exercise

Exercise: Critique the model response

Your answers are saved in this browser only — not on any server, and no one else can see them. They disappear if you clear your browser or use a different computer.

The exercise is still loading — the controls unlock in a moment. If nothing happens, JavaScript is switched off; you can read the material, but the exercise needs it.

Critique the AI response

Read each claim and mark it as Verified, Unverified or Rejected. For each rejected claim, write a short justification.

○ 0 of 6 claims marked

Source: General chat language model, version unknown · a prepared sample the whole class analyses.
Claim 1

Source criticism means asking: where a claim comes from, who recorded it and when, and whether it can be traced to a primary source independent of the one that cites it.

Claim 2

Historical hallucination can appear when a correct fact is placed in the wrong chronology, so that events which happened independently of each other look causally linked.

Claim 3

AI models always invent false sources when asked to write about history, because they have no access to databases of legitimate scholarship.

Claim 4

Research shows that 84 percent of all Wikipedia articles on historical conflicts contain at least one misleading citation, which means Wikipedia is unreliable as a starting point.

Claim 5

Propaganda in historical narrative often appears in word choice: the same fallen soldier in war is called a victim in one version and a fallen hero in another, and the difference between those two words is never neutral.

Claim 6

An objective historical narrative is possible if the author presents only those facts that can be verified by two independent primary sources and refrains from value judgments.

○ Mark 5 more claims (minimum 5 in total). Reject at least 2 claims (currently: 0)

Requirements: 5 claims marked · 2 rejected · 25 words of justification

Compare answers

Here you see two different ways to ask the AI for the same thing. Choose the answer you trust more and write a short justification, and the explanation will open.

Comparison 1 of 1

Prompt

Compare two ways of asking an AI to produce three versions of the same historical event: one favorable, one critical, and one that claims to be objective.

Answer A

Write about this event in three different ways. Make one version positive, one negative and one neutral. This helps me understand how narratives can differ.

Answer B

Give me three versions of the British attack on Copenhagen in 1807. Version 1 is written from a British military perspective, emphasizing the threat from Napoleon and Britain's defensive needs. Version 2 is written from the perspective of a Danish civilian in 1807 and describes the casualties and the destruction of the city. Version 3 claims to be neutral news writing. In each version, mark in brackets which facts are verifiable, which words carry emotional weight, and which sources you rely on.

- 0 / 5 words

- Choose an answer to continue

Self-check rubric, accountability document

Mark each criterion once you have met it. When you mark it, a three-level descriptor opens, compare your own work against each level.

- 0 of 5 criteria confirmable

Final decision

No claims found. Finish the critique exercise first, that is where the accountability document draws your data from.