Mind Readings: AI Content Detectors Deep Dive Part 4

In today’s episode, you’ll discover how to leverage AI to create a compelling and insightful term paper, focusing on critical thinking rather than just writing. You’ll learn a step-by-step process using tools like Perplexity AI, NotebookLM, and Google AI Studio to research, analyze, and develop a strong argument. You’ll also gain valuable insights into how to critically evaluate AI-generated content and refine it with your own unique perspective, preparing you for the future of research and academic work. Don’t miss this practical guide!

Mind Readings: AI Content Detectors Deep Dive Part 4

Watch this video on YouTube.

Can’t see anything? Watch it on YouTube here.

Listen to the audio here:

Download the MP3 audio here.

Machine-Generated Transcript

What follows is an AI-generated transcript. The transcript may contain errors and is not a substitute for watching the video.

Welcome back. This is part four in our AI Content Detector series. Today, we’re going to talk about building the term paper of the future using generative AI. We’re going to walk through a process of how you might want to teach a student how to use generative AI to write a term paper of the future. We’re going to talk about this from the perspective of how you would go about building a great term paper. A machine will write it, but a student has to do all the thinking to make it happen.

For the topic, let’s see what we have here. I’m looking at my kid’s old stuff. A couple of years ago, my kid did a paper on the Supreme Court’s impact on the economy and whether or not the Supreme Court has had a net positive or net negative on the economy, which is an interesting paper.

First, how would you go about instructing a student to write this paper? In the era of AI, probably suggest using various tools to find credible sources of data. You could use a traditional tool like this. Let’s search “Supreme Court cases and economic impacts” and see what we have here. “The Non-Impact Circuit’s Regulatory Taking Cases: Does the Supreme Court Really Matter?” You might want to teach the student to look for citation numbers and then look for PDFs. So, let’s take a look here. We have cases. Let’s limit this to the 21st century. Looking at a few of these different papers—”Penalizing Punitive Damages,” “Selecting on the Economy”—okay. Let’s grab the URLs because we’ll want to use them for APA citation. We want to remember where we got our stuff from. Let’s get the papers themselves. Here is “The Non-Impact of Regulatory Rulings.” Grab this and download it.

Next, let’s use a true AI tool: Perplexity AI. We’ll ask the same question: “Find peer-reviewed studies, research, and cases that examine the economic impact of Supreme Court rulings. Restrict your search to papers and content published in the 21st century.” Let’s turn on Pro Mode. You get five free Pro uses a day. It’s going to go through and try to answer this question. Let’s see what we have here. We have a study by Donald Sanger. He established a methodology for the court’s cases. Let’s look at the source on Scholar Commons. Let’s look at the citation. That might be worth including. Let’s save that. “Contribution to Economic”—this is the Gilman article. I think we might have this one already. “Impact on Specific Economic Areas, Property”—that’s from Kiplinger. Those are all Kiplinger articles, which I would not say are peer-reviewed sources. That’s NF—that’s a lobbying group. Project Syndicate—okay. So, we’ve got a decent selection of data.

Our next stop should be Google’s free NotebookLM. This is a research tool that uses Google’s Gemini, but it will only answer questions that you give it about a specific topic. You have to give the questions, and you have to give it the data itself. It cannot pull data from something that you did not give it. I’m going to take all of those papers that we just looked at. I’m going to drag them in here. It’s going to start digesting these things down. A lot of people love the audio preview—you can make a little podcast episode out of this—but I think we’re going to do the briefing document, the table of contents, the study guide, and the frequently asked questions. Let’s do the timeline, too, while we’re at it. This makes little flashcards that examine the data we uploaded. Frequently asked questions about these things, “Exploring Judicial Behavior”—we should create one more summary. This tool gives us the ability to ask questions of these data sources specifically, which is super helpful.

So, let’s start by asking it, “Based on the information provided, summarize the economic impact of Supreme Court case rulings on the U.S. economy.” What’s really nice is that it will go through and try to answer this question only based on information that we’ve given it. It says, “Based on the sources provided, Supreme Court rulings have impacted the economy in the following ways: the court generally favors business interests over those of consumers and employees; the Supreme Court’s rulings on economic policy influence lower courts; the court’s influence on economic policy is not absolute; the court’s decisions on issues like punitive damages have been criticized for lacking economic grounding; the court’s decisions can have significant and immediate impacts on specific aspects of the economy.” Let’s copy this and put this in our scratch file because that’s a useful summary.

Let’s ask it next, “Based on the information available, have Supreme Court case rulings been a net positive or net negative to the overall U.S. economy?” Let’s see what it comes up with. “Determining the overall impact—the sources don’t offer a conclusive answer. They do provide insights into different facets of the court’s influence: pro-business tendencies, impact on lower courts’ policy, role of economic conditions.” We’re going to take that and save that information as well. We’re basically creating a little scrapbook here.

Next, we want to move out of NotebookLM into the standard generative model. I’m going to use Google’s AI Studio because I want to use the most advanced model, Gemini Pro 002. I’m going to make a few minor settings changes to make sure it can generate lots of long output. We’re going to first ask it—this time, we don’t have to prime the model because we just did that in NotebookLM—”Today, we’re going to be writing a position paper on the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court on the U.S. economy. Here is some background information.” Let’s put in our notes from earlier. “And then here are some source documents.” We’re going to add the same papers we started with. One thing that’s true about generative AI is that the more data you provide, the less it makes things up. If you can provide more information up front, it will do a better job. Let’s feed it this information and have it start to review and think about it.

