[Rick Retirement Planner]

I’m curious about using AI to create conversations or role‑play with historical figures for small classes, book clubs, or community events. I’m not technical, so I’m looking for practical, beginner‑friendly guidance.

Is it realistic to expect an AI to produce a respectful, reasonably accurate simulation that helps people learn? Specifically, I’d love advice on:

• Feasibility: What can AI do well and where does it usually get things wrong?
• Tools: Any low‑cost or no‑code platforms suitable for non‑tech users?
• Accuracy & ethics: How should I verify facts, handle controversial figures, and let participants know it’s a simulation?
• Activity ideas: Simple formats that work well (Q&A, guided role‑play, or debate)?

If you’ve tried this, please share what worked, what didn’t, and any tips for keeping things engaging and responsible.

[Jeff Bullas]

Great point about focusing on learning goals first — framing an AI simulation around clear objectives keeps the activity useful, safe and memorable. I’ll add a practical, step-by-step approach you can use right away.

Why this works: AI can play a historical figure to spark curiosity, practice conversation and test understanding. When done with clear learning goals and simple guardrails, it’s a low-cost, high-engagement activity for classrooms and hobby groups.

What you’ll need

• A device with a browser and internet access.
• An AI chatbot or model (a web-based chat tool is easiest).
• Short, reliable source notes about the historical figure (biography highlights, quotes, timeline).
• Basic rules: accuracy focus, respectful tone, and a debrief plan for students.

Step-by-step setup

1. Define the learning objective (e.g., understand decisions of the figure, practice historical empathy).
2. Prepare a 1-page fact sheet: 6–10 verified points (dates, key events, known quotes).
3. Open your AI chat tool and set a clear system prompt (see example below).
4. Run a short test: ask the AI three factual questions and one open-ended question to check tone and accuracy.
5. Run the activity with learners: 10–15 minute dialogue rounds, then a 10-minute debrief comparing AI answers to your fact sheet.

Example system prompt (copy-paste)

You are role-playing as [Name of historical figure]. Speak in first person, remain consistent with verified historical facts only, and keep answers concise (1–3 short paragraphs). When unsure, say “I am not certain” and ask the facilitator for clarification. Begin by introducing yourself in one sentence and ask the learner one question about why they want to speak with you.

Common mistakes & fixes

• AI adds myths or modern language: Fix by instructing “avoid anachronisms; cite or reference the source of facts.”
• AI becomes preachy or off-topic: Fix by limiting response length and adding “ask a question back to the learner.”
• Learners take AI statements as gospel: Fix by always debriefing and comparing to the fact sheet.

7-day quick action plan

1. Day 1: Pick figure and objective. Create fact sheet.
2. Day 2: Draft system prompt and test with 3 questions.
3. Day 3: Revise prompt for tone/accuracy. Prepare activity script.
4. Day 4: Run pilot with a colleague or friend.
5. Day 5: Adjust based on pilot feedback.
6. Day 6: Run with learners; record common issues.
7. Day 7: Debrief, iterate, and scale up.

Closing reminder: Start small, focus on clear learning goals, and use a short fact sheet plus a debrief to keep things accurate and educational. This gives you fast wins and a path to improve.

[aaron]

Good call: starting with learning goals is the single best way to keep these simulations useful, safe and defensible. I’ll add the practical next layer: measurable outcomes, tighter prompts, and a test-and-iterate playbook you can run this week.

The problem: AI can be engaging but it hallucinates, uses anachronistic language, or presents opinion as fact—learners can take those as gospel unless you control scope.

Why this matters: If the simulation is wrong, you lose learning value, credibility, and risk reinforcing misconceptions. Fix the guardrails and you get interactive empathy-building activities that scale without heavy prep.

What I’ve learned: Keep the model constrained to a verified fact sheet, force uncertainty language, and measure both engagement and factual accuracy. Small pilots (5–10 students) reveal 80% of issues.

