Asynchronous Academy

AI & Piracy

Suggested Duration: 7 Hours

"The menace of the 21st century is not a lack of information, but a state of misinformation so overwhelming that the truth is simply drowned out."

Arthur C. Clarke

The internet is filled with information, but not all of it is credible. While recognizing low-quality or unreliable sources in certain online spaces is easy, scammers and other bad actors get more sophisticated every day and many formerly reliable sources of information just parrot inflammatory viewpoints for traffic. To help you keep ahead of the dangers of the open web, you will get a better sense of how to evaluate the trustworthiness of online content using three different evaluation frameworks.

1. The 5Ws of Source Evaluation

A great framework for a quick scan to see if a site is worth your time:

  • Who: Who wrote, published, or sponsored it? Are they qualified?
  • What: What is the evidence? Is it supported by facts, or is it just opinion?
  • When: When was it published or updated?
  • Where: Where does the information come from? Can you verify the sources?
  • Why: Why was it created? Is the purpose to inform, sell, or persuade?

2. The CRAAP Test

A deep-dive framework for evaluating your primary evidence:

  • Currency: Is the information up-to-date and published at an appropriate time?
  • Relevance: Does the source directly answer your question and fit your audience?
  • Authority: Who is the author/publisher, and what are their credentials?
  • Accuracy: Are there citations? Is the tone balanced, and can the facts be verified?
  • Purpose: What is the intent of the author? (e.g., selling a product, earning ad revenue, educating, or political bias).

3. RADCAB

Another excellent, comprehensive framework for critical thinking:

  • Relevancy: Does this help answer my research question?
  • Appropriateness: Is the content suitable for my target audience?
  • Detail: Does it go deep enough, or does it make broad generalizations?
  • Currency: When was it written and has it been updated?
  • Authority: Is the creator an expert in the field?
  • Bias: Is the information presented objectively, or is there a strong slant/agenda?

Part 1: Source Evaluation & Screencast Analysis

Your objective in this first part is to choose a research topic, evaluate two different sources (one credible and one non-credible) using the frameworks, and record a screencast explaining your analysis.

Step 1: Select Your Research Topic

Choose one of the following topics to research using a search engine (like Google or DuckDuckGo):

  • Copyright & Napster: What happened when music went digital in the early 2000s? How does that historical event compare to how we handle AI today?
  • The Hollywood Strike: Why were writers and actors in 2023 worried about AI using their likeness or scripts without consent?
  • Canadian vs. American Copyright Law: How does Canada's "Fair Dealing" guidelines differ from the American "Fair Use" laws regarding generative AI models training on data?

Step 2: Gather Your Sources

Use a search engine to find:

  1. One High-Quality Source: A credible news article, academic paper, or official legal document.
  2. One Low-Quality Source: A biased blog post, unverified social media thread, or outdated/incomplete webpage.

Step 3: Apply a Framework

  • Use the 5Ws to do a quick evaluation of both sources.
  • Use the CRAAP Test or RADCAB to perform a deep-dive analysis on your primary credible source.

Step 4: Record Your Screencast

Record a brief 1-2 minute screencast video of you explaining your work on screen:

  • Show both sources open in your browser tabs.
  • Walk the viewer through your evaluation: compare the two sources and point out the specific criteria (e.g., currency, authority, bias, or accuracy) that make one trustworthy and the other unreliable.
  • Explain why evaluating sources is crucial before forming an opinion on a complex topic.

Deliverable:

📤

Prompt Engineering Google Doc Source analysis comparison (Screencast)

Find effective examples of reliable and unreliable sources, and explain how you know. You will use these examples in the next section.

Part 2: "Is AI Stealing?" Influencer-Style Video

Now that you've done your research, you will create a short opinion video using Canva that presents a balanced debate and your final take on the ethics of AI training.

Step 1: Script Your Two-Sided Argument

Write a script (approximately 60 seconds) structured as follows:

  1. The Hook: Introduce the debate. Is generative AI an innovative learner, or is it a digital pirate?
  2. Side A (The Creator's Perspective): Explain why creators feel their work is stolen (e.g., training without consent, lack of compensation, and competing with their own style).
  3. Side B (The Developer's Perspective): Explain why tech developers argue it is fair (e.g., training is like reading, learning patterns is not copying, and it fosters new creative tools).
  4. Your Verdict: Using evidence from the credible sources you evaluated in Part 1, share your own reasoned conclusion.

Step 2: Film Your Presentation

  • Record yourself presenting your script.
  • Focus on your vocal skills: speak clearly, pace yourself, and use professional body language to connect with your viewers.

Step 3: Edit in Canva Using "Influencer Moves"

Open Canva, start a new Mobile Video or Video project, upload your clip, and add at least one of these stylistic editing techniques:

  • The "React" Split-Screen: Put your face on one side and the website, article, or AI-generated artwork you are discussing on the other.
  • The "Green Screen" Effect: Use Canva’s Background Remover (under "Edit Video") to place yourself in front of a digital gallery, news article, or courtroom image.
  • The "Point & Pop": Film yourself pointing at empty space, and use Canva's animation tools to make text overlays, captions, or graphic bubbles "pop" into those spots.

Step 4: Export and Submit

Download your finished video from Canva as an MP4 and upload it to the course app.

Deliverable:

📤

"Is AI Stealing?" Opinion video (Influencer-style)

Create an educational resource that could be used by your peers to stay safe online.

