The University of Cambridge broadly permits the appropriate use of GenAI tools and related software. Students are permitted to make appropriate use of GenAI tools to support their personal study, research and formative work. Staff are permitted to make appropriate use of GenAI tools to support their own work.

The University of Cambridge broadly permits the appropriate use of GenAI tools and related software, however, due to the variety of disciplines and research areas present at the institution, there is need for more nuanced guidance at local levels.

Students are permitted to make appropriate use of GenAI tools to support their personal study, research and formative work. Appropriate use is better defined locally by Department, Faculty, or College depending on the context and you should always check with a member of staff to be sure you know how you are able to use these tools for your education.


Data input into the University's licensed versions of Copilot, Gemini and NotebookLM is not used to train those tools. Inputting data into free or unlicensed GenAI tools could result in data being used for training, which may not be a lawful use of personal data.

Information input into GenAI tools is also often used to train those tools, which may not be a lawful use of personal data – especially if that data cannot be retrieved or deleted, for example from an AI neural network. Data input into the University’s licensed versions of Copilot, Gemini and NotebookLM is not used to train those tools.

AI guidance – Guidance for University of Cambridge Staff on the Administrative Use of Generative AI

University of Cambridge Information Compliance Office

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


Cambridge provides an AI Policy Framework for triposes, departments, faculties, and colleges to determine their own local allowance for the use of AI, rather than a single university-wide AI policy. The framework is adapted from a policy proposal by Dr Claire Benn and Dr John Burden from the Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence.

Given the wide variety of subjects and teaching and learning styles at the University of Cambridge, it would be difficult to provide a policy that accurately represents the multitude of ambitions, considerations, and feelings surrounding the use of AI in education. We instead will be providing a framework for triposes, departments, faculties, and colleges, to determine their own local allowance and rational for the use of AI within their own contexts.

University of Cambridge Blended Learning Service


The University's Information Security Risk Assessment (ISRA) and Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) processes remain the relevant risk assessment processes for GenAI use. The Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) continues to apply, including compliance monitoring and enforcement provisions, when using GenAI tools.

In the limited circumstances where a formal risk assessment is required, the University Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) and Information Security Risk Assessment (ISRA) processes remain the relevant risk assessments processes to follow.

Please remember the Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) continues to apply, including its compliance monitoring and enforcement provisions, when using GenAI tools and staff are reminded of their obligation to abide by its terms.


When using GenAI tools, users should: remain aware of privacy and data implications and not share anything personal or sensitive; understand ethical implications as tools often have limited attribution; acknowledge use of GenAI if it makes a significant contribution to substantive work; and take responsibility for ensuring use is conducted reasonably, lawfully, and in conjunction with relevant University policies.

Remain aware of the potential privacy and data implications in using tools without due care. Some tools may store or otherwise use information provided to train their language models and you should not share anything personal or sensitive. Acknowledge use of GenAI if it is used to make a significant and unrevised contribution to a substantive or impactful piece of work. Take responsibility for ensuring any use of GenAI is conducted reasonably, lawfully, and in conjunction with relevant University policies and procedures.


Examiners are not permitted to upload, copy, or share student work with Generative AI tools and Large Language Models. Examiners may not use tools such as ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google Bard, or Microsoft Copilot to analyse student work or provide written feedback. Examiners may use these tools to support their own writing in documenting feedback (e.g. consolidating personal notes and rephrasing comments).

Examiners across all programmes of study (including Undergraduate, Postgraduate Taught, and Postgraduate Research) are not permitted to upload, copy, or share student work with Generative AI (GenAI) tools and Large Language Models (LLMs). Examiners may not use tools, such as ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google Bard, or Microsoft Copilot, to analyse work submitted by students and provide written feedback.


Staff must consider the purpose for which data was collected before inputting it into GenAI tools. Data must be collected, held and used for only that purpose. It is not appropriate to use personal data collected for a different purpose with a GenAI tool. Automated decision-making involving GenAI requires human involvement in the decision-making process.

Data must be collected, held and used for only that purpose – for example, as part of a governance process – and any use of AI must be compatible with that reason. With some exceptions (e.g. for academic research), it is not appropriate to use personal data that was collected for a different purpose to do something else with a GenAI tool.


The University of Chicago maintains a page listing approved, restricted, and unauthorized AI tools, with use conditions and review information for the university community.

