# Teacher's Guide — Session 9 🟢
# “Info or misinformation? Critical thinking in the age of AI »

**Program:** Applied AI — Beginner Level (from 12 years old, general public)
**Instructor:** Yann Isola
**Recommended duration:** 2 hours (adaptable 1h30 – 2h30)
**Prerequisites:** Sessions 1 to 8 (in particular S5: multimodal AI/deepfakes discussed, S6: ethics and bias)

---

## 1. Educational objectives

At the end of the session, each participant should be able to:

1. **Explain** why a generative AI can confidently produce false information (“hallucinations”).
2. **Distinguish** the main types of false information: unintentional error, satire, intentional disinformation, deepfake.
3. **Apply** a simple verification method in 4 reflexes (**S.T.O.P.** method) when faced with questionable information or image.
4. **Spot** the classic clues of a deepfake (image, audio, video) — knowing that these clues are becoming less reliable. ⚠
5. **Adopt** responsible sharing reflexes: check before sharing, cite your sources, report.

> 🧭 **Code of the session:** “AI makes fakes easy to make. Our best defense is not technical: it is a mental reflex. »

**What this session IS NOT:** a fear course. We don’t want participants to come away thinking “everything is false, we can’t believe anyone”. The message is: *the true exists, you just have to learn to find it.* ⚠

---

## 2. Overview and common thread

The session alternates demonstrations, detection games and practical methods. It builds on what participants already know:

- **S3 (machine language):** the AI predicts the next word → it can predict something false but plausible.
- **S5 (AI that sees and creates):** generated images and deepfakes exist.
- **S6 (ethics):** the data can be biased → the answers too.

The new feature of S9: we move from “the AI ​​can make mistakes” to “**how do I check**”.

### Timed course (based on 2 hours)

| Time | Duration | Sequence |
|-------|-------|----------|
| 0:00 | 10 mins | Hook: the “True or generated?” test » |
| 0:10 | 20 mins | Why AI “hallucinates” (and why it seems so confident) |
| 0:30 | 15 mins | The fake map: error, satire, disinformation, deepfake |
| 0:45 | 10 mins | **Pause** ☕ |
| 0:55 | 20 mins | The S.T.O.P. method — check in 4 reflexes |
| 1:15 | 15 mins | Zoom deepfakes: visual and audio clues ⚠ |
| 1:30 | 20 mins | Key activity: “Writing” (team fact-checking game) |
| 1:50 | 10 mins | Summary, responsible sharing charter, quiz |

---

## 3. Detailed content, sequence by sequence

### 3.1 Hook (10 min) — “True or generated? »

**Procedure:** project 6 images (prepared in advance, see §4): 3 real photos, 3 images generated by AI. Show of hands for each: “real or AI?” ".

**Desired effect:** the class makes a mistake at least once — it's almost guaranteed. This is the trigger for the session.

**Key phrase:** *“Three years ago, we spotted an AI image in one second. Today, even the experts are hesitant. The question is no longer “can I see the difference?” but “how do I check?” »*

⚠ **Point of attention:** do NOT choose shocking or political images. Favor: landscapes, animals, neutral portraits, food. The goal is the mechanism, not the controversy.Without a screen: print the 6 images in color (A5 minimum) and pass them around.

### 3.2 Why AI “hallucinates” (20 min)

**The heart of the sequence:** connect this phenomenon to S3. A language AI **predicts the most probable outcome**, it does not consult a base of truths.

**Reading parrot analogy:** *“Imagine a parrot who has read the entire library. He speaks beautifully. But if you ask him for a book that doesn't exist, he will invent one for you — with a credible title, a credible author... because his job is to produce something credible, not to verify that it's true. »*

**Live demo (if screen available):** Ask a chatbot:
- a biography of a little-known (or invented) person;
- “Cite me 3 scientific articles on [special subject] with their authors”.
Then show that one of the references does not exist (live search).

**3 simple reasons to remember (on the board):**
1. **She predicts, she doesn't know** — plausible ≠ true.
2. **She has a cutoff date** — her knowledge stops somewhere.
3. **She wants to please you** — trained to give an answer, rarely to say “I don’t know.” ⚠

⚠ **Frequent pitfall:** a participant will say “so the AI is lying”. Correct: *lying* assumes intention. AI has no intention; it produces the plausible. The right word is “she is confidently wrong.” This nuance is important so as not to humanize the machine (recall from S1).