Okay, after about three minutes of thinking, it came up with a very brief regurgitation. This is unhelpful. This is no different than a term paper where the student just spits back the information. We might want to say, “You need to have a point of view.” Suppose I prompted it by saying, “I want the focus of this paper to be that the Supreme Court is ultimately a net negative on the U.S. economy as currently formed, with reasons why. My position paper needs to come up with some recommendations because a paper just complaining does little to advance democracy based on everything we’ve discussed so far. What might be some potential suggestions?” This is part and parcel of how education would change, not from “Hey, just use this tool to write a paper faster,” but based on the summaries and the evidence and the information we gathered, seeing in NotebookLM that it came up with—”The way the Supreme Court has ruled on things in the past has ultimately been very pro-business and favors business interests over those of consumers and employees.” Depending on your perspective of how the world works, that might be a good thing or a bad thing. So, if I was teaching students about this, I would say, “Reviewing the conclusions from NotebookLM, what position would you take? What point of view would you have on this?” Then go back and prompt the AI model to help you think through that position.

In this case, we’ve asked it, “I want some recommendations because, for this paper, I think this is a bad thing. So, what would you suggest?” We want the student to think critically and consider options and ways to fix this. Okay, about three minutes later, after the model has chewed through our suggestions, it has revisited its first draft and come up with some suggestions. It says, “Some of these negative influences can be countered by promoting economic expertise on the court, influencing the selection of justices, enhancing transparency and accountability. The court should embrace greater transparency in its decision-making processes, campaign finance reform itself, expanding access to justice, and promoting civic engagement and voter participation.” Now, again, this is an improvement.

If you were an instructor, how would you critique this? If we think about this as the Socratic method, the machine is the student, and the student is the debater, the one who should be asking tough questions of the machine. We can do this by teaching the student to consider things they might not have. So, I’m going to say, “Based on these suggestions, I want to identify a path forward that has the fewest negative unintended consequences, especially to marginalized populations that are already disadvantaged in American society. Additionally, I want to reduce the likelihood that unethical politicians could further take advantage of or willfully misinterpret the law and the rulings of the Supreme Court to their advantage. I want you to evaluate the paper so far based on these criteria and score your suggestions on a –10 to +10 scale, where +10 is the most positive impact, especially on marginalized populations, and –10 is the most negative impact, especially on marginalized populations. Review your suggestions, score them, and then wait for my input.” What we’re doing here is critical thinking. We’re saying, “These suggestions sound great, but what could go wrong? How could these suggestions be misinterpreted?” If we’re talking about civics, we might want to consider these points. We want to consider not just advocating for a position but asking, “What could go wrong?” That is a critical thing that very few people in general are doing right now.

So, let’s see what it comes up with. It has evaluated promoting economic expertise in the court as a +8, enhancing transparency and accountability as a +7, campaign finance reform as a +9, and expanding access to justice as a +10. It talks about each of the reasons why these things would be impactful but also acknowledges their difficulty. We might want to further ask it, “Of these suggestions, keeping in mind the hyper-polarized political environment today, which one would be most practical to achieve?”

After about a minute and a half of thinking, it says enhancing transparency and accountability presents the most practical path forward in this hyper-polarized political environment. “While all the suggestions have merit, campaign finance reform and expanding access to justice face significant political obstacles. Promoting economic expertise, while beneficial, depends heavily on the individuals selected. Civic and voter participation addresses a symptom rather than a root cause. Transparency and accountability offers a less politically charged entry point.” That’s a pretty interesting conclusion—not the one I thought it was going to pick. Again, if you’re teaching this to a student, you want to have a discussion and say, “Which one would you have picked, and why? How does the tool’s reasoning sound to you?” I think this reasoning sounds interesting.

We’re going to wrap this up by saying, “Based on everything we’ve talked about so far, let’s propose a new outline for the paper that has these rough categories: introduction, current situation, likely outcomes, suggestions for future changes, impact, feasibility, selecting a path forward, and conclusion.” We’re going to have the software build a new outline for a paper.

Our outline is now beefed up based on what we’ve provided: briefly introducing the Supreme Court’s role, the current situation, likely outcomes of inaction, proposals for a more just future, anticipating the impacts of reform, assessing feasibility, a strategic path forward, and a conclusion. We can now say, “Using this new outline and all the conversations so far, write the paper section by section.”

Now, what happens after this? The machine has created a paper. Instead of having 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 students generating papers individually, maybe you have teams of three or four or five people. One person on that team generates a paper, and then the rest of the team debates, corrects, and argues with it. Even though the machine is creating this thing, treat it like any other academic source. Say, “Okay, what’s good about this paper? What’s bad? What are the blind spots? What got missed?” What we’re doing here is trying to teach students to think critically, to ask probing questions, to have a point of view based on the research they’ve done and the tools that have helped them summarize it, and ultimately, to criticize the output of the machines. That is probably the most important takeaway from all of this: getting people to not implicitly trust what the machine spits out. It’s not about writing a paper; it’s about thinking. It’s about helping people think critically, helping people develop the skills to think critically, which, in this case, requires a lot of research, gathering information, and having a point of view. If we can adapt our educational processes to embrace the use of AI, we will do much better.

Okay, that’s part four of this series. Let’s move on to part five, the final part, “Where do people go from here?” So, stay tuned for that. If you enjoyed this video, please hit the like button. Subscribe to my channel if you haven’t already. And if you want to know when new videos are available, hit the bell button to be notified as soon as new content is live. Thank you.

Mind Readings: AI Content Detectors Deep Dive Part 4

Machine-Generated Transcript

Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Pin It on Pinterest