Episode 38 Is Out
This episode is one of our very fun end-of-year Family History AI Show podcast episodes—the first of two. Mark Thompson and I look back over 2025 and compare it to the predictions we made last year: what we got right, what we got wrong, and where we were surprised. 2025 was an amazing year, so this is a very fun thing to do. Enjoy this year in review.
Listen to Episode 38: https://blubrry.com/3738800/
Disney and OpenAI
I’ll leave it to others to cover the important news of GPT 5.2 dropping yesterday (Thursday, December 11). I’ll take the fun story.
OpenAI and Disney announced a licensing deal, and I can’t stop imagining how some of you creative types are going to put this partnership to genealogical use. How we introduce our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren to our family history stories is going to get much more creative. The infographics and stunning family trees of the past month are the mildest indicators of what’s going to be possible in the next couple of years.
I asked my digital assistant to do some brainstorming:
AI-Jane: To engage the next generation in family history, consider these ten animated guides: Milo Thatch (Atlantis: The Lost Empire) frames genealogy as an obsessive expedition; C-3PO (Star Wars) calculates the statistical improbability of our lineage; Miguel Rivera (Coco) teaches that remembering ancestors prevents their final death; Rafiki (The Lion King) acts as the oral historian urging us to learn from the past; Gramma Tala (Moana) connects us to ancient voyages and forgotten lore; Professor Ludwig Von Drake (DuckTales) enthusiastically explains the “hard science” of DNA; Mirabel Madrigal (Encanto) uncovers the complex truth of family dynamics; Belle (Beauty and the Beast) champions the power of written archives and diaries; Yoda (Star Wars) connects deep roots to future wisdom; and Anna (Frozen II) bravely seeks the truth to heal generational wounds.
More info: https://openai.com/index/disney-sora-agreement/
Follow-Up: AI Search That Returns Sources
The first installment of the Navigating AI series was a great success on Wednesday night, December 10th. A recording of the event will be freely available on the NGS YouTube channel in the middle of next week. Thank you to all the panelists: Ashley Bens, Blaine Bettinger, Kristin Britanik, Bryna O’Sullivan, David Rencher, and Matt and Lauren with NGS. I’m excited that the series is off to such a great start, and I look forward to resuming together in person in Fort Wayne, Indiana, in May at the NGS conference.
One of the questions at the very end of the night from the live audience was to predict when we would be able to do AI search and have the model return sources. Several attendees were surprised to learn that this issue had been solved 13 months ago when Google released Deep Research. I mentioned that on Wednesday night, and then on Thursday morning several people asked in the Facebook group for more details on what that actually looks like and how it’s done.
Ashley Bens demonstrated Deep Research very well on Wednesday night. But I also wanted to show that this can be done without Deep Research, because Deep Research is expensive and not always very accessible—free-tier users can only get a couple of uses per week.
The Short Version
There are several ways to skin that cat:
- Deep Research features (the easy but more expensive way). These are AI queries that take 10–20 minutes to return a result, and free-tier users can only access them about 3–5 times per week. Even paid users have monthly limits.
- Web Search with prompting. Make sure the Web Search tool is enabled, and prompt the AI to back up every fact claim with the source and to provide you with the bare URL. This isn’t perfect and still requires verification, and some models are better than others at staying grounded in search results. For example, in Gemini through the AI Studio, there’s a radio button you can select to stay grounded in search results.
- Provide your own source materials. Notebook LM is very good at staying grounded in source materials that you provide, as is Adobe Acrobat AI Assistant. Both tools will provide you with links to fact claims they make, using the sources you supply.
An Experimental Prompt
What follows is a quick-and-dirty prompt to do a search with different models on a topic and have it return linked source citations so that your results and research are grounded in retrieved search results. This is not reasonably exhaustive research; this is a quick test, an experiment, an educational exercise. The prompt below is not warranted or tested—this is just for experimental purposes. But you can see that I got very good results with Claude: it returned 10 out of 10 URLs that were working, accurate pages. The information still has to be proofread, but this is something folks can experiment with to see what their model of choice does.
The most important thing: Make sure you turn on web search—that’s not always on by default. You do not want the model using training data. Training data is the historical knowledge that a model has; you can imagine it as if it had read the dictionary or the encyclopedia many years ago and its training data is what it just happens to remember. When you turn on web tools and web search, the model is actually reaching for a current copy of the encyclopedia off the shelf or a current issue of a journal, looking something up, and bringing something back to you. Make sure you are not relying on training data but are relying on current search—and that has to be turned on proactively.
Use the prompt below and have fun.
