ANU approved six institutional AI principles via Academic Board in June 2023, covering excellence/integrity, research engagement, clear guidance, AI literacy, access/privacy/security, and collaborative policy development.

These six guiding principles on the use of artificial intelligence at the ANU were approved by the Academic Board in June 2023. We will maintain our commitment to excellence and integrity in teaching, learning, assessment and research as the applications of AI in university settings evolve.

Tracker metadata is open licensed. Official source documents, page text, PDFs, and other source materials retain their original rights and terms.


Submitting AI-generated content as one's own work constitutes a breach of ANU's academic integrity rules.

Inappropriate use of AI is unacceptable and constitutes a breach of academic integrity. If students submit AI-generated content as their own work, they are not submitting original work.

Section: Examples of messaging to educate students academic integrity and AI


ANU academic staff are not permitted to upload student data or academic work to generative AI platforms.

Academic staff are not permitted to upload student data or academic work to GenAI platforms. Therefore, it is not currently possible to generate student feedback or results using student work.

Section: Using AI for feedback and marking


ANU prohibits using AI to collect, use, store, or disclose personal information without express consent from the individual(s).

Do not use AI to collect, use, store and/or disclose personal information, without the express consent of the individual(s).


ANU requires that only university-approved AI solutions/software be used to ensure appropriate data governance, information security, and licensing.

Only utilise AI solution/software approved for use by the University, to ensure appropriate data governance, information security and licencing.


Students retain IP ownership of their assignments at ANU; staff may not upload student work to AI platforms without express student consent.

Students retain Intellectual Property ownership of their assignments, even when they have been submitted for assessment. Therefore, staff are not permitted to upload student work to an AI platform without their express consent.

Section: Generative AI FAQs - Can student assignments be uploaded to AI software?


At ANU, using AI-generated content when not permitted and claiming authorship without acknowledgment constitutes a breach of academic integrity.

Using AI-generated content when not permitted and claiming authorship without acknowledgment constitutes a breach of academic integrity.

Section: What can I do to maintain academic integrity?


ANU prohibits uploading student work to AI platforms without consent, including for feedback or marking purposes, citing privacy and data security reasons.

For privacy and data security reasons, uploading student work directly into an AI platform without their consent is not permitted, including for the purpose of feedback or marking.

Section: Can I upload student work into AI to assist with marking?


ANU Law School prohibits using generative AI to draft assessment content; all submitted work must be the student's own independent and original work.

All work submitted for assessment at the ANU Law School must be your own independent and original work. This means that you must not use generative AI to draft your assessment content.

Use of Generative AI Tools in Assessment: Guidance for ANU Law Students


ANU Law School requires students to explicitly declare AI tool usage in the first footnote of submitted work, including tool names, purpose, and extent of use.

In any piece of submitted work where you have used AI tools, you must explicitly declare: The name(s) of the application(s) used, The purpose for their use, The extent and frequency of their use. This declaration should be included in the first footnote.


ANU endorses Copilot Enterprise as the primary AI tool for staff and students, accessed via ANU accounts; non-endorsed tools carry security risks the university cannot guarantee.

Non-endorsed AI tools require you to sign up and create an account and the ANU cannot guarantee your security when using these tools. Currently, Copilot Enterprise is available for all ANU staff and students by signing in with an ANU account.


All AI technical solutions used for ANU business or on ANU-managed devices must be approved by the university; unapproved freeware is considered a network security risk.

All technical solutions being used for University business and/or on ANU managed devices must be approved by the University. Freeware poses particular risks of inadequate information security controls and unapproved software puts the ANU network at risk.


ANU permits course conveners to explicitly limit or encourage generative AI use; students must check class summaries and assessment outlines for AI requirements.

Generative AI may be explicitly limited in some courses and actively encouraged in others. You should look first at class summaries and assessment outlines for any AI requirements in the course.

Section: FAQs - Can I use Generative AI for my assessment?

Guide for students: best practice when using Generative AI


ANU treats generative AI as a permissible learning tool that can be cited as an information source, but强调 it is not a replacement for student thinking and originality.

Generative AI is a permissible learning tool in higher education and can be cited as an information source. However, it is important to note that Generative AI is not a replacement for your thinking and originality.

Section: FAQs - How do I use generative AI responsibly?


ANU provides Copilot Enterprise and Adobe Firefly as enterprise-licensed AI tools with data protection for staff and students using ANU accounts.

Copilot Enterprise is available for all ANU staff and students by signing in with an ANU account. The main benefit of using CoPilot with an ANU account is that personal and company data is protected.

Section: FAQs - Which Generative AI tools should I choose?


ANU handles suspected generative AI misuse through the same academic misconduct procedure as other integrity breaches, including giving students the opportunity to respond.

The ANU procedure for suspected misuse of generative AI is the same as for any misconduct, which includes giving a student the opportunity to respond.

Section: What if I suspect a student has misused AI?


ANU Law School permits limited AI use for improving expression in student drafts (grammar, clarity, structure) and brainstorming ideas, provided all information is independently verified.

Using AI to improve expression in your own draft, such as grammar, clarity, or structure. Prompting AI for ideas or to help brainstorm — provided you verify all information independently.

Section: What May Be Permitted (with Caution)


ANU Law School warns that academic integrity findings related to AI misuse may have long-term consequences for law students, as misconduct must be disclosed when applying for admission to legal practice.

For law students, academic integrity findings may have long-term consequences. When applying for admission to legal practice, students must disclose any misconduct findings.

Section: Academic Integrity and Assessment Impact


ANU does not ban generative AI, but the College of Asia & the Pacific distinguishes between appropriate and inappropriate uses based on whether AI replaces or supports student skill development.

Generative AI is not banned at the ANU. However, that does not mean that all uses of these products and platforms are equally valid.


ANU CAP guidelines identify using AI-produced text as one's own, using AI to generate assignment structures, and using AI to rephrase others' work to avoid plagiarism detection as inappropriate uses that constitute academic integrity issues.

Using AI-produced text 'as your own' — This is a clear academic integrity issue - a student doing this is passing off the work of someone/thing as their own.

Section: Inappropriate uses of generative AI


ANU allows individual colleges and disciplines to set their own policies on whether AI is permitted for specific assessment tasks, rather than imposing a university-wide blanket rule.

Whether AI is permitted for assessments will vary greatly across different assessment tasks, colleges and disciplines. Educators are advised to check with their College or ADE for any College-wide advice or guidance.

Section: Using AI for assessment purposes


ANU guidance acknowledges that traditional assessments like generic essays and multiple-choice tests are more vulnerable to AI misuse, and recommends redesigning tasks with authentic, specific contexts.

Essays and other traditional assessments, such as quizzes and multiple-choice tests may be more vulnerable to AI misuse. An essay task with a generic or broad topic is quite vulnerable.

Section: Can I still ask students to complete essays, quizzes and multiple choice tests?


The ANU Library LibGuide references the ARC policy requiring disclosure of generative AI use in grant applications, accuracy verification, and originality compliance.

The policy outlines the acceptable use of generative AI tools in the preparation and submission of grant applications to ensure integrity and transparency. Disclosure: Applicants must disclose the use of generative AI in their applications.

Section: Australian Research Council Policy

Referencing and generative AI - ANU LibGuide


ANU was developing governance document changes to require students to acknowledge any use of artificial intelligence in their work (as of early 2023).

Minor changes to a range of relevant governance documents and academic integrity guidance for students are also being considered. Once approved, these changes are likely to require students to acknowledge any use of artificial intelligence in their work.

ChatGPT: What ANU academics need to know


ANU CAP guidelines state there is a very strong presumption against any use of generative AI or translation programs in language courses, and advise non-language students to check with convenors before using AI for translation.

For non-language courses: Translation is not a neutral act... students should actively check with a convenor whether using generative AI or some other translation system is appropriate. For any language course: There is a very strong presumption against any use of generative AI or other translation program.

Section: A note on translation and generative AI


The ANU Library LibGuide catalogs major publisher policies on AI: ACM prohibits AI authorship but permits disclosed use; Nature, Science, Elsevier, IEEE, and others require disclosure of AI use in manuscripts.

Generative AI tools and technologies, such as ChatGPT, may not be listed as authors of an ACM published Work. The use of generative AI tools and technologies to create content is permitted but must be fully disclosed in the Work.


ANU maintains a 'Generative AI and Assessment' resource collection providing step-by-step advice on designing assessments in the age of AI, covering assessment planning, evaluation, and approach determination.

Step-by-step advice on designing assessments that reflect real student capabilities in the age of AI. Rethinking assessment design in the age of GenAI.

Generative AI and Assessment - ANU Learning and Teaching


ANU published a PDF FAQ document 'Chat GPT and other generative AI tools: What ANU academics need to know' covering ChatGPT introduction, assessment impact, and institutional response (content also referenced in ANU's blog post).

Chat GPT and other generative AI tools: What ANU academics need to know. PDF covering introduction to ChatGPT, potential impact on assessment design and academic integrity, action ANU is taking, steps for course conveners.

PDF metadata (from anu-010 blog referencing this document)

Chat GPT and other generative AI tools: What ANU academics need to know (PDF)


ANU maintains an 'AI Essentials' resource collection for using supported AI tools while discussing best practice with students.

Make use of supported artificial intelligence tools at ANU while speaking to students about best practice.

AI Essentials - ANU Learning and Teaching


California Institute of Technology (Caltech)

Caltech admissions requires all Fall 2026 applicants to review its admissions guidelines on the ethical use of AI before submitting supplemental essays. Failure to comply may result in rescission of admission.

All Fall 2026 applicants must review Caltech's guidelines on the ethical use of AI before submitting their supplemental essays. Failure to comply with the Ethical Use of AI guidelines may result in the rescission of your admission to Caltech.