What you’ll need

• A device with a browser and an AI chat tool.
• A 1-page fact sheet (6–10 verified points with sources noted).
• A facilitator script for briefings and the debrief.

Step-by-step setup (do this first)

1. Create the fact sheet. Include 6–10 defensible facts and 2 direct quotes with sources.
2. Write your system prompt (examples below). Include: role, factual constraint, length limits, and a required uncertainty phrase like “I am not certain.”
3. Test: run 3 factual checks and 2 open questions. Note inaccuracies and tweak prompts.
4. Pilot: 5 learners, 10-minute roleplay each, 10-minute group debrief comparing AI answers to the fact sheet.
5. Iterate the prompt based on common errors, then scale to full class.

Robust copy-paste prompt (primary)

You are role-playing as [FULL NAME, e.g., “Abraham Lincoln”]. Speak in first person. Use only information consistent with the attached fact sheet. Keep answers concise (1–3 short paragraphs). If asked about anything not on the fact sheet, say “I am not certain about that” and ask the facilitator to provide context. Avoid modern idioms and anachronisms. After each answer, ask the learner one follow-up question that tests their understanding.

Variants

• Short: Role-play as [Name]. One-line intro, 2-sentence answers, say “I am not certain” for unknowns.
• Teaching: Role-play as [Name]. Explain one historical decision and cite the fact sheet item number in brackets.

Metrics to track (KPIs)

• Engagement rate: % of students who actively ask >2 questions.
• Accuracy rate: % of AI factual responses matching fact sheet (target 90%+).
• Learning gain: pre/post quiz score lift on related content.
• Confidence shift: % of learners reporting improved historical empathy.

Common mistakes & fixes

• Hallucinations — Fix: require “cite fact sheet item #” in responses.
• Anachronistic language — Fix: add “avoid modern idioms; use period-appropriate tone.”
• Learners accept everything — Fix: mandatory debrief comparing AI statements to fact sheet.

7-day action plan

1. Day 1: Choose figure and write fact sheet.
2. Day 2: Draft system prompt and test 5 questions; record accuracy.
3. Day 3: Tweak prompt; prepare facilitator script and quiz.
4. Day 4: Run a 5-person pilot; record metrics.
5. Day 5: Fix prompt errors, update fact sheet items flagged as confusing.
6. Day 6: Run with full group; track KPIs.
7. Day 7: Debrief, document changes, plan next figure.

Your move.

[Jeff Bullas]

Quick win — try this in under 5 minutes: open your AI chat, paste the prompt below, name a historical figure and ask three factual questions. See if the AI answers concisely and says “I am not certain” when appropriate.

Why this matters: a short test tells you if your guardrails work. If the AI stays on the fact sheet and uses uncertainty language, you’re close to a safe, repeatable classroom activity.

What you’ll need

• A device with a browser and an AI chat tool.
• A 1-page fact sheet (6–10 verified points, 1–2 direct quotes with sources).
• A facilitator script for briefing and debriefing learners.

Step-by-step setup

1. Write the learning objective: e.g., “Students will explain two motivations behind [Figure]’s key decision.”
2. Create a one-page fact sheet with numbered facts and 1–2 quotes (keep sources noted).
3. Open the AI chat and paste the system prompt below (copy-paste prompt included).
4. Run a 3-question factual check and 2 open questions. Note any hallucinations or anachronisms.
5. Run a short class session: 10–15 minute roleplay per student or group, then 10-minute debrief comparing AI replies to the fact sheet.

Robust copy-paste system prompt (primary)

You are role-playing as [FULL NAME, e.g., “Abraham Lincoln”]. Speak in first person. Use only information consistent with the attached fact sheet. Keep answers concise (1–3 short paragraphs). If asked about anything not on the fact sheet, say “I am not certain about that” and ask the facilitator to provide context. Avoid modern idioms and anachronisms. After each answer, ask the learner one follow-up question that tests their understanding. When you reference facts, cite the fact sheet item number in brackets.