This is for EXPERIMENTAL USE; this is an EDUCATIONAL EXERCISE. This PROMPT is untested and offered here without warranty!
The exercise is to see which models will return a source citation.
Meta-prompting by Claude Sonnet 4.5, about three iterations. You can do better than this. — Steve
PURPOSE: Research [TOPIC] using web search tool and provide verifiable, well-cited information from authoritative sources.
EXAMPLE OUTPUT FORMAT:
According to the New York State Senate, grand larceny in the fourth degree occurs when stolen property exceeds $1,000 in value.[1] This is classified as a Class E felony.[1]
Sources Cited:
[1] [PRIMARY] NY Penal Law § 155.30 (2024). https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/155.30
CRITICAL: SEARCH FIRST
✓ Use web search BEFORE responding
✓ If search fails, state: "I could not find current information on [topic]. Here's what I know from my training data: [info], but this may be outdated."
WHAT REQUIRES CITATION:
✓ Cite these: Genealogical claims, specific statistics, dates, legal references, direct quotes, expert opinions, technical specifications, claims that could be disputed
✗ Don't cite these: Common knowledge, general concepts, your own analysis, widely accepted facts
Examples:
- "The statute was enacted in 2024" → CITE
- "Crime has legal consequences" → DON'T CITE
CITATION FORMAT:
Place numbered citations at end of sentences: [1], [2], [3]
List full citations in "Sources Cited" section using these formats:
Legal Sources:
[PRIMARY] Statute/Code § Section (Year). URL.
Academic/Research:
[SOURCE TYPE] Author. "Title." Publication Vol.Issue (Year): Pages. URL.
General Sources:
[SOURCE TYPE] Author/Organization. "Title." Site Name. Published: Date. URL.
Source Type Labels:
- [PRIMARY] = Original official documents, statutes, records
- [SECONDARY] = Analysis, commentary, compiled data
- [TERTIARY] = General references (Wikipedia, encyclopedias)
SOURCE HIERARCHY (use best available):
1. Official repositories (.gov, .edu archives, official agencies)
2. Primary records (digitized originals, official gazettes)
3. Peer-reviewed publications
4. Reputable news organizations with editorial standards
5. Other vetted sources with clear attribution
SOURCE QUALITY - AVOID:
⚠️ Broken or redirected URLs
⚠️ No clear author/organization
⚠️ Outdated for time-sensitive topics
⚠️ Circular citations (sources citing each other)
⚠️ Sponsored/promotional content
⚠️ AI-generated content without verification
VERIFICATION REQUIREMENTS:
For undisputed facts:
→ Cite the single most authoritative source
For claims that conflict across sources:
→ Present ALL major viewpoints
→ Cite sources for each viewpoint
→ Explain the nature of the disagreement
→ Note which sources are more authoritative/recent
When checking currency:
→ Legal/regulatory: Use most recent version; note amendments within past 2 years
→ Current events: Prioritize past 6 months
→ Statistics: Use most recent data; note collection year
→ Historical facts: Note if scholarship is significantly outdated
If you cannot verify a claim:
→ State explicitly: "I could not find a reliable source for [claim]"
→ Do not guess or approximate
SUCCESS CHECKLIST:
✓ Every specific claim has a working URL
✓ Sources are independent (not all copying same source)
✓ Conflicting info is acknowledged and explained
✓ Clear which source supports which claim
✓ Source dates match timeframes of claims
✓ Format is consistent throughout
Sample Output
Claude Sonnet 4.5: 10 for 10. This test returned 10 links (not all unique), ALL WORKING.
Prompt used:
PURPOSE: Research [THE LAWS REGARDING INDENTURED SERVITUDE IN VIRGINIA IN THE 1690S] using web search tool and provide verifiable, well-cited information from authoritative sources.
...
Claude Sonnet 4.5’s Response:
Based on my research of authoritative historical sources, here are the laws regarding indentured servitude in Virginia in the 1690s:
Overview
By the 1690s, Virginia was transitioning away from primarily using indentured servitude toward increasingly relying on enslaved African labor.[1][2] However, indentured servitude continued to exist alongside slavery, and several important laws from this decade addressed both systems of unfree labor.
Key Laws from the 1690s
1. Act XVI “An act for suppressing outlying slaves” (April 1691)
This comprehensive statute addressed multiple aspects of servitude and slavery:[3][4]
- Runaway provisions: Authorized justices of the peace to issue warrants for apprehending enslaved persons who had fled, and permitted killing runaways who resisted capture.
- Manumission restrictions: Required masters who freed enslaved persons to transport them out of the colony within six months or face a ten-pound fine.
