Week 5 — Discussion (Adaptive Learning) · "Voice, Authenticity & Demanding Sources"

Course: Using Artificial Intelligence (AI 101) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Quinn
Objective: Objective 2 (examples, control, requesting sources) · SLO B (reason critically about AI use and its implications)
This is Discussion 5 of 15 · Discussions group = 10% of the grade · Worth 20 points
Format: adaptive learning — instead of writing a post cold, you'll think through two genuinely arguable questions in a real-time dialogue with your own AI, then post the short summary the AI writes with you (plus a link to your chat).

Part 1 — Student Instructions (read this first)

What this is. Two questions this week — one about the authenticity of letting AI imitate your own writing voice, one about why demanding sources from AI isn't always the solution you think it is. Both are genuinely arguable; there's no single right answer. Your job is to reason through your own position and engage seriously with the counter-argument. The AI draws out your thinking — it doesn't hand you the answer.

How to run it (about 15–20 minutes):
1. Open any approved AI assistant — ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or Copilot (free versions are fine).
2. Copy everything in the box below and paste it as one single message.
3. Have the conversation. Engage with the counter-arguments — the better you push back, the stronger your summary.

What to submit. When the AI gives you the DISCUSSION SUMMARY, copy it and your conversation's share link, and post both to the Week 5 discussion board as your initial post by Friday, Oct 2. Then reply to two classmates by Sunday, Oct 4 — engage with their position on authenticity or sources.

Integrity note. The dialogue and the analysis are yours; the posted summary must reflect your reasoning. (This is an adaptive-learning activity — you complete it with an approved assistant, per the course AI policy.)

Part 2 — The Discussion-Partner Prompt (copy everything in the box)

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

You are my discussion partner for Week 5 of "Using Artificial Intelligence" (AI 101) at Silver Oak University. We're going to have a real back-and-forth on two genuinely arguable questions about AI prompting. Your job is to draw out and challenge MY thinking through conversation — not to lecture me, and never to write my discussion post for me.

THE TWO QUESTIONS WE'RE EXPLORING
1. Is using AI to mimic your own writing voice authentic — or self-plagiarism? Few-shot prompting lets you paste examples of your own past writing and have AI produce more content in your voice. On one side: it's your voice, your examples, your direction — AI is just a production tool. On the other side: if you didn't write those new sentences, how can you call them authentically yours — especially in an academic or professional context? Where's the line?
2. When should you demand sources from AI — and why don't they always check out? Asking AI for citations seems like it should solve the hallucination problem. But AI can generate plausible, perfectly formatted references that don't exist. Does demanding sources make AI output MORE trustworthy, LESS (false confidence), or is it a tool you should use differently? When is it worth asking — and what must you do afterward?

WHAT WE'RE EXPLORING (use privately to steer — do NOT read to me as a checklist):
1. On voice: the distinction between using AI as a tool to extend your own voice vs. laundering AI-generated content as your own; whether the intent and direction matter; the academic-integrity angle; the professional-authenticity angle; how course policies and context shape the answer.
2. On sources: the difference between using AI-provided citations as leads (to search further) vs. verified facts; the fabricated-citation failure mode; the verification workflow (open every link, cross-check); when asking for sources adds value and when it creates false confidence.

HOW TO RUN THE DIALOGUE
- Open by greeting me warmly (2–3 sentences), asking my FIRST NAME, and asking ONE question that gets me to take a first position on the voice/authenticity question.
- Exactly ONE question per message, then stop and wait.
- Build on MY words: quote or paraphrase what I said, then go deeper.
- Present competing views evenhandedly — don't lead me to one answer. This is a genuinely contested question; reasonable people disagree. Present both sides with evidence and let me reason through.
- Introduce at least one counterpoint: if I say "it's fine because it's my voice," push on whether direction alone makes content yours; if I say "it's always self-plagiarism," push on whether context (personal use, class, publication) changes the answer.
- Transition to the sources question once I've staked and defended a position on the first.
- Keep YOUR messages short; I should be doing most of the reasoning.

ENGAGEMENT GUARDS
- Don't accept a one-line answer and move on — gently probe for the reasoning.
- Don't hand me my position or sentences I can paste as my post.
- If I go off-topic, give a brief friendly answer (a sentence or two) and return to the discussion.
- Until the summary, EVERY message must end with a question or a clear prompt to continue.
- Don't just validate me — if I claim using AI for voice is always fine with no caveats, or that demanding sources always solves the problem, push on the cases that complicate that.

THE EXIT CONDITION
After at least 5 substantive exchanges AND once I have (a) taken and defended a position on voice/authenticity with at least one counter-argument engaged, (b) explained the sources-verification problem and when asking for sources does vs. doesn't help, (c) considered context (academic vs. professional vs. personal use), and (d) said what they'd do differently in a real situation — whichever happens LAST — tell me we've had a solid discussion and you'll summarize.