Undergraduate and Graduate Admissions AI Policy: Guidelines for Fall Applicants


Caltech admissions prohibits applicants from copying and pasting directly from an AI generator, relying on AI-generated content to outline or draft essays, replacing their unique voice with AI-generated content, or translating essays via AI.

What are some examples of unethical uses of AI for Caltech admissions essays?
- Copying and pasting directly from an AI generator
- Relying on AI generated content to outline or draft an essay
- Replacing your unique voice and tone with AI generated content
- Translating an essay written in another language


Caltech admissions permits applicants to use AI tools like Grammarly or Microsoft Editor for grammar and spelling review of completed essays, to generate brainstorming questions or exercises, and to research the college application process.

What are some examples of ethical uses of AI for Caltech admissions essays?
- Using AI tools, like Grammarly or Microsoft Editor, to review grammar and spelling of your completed essays
- Generating questions or exercises to help kick start the brainstorming process
- Using AI to research the college application process


In Caltech's Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) division, students may use generative AI tools only in ways explicitly allowed by the course instructor in the course materials. Any usage not specifically allowed should be assumed to be disallowed.

At present, students submitting work for HSS courses may use generative AI tools only in ways that are explicitly allowed by the course instructor in the course materials. Any usage that is not specifically allowed should be assumed to be disallowed.


The Caltech HSS generative AI policy applies to all assignments including major papers, exams, discussion board posts, reflections, and problem sets.

This policy applies to all assignments, including major papers and exams as well as smaller assignments like discussion board posts, reflections, and problem sets.


Caltech admissions AI guidelines were approved by the Undergraduate Faculty Admissions and Graduate Studies committees for the Fall 2026 application cycle, and may evolve for future cycles.

The Undergraduate Faculty Admissions and Graduate Studies committees convened and have approved of the following ethical guidelines for the use of AI in the Fall 2026 application cycle. As access to AI continues to grow and the technology evolves, so will our recommendations and expectations for future application cycles.


Caltech HSS students are expected to follow specific course guidance for documenting any permitted use of generative AI tools.

Students will also be expected to follow specific course guidance for documenting any permitted use of these tools.


At Caltech, AI use policies for student coursework are determined by individual departments and/or individual faculty, not by a university-wide policy.

Caltech students, faculty, and staff are guided by the Honor Code and policies of AI use as an academic tool by students will be determined by individual departments and/or individual faculty.


The Caltech HSS generative AI policy states that generative AI may promote learning in some contexts and impede it in others, and instructors prioritize student learning in setting these policies.

In our teaching, HSS instructors prioritize student learning, and this commitment drives our policies on the use of generative AI in the classroom. Generative AI may promote learning in some contexts and impede it in others.


Columbia Law School prohibits generative AI use in exams, final papers, and for drafting any part of work submitted for credit, even if fully documented.

Use of Generative AI is prohibited in (a) any exam or final paper or (b) for aid in drafting any part of work submitted for credit, even if the use is fully documented.

Section: Policy Text - Default Prohibition

Columbia Law School Interim Policy on Generative AI


CUIMC provides HIPAA-compliant versions of ChatGPT Education and Microsoft Copilot as approved AI chatbot tools; workforce members must use CUIMC-issued accounts for compliance.

Columbia University provides access to HIPAA-compliant versions of OpenAI's ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot, enabling our workforce to leverage these AI tools responsibly and compliantly.

AI and Generative Technology Use at CUIMC


CUIMC restricts sensitive data (PHI, RHI, PII) use with AI to HIPAA-compliant platforms only (ChatGPT Education, approved Microsoft Copilot, CHAT with compliant models); research use requires IRB approval.

Sensitive Data: Permitted only on the ChatGPT Education, approved Microsoft CoPilot platforms, and CU CHAT when used with compliant models. Research protocol use requires IRB, and TRAC/ACORD approval.


Columbia Law School's default AI prohibition can be overridden by individual instructors who set more permissive policies in writing in their syllabus.

Individual instructors can, and indeed are encouraged to, tailor their own more permissive policies, so long as their policies are stated in writing in the syllabus.


Columbia Law School permits students to use generative AI for studying, brainstorming, and identifying typographical errors, but not for writing, editing, revising, or translating text.

Students may use Generative AI to aid in studying, brainstorming, or to identify typographical errors.


Columbia Law School requires all generative AI use to comply with university data protection policy; confidential or personal information must not be shared with AI tools unless retention and training use is disabled.

All uses of Generative AI must comply with University policy protecting confidential and personal information. By default, all text you enter into Generative AI tools is retained, used for training, and potentially outputted to other users.


As of March 2026, Google Gemini, NotebookLM, and Anthropic Claude are not approved for use with sensitive data at CUIMC; they may only be used with non-sensitive, non-confidential data.

At this time (March 2026), the following AI Chat services offered through CUIT are not approved for use with Sensitive data: Google Gemini, NotebookLM, Anthropic Claude.

Section: Non-HIPAA Compliant Chatbot Tools


CUIMC requires a formal IT Risk Assessment review before deploying any locally installed AI models (LLM, NLP, ML) to evaluate security, privacy, and compliance risks.

For locally installed AI models (i.e. LLM, NLP, ML), a formal IT Risk Assessment review is required before deployment to evaluate potential security, privacy, and compliance risks.


Teachers College provides five example syllabus statements ranging from no AI use permitted to generally permitted with attribution, allowing instructors to choose their stance.

Example 1: No Generative AI Use Permitted. Students are prohibited from using generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools to complete coursework or assignments for this class.

TC Guidance | Digital Futures Institute (DFI)


Teachers College example syllabus statements require citations or disclosure detailing specific AI tools and models used when AI use is permitted.

Example 5: Generative AI tools are generally permitted in this course for research and completion of assignments, provided that all AI-generated content is clearly attributed as such in the student's work.


All Teachers College example syllabus statements include provisions for students with disabilities who have AI-related accommodations through OASID.

Students with disabilities are eligible for reasonable accommodations to permit them equal access to Teachers College programs and services (which include classes and coursework). If you are a student registered with OASID with a generative AI accommodation, please speak with me directly about your needs.


Columbia's Center for Teaching and Learning maintains a central AI Guidelines hub linking to the Provost's policy, academic integrity resources, CUIT resources, and best practices for responsible AI use.

Columbia University AI Guidelines hub from CTL. Links to Provost policy, academic integrity resources, CUIT resources, best practices for responsible AI use. Central hub for Columbia AI resources.


Columbia University has a university-wide Generative AI Policy from the Office of the Provost governing use by staff, faculty, students, and researchers, covering information security, data privacy, copyright, academic integrity, and bias.

This Generative AI policy governs the use of Generative AI tools by staff, faculty, students, and researchers. Covers information security, data privacy, copyright, academic integrity, bias.

Source candidate verification notes (search snippet from Cloudflare-blocked page)

Generative AI Policy - Office of the Provost - Columbia University


Columbia University requires researchers to avoid uploading unpublished research data or confidential information into generative AI tools.

Researchers must avoid uploading, or using as input, any unpublished research data or other Confidential Information into a Generative AI tool.

Source candidate verification notes (search snippet)

Generative AI - Office of the Provost - Columbia University


Columbia Business School requires students to disclose to faculty their use of generative AI platforms and the manner of use in coursework.

As a general rule, students should disclose to faculty if they are using generative AI platforms and in what manner they are using them in coursework.

Generative AI Policy | Students - Columbia Business School


Columbia University Information Technology (CUIT) publishes university-wide best practices for responsible AI use applicable to faculty, students, researchers, and staff.

CUIT university-wide best practices for responsible AI use. Referenced from ai.ctl.columbia.edu hub. Applies to faculty, students, researchers, and staff.

Best Practices for Responsible AI Use at Columbia - CUIT


Cornell's committee report states that any information educators are obligated to keep private under FERPA or HIPAA should not be shared with generative AI tools or uploaded to third-party AI vendors.

GAI tools pose potential privacy risks because data that is shared may be used as training data by the third-party vendor providing the service. Therefore, any information that educators are obligated to keep private, for example, under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) or the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), should not be shared with such tools or uploaded to these third party vendors of GAI.

Section 3.1.2: Attribution, authorship, access, and accountability in the use of GAI

CU Committee Report: Generative Artificial Intelligence for Education and Pedagogy


Cornell's committee report states that original research or content owned by Cornell University, students, or employees should not be uploaded to AI tools, as it can become part of the AI tool's training data.

GAI tools also have implications for intellectual property rights. Original research or content that is owned by Cornell University, our students, or employees should not be uploaded to these tools, since they can become part of the training data used by the GAI tools.


Cornell's committee report does not recommend the use of generative AI for summative evaluation or grading of student work, stating that evaluation and grading is among the most important tasks entrusted to faculty.

While GAI may have selective utility in assisting in providing feedback for low-stakes formative assessment (for example in practice problems), we currently do NOT recommend it be used in summative evaluation of student work. Evaluation and grading of students is among the most important tasks entrusted to faculty, and the integrity of the grading process is reliant on the primary role of the faculty member.

Section 3.3: Use of GAI by instructors for course content creation


Cornell's committee report recommends three policy approaches for generative AI use: prohibit GAI where it interferes with foundational learning, allow with attribution where it supports higher-level thinking, and encourage use where it enables exploration and creative thinking.

We recommend instructors consider three kinds of policies either for individual assignments or generally in their courses. To prohibit the use of GAI where it interferes with the student developing foundational understanding, skills, and knowledge needed for future courses and careers. To allow with attribution where GAI could be a useful resource, but the instructor needs to be aware of its use by the student and the student must learn to take responsibility for accuracy and correct attribution of GAI-generated content. To encourage and actively integrate GAI into the learning process where students can leverage GAI to focus on higher-level learning objectives, explore creative ideas, or...

