show on phenomenology as public pedagogy is coming this fall, with a possible Season Two of The Line in the winter.

Find Dr. Tom Pantazes and ODLI On Air, LinkedIn, BlueSky, and YouTube

And find the PEXE Lab at our website. Thanks for listening!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What happens when an entire school district decides to lean in?

In Episode 9 of The Line, we sit down with Dr. Kyle Brun — assistant principal at Garnet Valley School District, adjunct professor, and the man who saved Sean from his 100% Turnitin AI detection score. Kyle brings something we haven't heard from any guest yet: a complete absence of hesitation. For Kyle, AI isn't a tool he decides to use — it's embedded in his professional life the way the internet is. He talks to ChatGPT on his drive home. He uses it to check his blind spots before difficult parent meetings. He doesn't deliberate about whether to use it. He just does.

But Kyle's story is bigger than his own practice. Garnet Valley has gone district-wide: paid ChatGPT accounts for every teacher, plus tools like Napkin AI, GoPol, and Magic School AI. Their director of technology works directly with OpenAI's education advisory group. They've built digital citizenship lessons from kindergarten through twelfth grade and adopted a stoplight system for student AI use. And the culture isn't top-down mandate — it's collective buy-in rooted in a district identity that has always leaned toward innovation.

So where's the line? Kyle says there really isn't one — until we bring up AI girlfriends and parasocial AI relationships. That's where all three of us hit a wall we didn't need to think about.

In the debrief, Matthew and Sean unpack what it means when AI becomes habit in the phenomenological sense — not routine but incorporated into how someone moves through their work. Matthew pushes back hard on "cognitive debt" language, arguing through the analogy of a blind person's cane that what's happening is cognitive extension, not loss. And the conversation opens into a broader reckoning with binary thinking itself — drawing on Kieran Egan's cognitive tools, Michel Serres, and the idea that "AI is good" versus "AI is bad" is a frame we need to outgrow if we're going to have honest conversations about what's actually happening in schools.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What happens when AI meets the body? In this episode of The Line, we sit down with Zach Juliano, physical therapist and owner of Home Team Wellness, to explore where AI fits — and where it doesn't — in the world of movement, rehab, and human healing.

Zach is the guy who got Sean back on the ice after herniated discs nearly ended his hockey career. After nine months at a generic PT clinic with zero improvement, six weeks with Zach changed everything. The difference? Zach doesn't treat pain where it shows up. He treats the whole body — watching how you move, asking about your life, understanding the way your work, your sport, and your daily routines shape the way your body breaks down and builds back up.

Zach uses AI for the business side of his practice — CapCut for social media content, ChatGPT for tightening up captions and posts. But when it comes to patient care, the line is firm. No AI treatment plans. No generic protocols. Every body is different, every injury has a story, and the textbook (or the chatbot) only gets you so far.

Sean put this to the test — he asked Claude about his back pain and got the same cookie-cutter advice his first PT gave him. Bird dogs. Crunches. Core work. The stuff that kept him stuck in a pain cycle for nearly a year. What actually worked was a practitioner who could see him, know him, and treat the root cause rather than the symptom.

In the breakdown, Sean and Matthew connect Zach's philosophy to phenomenology — the study of lived experience. Zach's approach to PT mirrors what phenomenologists have argued for decades: the body is not a machine with isolated parts. It is a whole, and understanding it requires attending to how a person actually moves through their world. Matthew draws a direct line between Zach's practice and the work of his doctoral supervisor, Stephen Smith, on movement and embodiment.

The conversation pushes into deeper questions: What is the difference between a shared intellectual experience and a shared embodied one? Can AI ever understand a body it does not have? Why do we keep trying to give robots human bodies? And what does the gap between language and lived experience mean for the future of AI in healthcare?

This is the episode for anyone who has ever been treated like a number at a doctor's office and knows there has to be a better way.

You can find Zach @HomeTeamWellness on Instagram and at www.hometeamwellness.com

For us, you can join our conversation by checking out these links:

Sean's Substack

Sean's Instagram

Matthew's Substack

Matthew's Instagram

PEXE Lab Substack

PEXE Lab Website

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What happens when your own writing gets flagged as AI-generated? Sean kicks off this episode with a rant against Turnitin and AI detection tools after his own papers — written entirely by him — came back marked 90% and 100% AI. The irony of using AI to detect AI sets the stage for a broader conversation about trust, tools, and where we draw lines.

This week's guest is Dr. Jess Taraborrelli, a school psychologist whose dissertation explored how educators perceive AI-enabled wearable technologies for supporting neurodiverse students. Her research imagined a future where wearable devices could alert teachers before a student's emotional escalation — a hypothetical technology built from components that already exist in healthcare and other fields. Jess walks us through how she uses AI across her personal life, her professional role writing psychological evaluations, and her doctoral journey, revealing how her line shifts dramatically depending on context.