**Corrected to flash question** (“Why does AI invent sources?”): because an invented source *looks* statistically like a real source, and the model generates what looks like what we expect.

### 3.3 The fake map (15 min)

Objective: to show that “fake news” covers very different realities. Draw 4 boxes on the board:

| Type | Intent | Example |
|------|----------|---------|
| **Error** | None (unintentional) | A journalist gets the number wrong |
| **Satire / parody** | Make people laugh (assumed) | Gorafi, April Fools |
| **Misinformation** | Willfully deceive | Fake quote attributed to a celebrity |
| **Deepfake** | Deceive with AI | Faked video of a personality |

**Question to the class:** “Which is the most dangerous?” » Leave the discussion for 3 minutes. Nuanced answer: *intentional* disinformation is the most dangerous, but *massively shared* error does just as much damage. → transition: *“The origin doesn’t matter: it’s sharing that gives the falsehood its power. »*

⚠ Make it clear that satire is NOT a problem as long as it is identifiable. The problem arises when a screenshot of Gorafi circulates without the name of the site.

### 3.4 Break (10 min) ☕

### 3.5 The S.T.O.P. method (20 mins)

The practical deliverable of the session. Write BIG on the board:

- **S — Source**: Who publishes this? Does the site/account really exist? Since when?
- **T — Traces**: Are other reliable media talking about it? (If a huge scoop is not reported anywhere → alert.)
- **O — Origin**: Where does the image/quote come from? Reverse image search, quote in quotes in a search engine.
- **P — Pause**: Does the information make me feel a strong emotion (anger, fear, indignation)? This is EXACTLY the sign to wait before sharing. ⚠

**Guided micro-exercise:** project a fake training info (provided in exercises.md, e.g.“College X is replacing all its teachers with AIs from September”). Unroll S.T.O.P. together, step by step, writing down the answers.

**Corrected to the micro-exercise:**
- S: the “site” is not a known media, no “About” page, created recently.
- T: no national or local media is picking up the information — improbable for such a scoop.
- O: the illustrative photo comes from an image bank (reverse search).
- P: the information plays on fear/indignation → classic clickbait signal.

**Key phrase:** *“The P is the most important. Misinformation is designed to short-circuit your brain with emotion. Your superpower is 30 seconds of break. »*

### 3.6 Zoom deepfakes (15 min) ⚠

S5 reminder: we know that AI generates images, voices, videos. Here we learn to **observe**.

**Classic visual cues (to be put into perspective):**
- strange hands and fingers, asymmetrical jewelry/glasses;
- illegible texts in the background (signs, posters);
- inconsistent reflections and shadows;
- “fading” backgrounds, repeating details;
- skin too smooth, teeth too regular.

**Audio/video cues:**
- imperfect lip/sound synchronization;
- absent breathing, flat intonation in cloned voices;
- rare or mechanical blinking.

⚠ **MANDATORY warning to give:** these clues date quickly. Recent models correct hands, reflections, blinks. **The lasting lesson is not the list of clues, it's the reflex: a spectacular video = check the source before believing it.** Insist: “Your eyes will betray you one day; your method, no. »

**Concrete case to tell:** a fake audio recording of a school principal or a politician can be made in a few minutes with a few seconds of voice. Hence the importance of the “family code word”: some families agree on a secret word to verify a suspicious emergency call (cloned voice scams). It's concrete, protective, and the participants talk about it at home.

### 3.7 Key activity: “Writing” (20 min)

**Principle:** the class becomes the writing of a journal. “Dispatches” arrive (prepared cards, see exercises.md, exercise 3). Each team (3-4 people) must decide in 4 minutes per dispatch: **PUBLISH / CHECK AGAIN / REJECT**, justifying with S.T.O.P.

**Unfolded:**
1. Form teams, distribute the S.T.O.P. sheet. (one per team).
2. Distribute 3 dispatches (mixture: 1 real banal, 1 fake attractive, 1 real but incredible).
3. Pooling: each team announces its verdicts, the teacher reveals the truth.