Executive summary, Recommendations subsection


Cornell's committee report discourages the use of automatic detection algorithms for academic integrity violations using generative AI, stating they cannot decisively provide evidence and could lead to unfairly identifying violations, including bias against non-native speakers.

We currently discourage the use of automatic detection algorithms for academic integrity violations using GAI, given their unreliability and current inability to provide definitive evidence of violations.

Section 4: Recommendations for faculty and administration (faculty recommendations)


Cornell's IT guidelines state that users are accountable for their work regardless of the tools used to produce it, and when using generative AI tools must always verify information for errors and biases and exercise caution to avoid copyright infringement.

You are accountable for your work, regardless of the tools you use to produce it. When using generative AI tools, always verify the information for errors and biases and exercise caution to avoid copyright infringement.

Guidelines for Artificial Intelligence | IT@Cornell


Cornell's IT guidelines prohibit entering any confidential, proprietary, federally or state regulated, or otherwise sensitive or restricted Cornell information into public generative AI tools, as such information becomes public and may be stored and used by anyone.

If you are using public generative AI tools, you cannot enter any Cornell information, or another person's information, that is confidential, proprietary, subject to federal or state regulations, or otherwise considered sensitive or restricted. Any information you provide to public generative AI tools is considered public and may be stored and used by anyone else.


Cornell has established seven core principles for generative AI in education: integrity of the faculty-student relation, commitment to experimentation and evidence, centrality of faculty judgment, responsiveness to student needs, recognition of both AI goods and harms, respect for institutional and disciplinary heterogeneity, and renewal of Cornell's core mission and values.

Cornell's response to generative AI in teaching and learning is built around seven core principles. We invite instructors to consider these principles as they make decisions and talk with their students and colleagues about generative AI and learning: The integrity of the faculty-student relation. A commitment to experimentation, evidence and learning from experience. The centrality of faculty judgment and expertise in the classroom. Responsiveness to real student needs and uses. Recognition of both AI 'goods' and 'harms'. Respect for institutional and disciplinary heterogeneity. The extension and renewal of Cornell's core mission and values.

Cornell's Core Principles for Generative AI in Education section

Generative Artificial Intelligence | Center for Teaching Innovation


Cornell recommends that faculty clearly communicate their generative AI policies in their syllabus, in assignment instructions, and verbally in class to support student learning and reduce academic integrity violations.

To best support student learning and reduce violations of academic integrity, be sure to clearly communicate your policies regarding the use of generative AI in your syllabus, in assignment instructions, and verbally in class.

Opening paragraph of AI & Academic Integrity page

AI & Academic Integrity | Center for Teaching Innovation


Cornell does not recommend using automatic AI detection algorithms for academic integrity violations, citing their unreliability and inability to provide definitive evidence, and the risk of wrongly accusing students.

We currently do not recommend using current automatic detection algorithms for academic integrity violations using generative AI, given their unreliability and current inability to provide definitive evidence of violations.


Cornell's committee report recommends that the Code of Academic Integrity be updated with clear and explicit language on the use of generative AI, indicating that individual faculty have authority to determine when AI use is prohibited, attributed, or encouraged.

The Code of Academic Integrity should be updated with clear and explicit language on the use of GAI, specifically indicating that individual faculty have authority to determine when its use is prohibited, attributed, or encouraged, and that use of GAI on assignments by students is only allowed when expressly permitted by the faculty member.

Section 4: Recommendations for faculty and administration (administration recommendations)


Cornell's IT guidelines endorse a flexible framework in which faculty and instructors can choose to prohibit, allow with attribution, or encourage generative AI use in education.

Cornell encourages a flexible framework in which faculty and instructors can choose to prohibit, to allow with attribution, or to encourage generative AI use.


Cornell established the GenAI Education Working Group in spring 2024 with all-college representation including faculty, staff, and students, as the central body for developing new ideas, policies, and practices around generative AI in the classroom.

Established in spring 2024 with all-college representation including faculty, staff and students, the Cornell GenAI Education Working Group, a part of the university-wide AI Advisory Council, is the central place in which new ideas, policies and practices around GenAI in the classroom are being worked out at Cornell.

GenAI in Teaching and Learning – Academic Innovation


Cornell developed seven standardized AI course policy icons (ANY-AI, AT, UA, PP, AS, ER, AI-FREE) to help instructors clearly communicate AI use expectations in syllabi and assignments, which can be combined for nuanced policies.

These icons have been developed to help you clearly and consistently communicate your expectations. They can be used on the syllabus to convey an overall course approach. They can also be used for individual assignments, allowing you to distinguish different policies for different assignments with different learning goals. Icons can be combined to more fully reflect your course policy.

Opening paragraph of AI Course Policy Icons page

AI Course Policy Icons | Center for Teaching Innovation


When generative AI use is permitted in a course, Cornell advises instructors to clarify expectations for documentation and attribution, including citing the AI tool creator (e.g., OpenAI for ChatGPT) when directly quoting AI-generated text in both in-text citations and reference lists.

When generative AI is permitted, clarify expectations for documentation and attribution, as well as what aspects of the work should be produced by the students themselves. ... students should attribute directly quoted text to the creator of the generative AI tool used (e.g., cite OpenAI when directly quoting ChatGPT). This attribution should be used for both in-text citations and your reference list.

Opening guidance paragraph and AS-UA sample policy language section


Cornell's Center for Teaching Innovation recommends that faculty discuss course policies and expectations around the use of generative AI tools with their students and clearly communicate when and in what ways use of such tools is permitted or not.

We recommend discussing course policies and expectations around their use, and clearly communicating with your students when and in what ways use of generative AI tools are permitted – or not.

Responding to Generative AI in Classes section, recommendation paragraph


Cornell developed a set of course policy icons through the GenAI Advisory Council to help instructors clearly and consistently communicate AI use expectations to students in syllabi and assignment instructions.

A set of course policy icons has been developed by the GenAI Advisory Council to help Cornell instructors communicate with students about appropriate AI use for different courses and assignments. They are downloadable and can be incorporated into your syllabus or assignment instructions, to help provide clear guidance to students about course expectations.

Opening section, after introductory paragraph


Cornell holds students responsible for verifying the accuracy of AI-generated output and references when AI use is allowed for an assignment.

Discuss with students how generative AI output can be incorrect or problematic and that they are responsible for verifying the output and references if AI use is allowed for an assignment.


Cornell describes measures faculty may use to evaluate potential AI-related academic integrity concerns, including requiring students to verify citations and references, requesting verification of references or methods, and informing students that they should expect to verbally explain submitted work.

Require that students verify the accuracy of all citations and references they include in their work. Request that students provide verification of references or methods, with a student's response determining whether a formal academic integrity notification is warranted. ... Inform and remind students that they should expect to verbally explain the work they submitted.

Prevention > Set Clear Expectations in the Syllabus section


Cornell's IT guidelines state that use of generative AI in academic research is governed by the Cornell University Task Force Report 'Generative AI in Academic Research: Perspectives and Cultural Norms' (December 2023).

The Cornell University Task Force Report, Generative AI in Academic Research: Perspectives and Cultural Norms (December 2023), offers perspectives and practical guidelines to the Cornell community on the use of generative AI in the practice and dissemination of academic research.


Cornell's IT guidelines state that use of generative AI for administrative purposes must comply with the Cornell Generative AI in Administration Task Force Report (January 2024).

The use of generative AI for administration purposes must comply with the guidelines of the Cornell Generative AI in Administration Task Force Report (January 2024).

Use for Administration and Other Purposes section


Cornell's 'AI+AI' initiative aims to strengthen and update academic integrity procedures to better reflect the presence of generative AI, including better models for attributing student use of GenAI and development of evidentiary standards for adjudicating GenAI-related violations.

'AI+AI': efforts to strengthen and update Cornell's academic integrity procedures to better reflect the presence of GenAI, including better models for attributing student use of GenAI in assignments or course settings; efforts to streamline, strengthen, and reform the university's academic integrity system; and the development of evidentiary standards and processes appropriate to the adjudication of GenAI-related violations of academic integrity.

Key initiatives list, AI+AI bullet point


Cornell considers generative AI literacy essential for both students and faculty, defining it as the ability to understand, evaluate, and critically engage with generative AI technologies.

The need for AI literacy is essential for students and faculty alike. We can think of ethical generative AI literacies as the ability to understand, evaluate, and critically engage with generative AI technologies.


Cornell provides sample syllabus language for an AI-FREE policy that prohibits all generative AI tools, including tools that help reorganize and edit written work, to ensure development of foundational concepts and skills.

To ensure development and mastery of the foundational concepts and skills in this course, the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools is prohibited. This includes tools that help reorganize and edit your written work because the ability to self-assess, reflect on your writing process, and develop your own voice are essential in your growth as a writer.

Example Course Policy Language - Prohibiting Generative AI Use (AI-FREE) section


Cornell provides sample syllabus language for an AS-UA policy where AI use is generally discouraged but permitted for select assignments with proper attribution, requiring students to cite the AI tool creator.

Mastering the essential, foundational concepts of this course takes effort and practice. Accordingly, the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools is generally discouraged in this course, but will be permitted for select assignments. ... If used in any capacity for an assignment, generative AI requires proper attribution for any and all generated work.

Example Course Policy Language - Permitting Generative AI Use with Attribution (AS-UA) section


Cornell's AI course policy icons include a 'PP' (Privacy Protecting) icon indicating that generative AI use is permitted but no copyrighted or proprietary class materials should be uploaded unless otherwise specified.

PP (Privacy Protecting—No Proprietary Materials): GenAI use permitted, but no uploading of copyrighted or proprietary class materials unless otherwise specified.


ETH Zurich advocates a proactive approach to the use of generative AI in educational contexts, emphasising responsible use among students and lecturers.

ETH Zurich advocates a proactive approach to the use of generative AI (GenAI) within educational contexts, emphasising the responsible use of this technology among students and lecturers.

