Teacher Guidelines

Overview

Ethics and Privacy (read FIRST)

This project involves real people. The following is non-negotiable:

1. Only oneself or an approved public figure. Students may research themselves or a well-known public figure who has chosen the spotlight. Forbidden to research classmates, teachers, exes, or other private individuals — that is neither the assignment nor an acceptable practice.
2. Privacy. Remind them that personal data is subject to law; the project is about understanding and reclaiming control, not collecting data about others.
3. The risk of defamation. Artificial intelligence hallucinates. A false statement about a person, even in a school project, can be harmful. Categorization and rejection are therefore not extra details but the core of the project. This is also the best opening to discuss responsibility fog (Step 2, §6): how hard it actually is to get a false post taken down when the company is registered in one country and hosted in another. Students realize quickly that nobody lied, and the post is still up.
4. Psychological care. Some students might find uncomfortable material about themselves. Have a clear way to discuss this in private and remind them that nothing needs to be published to the class.

Preparation

• Ensure access to at least one AI tool with web search capabilities.
• Print or share the three-tier framework and the ICCRA template from Step 2.
• Read the completed example (daemi-utfyllt-abyrgdarskjal.md) — it shows the expected quality standard.

Progression

1. Step 1 (15–20 min, without machine): students write The human anchor. No devices.
2. Step 2 (lesson): introduce the three tiers + harmony vs. confirmation. Students run the ICCRA prompt and fill out the categorized table.
3. Step 3 (lesson + homework): Honest Oracle, "who controls", actions, rejection, and the accountability statement.
4. Discussion: compare — who found the greatest difference between The human anchor and reality?

Common Pitfalls

• Taking the machine's answer as truth. The key element is categorization and rejection.
• Harmony mistaken for confirmation. Many pages repeating the same profile = one source. Practice this specifically.
• Name confusion. Especially risky with common names — remind them of evidence tier 3.
• Skipping actions. The project is not finished until the student names a realistic step to reclaim control.

Adaptation (Academic / Vocational)

• Academic studies: deepen the analysis of algorithms and search result ranking.
• Vocational studies: connect to job applications — what does a prospective employer see, and how does one consciously build a professional footprint (e.g., one's own portfolio)?

Discussion Questions

1. Who owns the story about you — you, the platform, or the person who wrote it first?
2. If a search engine ranks you, who asked it to do so?
3. What is the difference between hiding and owning your story?