Assessment

Pre-Submission

Before you submit, please complete the Pre-Submission Self-Assessment.

What to Turn In

  • 📤

    Strategy comparison/analysis video

  • 📤

    Is AI Stealing? video

💡 A Different Way to Learn

Async Academy courses are inquiry-based. There are no rote answer keys or multiple-choice worksheets here. You learn by exploring, questioning, and building projects you care about.

Because your discovery path is completely unique, you need a human sounding board. Enroll to submit your projects and get personalized video feedback from an Ontario Certified Teacher to guide your work.

Learning Goals

We are learning to:

  • 🎯

    Critically evaluate online sources for credibility, purpose, and potential bias

  • 🎯

    Create persuasive media using styles and techniques designed to influence an audience

  • 🎯

    Use revision strategies to ensure a clear, impactful message

Success Criteria

I can:

  • ✅

    Analyze sources effectively using frameworks like CRAAP, RADCAB, or the 5Ws.

    Expectations Covered: A2, B2, C1, C2
  • ✅

    Create a video imitating an influencer with conventions and techniques suitable for the message.

    Expectations Covered: A2, D2
  • ✅

    Revise and polish work using feedback or AI for a high-quality product.

    Expectations Covered: D3

Rubric

Category Level 4 Level 3 Level 2 Level 1
Knowledge/Understanding
How well does the student demonstrate an understanding of copyright, piracy, and AI development through research and media analysis?
 Demonstrates a thorough and insightful understanding of copyright history, Canadian vs. American law, and the technical development of AI. Demonstrates a clear understanding of copyright history, legal differences, and AI development. Demonstrates a basic understanding of copyright and AI, though some details or historical context may be missing. Demonstrates limited understanding of copyright, piracy, or how AI models are developed.
Thinking/Inquiring
How effectively does the student apply source-evaluation frameworks (CRAAP, 5Ws) to analyze and compare the credibility of online sources?
 Applies evaluation frameworks with high critical thinking to distinguish between high-quality and low-quality sources with sophisticated reasoning. Applies evaluation frameworks effectively to distinguish between sources and provides clear reasoning for their choices. Applies evaluation frameworks with some effectiveness; reasoning for source credibility is provided but may be general. Applies evaluation frameworks with limited effectiveness; struggles to distinguish between credible and non-credible sources.
Application
How skillfully does the student use video production techniques (imitation of influencers, screencasting) to communicate their analysis and opinions?
 Skillfully uses professional screencasting and stylistic elements from influencers to create a highly engaging and polished media product. Uses screencasting and stylistic elements effectively to create an organized and clear media product. Uses media techniques with some success, though the video may lack polish or consistent stylistic choices. Uses media techniques with limited success; the video is difficult to follow or lacks clear structure.
Communication
How clearly and persuasively does the student express their opinion on the ethics of AI and the effectiveness of evaluation strategies?
 Communicates a highly persuasive and nuanced opinion with exceptional clarity; uses a voice and tone perfectly suited for the intended audience. Communicates a clear and well-supported opinion; uses an appropriate voice and tone for the audience. Communicates an opinion with some clarity; reasoning may be simple or the tone may be inconsistent. Communicates an opinion with limited clarity or support; the message is difficult to determine.
Knowledge/Understanding
Criteria: How well does the student demonstrate an understanding of copyright, piracy, and AI development through research and media analysis?
Level 4

Demonstrates a thorough and insightful understanding of copyright history, Canadian vs. American law, and the technical development of AI.

Level 3

Demonstrates a clear understanding of copyright history, legal differences, and AI development.

Level 2

Demonstrates a basic understanding of copyright and AI, though some details or historical context may be missing.

Level 1

Demonstrates limited understanding of copyright, piracy, or how AI models are developed.

Thinking/Inquiring
Criteria: How effectively does the student apply source-evaluation frameworks (CRAAP, 5Ws) to analyze and compare the credibility of online sources?
Level 4

Applies evaluation frameworks with high critical thinking to distinguish between high-quality and low-quality sources with sophisticated reasoning.

Level 3

Applies evaluation frameworks effectively to distinguish between sources and provides clear reasoning for their choices.

Level 2

Applies evaluation frameworks with some effectiveness; reasoning for source credibility is provided but may be general.

Level 1

Applies evaluation frameworks with limited effectiveness; struggles to distinguish between credible and non-credible sources.

Application
Criteria: How skillfully does the student use video production techniques (imitation of influencers, screencasting) to communicate their analysis and opinions?
Level 4

Skillfully uses professional screencasting and stylistic elements from influencers to create a highly engaging and polished media product.

Level 3

Uses screencasting and stylistic elements effectively to create an organized and clear media product.

Level 2

Uses media techniques with some success, though the video may lack polish or consistent stylistic choices.

Level 1

Uses media techniques with limited success; the video is difficult to follow or lacks clear structure.

Communication
Criteria: How clearly and persuasively does the student express their opinion on the ethics of AI and the effectiveness of evaluation strategies?
Level 4

Communicates a highly persuasive and nuanced opinion with exceptional clarity; uses a voice and tone perfectly suited for the intended audience.

Level 3

Communicates a clear and well-supported opinion; uses an appropriate voice and tone for the audience.

Level 2

Communicates an opinion with some clarity; reasoning may be simple or the tone may be inconsistent.

Level 1

Communicates an opinion with limited clarity or support; the message is difficult to determine.