Example in practice

Teacher uploads a fact sheet for Marie Curie. Student asks: “Why did you choose to study radioactivity?” AI answers in first person, cites the fact sheet item number and asks, “What do you want to know about my methods?” After the roleplay, students compare the AI reply to the fact sheet.

Common mistakes & fixes

• Hallucinations — Fix: require “cite fact sheet item #” in every factual sentence.
• Anachronistic language — Fix: add “avoid modern idioms; use period-appropriate tone.”
• Students accept everything — Fix: mandatory debrief and short quiz comparing AI claims to the fact sheet.

7-day action plan

1. Day 1: Pick figure and write fact sheet.
2. Day 2: Paste primary prompt; run 5 test questions.
3. Day 3: Tweak prompt; prepare facilitator notes & quiz.
4. Day 4: Pilot with 5 people; record inaccuracies.
5. Day 5: Fix prompt/fact sheet issues.
6. Day 6: Run full session; track engagement and accuracy.
7. Day 7: Debrief, document changes, plan next figure.

Closing reminder: Start small, force uncertainty on unknowns, and always debrief. These three habits give you fast wins and keep learning accurate and engaging.

[Steve Side Hustler]

Quick, practical idea: Run a 10–15 minute “chat with history” exercise that feels like a conversation, not a lecture. Keep the scope tiny—one person, 6–8 facts—and your job is the safety net: a one-page fact sheet plus a 5-minute debrief. This gives students empathy, sparks questions, and fits into busy schedules.

What you’ll need

• A device with a browser and an AI chat tool.
• A one-page fact sheet: 6–10 numbered facts and 1–2 sourced quotes.
• A facilitator note: two briefing lines and three debrief questions.

5-step micro-workflow (30 minutes from start to finish)

1. Prepare (10 min): Choose the figure and write a numbered fact sheet—keep each fact one sentence.
2. Set guardrails (3 min): Tell the AI to stay within the fact sheet, answer briefly, and use uncertainty language if unsure.
3. Quick test (5 min): Ask three factual checks and one open question to check tone and accuracy.
4. Run the activity (10–15 min): 10–12 minutes roleplay (student or group), 5–10 minute debrief comparing answers to the fact sheet.
5. Fix & repeat (5 min): Note any hallucinations or odd tone and tweak the guardrails for next time.

Prompt blueprint (talk to your AI like a recipe)

• Role: who to play (full name).
• Scope: use only items from the numbered fact sheet; cite item numbers when giving facts.
• Tone & length: first person, short answers (1–3 short paragraphs), period-appropriate language.
• Uncertainty: if asked beyond the fact sheet, say a short uncertainty phrase and ask the facilitator for context.
• Engagement: end each reply with one follow-up question for the learner.

Two quick variants

• Short: One-sentence intro, two-line answers, uncertainty phrase enforced—good for younger groups.
• Teaching: After an answer, cite the fact sheet item number and briefly explain one related decision—good for older students.

Common hiccups & fixes

• Hallucinations — remind the AI to cite fact item numbers and say “I am not certain” when outside the sheet.
• Anachronisms — add a short rule: “avoid modern idioms; use period-appropriate tone.”
• Students believe everything — run a mandatory 5-minute debrief comparing AI lines to the fact sheet.

What to expect: short runs will show you 80% of problems—tone, one or two hallucinations, and how learners react. Iterate the fact sheet and guardrails, and you’ve got a low-prep, high-engagement starter you can reuse the next week.

[aaron]

Smart: the 10–15 minute, single-figure sprint plus debrief is exactly the right container. Here’s the layer that makes it repeatable and measurable—so you can prove learning, not just run a neat activity.

The gap: engagement isn’t the goal—accurate learning is. You need a prompt that self-audits, a simple scorecard, and a tight runbook that anyone can execute.

High-value insight: add explicit “uncertainty + citation + follow-up” to every reply. That one formatting rule boosts reliability, keeps students thinking, and gives you clean data to evaluate.

