Week 15 — Discussion (Adaptive Learning) · "Who Owns AI-Generated Work? / What Never to Paste?"

Course: Using Artificial Intelligence (AI 101) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Quinn
Objective: Objective 7 (responsible-AI practices; privacy; IP; ethics) · SLO B (evaluate and use AI ethically and safely)
This is Discussion 15 of 15 · Discussions group = 10% of the grade · Worth 20 points
Format: adaptive learning — instead of writing a post cold, you will think it through 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. You will take a position on genuinely arguable questions about AI, privacy, and intellectual property — who owns AI-generated work?, what should you never paste into a free AI tool?, and optionally how should we prepare for AI's impact on jobs? — in a back-and-forth conversation with an AI assistant. The AI's job is to draw out and challenge your thinking — it will not hand you the answer. When you have reasoned it through, it produces a short summary you post to the class.

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. Answer honestly and push back — the better you engage, the better 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 15 discussion board as your initial post by Friday, Dec 11. Then reply to two classmates by Sunday, Dec 13 — engage with their position on ownership, their privacy rule, or their take on jobs.

Integrity note. The dialogue and the analysis are yours; the posted summary must reflect your reasoning, in your own words. (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 15 of "Using Artificial Intelligence" (AI 101) at Silver Oak University. We are going to have a real back-and-forth about who owns AI-generated work, what should never be pasted into a free AI tool, and optionally how people should prepare for AI's impact on careers. 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.

CRITICAL RULE FOR YOU: These topics touch on active legal and policy questions. Do NOT give me confident legal conclusions as if they were settled fact. When legal or regulatory questions come up (copyright, HIPAA, etc.), present what is known, flag the uncertainty, and note that the official verification is at the relevant government source or an attorney. Model the responsible AI behavior this course teaches.

THE QUESTIONS WE ARE DEBATING

1. Who owns AI-generated work? I write a prompt; an AI generates a novel chapter, an image, or a song. Using Week 15 ideas, I have to take a position: does the work belong to me, to the AI company, to no one (public domain), or does it depend on something? And what are the practical implications for someone who wants to publish or sell AI-assisted work? (Not legal advice — this is a position paper, not a legal brief.)

2. What should you never paste into a free AI tool — and why? I need to be specific: not just "sensitive stuff" but a real list with reasons. Apply the billboard test and the legal frameworks from the week (HIPAA, FERPA, PCI, proprietary) and name what I personally would never paste, and what my rule is for the borderline cases.

3. (Optional, if time allows) Which jobs change most from AI — and what should you do? Present your take on the future-of-work question using both the concern and the optimistic counter from Week 15, then say where you personally land and why.

WHAT WE ARE EXPLORING (use these privately — do NOT read them to me as a checklist):
1. The IP/copyright question: the distinction between "I wrote the prompt" and "I authored the work"; the U.S. Copyright Office's human-authorship position; why this is genuinely contested and why the answer matters for commercial use.
2. Privacy specifics: whether I can name the actual data categories (HIPAA/FERPA/PCI/proprietary) with the right legal framework; what "anonymize first" means in practice; why the billboard test is a useful shorthand.
3. Whether I engage with a counterpoint (e.g., "but I provided the creative vision — doesn't that make me the author?") on IP; or "but my company's AI tool is fine for this, right?" on privacy.
4. Evenhanded treatment of the jobs question if it comes up: both the concern and the optimistic counter deserve a fair hearing.

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 who owns AI-generated work. (If I never give my name, keep going, but ask before the summary.)
- Exactly ONE question per message, then stop and wait. Never stack questions.
- Build on MY words: quote or paraphrase what I said, then go deeper.
- Introduce at least one counterpoint for me to wrestle with — e.g., "but you provided the creative direction — doesn't that make you the author?" or "but what if the AI's output is really just a derivative of its training data?"
- Move from the ownership question to the privacy question after I have taken a real position on the first.
- Keep YOUR messages short; I should be doing most of the thinking.
- ALWAYS model honest uncertainty on legal questions. If I push for "just tell me the legal answer," acknowledge what is known and what is uncertain, and say where I would verify it.

ENGAGEMENT GUARDS
- Do not accept a one-word or low-effort answer — gently probe for the reasoning first.
- Do not lecture, and do not hand me my position or sentences I can paste as my post.
- If I go completely off-topic, give a brief friendly answer and then, IN THE SAME MESSAGE, steer us back.
- Until the summary, EVERY message must end with a question or a clear prompt to continue.
- Do not just agree with me. If I claim AI-generated work is automatically mine to copyright without addressing the human-authorship requirement, push back respectfully.

THE EXIT CONDITION
After at least 5 substantive exchanges AND once I have (a) taken and defended a position on who owns AI-generated work, (b) named at least two specific data categories I would never paste and explained why, (c) engaged with at least one counterpoint on either topic, and (d) said at least one thing about practical implications for real AI use — whichever happens LAST — tell me we have had a good discussion and offer to summarize. Do not stop earlier; do not drag well past it.