THE DISCUSSION SUMMARY — produce it in EXACTLY this format, drawn ONLY from what I actually said:
WEEK 5 DISCUSSION SUMMARY — Voice, Authenticity & Demanding Sources
Student: [name] | Date: ___
My position on AI voice mimicry (and why): ___
The strongest counter-argument I weighed: ___
When demanding sources helps — and when it doesn't: ___
What I'd do differently in a real situation: ___
Then say, verbatim: "Copy this summary AND your share link to this chat, and post both to the Week 5 discussion board as your initial post — then reply to two classmates." End with one genuine sentence about something I reasoned well.

GETTING STARTED
Begin now: greet me, ask my first name, and ask your opening question.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ COPY EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

Participation rubric (instructor) — 20 points

Grading note (Prof. Quinn): the posted artifact is the AI-written summary + chat share link. Spot-check a few links against the summary. Both questions should appear in the summary — a summary covering only one is a sign the dialogue was thin.

Canvas placement block

canvas_object    = DiscussionTopic
title            = "Week 5 Discussion — Voice, Authenticity & Demanding Sources (adaptive)"
assignment_group = "Discussions"
points_possible  = 20
grading_type     = points
discussion_type  = adaptive
due_offset_days  = 4     # initial post (AI summary + chat share link)
reply_offset_days = 6    # two peer replies
published        = true
submission_note  = "Initial post = the AI discussion summary + the chat share link; then reply to two classmates."
provenance       = "~ Prof. Quinn's edition · Fall 2026 · built with thecoursemaker.com"

Traditional variant — for comparison. This sample course is configured adaptive learning, so its actual Week-5 discussion is the BYOAI-dialogue version in G-discussion-week-05.md. This file shows the same Week-5 topic built the traditional way — an instructor-posted prompt where students write their own post and reply to peers — so you can see both formats side by side. (Choosing discussion_type = traditional at course setup generates this style instead.)

Course: Using Artificial Intelligence (AI 101) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Quinn
Objective: Objective 2 (examples, control, requesting sources) · SLO B (reason critically about AI use and its implications)
Discussion 5 of 15 · Discussions group = 10% of the grade · Worth 20 points

The Discussion

This week we completed the prompting arc with two techniques that look like solutions but come with important catches: few-shot voice mimicry (showing AI examples of your own writing so it produces more in your style) and requesting sources (asking AI for citations — only to discover they may not exist). Both raise questions worth arguing about.

Your initial post (by Friday, Oct 2 — about 150–200 words). Answer both parts:

• Part 1 — Authenticity and voice. Using few-shot prompting, you can paste three examples of your own writing and have an AI generate more content in your voice. One view: it's your voice, your direction, your examples — AI is a production tool, not a ghost-writer. Another view: if you didn't write those new sentences yourself, calling them "yours" is misleading — especially in academic or professional contexts where your voice is the point. Take a clear position, defend it with at least one Week-5 idea, and acknowledge the strongest counter-argument to your view. Note how context (a personal blog post vs. a class essay vs. a published article) might change your answer.

• Part 2 — Demanding sources. You ask an AI for five research citations. It gives you five formatted references that look completely real. Does asking for sources make AI more trustworthy, or does it create false confidence? Describe the verification workflow you'd use, and say whether you think asking for sources is worth it — and when.

Replies (by Sunday, Oct 4). Reply to at least two classmates. Don't just agree — push on their position on voice (what about context they didn't mention?) or their verification workflow (did they miss a step?). One or two substantive sentences each.

What a strong post looks like: "I think using AI to produce content in my own voice is fine for personal or productivity use — drafting social-media posts, brainstorming emails — but not in academic work where the writing itself is the assignment. The counter-argument is that 'direction' is creative work, but I find the distinction meaningful: if the words aren't mine, the grade shouldn't reflect my writing ability. On sources: asking for them isn't trustworthy by itself — every link must be opened and cross-checked, because AI can produce convincing DOIs and journal names that don't exist. I'd use AI-provided sources as search leads, not verified references."

Evenhanded note. Both questions have reasonable positions on multiple sides. The goal is a defended, nuanced position — not the "right" answer. (Note: this is the traditional format. In this course's actual adaptive discussion, working through these questions with the assistant is the activity — see G-discussion-week-05.md.)

Participation rubric — 20 points

Grading note (Prof. Quinn): read each student's initial post for the authenticity position AND the verification workflow — both should appear. A post that addresses only one is worth revisiting.

Canvas placement block

canvas_object    = DiscussionTopic
title            = "Week 5 Discussion — Voice, Authenticity & Demanding Sources (traditional)"
assignment_group = "Discussions"
points_possible  = 20
grading_type     = points
discussion_type  = traditional
due_offset_days  = 4     # initial post
reply_offset_days = 6    # two peer replies
published        = true
submission_note  = "Students write an original initial post and reply to two classmates in the Canvas discussion."
provenance       = "~ Prof. Quinn's edition · Fall 2026 · built with thecoursemaker.com"