This text presents an experience report on the use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) as a support for research in music/music education. The use of different AIs and their popularization in the academic environment are part of the contemporary moment and, according to UNESCO (2024, p. 5), they are powerful for education and research because they “replicate higher-order thinking that constitutes the basis of human learning.” (UNESCO, 2024). The protocol reported here takes place in three tasks established in systematic feedback processes: delimitation of the theme, study of the state of the art, and creative/artisanal writing developed simultaneously and intermittently. Grounded in the maieutic practice, questions and answers about the study theme are redirected to technological tools, establishing a partnership of critical cognition, in immediate and almost instantaneous systems of feedback provided (Farnsworth, 2022; Deleanu, 2024). These three activities do not occur in a Cartesian manner or in exact chronologies. They are outlined and transformed throughout the work as expected in the course of research practice, regardless of the study tool, whether traditional or technological. For research in music/music education, the distinctive feature in the use of these technologies lies in the paradigm shift in the interactivity with knowledge, marked by the speed and immediacy of the feedback that the tool offers. In the traditional way of study, the data apprehended were incorporated at more spaced time intervals; in contemporaneity, the technological interlocutor demands an even more critical attitude from the researcher regarding doubt and the handling of data with heightened responsibility. At the genesis of this protocol, the raw material of doing science in music is the art of questioning, within limits of exhaustion, in dialogic and polyphonic models (Bakhtin, 1981, 2011, 2012). The quantity and quality of the questions, allied with the researcher’s critical and creative thinking—annotated, revisited, and manually manipulated—consolidate the process of studying/learning/feeding back. In the search for paradigm shifts, the pseudo self-sufficiency of the tool is a limiting factor in the practice of dialogue, incapable of paradigm ruptures (Kuhn, 2013). It will always be the human being, with their way of asking, deconstructing, and reinventing knowledge, exercising and developing the art of questioning, who is the active subject in advancing research in music education. The use of this protocol presented positive results, with significant gains in productivity, time reduction, and increased motivation in the scope of educational research in music.