Google NotebookLM vs. Consensus (RHET Paper)

Using my actual RHET paper with these two AI tools made this assignment feel much more realistic than just talking about AI in theory. It helped me clearly see what each tool can and cannot do, and how that compares to the research work I used to do manually.

When I used Google NotebookLM, the experience felt very close to working with my own notes. After uploading the paper, the tool was able to clearly summarize the main argument, extract key claims, identify patterns across sources, and explain how evidence connects to the main idea. The output reflected my paper accurately, including complex ideas like political consumerism, moral motivation, and the balance between ethical expression and economic impact. This felt similar to what I used to do manually by rereading my paper, highlighting sections, and writing summaries, but it was much faster and more organized. However, NotebookLM only worked well because I had already done the hard work of writing the paper and selecting sources. It helped explain and organize my research, not replace it.

My experience with Consensus was very different. Because the free version did not allow full file uploads, I had to paste only the introduction and conclusion. This limitation immediately showed me one weakness of the tool. Even so, Consensus was useful for connecting my argument to peer-reviewed studies. It found relevant academic research that supported the idea that boycotts are often more symbolic than economically effective and that buycotts can help local economies. This felt similar to using Google Scholar or databases in RHET, but much faster. At the same time, the answers were short and sometimes too general. I would still need to read the full studies myself to truly understand them and use them responsibly in an academic paper.

Comparing both tools to my manual research experience made one thing very clear. Manual research helped me build strong skills like close reading, critical thinking, and evaluating sources. Google NotebookLM helped me understand and organize my own work better, while Consensus helped me discover and confirm academic perspectives quickly. Neither tool could fully replace what I did on my own, especially when it came to analysis, writing, and making arguments.

 Overall, this experience showed me that AI tools are most useful when they are used as support, not shortcuts. Google NotebookLM works best after research is done, while Consensus works best at the early stage of finding academic context. Using both together, along with my own judgment, made my research process stronger and more efficient without losing academic credibility.