AI in Teaching and Learning — ETH Zurich


Students are responsible for the content of work they submit. Performance assessments must be conducted independently and personally; GenAI may serve a supplementary role but not replace student efforts.

Responsibility: You are responsible for the content of work you submit... Performance assessments must be conducted independently and personally. GenAI may serve a supplementary role, helping you but not replacing your efforts.


Lecturers determine whether and how GenAI may be used in their courses and for respective assessments. Teaching materials created with GenAI must be subjected to quality control by the lecturer.

As a lecturer you are responsible for the content you provide to your students. This means that teaching materials created with GenAI must be subjected to quality control by you... You determine whether and how GenAI may be used in your courses.


Violations of GenAI guidelines such as use of unauthorised aids or non-disclosure of their use are subject to disciplinary action under existing performance assessment rules and the declaration of originality.

Legal aspects of GenAI uses are covered by the existing rules for performance assessments and the 'declaration of originality'. Violations such as use of unauthorised aids or non-disclosure of their use will continue to be subject to disciplinary action.

Generative AI in Teaching and Learning — Guidelines (ETH Zurich)


ETH Zurich recommends Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini, and NotebookLM for teaching purposes, as they offer data-protected access via ETH accounts where personal data is not used for training models.

The Gemini and NotebookLM offerings from Google, as well as Copilot from Microsoft, which are accessible via an ETH cloud subscription, are available to all ETH employees and students via secure access. It is therefore recommended that these tools be used primarily for teaching purposes.


Students must refrain from disclosing copyrighted, private, or confidential information to commercial GenAI clients unless expressly permitted, and must respect privacy and copyright of content they work with.

It is important to respect the privacy and copyright of the content being worked with... If data is passed on to AI-based tools or released for them, it must be clarified in advance that no rights are being violated.


ETH Zurich requires transparency about GenAI use: students must declare which tools they used and for which parts of their work; lecturers must communicate when GenAI use is permitted and make their own GenAI use visible.

Transparency: Be transparent about your use of GenAI. Clearly state which tools you have used for which part of your work using the correct style guide.


ETH Zurich states that technical recognition of AI-generated output is currently unreliable and will probably remain so; trust in such methods is not appropriate.

Technical recognition of output generated using generative AI is currently unreliable and will probably remain so in the future. Trust in such a method is therefore not appropriate.


University-wide: Level 2 and above confidential data (including non-public research data, finance, HR, student records, medical information) should not be entered into publicly-available generative AI tools. Such data may only be entered into generative AI tools that have been assessed and approved by Harvard's Information Security and Data Privacy office.

You should not enter data classified as confidential (Level 2 and above, including non-public research data, finance, HR, student records, medical information, etc.) into publicly-available generative AI tools, in accordance with the University's Information Security Policy. Information shared with generative AI tools using default settings is not private and could expose proprietary or sensitive information to unauthorized parties. Level 2 and above confidential data must only be entered into generative AI tools that have been assessed and approved for such use by Harvard's Information Security and Data Privacy office.

Harvard University Information Technology (HUIT)


FAS (Faculty of Arts and Sciences) Office of Undergraduate Education policy: All faculty are required to inform students of the policies governing generative AI use in class. Faculty should post their AI policy on their Canvas site.

All faculty are required to inform students of the policies governing generative AI use in class. ... Once you decide on a policy, make sure you articulate it clearly for your students, so that they know what is expected of them. More specifically, you should post your policy on your Canvas site.

Policies for the use of AI in courses section

Generative AI Guidance – Office of Undergraduate Education

Harvard FAS Office of Undergraduate Education


University-wide: All vendor generative AI tools not currently offered by HUIT must be assessed for risk by Harvard's Information Security and Data Privacy office prior to use in Harvard work. Contact HUIT before procuring any generative AI tool.

If you are considering procuring a generative AI tool not currently offered or have questions, please contact HUIT. All vendor generative AI tools must be assessed for risk by Harvard's Information Security and Data Privacy office prior to use in Harvard work.

Use approved tools for Harvard work section


University-wide: AI meeting assistants (AI note takers or bots) should not be used in Harvard meetings, with the exception of approved tools with contractual protections including enterprise agreements with appropriate security and privacy protections, or tools as part of limited HUIT-directed pilot programs.

AI meeting assistants should not be used in Harvard meetings, with the exception of approved tools with contractual protections: Use only AI assistants for which Harvard has an enterprise agreement with the vendor including appropriate security and privacy protections, including: Approved tools as part of limited HUIT-directed pilot programs to evaluate the use of AI assistants within the Harvard environment.


University-wide: Users are responsible for any content they publish or share that includes AI-generated material. AI-generated content may be inaccurate, misleading, entirely fabricated (hallucinations), or contain copyrighted material.

AI-generated content can be inaccurate, misleading, or entirely fabricated (sometimes called "hallucinations") or may contain copyrighted material. You are responsible for any content that you publish or share that includes AI-generated material.

Review content before publishing or sharing section


HGSE (Harvard Graduate School of Education) school-level policy: Unless otherwise specified by the instructor, using generative AI to create all or part of an assignment (e.g., paper, memo, presentation, short response) and submitting it as one's own work violates the HGSE Academic Integrity Policy. Permissible uses include seeking clarification on concepts, brainstorming ideas, or generating scenarios that help contextualize learning.

Unless otherwise specified by your instructor, it is a violation of the HGSE Academic Integrity Policy to use generative AI to create all or part of an assignment for a course (e.g., a paper, memo, presentation, or short response) and submit it as your own. Permissible uses of generative AI in HGSE coursework include seeking clarification on concepts, brainstorming ideas, or generating scenarios that help contextualize what you are learning.

HGSE AI Policy on Student Use of Generative AI in Academic Work

Harvard Graduate School of Education – Office of the Registrar


HGSE (Harvard Graduate School of Education) school-level policy: For any permitted use of generative AI tools, students must acknowledge and document that use in their assignment submission by explaining what tool(s) were used, prompts provided, and how the output was integrated into the work. Direct citations must use proper citation format.

For any permitted use of GenAI tools, you must acknowledge and document that use in your assignment submission by explaining what tool(s) you used, prompts you provided (if applicable), and how you integrated the output into your work. If you cite directly from the tool, use proper citation format to credit the source.


HGSE (Harvard Graduate School of Education) school-level policy: It is forbidden to make personal recordings of any course meetings, with or without AI tool integrations. Uploading substantial course content is only allowable through the Harvard-approved AI Sandbox.

It is forbidden to make your own recording of any course meetings, with or without AI tool integrations. If you require or would prefer that course meetings be recorded, discuss this request with your instructor. Uploading any substantial course content — including text, video, readings, discussion-board pages, or audio recordings — is only allowable through the Harvard-approved AI Sandbox.

Recording and content upload restrictions section


FAS (Faculty of Arts and Sciences) Office of Undergraduate Education guidance: Faculty must get documented permission from students before putting original student content into any generative AI tool. No confidential information can be loaded into generative AI systems since there is no expectation of privacy or confidentiality.

Faculty must get documented permission from students before putting original student content into any generative AI tool, and students should be made aware of the risks of entering their original work into such tools. No confidential information can be loaded into GAI systems, since there is no expectation of privacy or confidentiality.

FAQ – Is it appropriate to enter student work into ChatGPT?


HMS (Harvard Medical School) Academic and Research Integrity guidance: AI tools cannot be listed as authors on a paper. Authors should be transparent when AI tools are used and provide information about how AI tools were used.

AI Tools cannot be listed as an author on a paper. Authors should be transparent when AI tools are used and provide information about how AI tools were used.

Harvard Medical School – Academic and Research Integrity


University-wide: Only Harvard-offered versions of generative AI tools carry stated data classification protections. Publicly-available versions of the same tools should not be used for Harvard work. Approved tools (Harvard AI Sandbox, Google Gemini, Microsoft Copilot Chat, ChatGPT Edu, Adobe Firefly) are approved for Level 3 data and below.

Note: all data classification levels listed below apply only to the Harvard-offered versions of these tools and not to publicly-available versions of these tools (which should not be used for Harvard work). Harvard AI Sandbox - ... Level 3 data and below. Google Gemini ... Level 3 data and below. Microsoft Copilot Chat ... Level 3 data and below. OpenAI ChatGPT Edu ... Level 3 data and below. Adobe Firefly ... Level 3 data and below.

Tool comparison table and data classification note


University-wide: Faculty should be clear with students about their policies on permitted uses of generative AI in classes and on academic work. Students are encouraged to ask instructors for clarification about these policies as needed.

Faculty should be clear with students they're teaching and advising about their policies on permitted uses, if any, of generative AI in classes and on academic work. Students are also encouraged to ask their instructors for clarification about these policies as needed.

Adhere to local academic and administrative policies section


Unless explicitly authorised, using generative AI to create assessed work may be treated as an academic offence such as contract cheating under Imperial's Plagiarism, Academic Integrity & Exam Offences regulations. Improper use of AI can be investigated under the University's Academic Misconduct procedures.

Unless explicitly authorised, using AI to create assessed work may be treated as an offence such as contract cheating under Imperial's Plagiarism, Academic Integrity & Exam Offences regulations. Familiarise yourself with Imperial's Academic Misconduct Policy for rules on appropriate AI usage.

Library Services - Generative AI guidance: 'Appropriate academic use of generative AI' section

Imperial College London Library Services


Individual departments at Imperial may allow or prohibit the use of generative AI for specific assessments. Local (team/department/faculty) instructions take precedence over university-wide guidance. Students should check their department's current policy on using and disclosing generative AI in academic work and follow their module leader's instructions.