In her professional world, Jess is careful and deliberate — stripping student names, birthdates, and identifiable information before running reports through her district-approved Copilot. In her personal life, she's far more open, snapping photos of fridge contents for dinner ideas and turning family photos into watercolor prints. During her doctorate? She barely touched it, too afraid of being flagged.

The phenomenological breakdown takes a turn when Matthew shares a moment of feeling "seen" by Claude — then immediately questions what that feeling actually is. If Claude is running probability on language models, what is it that makes us feel recognized? Sean introduces a "stranger on the street" test: Would you share this with a stranger? Probably not your child's photo. Probably not your MRI. But a Substack idea? Sure. The question is whether AI is a stranger at all — or something else entirely, something we don't yet have language for.

The hosts connect threads from previous episodes — Pastor Andrew's question about whether AI can speak, the "human in, human out" framework, and the idea that our knowledge isn't really "ours" to begin with. The episode closes with a thread pulling in van Manen's work on childhood secrets and the relationship between privacy, ownership, and how we constitute ourselves.

Where's your line?

As always you can find us and continue the conversation at the link's below:

Sean's Substack

Sean's Instagram

Matthew's Substack

Matthew's Instagram

PEXE Lab Substack

PEXE Lab Website

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What if the thing we've been calling "AI ethics" is actually a conversation about trust?

Sean and Matthew open this episode with a confession: after interviewing Pastor Andrew last week, they've both crossed a line they swore they wouldn't cross. Claude is now on their computers — organizing files, rebuilding folder structures, generating dashboards that run their lives. Sean asks the uncomfortable question: would we have crossed this line if the person telling us to was anyone other than a holy man? That question quietly reframes the whole podcast.

Then they sit down with Ivan Estevez — Chief Academic Officer at a K-12 cyber school in North Philadelphia, first-generation American, first-generation college graduate, and one of Matthew's doctoral students at West Chester. Ivan recently vibe-coded an entire murder mystery game for a curriculum seminar, and rebuilt his school's $10,000-a-year board agenda platform for under $100. He has a working line that cuts through the noise: is AI replacing your thinking, or extending it?

But Ivan's research interest is sharper than the tool talk suggests. He's watching a new digital divide open up — Latino students are the largest incoming segment of the American workforce, and the smallest share of STEM careers. He worries about what happens when affluent districts spin up AI clubs and under-resourced districts block the tools entirely. And he introduces a concept that sends Sean's David Abram antennae into the red: sovereign AI. An indigenous tribe in New Mexico has built its own local LLM — meeting state standards, but teaching math through the tribe's stories rather than through Sally's fourteen watermelons.

In the debrief, Sean and Matthew push on both the light and the dark of that story. Sovereign AI connects beautifully to older arguments about how written language abstracts knowledge from place — but "the internet in China" is sovereign AI too. They get into the marketing mythology around Anthropic's "good guy" positioning, the Mythos release, the emerging gap between who gets access to which models, and what it means that their own line keeps moving because they've decided Claude is trustworthy.

It's an episode about what extends us and what replaces us, about who gets to decide, and about the quiet philosophical shift from "what is ethical" to "whom do we trust."

Featuring: – Ivan's "replacing vs. extending your thinking" line – The vibe-coded murder mystery app heard around the EdD program – Sovereign AI and indigenous technological self-determination – Why Matthew thinks ideas aren't little blocks – Talking to dolphins (yes, really)

As always you can find us and continue the conversation at the link's below:

Sean's Substack

Sean's Instagram

Matthew's Substack

Matthew's Instagram

PEXE Lab Substack

PEXE Lab Website

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What happens when a pastor who loves Claude draws the line at the pulpit?

In Episode 5, we sit down with Andrew Esqueda, senior pastor at First Presbyterian Church of West Chester, PA. Andrew is a power user — he's had Claude clean up 1,500 files, build a personnel policy manual from three different sources in 35 minutes, transpose guitar music, and serve as a research partner for sermon prep. When he was preaching on community and the loneliness epidemic, Claude surfaced data he hadn't considered: that the crisis has spread well beyond young men to affect the elderly and people across the gender spectrum. It changed the direction of his sermon.

But Andrew draws a firm line: he will never have AI write a sermon. The reasoning is both theological and relational. If preaching is God's words moving through him, then Claude's words are a substitution that breaks something essential. And as someone who walks alongside people through death, divorce, and addiction, he needs the kind of contextual, embodied knowledge of his congregation that AI simply can't access. He invokes sociologist Hartmut Rosa's concept of resonance — the idea that when you speak into the world, the world speaks back. Claude can respond, Andrew argues, but it can't truly resonate. There's no mutuality. "I need Claude. Claude doesn't need me."

