Maple Park Ground Rules: Fictional Completed Model

This is a completed fictional example for discussion. It models one learner’s thinking after the Maple Park activity; it is not the only correct answer and does not set a personal policy for anyone else.

What I tried or observed

The safe task or example I used: I used the fictional Maple Park cleanup notice to make a participant checklist.

What the tool appeared to do: It put the time, place, clothing, supplies, child-supervision rule, and lightning condition into an easier-to-scan list.

Three human checks

What was useful? The list made the supplied details easier for a volunteer to find.

What needs checking, correcting, or clarifying? The source does not say how people will learn about a cancellation or whether equipment is available for people without gloves.

What decision or responsibility remains human-owned? A person responsible for the event must verify those missing details before sharing the checklist as final information.

My ground rules for a low-risk use

One low-risk way I may use AI: I may ask it to organize a fictional or public event notice into a checklist.

One kind of output I will verify: I will compare factual details in a summary with the original source before using or sharing it.

One kind of information I will not paste: I will not paste private contact details, account information, or another person’s personal information.

One decision I will keep human-owned: I will decide whether a checklist is accurate enough to share and who needs to approve it.

One question or module I want to explore next: I want to learn more about what information should stay out of a chat.

---

Source: modules/ai-without-the-hype/maple-park-ground-rules-example.md