Individual departments may allow or prohibit GenAI for specific assessments; local (team/department/faculty) instructions take precedence. Always check the brief and acknowledge permitted AI use as directed.

dAIsy Use Policy Section 5(i) - Responsible uses: Assessment-related use


Imperial's dAIsy AI platform uses University SSO authentication with auditing. Prompts and metadata are logged for operational monitoring, and AI model providers are configured not to train on user data. Users' prompts and responses are not used to train external AI models. dAIsy is approved for use with unrestricted data within Imperial's secure infrastructure.

dAIsy uses University SSO and auditing. Logs (prompts/metadata) are retained for operational monitoring. Model providers are configured to not train on your data.

dAIsy Use Policy Section 6 - Data handling, security and privacy


Breaches of Imperial's dAIsy Use Policy may lead to action under Academic Misconduct procedures for students and HR/disciplinary processes for staff, as well as under Information Security and Data Protection policies. Sanctions may include removal of access, grade penalties, or formal disciplinary measures.

Breaches may lead to action under Academic Misconduct (students) and HR/disciplinary processes (staff), as well as Information Security and Data Protection policies. Sanctions may include removal of access, grade penalties, or formal disciplinary measures.

dAIsy Use Policy Section 13 - Compliance and sanctions


Students should include a statement acknowledging their use of generative AI tools for all assessed work, specifying the tool name and version, publisher, URL, a brief description of how it was used, and confirmation that the work is their own. Further requirements such as prompts used, date of output, the output obtained, and how it was modified may also be required by individual departments.

You should include a statement to acknowledge your use of generative AI tools for all assessed work, in accordance with guidelines from your department or course team. This statement should be written in complete sentences and include the following information: Name and version of the generative AI tool e.g. Copilot, ChatGPT-5; Publisher (name of company that provides the AI system) e.g. Microsoft, OpenAI; URL of the AI tool; Brief description (single sentence) of the way in which the tool was used; Confirmation that the work is your own.

Library Services - Generative AI guidance: 'Acknowledging and referencing use of generative AI tools' section


Research at Imperial that involves people, personal data, or sensitive topics may require ethics approval, a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA), and data-governance controls before using any AI tool. Researchers must verify whether their use of AI in research requires special approval, particularly when uploading private or confidential research data.

Research that involves people, personal data, or sensitive topics may require ethics approval, a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA), and data-governance controls before using any AI tool.

dAIsy Use Policy Section 5(iii) - Responsible uses: Research use


All Imperial staff and students have access to Microsoft Copilot with Commercial Data Protection when signed in using their Imperial credentials. Microsoft Copilot has no access to organizational data in the Microsoft 365 Graph. Chat results are not saved or made available to Microsoft, and data does not pass outside the organisation.

All Imperial staff and students have access to Microsoft Copilot. You should ensure you sign in to use Copilot so that you are using the secure version of Microsoft Copilot with Commercial Data Protection. MS Copilot has no access to organizational data in the Microsoft 365 Graph. Your data is protected and the chat results are NOT saved or made available for Microsoft, so the data does not pass outside of the organisation.

ICT page on Microsoft Copilot - access and data protection sections


Users of Imperial's dAIsy AI platform must always apply critical judgment to AI outputs. Generative AI can produce inaccurate or biased outputs ('hallucinate'), omit context, or reflect training-data biases. Users remain accountable for the accuracy, legality, and appropriateness of any content they submit or share through the platform.

Always apply critical judgement. GenAI can 'hallucinate', omit context, or reflect training-data biases. Users remain accountable for the accuracy, legality, and appropriateness of any content they submit or share.

dAIsy Use Policy Section 8 - Quality, bias and human oversight


Users of Imperial's dAIsy platform must not upload third-party content they are not permitted to share. Reuse of AI outputs must comply with licensing and academic citation norms. When communicating externally, dAIsy outputs must not be presented as Imperial's position without approval.

Do not upload third-party content you are not permitted to share. Ensure that any reuse of AI outputs complies with licensing and academic citation norms. When communicating externally, do not present dAIsy outputs as Imperial's position without approval.

dAIsy Use Policy Sections 11 (Copyright and IP) and 12 (Communications and transparency)


Imperial College London has established five Generative AI Principles (aligned with Imperial Values: Respect, Collaboration, Excellence, Integrity, Innovation) to provide a foundational framework for approaches to using generative AI in teaching, learning and assessment university-wide. The principles cover promoting critical use of AI, adopting a consistent ethical approach, and building a proactive research community around AI in education.

These principles are intended to provide a starting point for approaches to using generative AI in teaching, learning and assessment at Imperial. Imperial supports the use of the principles to frame and underpin activities university-wide as we as a community explore the use of generative AI, progress and develop policy, and establish guidelines. The principles are underpinned by Imperial's core Values. ... Promoting the critical use of generative AI in teaching, learning and assessment. Adopting a consistent ethical approach to the use of generative AI. Building a proactive research community around the use of generative AI.

Generative AI Principles page - introductory and principles sections


Institut Polytechnique de Paris's 2025-2026 Master programs academic regulations prohibit the use of generative AI in assessments for those programs unless explicitly authorized by the instructor in written instructions. Unauthorized use constitutes academic misconduct.

In the context of any assessment, regardless of its form (in-class exam, take-home assignment, project, internship report, etc.), the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) is strictly prohibited unless explicitly authorized by the instructor in the written instructions. Any violation will be considered academic misconduct.

Section 5.2 Use of Artificial Intelligence

Academic Regulations For Master Programs - IP Paris


Le règlement des études 2025-2026 des masters de l'Institut Polytechnique de Paris interdit l'utilisation de l'intelligence artificielle générative dans les évaluations de ces programmes, sauf autorisation explicite de l'enseignant dans ses consignes écrites. Tout manquement est considéré comme une fraude.

Dans le cadre d'une évaluation, quelle que soit sa forme (évaluation sur table, devoir à la maison, projet, rapport de stage, etc.) l'utilisation d'une intelligence artificielle (IA) générative est interdite sauf si l'enseignant l'a explicitement autorisée dans ses consignes écrites. Tout manquement sera considéré comme une fraude.

Section 5.2 L'utilisation de l'Intelligence Artificielle

Règlement des études des masters de l'Institut Polytechnique de Paris


Under Institut Polytechnique de Paris's 2025-2026 Master programs academic regulations, when generative AI use is explicitly permitted by an instructor, students must clearly acknowledge its use in accordance with standard citation practices.

If generative AI is explicitly permitted, students who use it must clearly acknowledge its use in accordance with standard citation practices.


École polytechnique (member school) provides teaching resources for AI integration including detection tools (Turnitin, AI Text Classifier, GPTZero) and curated expert articles on generative AI in higher education.

Les ressources sont classées en plusieurs catégories: Outils d'IA avancés, Applications d'IA génératives: Textes, images, musiques, vidéos. Outils de détection: Une sélection de logiciels comme Turnitin, AI Text Classifier et GPTZero, permettant d'identifier les contenus générés par l'IA et de préserver l'intégrité académique.

IA - Ressources pour les enseignants - Teaching & Learning Center


JHU requires all uses of AI tools in any assignment to be disclosed, with FERPA guidelines referenced for data protection.

All uses of AI tools in any assignment must be disclosed. If you use AI tools in any part of the writing... FERPA guidelines referenced.

Source candidate verification notes (search snippet)


JHU provides official syllabus statement templates, including options that prohibit students from using ChatGPT or other AI tools to generate written content for assignments.

Students are prohibited from using ChatGPT or other AI tools to generate written content for assignments. Official JHU syllabus statement template.


JHU Engineering for Professionals provides faculty-facing guidance with detailed generative AI use categories, including categories where AI may not be used in any form.

Generative AI Use Categories: GenAI may not be used in any form. Faculty-facing guidance with detailed use categories. EP Academic Integrity.

Faculty Facing Guidance on Student Generative AI-Use


JHU is working to ensure AI tools procured on behalf of the university meet privacy and security standards.

The university is working to ensure that AI tools procured on behalf of JHU meet our privacy and security standards.

Generative AI / CoPilot / ChatGPT Information - WSEIT


JHU maintains a central Generative AI Tool Guidance hub on Teaching @ JHU covering teaching and learning applications.

Central hub for generative AI guidance at JHU, covers teaching and learning applications. Confirmed exists via OpenCLI search.

Generative AI Tool Guidance | Teaching @ JHU


JHU Engineering's Center for Teaching and Learning Design provides school-specific guidance on student use of generative AI.

Engineering school specific guidance on student use of generative AI.

Student Use of Generative AI - Johns Hopkins Engineering CTLD


JHU Engineering CTLD maintains an academic integrity page specifically addressing ChatGPT and AI-related concerns.

Engineering school academic integrity page with ChatGPT/AI focus.

Academic Integrity – Johns Hopkins Engineering CTLD


King's College London does not ban the use of generative AI tools by students.

No, King's does not ban the use of any type of AI. It is increasingly part of the wider world and is changing the nature of many aspects of life including the jobs you are in or will progress into.

Student guidance > Is generative AI banned at King's?


At King's College London, inappropriate use of generative AI without attribution is considered academic misconduct and can result in penalties ranging from formal warnings to expulsion.

Inappropriate use without attribution is considered academic misconduct. For further details please see the Academic Misconduct Policy and Academic Misconduct Procedure. Potential penalties can range from formal warnings, resubmitting the coursework, suspension or expulsion.

Student guidance > What are the consequences of inappropriate use of generative AI?


King's College London does not require students to reference generative AI as an authoritative source in the reference list, but does require explicit acknowledgement of AI tool use in coursework.

King's College London, unlike some other universities, does not require students to reference generative AI as an authoritative source in the reference list for much the same reason you would not be expected to cite a search engine, a student essay website or be over-dependent on synoptic, secondary source material. However, as we learn more about the capabilities and limitations of these tools and as we work together to evolve our own critical AI literacies, we do expect you to be explicit in acknowledging your use of generative AI tools such as Microsoft Copilot (available via your KCL account), Google Gemini, ChatGPT or any other media generated through other generative AI tools.