**Desired effect:** the “true but incredible” is often wrongly rejected → excellent discussion: *critical thinking is not rejecting everything, it's knowing how to verify.* ⚠ This is THE subtle point of the session: systematic skepticism is also an error (we call it the “liar's dividend”: if everything can be false, liars can deny even real evidence).

**Detailed answers to dispatches: see exercises.md, exercise 3 (corrected section).**

### 3.8 Summary and quiz (10 min)

**The 5 ideas to remember (to be reformulated by the participants):**
1. Generative AI produces **plausible**, not **real**.
2. Falsehood has many faces: error, satire, disinformation, deepfake.
3. **S.T.O.P.**: Source, Traces, Origin, Pause.
4. Deepfake indices are getting old; the verification reflex, no.
5.Not sharing is already taking action. Checking before sharing helps protect others.

End with the **charter for responsible sharing** (webpage/index.html, final section): everyone chooses ONE personal commitment and writes it down.

**Bridge to session 10:** *“The next session is the last of the beginner level: we bring everything together — final project, review, and the rest of your adventure with AI. »*

---

## 4. Materials and preparation

**To prepare before the session:**
- [ ] 6 printed or projectable images for “Real or generated?” » (3 real / 3 AI, neutral subjects)
- [ ] Access to a chatbot for the hallucination demo (provide backup screenshots ⚠ if no connection)
- [ ] Cut-out “dispatches” cards (exercises.md, exercise 3) — 1 game per team
- [ ] S.T.O.P. sheets printed (1 per team + 1 per participant to take away)
- [ ] A4 sheets, markers, board
- [ ] Printed or projected quiz (quiz/quiz.md)
- [ ] Slides (slides/slides.md) or paper version of key diagrams

**100% screenless version:** the entire session works with printed images, dispatch cards and the board. The hallucination demo is replaced by printed screenshots or by the dramatized reading of a chatbot dialogue (provided in the appendix of exercises.md).

---

## 5. Adaptations

- **Audience 12-14 years old:** emphasize social media examples (challenges, schoolyard rumors, fake celebrity accounts). Shorten sequence 3.3 and lengthen the writing game.
- **Adult audience:** add cloned voice scams (“grandson call”), false financial investments touted by deepfake celebrities, and phishing emails written by AI.
- **1 hour 30 minute format:** delete sequence 3.3 (integrate the 4 types into the summary) and reduce the editorial to 2 dispatches.
- **2 h 30 format:** add exercise 4 (exercises.md): “Make your fake one… then take it apart”, very strong educationally.

---

## 6. Pitfalls and difficult questions ⚠

**“There are AI detectors, right? »** — Yes, but they are often wrong, in both directions. No tool replaces source verification. Never promise that a tool will “detect” for sure.

**“Then we can no longer believe anything! »** — Key answer: yes, precisely. Serious media, cross-checking, primary sources still exist. The goal is *methodical* trust, not general distrust. (See “liar’s dividend”, §3.7.)

**“Is it illegal to make a deepfake? »** — In France/EU: using someone's image or voice without consent to deceive can be punished (image damage, identity theft); the AI ​​Act requires reporting generated content. Clearly identified satire remains permitted. Stay general, you are not a lawyer. ⚠

**“What if a friend shares a poison? »** — Advise kindness: private message rather than humiliating public correction. We correct the information, not the person.

**Sensitive subject:** if a participant brings a divisive political or religious example, refocus on the METHOD (“very good, let’s apply S.T.O.P.”), never on the substance of the debate. ⚠

---

## 7. To go further (teacher)- Les Décoders (Le Monde), AFP Facteur, Franceinfo “True or False”: French-speaking fact-checking sources to cite in class.
- CLEMI: media education resources for school audiences.
- Reverse image search: Google Images, TinEye, Lens — to test yourself before the session.
- Keyword to know: “liar's dividend” to explore the issue of excessive skepticism in more depth.
- Replay the “True or Generated?” test. » with recent images at each new session: this will force you to update your examples. ⚠

---

*Guide written for the Applied AI program — Yann Isola. Session 9/10 of the Beginner level 🟢.*