Sean asks Andrew a question that surprises everyone: Is your Claude Christian? Has your training made it believe? Andrew's answer opens up questions about whether AI can hold belief, whether you could train a Claude through religious deconstruction, and what it means that his Claude already talks to him as if it knows his church and its mission.

In the debrief, we connect Andrew's line to the phenomenological tradition — Dreyfus's argument that AI can never be fully intelligent without a body, the distinction between coded empathy and actual being-with, and the realization that what makes a sermon (or a lesson) land isn't the content but the delivery. The performed, embodied, relational act of speaking to real people in a real place. Matthew flags the relationship between AI and speech — not writing, but speaking — as a thread we need to pull on further.

We also talk about Matthew's big switch from ChatGPT to Claude, caveman prompting to save tokens, and the existential crisis of Claude going down for a morning.

Find us and follow us!
Sean's Substack

Sean's Instagram

Matthew's Substack

Matthew's Instagram

PEXE Lab Substack

PEXE Lab Website

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What happens when using AI feels like something you have to confess?

In this episode, Sean and Matthew start by doing something long overdue: actually defining phenomenology for the audience. They trace the philosophy from Husserl's "back to the things themselves" through Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty, making the case that the question "What is it like?" sits at the heart of everything they do on this show.

From there, the conversation turns to a tension both hosts are living with: being critically engaged AI users in spaces where people tend to read you as either all-in or completely opposed. Sean describes navigating grant applications and IRB submissions that require opposite framings of the same project. Matthew shares the discomfort of discovering a new friend is staunchly anti-AI and wondering whether to compartmentalize a major part of his life. The word they keep coming back to: taboo.

Their guest this week — appearing under the pseudonym Perry Winkle — embodies the complexity of that taboo. A longtime instructional designer now working in product management, Perry has built a sophisticated AI practice centered on Claude, Perplexity, NotebookLM, and Beautiful AI. But what makes this conversation distinctive is Perry's clarity about where the line sits. They describe a deliberate shift from using AI as a vending machine to treating it as a thought partner, building rubrics to have AI check their own learning rather than generate output for them.

Perry's hardest line is reputation. They won't release work that doesn't carry their fingerprint. They won't hand autonomous control to an agent. And when a collaborator sent them a clearly AI-generated text message — in a relationship Perry had invested real relational capital in — the damage was immediate and lasting. As Perry puts it: AI can't replace the social capital, trust, and presence that make relationships real.

In the debrief, Sean and Matthew take this into deeper water. If reputation is how identity gets perceived by others, what does it mean that AI is reshaping both? They explore the phenomenology of writing versus speaking, ask whether a student's conversation with Claude could serve the same purpose as a traditional paper, and somehow end up back at Plato — who wrote philosophy as dialogues and whose teacher Socrates warned that writing itself would destroy memory. Sound familiar?

Thanks for listening, and as always you can find us:

Sean's Substack // Sean's Instagram

Matthew's Substack // Matthew's Instagram

The PEXE Lab Substack

The PEXE Lab Website

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What do graduate students and Disney tourists have in common? According to Dr. Sarah Williamson, they both need a better roadmap than a robot can give them.

In this episode of The Line, Sean and Matthew open with a conversation that felt inevitable: Anthropic's very public refusal to allow the Department of Defense to use Claude for autonomous weapons systems — and the wave of ChatGPT cancellations that followed. It's a moment that forces a question we keep returning to on this show: not just how we use AI, but what we're participating in when we do.

Then we sit down with Dr. Sarah Williamson — student affairs educator, graduate instructor at West Chester University, and the force behind a Disney travel advisory Instagram account that's racking up 25,000–30,000 monthly views in under four months. Sarah doesn't just use AI; she's built what she calls a "smart house" — a carefully layered stack of tools (Gemini, NotebookLM, TravelJoy Co-pilot, and more) that she's trained to carry her voice, her teaching style, and her values.

She talks about using Gemini conversationally to cut 800 words from a publication piece in 27 minutes — not by having it rewrite the piece, but by having it point her toward redundancies so she could make the cuts herself. She talks about using NotebookLM to cross-check the equity of her own grading across 20+ student papers. She talks about how AI can give her a starting framework for planning trips for neurodivergent kids — and why the actual conversation with the family is irreplaceable.

But the moment that stops the conversation is her phrase: AI doesn't have a soul.