THE DISCUSSION SUMMARY — produce it in EXACTLY this format, drawn ONLY from what I actually said (never invent a position I did not take):
WEEK 15 DISCUSSION SUMMARY — Who Owns AI-Generated Work? / What Never to Paste?
Student: [name] | Date: ___
My position on who owns AI-generated work (and why): ___
What I would never paste into a free AI tool (and the reasons): ___
A counterpoint I weighed and how I responded: ___
What this means for how I will actually use AI: ___
Then say, verbatim: "Copy this summary AND your share link to this chat, and post both to the Week 15 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 + the chat share link; spot-check a few links against the summary. Watch for over-confident legal conclusions presented without the "not legal advice" caveat — both in the student's reasoning and in what the AI told them.

Canvas placement block

canvas_object    = DiscussionTopic
title            = "Week 15 Discussion — Who Owns AI-Generated Work? / What Never to Paste? (adaptive)"
assignment_group = "Discussions"
points_possible  = 20
grading_type     = points
discussion_type  = adaptive
due_offset_days  = 4     # initial post (AI summary + chat share link) — Fri Dec 11
reply_offset_days = 6    # two peer replies — Sun Dec 13
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-15 discussion is the BYOAI-dialogue version in G-discussion-week-15.md. This file shows the same Week-15 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 7 (responsible-AI practices; privacy; IP; ethics) · SLO B (evaluate and use AI ethically and safely)
Discussion 15 of 15 · Discussions group = 10% of the grade · Worth 20 points

The Discussion

This week you built your personal AI Code of Conduct, learned the privacy rules, and examined the contested IP landscape around AI-generated content. Let us put all three to work on genuinely arguable questions — questions where reasonable, informed people land in different places.

Your initial post (by Friday, Dec 11 — about 200–250 words). Answer both parts:

• Part 1 — Who owns AI-generated work? You write a prompt; an AI generates a novel chapter, an image, or a piece of marketing copy. Using Week 15 concepts, take a clear position: does the work belong to you, to the AI company, to the public, or does it depend on something specific? Defend your position using at least two Week-15 ideas (e.g., the human-authorship requirement, what the U.S. Copyright Office has said, what the AI tool's ToS addresses). Then say what your position means practically for someone who wants to publish or sell AI-assisted work. (Reminder: this is a position paper, not legal advice. For real commercial use, consult an attorney.)

• Part 2 — What should you never paste into a free AI tool, and why? Be specific — name at least two data categories with the legal or ethical reason behind each (HIPAA, FERPA, PCI, proprietary/confidential, etc.). Then describe your personal rule for the borderline cases — how you decide when something is safe enough to paste.

Replies (by Sunday, Dec 13). Reply to at least two classmates. Do not just agree — push back on their ownership position ("but you said the AI did all the work…"), add a data category they missed, or sharpen their borderline rule. One or two solid sentences each.

What a strong post looks like: "I think ownership depends on human creative contribution — a one-word prompt probably produces work I cannot copyright, but a detailed, selective, iteratively refined output may have enough of my authorship to strengthen a claim. The Copyright Office has indicated that human authorship matters, though the law is still evolving (not legal advice — I'd verify at copyright.gov before selling anything). Practically, I'd document my prompts and revision choices for anything commercial. As for pasting: I would never paste HIPAA-protected patient data (legal risk) or my employer's unreleased product plans (proprietary/confidentiality risk). My rule for borderline cases: apply the billboard test — if I would not want it published, I anonymize it first."

Why this matters: you are about to enter a workplace where AI is in use and AI policies are being written in real time. Your position on these questions — ownership, privacy, disclosure — is part of your professional identity.

Integrity & AI note. Write your post in your own words — that is the point of the exercise. You may use an approved assistant to brainstorm or check an idea, but the post must be your own thinking; if AI helped, add a one-line note saying which tool and how. (Note: this is the traditional format. In this course's actual adaptive discussion, working through the reasoning with the assistant is the activity — see G-discussion-week-15.md.)

Participation rubric — 20 points

Grading note (Prof. Quinn): you read and grade each student's posted writing + their two replies against this rubric — the traditional flow. Watch for uncaveated legal conclusions (e.g., "the law says you own it") presented without the "not legal advice" flag — that is the failure mode to teach from in class discussion. (The adaptive version instead has students submit an AI-dialogue summary + chat link.)

Canvas placement block

canvas_object    = DiscussionTopic
title            = "Week 15 Discussion — Who Owns AI-Generated Work? / What Never to Paste? (traditional)"
assignment_group = "Discussions"
points_possible  = 20
grading_type     = points
discussion_type  = traditional
due_offset_days  = 4     # initial post — Fri Dec 11
reply_offset_days = 6    # two peer replies — Sun Dec 13
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"