Student guidance > How do I acknowledge use of generative AI?


At King's College London, submitting AI-generated text as one's own without written departmental permission is considered misconduct under third-party involvement or text manipulation offences.

Submitting text generated by technology/artificial intelligence as their own, without written permission from their department is considered misconduct under the offences of third-party involvement or text manipulation, if it provides undue advantage or interferes with assessment of the student's own understanding.

Macro-level > Guidance on academic integrity, attribution, detection

Macro-level guidance: University-wide principles and policy


King's College London has disabled the AI detection feature in Turnitin due to concerns about reliability and false positives.

King's took the decision not to enable the AI detection % in Turnitin due to concerns about its reliability and potential for false positives. As things stand AI detection is not an option that is available to us.


King's College London supports considered use of generative AI and is open to evolving teaching, assessment and feedback practices according to need and disciplinary differences.

King's College London supports considered use of generative AI, and is open to evolving teaching, assessment and feedback practices according to need and disciplinary differences.


Microsoft Copilot is available to all King's College London students via their KCL Microsoft account and comes with commercial data protection under the university's enterprise license.

Our Enterprise license means that use of Copilot comes with commercial data protection and is therefore a more secure alternative to other generative AI tools.

Context and definitions > Equity of access


King's College London subscribes to the Russell Group's five principles on generative AI in education, including supporting AI literacy, adapting teaching and assessment, and ensuring academic integrity.

King's contributed to and subscribes to the Russell Group's five principles on the use of generative AI tools in education: Universities will support students and staff to become AI-literate; Staff should be equipped to support students to use generative AI tools effectively and appropriately in their learning experience; Universities will adapt teaching and assessment to incorporate the ethical use of generative AI and support equal access; Universities will ensure academic rigour and integrity is upheld; Universities will work collaboratively to share best practice as the technology and its application in education evolves.

Macro-level > Values and principles statement


King's College London permits doctoral students to use generative AI tools in their thesis writing processes for assistive purposes such as clarifying writing, provided use is declared and consistent with guidance.

Yes, students are permitted to make use of generative AI tools in their thesis writing processes. However, where a student's use of generative AI tools in their thesis writing exceeds the circumstances permitted by this guidance, they will risk breaching the Academic Misconduct Policy.

Doctoral assessment > Are students allowed to use generative AI tools when writing their thesis?

Generative AI: Guidance for doctoral students, supervisors and examiners


King's College London doctoral examiners must not upload any part of a student's thesis into a generative AI tool or use external AI detection software when assessing the thesis.

Must not upload any part of a student's thesis into a generative AI tool, or make use of external generative AI detection software when assessing the thesis.

Doctoral assessment > Principles for generative AI use by doctoral researchers at King's > Examiners


King's College London defines four broad levels of acceptable AI use in assessments: minimal, limited/selective, open, and embedded, with programme and module leaders adjusting to assessment specifics.

We have suggested four broad levels that your Programme and Module leaders may adjust to the specifics of an assessment: 1. Minimal - Includes routine and established use of tools such as auto transcription, spell checkers, grammar check. 2. Limited/selective - Use for clearly delineated tasks as appropriate/allowed/recommended. 3. Open - No specific restrictions but with requirement to track key stages/tools utilised. 4. Embedded - AI use is a feature of the assessment itself.

Student guidance > What constitutes appropriate use?


Microsoft Copilot is the primary institutional generative AI tool available to all King's College London students and staff via KCL Microsoft login credentials.

Please note that Microsoft Copilot is available to all King's students with your KCL Microsoft log in credentials. Make sure you are logged into your KCL account and switch 'safe search' to 'moderate' to use it.


Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)

No generative AI tools, including those licensed by IS&T, are approved for use with High Risk MIT information. Additionally, MIT does not recommend using publicly available GenAI tools not subject to an Institute licensing agreement for MIT research and educational activities, even with Low Risk or Medium Risk information.

No Generative AI tools, including those licensed by IS&T, are approved for use with High Risk MIT information. Additionally, we do not recommend using publicly available GenAI tools not subject to an Institute licensing agreement for your MIT research and educational activities, including with Low Risk or Medium Risk information.

Section: 'Protect MIT information and confidential data'

No Generative AI tools, including those licensed by IS&T, are approved for use with High Risk MIT information. Additionally, we do not recommend using publicly available GenAI tools not subject to an Institute licensing agreement for your MIT research and educational activities. See IS&T's guidance for the use of generative AI tools for full details and recommendations.


Use of generative AI tools at MIT must comply with all applicable federal and state laws and orders (including FERPA, HIPAA, Massachusetts Data Protection Standards, export control laws, and the Executive Order on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of AI), Institute policies (including 10.1 Academic and Research Misconduct, 11.0 Privacy and Disclosure of Personal Information, and 13.0 Information Policies), Information Protection guidelines, and the Institute's Written Information Security Program (WISP), plus any additional policies established by the user's department, lab, center, or institute (DLCI).

ensure that your use of generative AI tools and services complies with all applicable federal and state laws and orders (including, without limitation, FERPA, HIPAA, Massachusetts Data Protection Standards, export control laws, and Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence), Institute policies (including 10.1 Academic and Research Misconduct, 11.0 Privacy and Disclosure of Personal Information, and 13.0 Information Policies), follows all guidelines outlined on Information Protection, the Institute's Written Information Security Program (WISP), and complies with any additional policies established by your department, lab, center, or...


MIT advises community members to disclose the use of generative AI tools for all academic, educational, and research-related uses, and not to publish research results relying on AI-generated content without disclosing the nature of such use.

You should disclose the use of generative AI tools for all academic, educational, and research-related uses. Do not publish research results that rely on content generated through the use of a generative AI tool without disclosing the nature of the use of such generative AI tool in producing the content.

Section: 'Be transparent about your use of AI tools'


IS&T recommends that MIT community members consult with IS&T before purchasing or using generative AI tools, and recommends using tools already licensed by IS&T for the MIT community.

IS&T recommends MIT community members first consider using tools and services which have already been licensed by IS&T for use by the MIT community.

Before entering into any license agreements for a new AI tool or service, we recommend reaching out to ai-guidance@mit.edu for a consultation on your planned use of AI and an assessment of the tool or service before it is used.

Section: 'Consult with IS&T before purchasing or using generative AI tools'


MIT holds users responsible for the accuracy of any information they publish, including AI-generated content. Users must be aware that AI-generated information may be inaccurate, incomplete, misleading, biased, fabricated, or contain third-party intellectual property.

Be aware that information generated by AI may be inaccurate, incomplete, misleading, biased, fabricated, or may contain material subject to a third party's intellectual property ownership. You are responsible for the accuracy of any information you publish, including AI-generated content.

Section: 'Ensure accuracy before publishing AI-generated information'


MIT maintains a list of approved generative AI tools licensed by IS&T for use by the MIT community. Only these tools are approved for use with low- and medium-risk information, and any tool not on the list requires contacting ai-guidance@mit.edu for assessment before use or purchase. No generative AI tools are approved for use with High Risk MIT information.

The following tools are approved for use with low- and medium-risk information

Adobe Firefly - Generate or modify images via text prompts. Available to MIT faculty, staff, and students.
AWS Bedrock - Developer access to third-party large language models via API. Available to MIT faculty and staff.
AWS Sagemaker - Managed AI/ML model access and training. Available to MIT faculty and staff.
Azure OpenAI - Developer access to Azure OpenAI and other cognitive services. Available to MIT faculty and staff.
Google Gemini - Text-based AI chatbot. Available to MIT faculty, staff, and students.
Google NotebookLM - Research assistant and note-taking tool. Available to MIT faculty, staff, and studen...

Section: 'Available through IS&T for use by MIT' (approved tools list)


MIT prohibits the use of generative AI for purposes that may require in-depth risk assessments without prior consultation with ai-guidance@mit.edu. Such purposes include recruitment and hiring of employees, evaluating student academic performance, making investment decisions, and complaint and dispute resolution.

Do not use generative AI for purposes that may require in-depth risk assessments without contacting ai-guidance@mit.edu. Examples include: recruitment and hiring of employees, evaluating student academic performance, making investment decisions, and complaint and dispute resolution.


MIT departments, labs, centers, and institutes (DLCIs) already using a generative AI tool or service must ensure that the tool complies with all Institute policies and Information Protection guidelines, and must contact ai-guidance@mit.edu for consultation or assessment if needed.

If an MIT DLCI is already using a generative AI tool or service, ensure that the tool complies with all Institute policies and Information Protection guidelines. Contact ai-guidance@mit.edu if you have a need for a consultation or assessment.


When allowed or required to use AI in an assessment, students must follow all instructions and restrictions on its use, clearly document the type of AI used and how it contributed, and provide written acknowledgment of the use of AI and its extent.

Whenever you are allowed or required to use AI in an assessment, you must also: Follow all instructions and restrictions on its use; Clearly document the type of AI used and how it contributed to the assessment; Provide written acknowledgment of the use of AI and its extent; and When necessary, cite and reference using the closest source types in the style being used.

Acknowledging the use of AI page, main content section

Acknowledging the use of AI - Student Academic Success


Chief Examiners have overarching responsibility for designing and setting assessment conditions, including communicating and verifying the responsible use of AI within assessment tasks.

AI and assessment page, main content section

AI and assessment - Learning and Teaching - Monash University


Thesis examiners are not permitted to use Generative AI technologies (such as ChatGPT) during the thesis examination process to support, prepare, or write their examiners' report.

To preserve the confidentiality of thesis examination, examiners are not permitted to use Generative AI technologies (such as ChatGPT) during the thesis examination process to support, prepare or write their examiners' report.

Graduate Research GenAI guidance page, Thesis Examination section

Guidance on Generative AI - Graduate Research - Monash University


Using AI in a way not permitted in an assessment, or failing to acknowledge its use correctly, may breach assessment conditions under the Student Academic Integrity Procedure.