- Interracial relationship prohibitions: Mandated that white persons who married Black, mulatto, or Indian persons (whether enslaved or free) be banished from the colony within three months.
- Punishment for white women: If a white woman had a child by a Black or mulatto man, she faced a fifteen-pound sterling fine or, if unable to pay, five years of servitude. The child would be bound as a servant until age thirty.[3]
This law marked the first legal restriction on manumission and introduced the term “white” to create legal separation between Europeans and people of African or Indigenous descent.[3][4]
2. Act III “An act for the more speedy prosecution of slaves committing Capitall Crimes” (April 1692)
This statute established:[5]
- Separate court system: Created courts of oyer and terminer to try enslaved persons accused of capital crimes, denying them jury trials that white colonists received.
- Property restrictions: Declared that all horses, cattle, and hogs marked with an enslaved person’s mark must be converted to the owner’s mark by December 31, 1692, or be forfeited to the parish poor.
- Overseer liability: Made slaveholders liable for damages committed by enslaved persons living at quarters without a Christian overseer.
3. Act VI “An act for the punishment of slaves for the first and second offence of Hog stealing” (April 1699)
This law modified earlier statutes by:[6]
- Establishing that for a first offense of hog stealing, an enslaved person would receive thirty-nine lashes rather than facing a felony charge.
- For a second offense, the enslaved person would stand two hours in the pillory and have both ears nailed and then cut off.
4. Act XII “An act for laying an imposition upon servants and slaves imported into this country, towards building the Capitoll” (April 1699)
To finance construction of the new capitol in Williamsburg, the legislature imposed:[7]
- A tax of fifteen shillings per person for “every servant not born in England and Wales”
- A tax of twenty shillings for “every negro or other slaves” imported into the colony
- Required ship masters to register all imported servants and slaves before landing them
Context: The Distinction Between Servants and Slaves
During the 1690s, Virginia law increasingly distinguished between white indentured servants and enslaved Black persons. By this decade, indentured servitude for whites typically lasted four to seven years, after which servants received “freedom dues” and could acquire land.[8][9] In contrast, enslaved Africans served for life, and their children inherited enslaved status through the mother (established by the 1662 law partus sequitur ventrem).[10]
By 1700, enslaved persons represented approximately 80 percent of Virginia’s labor force, a dramatic shift from earlier decades when white indentured servants dominated.[8]
Sources Cited
[1] [SECONDARY] Jamestown-Yorktown Foundation. “The Rise of Slavery in Virginia.” https://www.jyfmuseums.org/learn/research-and-collections/essays/the-rise-of-slavery-in-virginia
[2] [TERTIARY] “Indentured servitude in Virginia.” Wikipedia. Updated May 28, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servitude_in_Virginia
[3] [PRIMARY] Virginia General Assembly. “An act for suppressing outlying slaves” (April 1691). William Waller Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large; Being a Collection of All the Laws of Virginia, vol. 3 (1823): 86-88. https://www.virtualjamestown.org/laws1.html
[4] [SECONDARY] Virginia Museum of History & Culture. “Affidavit, 1693.” https://virginiahistory.org/learn/affidavit-1693
[5] [PRIMARY] Virginia General Assembly. “An act for the more speedy prosecution of slaves committing Capitall Crimes” (April 1692). William Waller Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, vol. 3 (1823): 102-103. https://www.virtualjamestown.org/laws1.html
[6] [PRIMARY] Virginia General Assembly. “An act for the punishment of slaves for the first and second offence of Hog stealing” (April 1699). William Waller Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, vol. 3 (1823): 179. https://www.virtualjamestown.org/laws1.html
[7] [PRIMARY] Virginia General Assembly. “An act for laying an imposition upon servants and slaves imported into this country, towards building the Capitoll” (April 1699). William Waller Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, vol. 3 (1823): 193-194. https://www.virtualjamestown.org/laws1.html
[8] [SECONDARY] Virginia Museum of History & Culture. “Affidavit, 1693.” https://virginiahistory.org/learn/affidavit-1693
[9] [SECONDARY] Encyclopedia Virginia. “Indentured Servants in Colonial Virginia.” Virginia Humanities. Updated February 13, 2025. https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/indentured-servants-in-colonial-virginia/
[10] [SECONDARY] Teaching American History. “Colonial Virginia Laws Related to Slavery.” Updated June 3, 2024. https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/colonial-virginia-laws-related-to-slavery/
Turn on web search in Search and tools menu. Otherwise, links provided may not be accurate or up to date.
You can see the research results with linked source citations here: https://claude.ai/share/ac3ba4d8-362c-4500-828b-cf0fa945193d