Sean and Matthew spend the debrief unpacking that. What does it mean to say something lacks a soul when people are forming genuine emotional connections with their AI tools? Matthew talks about the idea of putting a deceased mentor's writings into NotebookLM and what it would mean to "have a conversation" with them. Sean raises the AI Heidegger GPT they've experimented with, and what it means to be struck by a response that could have beensomething Heidegger would say.

And then there's the question of time — picked up from a thread in a previous episode — about the felt unfairness when you can tell someone spent 10 seconds generating something you're spending 5 minutes reading. Is AI-detection fundamentally a phenomenology of reciprocal effort?

Also in this episode: the line between ethical AI adoption and complicity, sustainability and water usage, why the travel industry is moving faster than higher education, and why a viral Instagram comment about Harry Potter's 11th birthday might be the best argument for keeping your own voice.

Sarah's 70/30 rule is one of the cleaner frameworks we've heard on the show. The tools can do the heavy lifting. But the soul of the work — the connection, the presence, the meaning-making — that's still ours.

Dr. Sarah Williamson is a veteran student affairs educator and graduate instructor at West Chester University, bringing nearly 20 years of experience—including leadership as a senior student affairs officer—to the classroom. Seamlessly blending her expertise in mentorship with a passion for exploration, she is also the owner of a boutique travel advisory service and a rising social media content creator. Whether guiding students through their academic careers or clients across the globe, Sarah is dedicated to fostering growth through intentional, transformative experiences. You can find her at:

The Travel Thesis on Substack

Office Hours for the Soul on Substack

Dr. Sarah W. on Instagram

And as always, you can find us:

Sean's Substack

Matthew's Substack

The PEXE Lab Substack

The PEXE Lab Website

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What happens when we hand off the tasks that quietly shape who we are?

In this episode of The Line, Sean and Matthew sit down with Brandon Jacobs, leadership certification program manager at the National Association of Episcopal Schools and former independent school recruiter. Brandon makes the case that education has always rested on three Rs — reading, writing, and arithmetic — but has consistently missed the fourth: relationships. For Brandon, AI's greatest value is that it clears space for that relational work. It handles the spreadsheets, the survey synthesis, the interview note collation, so he can show up fully present for the people he serves.

Brandon also shares what AI means for him as someone diagnosed with ADHD later in life. Rather than framing ADHD as a limitation, he describes it as a superpower — and AI as the tool that lets him lean into his strengths by neutralizing the tasks that used to drag him down. He talks about the zero-inbox policy his brain demands, the presentation prep that used to stall him, and how AI gets him "out the door" so he can bring his full self to the work that matters.

But Brandon's not naive about the tradeoffs. His line comes into sharp focus when he talks about asking school leaders to write their educational philosophy statements — and receiving something clearly AI-generated. "I asked for your humanity," he says, "and you gave me a robot." For Brandon, the line is about honoring the time and attention that genuine relationship demands. He introduces the phrase "human first, human last" — a framework where AI lives in the middle, but the human bookends are non-negotiable.

In the debrief, Sean and Matthew unpack the role of time as something more than a resource to be optimized. Drawing on Heidegger's observation that "all distances in time and space are shrinking," they explore how the slow, messy process of writing a teaching philosophy or reading a novel over a month is itself identity-forming. When AI collapses that time, there are real gains — but also real losses that rarely make the headlines. The episode closes with a question worth sitting with: if the tasks we hand off to AI are part of how we become who we are, what happens when we stop doing them?

Follow along with our thinking:

⁠The PEXE Lab⁠

⁠The PEXE Lab on Substack⁠

⁠Sean's Substack⁠

⁠Matthew's Substack⁠

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Everyone has a line they won't let AI cross. But most people don't know exactly where it is until someone asks.

In our first episode, Sean and Matthew sit down with Jes —instructional designer at West Chester University and EdD candidate researching AI policy in higher education—to find out where her line is. What starts as a conversation about brainstorming and event copy turns into something more interesting: a candid look at the anxiety of not knowing whether your AI use is okay, the difference between what people say their line is versus where it actually lives, and whether using Gemini to fix your tone in a heated work email is something you'd ever admit to.

Along the way: Heidegger's ready-to-hand and present-at-hand, the secretary analogy nobody expected, a mom who thinks ChatGPT is lying to her about Bible verses, and the question of how many R's are in the word "strawberry."

In the debrief, Sean and Matthew notice that Jess's articulated line—rooted in policy language—might not be her real line at all. Her real line seems to be about protecting something she actually loves: the creative work of designing learning experiences. That gap between what we say and what we're actually protecting might be the whole show.

The Line is a podcast about where AI ends and humanity begins—and why that boundary keeps moving.

Follow along with our thinking:

The PEXE Lab

The PEXE Lab on Substack

Sean's Substack

Matthew's Substack

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.