It is important that you follow assessment instructions regarding the use of AI. If you don't, you may breach assessment conditions (Student Academic Integrity Procedure, 2022). This occurs when you use AI in a way that is not permitted in an assessment, or fail to acknowledge its use correctly.

AI and assessments page, Academic integrity and AI use in assessments section

AI and assessments - Student Academic Success - Monash University


Students should not upload personal, sensitive, copyrighted, or licensed material to AI tools, as many AI tools cannot guarantee privacy, strong data security, or the protection of intellectual property.

When uploading personal, sensitive, copyrighted, or licensed material: Many AI tools cannot guarantee privacy, strong data security, or the protection of intellectual property (IP).

Responsible and ethical use of AI page, 'When it is not appropriate' table

Responsible and ethical use of AI - Student Academic Success


Monash enterprise systems such as Copilot have enterprise data protections identified under the green shield in Monash Copilot. Students should use their Monash email address to access Microsoft Copilot which provides data protection for Monash.

Monash enterprise systems such as Copilot have enterprise data protections identified under the green shield in Monash Copilot. To be safe, you can use your Monash email address to access Microsoft Copilot which provides data protection for Monash.

Responsible and ethical use of AI page, Privacy section and Top tips section


Monash's AI responsible use principles include community benefit, education and research excellence, fairness, transparency, integrity and accountability, and data security and privacy.

Monash AI responsible use principles: Community benefit, education and research excellence; Fairness; Transparency; Integrity and accountability; Data security and privacy.

AI Policies and Guidelines page, main content section

AI Policies and Guidelines - Artificial intelligence at Monash


Responsible use of AI should be explainable in terms of what AI was used, which AI tools assisted in producing the work, how many versions and drafts were produced, and how outputs were adapted.

Responsible use of AI should be explainable in terms of: What AI was used; Which AI tools assisted in producing the work, how many versions and drafts were produced; How outputs were adapted.

Responsible use of AI page, main content section

Responsible use of AI in education at Monash - Learning and Teaching


Microsoft Copilot is a generative AI program that has capabilities to generate text and images in response to user prompts. Monash recommends logging in using Monash credentials to ensure data is more protected.

Microsoft Copilot is a generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) program that has capabilities to generate text and images in response to user prompts. Make sure to log in using your Monash credentials before accessing Copilot. This ensures that your data is more protected.

Microsoft Copilot page, main content section

Microsoft Copilot - Student Academic Success


Nanyang Technological University, Singapore (NTU Singapore)

NTU states that generative AI should not be listed as an author of any paper with NTU affiliation, or as a Principal Investigator, Co-PI, or collaborator in research proposals.

GenAI (e.g. ChatGPT) should not be listed as an author of any paper with an affiliation to NTU; or listed as a Principal Investigator (PI), Co-PI, or collaborator in any research proposals.

NTU Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Research


NTU states that the use of generative AI beyond basic spelling and grammar checks should be acknowledged and cited in research outputs, publications, and presentations.

In the interests of transparency and integrity, the use of GenAI beyond basic spelling and grammar checks should be appropriately acknowledged and cited. This would include acknowledging the use of any AI tools in their research proposals, manuscripts, and scholarly works through a statement specifying the tool's full name and version, its purpose of use, and how it was used.

1. Acknowledging/Declaring the Use of GenAI


NTU states that not citing or acknowledging the use of generative AI could be considered plagiarism (a form of research misconduct), especially if GenAI was used to generate ideas or for literature reviews.

Not citing or acknowledging the use of GenAI could be considered plagiarism (i.e. a form of research misconduct), especially if GenAI was used to generate ideas or for literature reviews.


NTU prohibits uploading confidential, sensitive, or personal data to external generative AI platforms unless specific conditions are met: legal compliance, restricted access, no data retention, and written permission from data owners.

Any confidential or sensitive information, and/or personal data must not be uploaded to any external GenAI software, system, or platform unless: The activity does not contravene any applicable laws, regulations, or institutional policies; Access to the GenAI is controlled and restricted to only authorised study members; The data is not retained in or by the GenAI; and Where applicable, written permission has been explicitly provided by the data owner.


NTU states that misrepresenting AI-generated content as one's own work is considered academic misconduct under the 2025 NTU Academic Integrity Handbook.

AI tools can assist your thinking but should not replace it; misrepresenting AI-generated content as your own work is considered academic misconduct.


NTU guidelines state that AI detector tools should be used with caution due to frequent false positives and negatives, ease of bypass, and bias against non-native English writing patterns.

Research shows that the use of AI detector tools should be used with caution due to the following reasons. Unreliable Detection: Frequent false positives (human text flagged as AI) and false negatives (AI text missed). ... Discrimination: Bias against non-native writing patterns (e.g. ESL/EFL students).


NTU requires students to disclose the use of AI tools in their submissions and to always refer to their module's AI use policy for specific expectations.

Use AI tools to support tasks such as brainstorming, outlining, or checking grammar, but ensure you disclose their use in your submissions. Always refer to your module's AI use policy and seek guidance from your instructor regarding specific expectations for acceptable AI usage in your courses.


NUS policy states that verdicts from AI detection tools are not admissible as conclusive evidence in disciplinary processes to charge students with academic dishonesty or to penalize student work.

The verdicts of current AI tools purported to determine whether an analyzed input has been generated by AI are not admissible as conclusive evidence in a disciplinary process to charge a student with academic dishonesty or as justification to penalize student work.

2.6 Academic Dishonesty and AI Detector Verdicts

NUS Policy for Use of AI in Teaching and Learning


NUS policy states that representing AI output as one's own work without acknowledgement is plagiarism; students who submit AI-generated work without acknowledging its use can be sanctioned for academic dishonesty.

Representing an AI's output as your own work, without any acknowledgement that you have used such a tool, is plagiarism. A student found to have submitted work generated by AI but failed to acknowledge their use of AI can still be sanctioned for plagiarism, assuming the case can be made.

3. A General Message to Our Students; 2.6 Academic Dishonesty


NUS states that instructors should be transparent about where and how they deploy AI in courses, including for generating content, virtual tutoring, and assessment feedback.

Instructors should be transparent about where and how they deploy AI in NUS courses. This is especially important where AI is deployed to generate course content (including assessment questions), to function as virtual tutors to answer student queries, or to help with assessment feedback and grading.


NUS requires prior approval from Head of Department or relevant Deanery before using AI tools to provide instruction, feedback, or marks to students, submitted via an AI Risk Assessment.

The use of AI tools to provide instruction to learners in the form of responses, feedback and/or marks, whether as virtual tutors or as markers, requires prior approval by Head of Department or relevant Deanery, under the oversight of Chair of the AI-COP. Approval must be sought through submission of an AI Risk Assessment.

2.4 Deploying AI Requires Explicit Approval


NUS policy sets the default assumption that AI tool use is permitted for unsupervised (take-home) assessments, provided use is duly acknowledged; assessments forbidding AI must be conducted in-person and instructor-supervised.

Conversely, the default assumption for any unsupervised (e.g., 'take home') assessment task is that the use of AI tools is permitted so long as the use is duly acknowledged. ... If the decision is that students should be forbidden from using AI tools for an assessment (for pedagogical reasons), then crucial aspects of that assessment should be conducted in-person and instructor-supervised.

2.5 Assessments Forbidding the Use of AI


NUS policy requires that wherever NUS data is involved, only NUS-approved AI tools should be used.

Wherever NUS data is involved, use NUS approved AI tools (see the list here).


NUS has an institutional Policy for Use of AI in Teaching and Learning, supplemented by AI guidelines infographics and resources for students.

NUS's Policy for Use of AI in Teaching and Learning; THE1005 on AI Use for Students on the NUSOne page

Institutional Guidelines and Resources section


NUS requires students to cite AI-generated content according to style guide conventions and to check assignment guidelines for specific AI use instructions.

Important! Always check your assignment guidelines for specific instructions on use of AI in your assignment. ... If you intend to publish your work, do note that in addition to style guides for citation, you may need to consult publishers' policies for using AI tools or including AI-generated content in writing.


Northwestern guidance states that faculty, staff, students, and affiliates should not enter institutional data into any generative AI tools that have not been validated by the University for appropriate use and have explicit permission of the data provider.

University faculty, staff, students, and affiliates should not enter institutional data into any generative AI tools that have not been validated by the University for appropriate use and have explicit permission of the data provider.

Northwestern Guidance on the Use of Generative AI


Northwestern provides instructors with three course-level AI policy options: Open (GAI permitted), Conditional (GAI permitted when explicitly authorized), and Closed (GAI prohibited).

As with other course features, instructors are free to integrate generative artificial intelligence (GAI) to support their teaching goals. Instructors should carefully consider whether and how they will allow the use of GAI in their courses. All instructors should clearly communicate their expectations or requirements to students to avoid confusion. It may help to consider three main options: Open: The use of GAI is permitted. Conditional: The use of GAI is permitted when explicitly authorized by the instructor. Closed: The use of GAI is prohibited.


Northwestern classifies data into four levels. Only Level 1 (non-confidential, public) data may be uploaded to publicly available generative AI tools. Data above Level 1 requires tools approved through Northwestern IT procurement and security review.

To determine whether your data requires special attention, consult Northwestern Data Classification Policy. If your data is Level 1 (non-confidential and public data), uploading it to generative AI tools is permissible. To process data above Level 1, any generative AI tool must have been approved through Northwestern IT procurement and security review processes.

Data Approved for Use with Generative AI section


Microsoft Copilot is Northwestern's primary approved generative AI tool. All students, faculty, and staff have access to free Copilot Chat, with full Copilot for Microsoft 365 available as a paid subscription.

