You need to determine information's criticality
Not all information carries the same weight. Some facts, if wrong, could lead to failed exams, dangerous decisions, or career setbacks. Other information, if slightly incorrect or incomplete, barely matters. Learning to distinguish between these levels of criticality is essential when using AI tools. You need strategies to assess the stakes of the information you're learning, determine what requires rigorous verification, and allocate your verification efforts efficiently. The strategies below will help you develop a risk assessment framework for information, prioritise your verification efforts, and build confidence in knowing when to trust and when to verify.
Each strategy starts with a flow diagram showing the order in which modes and functions are used, followed by an explanation of how this strategy would work for your issue and then examples of prompts or question you can type or paste into the chat window.
Have a look at these four and choose one that suits your situation best. Remember, Wise-Owl is here to help you with your study; it does not do your study for you. Learning is always effortful, even with AI, but it is an investment in your future. Your degree might help you getting into the labour market, but the quality of your learning is what makes you successful in your career.
Strategy A: Stakes assessment framework
Strategy A
· Flow: Tutor Mode → Conversation Starters → Coach Mode → Study Notes (criticality matrix) → Assessor Mode → Applied Knowledge
· How it works: Learn to categorise information by consequence of error and likelihood of error, creating a priority matrix for verification
Example prompts:
o In Tutor Mode: "Explain [topic]"
o Click Conversation Starters: "Help me identify which parts of this information are:"
"- Critical for exam success"
"- Could impact safety or health"
"- Essential for career applications"
"- Background context only"
o In Study Notes: "Create a criticality matrix categorizing information by: (1) consequence if wrong, (2) likelihood AI could be wrong"
o In Applied Knowledge: "Test me on the high-criticality information to ensure I know what to verify"
Strategy B: Contextual risk evaluation
Strategy B
· Flow: Simulator Mode → Role Play → Tutor Mode → Deep Dive → Coach Mode → Study Planner → Assessor Mode → Critical Reasoning
· How it works: Experience scenarios where information criticality varies, understand deeply, plan verification approach, practice risk assessment
Example prompts:
o Simulator Mode → Role Play: "Create scenarios showing the different consequences of using incorrect information in [topic]"
o "Show me a high-stakes situation vs. a low-stakes situation"
o Tutor Mode → Deep Dive: "What makes certain information high-stakes in [topic]?"
o "What are indicators that information needs external verification?"
o Coach Mode → Study Planner: "Create a verification plan that prioritises high-stakes information"
o Assessor Mode → Critical Reasoning: "Give me a case where I must decide what information requires verification"
Strategy C: Comprehensive criticality system
Strategy C
· Flow: Tutor Mode → Conversation Starters (criticality indicators) → Coach Mode → Study Notes (risk categorization) → Simulator Mode → Role Play (consequences) → Assessor Mode → Applied Knowledge → Coach Mode → Portfolio Coach (risk assessment reflection) → Tutor Mode → Deep Dive → Simulator Mode → Study Group → Assessor Mode → Critical Reasoning
· How it works: Learn criticality indicators, categorise by risk, experience consequences, test critical items, reflect on assessment skills, deepen understanding, discuss with diverse perspectives, practice critical evaluation
Example prompts:
o Tutor Mode → Conversation Starters: "What indicators suggest information is high-stakes in [topic]?"
o Coach Mode → Study Notes: "Categorise [topic] information by: Critical (verify thoroughly), Important (spot-check), Background (accept provisionally)"
o Simulator Mode → Role Play: "Show me realistic consequences of using wrong information in each category"
o Assessor Mode → Applied Knowledge: "Test my knowledge of the critical-category information"
o Coach Mode → Portfolio Coach: "Reflect on my risk assessment decisions. Am I over-verifying or under-verifying?"
o Tutor Mode → Deep Dive: "Why is [specific information] considered high-stakes in [field]?"
o Simulator Mode → Study Group: "Discuss what different stakeholders would consider high-stakes in [topic]"
o Assessor Mode → Critical Reasoning: "Analyse this information and categorise it by criticality with justification"
Strategy D: Dynamic risk assessment protocol
Strategy D
· Flow: Coach Mode → Study Planner (risk framework) → Tutor Mode → Magic Question → Simulator Mode → Goal Play → Assessor Mode → Key-Feature → Coach Mode → Study Notes (decision log) → Tutor Mode → Conversation Starters → Assessor Mode → Critical Reasoning → Coach Mode → Portfolio Coach
· How it works: Develop risk framework, identify critical questions, apply in goals, discriminate between similar cases, log decisions, learn more indicators, practice assessment, reflect on improvement
Example prompts:
o Coach Mode → Study Planner: "Create a decision framework for assessing information criticality in [topic]"
o Tutor Mode → Magic Question: "What questions should I ask to determine if information is high-stakes?"
o Simulator Mode → Goal Play: "Create scenarios where I must use [topic] information to achieve goals. Vary the stakes"
o Assessor Mode → Key-Feature: "Test my ability to distinguish high-stakes from low-stakes information"
o Coach Mode → Study Notes: "Help me create a decision log: Information → Risk Level → Verification Action"
o Tutor Mode → Conversation Starters: "What other criticality indicators should I consider?"
o Assessor Mode → Critical Reasoning: "Present information and ask me to justify its criticality level"
o Coach Mode → Portfolio Coach: "Evaluate my criticality assessment decisions. Where am I improving?"