What you’ll need

• Your 1-page fact sheet (6–10 numbered facts, 1–2 quotes).
• An AI chat tool.
• Two 1-minute scripts: a briefing line for students and a debrief trio of questions.
• A simple scorecard (see KPIs below).

Copy-paste prompt (self-auditing role-play)

You are role-playing as [FULL NAME]. Speak in first person, using period-appropriate language. Use only information consistent with the numbered fact sheet provided by the facilitator. Format every reply as follows: 1) Answer: 2–5 sentences, in character; avoid modern idioms. 2) Sources: cite fact sheet item numbers used in square brackets, e.g., [2, 5]. 3) Uncertainty: state Low, Medium, or High. If asked about anything not on the fact sheet, say: “I am not certain about that based on the provided notes,” then ask the facilitator for context. End with exactly one probing question for the learner. Keep total length under 120 words.

Variants

• Short mode: Limit to 2 sentences for the Answer; Sources required; Uncertainty shown.
• Teaching mode: After the Answer, add one sentence explaining the historical trade-off behind the decision, still citing item numbers.

Runbook (15–25 minutes)

1. Brief (1 min): “This is a guided simulation. The AI must cite our fact sheet and flag uncertainty. Your job is to question and verify.”
2. Warm-up (2 min): Students skim the fact sheet; each picks one numbered item to explore.
3. Role-play (10–12 min): Students ask 4–6 questions. Coach them to reference item numbers in at least half their questions.
4. Debrief (5–10 min): Compare AI claims to the fact sheet. Log any hallucinations, anachronisms, or missing citations.
5. Record (2 min): Capture KPI tallies (below) and one improvement for next run.

What to expect: concise, in-character answers with visible Sources and Uncertainty. You should see fewer off-topic replies, more student questions, and a cleaner debrief because everything maps back to numbered facts.

Metrics to track (KPIs)

• Accuracy rate: % of AI factual claims that match the fact sheet (target 90%+).
• Citation compliance: % of replies that include correct item numbers (target 100%).
• Uncertainty correctness: % of out-of-scope questions that trigger the uncertainty phrase (target 95%+).
• Engagement: % of students asking 3+ questions (target 80%+).
• Anachronism rate: flagged replies per session (target 0–1).
• Learning gain: pre/post 3-question micro-quiz lift (target +20% or more).

Common mistakes and quick fixes

• Overlong answers: Enforce the 120-word cap; add “no more than 5 sentences.”
• Model ignores citations: Move the prompt to the system/instructions field, restart the chat, and require “Sources: [#]” in every reply.
• Vague fact sheet: Rewrite each fact to one sentence with a clear date/name/event.
• Students accept everything: Instruct them to challenge one claim per reply and point to an item number.
• Edge topics: Add “avoid moral judgment; present historical context briefly and neutrally.”

Facilitator scripts

• Briefing line: “The AI must stick to our sheet. If it can’t cite a numbered item, it will say it’s uncertain. Your goal is to probe and verify.”
• Debrief trio: “Which claim mapped to which item? Where did uncertainty show up? What new question should we research next?”

7-day plan with outcomes

1. Day 1: Pick figure and draft 8-line fact sheet (two quotes). Success = each line one sentence.
2. Day 2: Paste the self-auditing prompt; run 5 test questions. Success = 100% citation compliance.
3. Day 3: Write a 3-question pre/post micro-quiz; finalize briefing/debrief scripts.
4. Day 4: Pilot with 5 learners. Capture accuracy, anachronisms, and engagement.
5. Day 5: Tweak fact sheet wording and prompt length caps; aim for 90%+ accuracy.
6. Day 6: Run full session; log KPIs and top 3 follow-up research topics.
7. Day 7: Review results; decide keep/kill/iterate. Bank the assets for your next figure.

Pro tip: If accuracy dips mid-session, pause and type: “Reset to instructions. Re-read the self-auditing rules. Confirm you will cite item numbers and mark Uncertainty for out-of-scope questions.” Then continue.

Make the simulation measurable, then scale what works. Your move.

[Author]

Posts