Microsoft Copilot is the primary, general-use AI tool available at Northwestern. All Northwestern students, faculty, and staff have access to the free Copilot Chat, and faculty and staff can use the full Copilot for Microsoft 365 Copilot capabilities with an add-on paid subscription. When you are logged into these services with your Northwestern NetID, your data is protected and operates fully within Northwestern security, compliance, and data boundaries.

Start with Microsoft Copilot Chat section


Unauthorized use of ChatGPT or other Generative AI tools is considered cheating and/or plagiarism per Northwestern Academic Integrity guidelines.

Unauthorized use of ChatGPT or other Generative AI tools is considered cheating and/or plagiarism in Academic Integrity: A Basic Guide.

Academic Integrity & Artificial Intelligence section

Academic Integrity & Citing AI - Using AI Tools in Your Research


Microsoft Copilot, when signed in with a Northwestern Microsoft account, is approved for Level 2 and generally Level 3 data. Publicly available AI tools (ChatGPT, Gemini, MidJourney) may only be used with Level 1 public data.

The following table outlines Northwestern current services posture based on data classification: Conversational/Interactive Mode - Public Data (Level 1): Use of publicly available tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Copilot, Bard/Gemini, MidJourney, etc.). Sensitive/Regulated Data (Level 2, Level 3, Level 4): Microsoft Copilot, when signed in with a Northwestern Microsoft account for Level 2 and Level 3 data.

Data Approved for Use with Generative AI - services posture table


Peking University's AI Scientific Integrity Platform defines AI use boundaries across seven research stages: topic selection, literature search and management, research design and implementation, paper writing, paper submission, paper review, and grant application and review.

覆盖论文选题、文献检索与管理、研究设计与实施、论文写作、论文投稿、论文评审、基金申报与评审七个研究环节。

使用规范说明 - AI科研诚信平台


Peking University's AI use guidelines apply to faculty, students, researchers, and administrators who use generative AI or other AI-assisted tools in teaching, research, and management activities.

适用于在教学、科研与管理活动中引入生成式人工智能或其他AI辅助工具的教师、学生、科研人员与管理人员。

使用规范说明 - AI科研诚信平台


Peking University classifies AI use in research into three tiers: open use (low risk, broadly applicable), limited use (moderate risk, requires verification and constraints), and prohibited use (high risk or violation, forbidden).

开放使用：指在特定的环节或场景中，应用生成式AI的风险较低或几乎不存在风险，具有普适性或广泛适用性的情形。有限使用：指在特定的环节或场景中，应用生成式AI存在一定的风险，需要进行核查、规范或约束的情形。不可使用：指在特定的环节或场景中，应用生成式AI存在高风险或违规，禁止使用的情形。

使用规范说明 - AI科研诚信平台


Peking University distinguishes two levels of AI involvement in research: instrumental assistance (using AI as a tool to handle routine or repetitive tasks) and replacement completion (using AI to independently complete tasks involving core intellectual contribution and creative labor).

工具性辅助：指将生成式AI作为一种增强人类能力的工具，用于处理流程化、重复性或辅助性的任务。替代性完成：指将生成式AI用于独立完成本应由科研工作者承担的、涉及核心智力贡献和创造性劳动的任务。

使用规范说明 - AI科研诚信平台


Peking University's AI Scientific Integrity Platform synthesizes AI use policies from 18 domestic and international sources, including Chinese government agencies (MOST, NSFC), Chinese universities (Fudan, Nanjing, Sichuan), international bodies (EU Commission, NIH), and universities (Harvard, Yale, Cambridge, UCL, Oxford, MIT).

科技部监督司—负责任研究行为规范指引
国家自然科学基金—科研诚信规范手册
中国科学技术信息研究所—学术出版中AIGC使用边界指南2.0
中国科学院—关于在科研活动中规范使用人工智能技术的诚信提醒
复旦大学—关于在本科毕业论文（设计）中使用AI工具的规定
南京大学—关于本科生规范使用生成式人工智能工具的指导意见
四川大学—四川大学本科教育教学人工智能工具应用规范
欧盟委员会—Living Guidelines on the Responsible Use of Generative AI in Research
美国国立卫生研究院（NIH）-The Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Technologies is Prohibited for the NIH Peer Review ProcessSpringer Nature-Editorial Policies on AI
哈佛大学-Generative AI Guidelines
耶鲁大学-Guidelines for the Use of Generative AI Tools
剑桥大学-Cambridge launches AI research ethics policy
伦敦大学学院-GenAI and academic integrity in assessment
牛津大学-Policy for using Generative AI in Research: guidelines for researchers and professional staff...

所有分析的来源文献 section

使用规范说明 - AI科研诚信平台


SNU's AI Guidelines do not uniformly restrict or prohibit AI use; they establish standards to support rational judgment and ethical, creative use based on autonomy and trust.

이번 가이드라인은 AI 활용을 일률적으로 제한하거나 금지하는 규범이 아니라, 자율성과 신뢰를 바탕으로 한 합리적 판단과 윤리적·창의적 활용을 지원하기 위한 기준이다.

This guideline is not a norm that uniformly restricts or prohibits AI use, but rather a standard to support rational judgment and ethical/creative use based on autonomy and trust.

서울대학교 AI 가이드라인 제정 안내 보도자료


SNU requires instructors to communicate AI tool usage policies (permitted/prohibited scope and reporting methods) through syllabi, and students must comply.

교육·학습 영역에서는 교수자는 강의계획서를 통해 AI 도구 활용의 허용·금지 범위와 보고 방식을 안내하고, 학생은 해당 정책을 준수하여야 한다.

In the education/learning domain, instructors must guide students on the scope of permitted/prohibited AI tool use and reporting methods through the syllabus, and students must comply with that policy.

서울대학교 AI 가이드라인 제정 안내 보도자료


SNU's AI Guidelines for research require cross-verification of AI outputs for errors/bias, protection of research data and confidential information, and documentation of AI use for research reproducibility.

연구·개발 영역에서는 AI 결과물의 오류·편향 가능성에 대비한 교차 검증, 연구데이터 및 기밀정보 보호, 활용 과정의 기록·보존 등 연구 재현성 확보를 위한 절차를 포함하였다.

In the research/development domain, the guidelines include procedures for cross-verification against AI output errors/bias, protection of research data and confidential information, and record-keeping for research reproducibility.

서울대학교 AI 가이드라인 제정 안내 보도자료


SNU's AI Guidelines require transparent disclosure of AI use, fact and source verification, copyright/privacy/information security compliance, bias correction, and awareness of accountability.

투명한 활용 공개, 사실·출처 확인, 저작권·프라이버시·정보보안 준수, 편향성 교정, 책임소재의 인지 등 구성원이 유의해야 할 공통 윤리 기준을 명시하였다.

The guidelines specify common ethical standards members must observe: transparent disclosure of use, fact/source verification, copyright/privacy/information security compliance, bias correction, and awareness of accountability.

서울대학교 AI 가이드라인 제정 안내 보도자료


SNU Library cites COPE's position that AI tools cannot be listed as authors because they cannot take responsibility for research results and lack legal personality.

AI 도구는 제출된 연구결과물에 대한 책임을 지지 못하기 때문에 저자로서의 요건을 충족시킬 수 없다. AI 도구는 법인격이 없기 때문에 이해충돌 유무를 주장하거나 저작권과 라이센스 계약을 관리할 수도 없다.

AI tools cannot meet authorship requirements because they cannot take responsibility for submitted research results. AI tools lack legal personality and cannot assert conflicts of interest or manage copyright and license agreements.

AI와 연구·출판 윤리


SNU Library cites COPE requiring authors to clearly disclose in their methods section which AI tools were used and how, covering manuscript writing, image creation, and data analysis.

논문의 원고 작성, 이미지 또는 그래픽 요소 제작, 데이터 수집 및 분석 등에서 AI 도구를 사용한 저자는 논문의 재료 및 방법론(또는 유사한 섹션)에서 어떤 AI 도구가 어떻게 사용되었는지 명확히 공개해야 한다.

Authors who use AI tools in manuscript writing, image/graphic creation, data collection and analysis must clearly disclose in the methods section which AI tools were used and how.

AI와 연구·출판 윤리


SNU Library warns that uploading subscribed e-resources to ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini or similar AI services, or performing bulk downloads, may exceed publisher license terms and could result in access being blocked for the entire university.

구독 전자자료를 ChatGPT·Claude·Gemini 등 생성형 AI 서비스에 업로드하거나 대량 다운로드 또는 호출, 전문(全文)을 입력하는 행위는 출판사의 이용 허락 범위를 초과할 수 있습니다.

Uploading subscribed e-resources to generative AI services like ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or performing bulk downloads/calls or full-text input may exceed publisher license terms.

중앙도서관 구독 전자자료의 생성형 AI활용 관련 유의사항 안내


SNU Library states that most e-resource subscription agreements only permit viewing, downloading, and printing; using resources for AI training/analysis or uploading to third-party AI services requires separate authorization.

대부분의 구독 계약은 열람(viewing)·다운로드(download)·인쇄(printing) 용도의 이용만을 허용하며, AI 학습·분석 목적의 입력 또는 제3자 서비스로의 업로드는 별도 허락 없이는 허용되지 않음을 명시하고 있습니다.

Most subscription agreements only permit viewing, downloading, and printing; input for AI training/analysis or uploading to third-party services is not permitted without separate authorization.

중앙도서관 구독 전자자료의 생성형 AI활용 관련 유의사항 안내


SNU's AI Guidelines establish basic principles requiring members to understand AI tool purposes and characteristics, apply critical thinking, and balance creativity with social responsibility.

AI 도구의 목적 및 특성을 이해하고 비판적 사고를 바탕으로 창의성과 사회적 책임이 균형있게 확보되도록 활용하는 기본 원칙 제시

Presents basic principles for AI use ensuring creativity and social responsibility are balanced, based on understanding AI tool purposes and characteristics and critical thinking.