Approved and Restricted AI Tools

If a proposed tool or use case isn't listed on this table, the next step depends on whether the tool requires payment for use.

For paid tools, individuals should submit a request through the Service Now Procurement Intake.
For free tools, if a researcher or staff member intends to use a generative AI tool with sensitive data, or in research contexts, please complete the Generative AI Tool Evaluation Form.


At the University of Chicago, use of confidential data with publicly available generative AI tools is prohibited without prior security and privacy review. This includes personally identifiable employee data, FERPA-covered student data, HIPAA-covered patient data, and research that is not yet publicly available.

The use of confidential data with publicly available generative AI tools is prohibited without prior security and privacy review. This includes personally identifiable employee data, FERPA-covered student data, HIPAA-covered patient data, and may include research that is not yet publicly available.

Guideline 1: Protection of University Data


At the University of Chicago, generative AI systems, applications, and software products that process, analyze, or move confidential data require a security review before they are acquired, even if the software is free.

Generative AI systems, applications, and software products that process, analyze, or move confidential data require a security review before they are acquired, even if the software is free.

Guideline 4: Procuring and Acquiring Generative AI Tools


At the University of Chicago, use of University data by vendors to train or improve their AI models is not permitted.

Data Use Restrictions: Use of University data by vendors to train or improve their models is not permitted.

FAQ: Review criteria for Generative AI tools


At the University of Chicago, confidential, sensitive, or restricted data should not be used with generative AI tools unless the tool and the use have been reviewed and approved through the appropriate University process.

Confidential data, sensitive data, or restricted data should not be used with generative AI tools unless the tool and the use have been reviewed and approved through the appropriate University process.

Relevant Policies for the Use of AI Tools


At the University of Chicago, even when an AI tool is listed as approved, it is not risk-free. Approval means the tool can be used under specific conditions, but users are still responsible for evaluating the sensitivity of their data and ensuring confidential, regulated, or contract-restricted information is not shared unless explicitly allowed.

Please note: even when a tool is listed as approved, it is not risk-free. Approval simply means the tool can be used under specific conditions, but not that all data is safe to enter. Users are still responsible for evaluating the sensitivity of their data, understanding vendor limitations, and ensuring that confidential, regulated, or contract-restricted information is not shared with AI tools unless explicitly allowed.


At the University of Chicago, PhoenixAI is the university's internal generative AI platform, approved for general use and can be used for sensitive information with IRB approval.

PhoenixAI | See PhoenixAI Service Usage Guidelines | General Use | Enterprise-supported | Can be used for sensitive information with IRB approval. | June 30, 2025


At the University of Chicago, ChatGPT 3.5 and ChatGPT 4.0 are approved only for data that is made publicly available by its source, with restrictions limiting use to non-sensitive information.

ChatGPT 3.5 | Approved for data that is made publicly available by its source. | General Use | Free | Only for non-sensitive information | January 17, 2025
ChatGPT 4.0 | Approved for data that is made publicly available by its source. | General Use | Free | Only for non-sensitive information | January 17, 2025


At the University of Chicago, AI-generated content may be misleading or inaccurate, and it is the responsibility of the tool user to review the accuracy and ownership of any AI-generated content.

AI-generated content may be misleading or inaccurate. Generative AI technology may create citations to content that does not exist. Responses from generative AI tools may contain content and materials from other authors and may be copyrighted. It is the responsibility of the tool user to review the accuracy and ownership of any AI-generated content.

Guideline 2: Responsibility for Content Accuracy and Ownership


At the University of Chicago, if a proposed AI tool use exceeds standard risk tolerance but is not prohibited by compliance regulations, a Risk Acceptance Letter may be prepared to document reviewed and accepted risks under specific conditions.

Getting an exception through a Risk Acceptance Letter (RAL): If the proposed use is not prohibited by compliance regulations but exceeds standard risk tolerance, and the requester still wishes to proceed with the purchase, the request is escalated to senior leadership—the Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) and Chief Technology Officer (CTO), and the Chief Privacy Officer (CPO)—for guidance.

FAQ: What happens if a Generative AI tool does not meet University standards?


The University of Chicago provides a central hub at genai.uchicago.edu for information on generative AI tools, training, resources, and guidance for the university community.

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is a quickly evolving technology that offers capabilities to enhance teaching and learning, research, and administrative work at the University of Chicago. We want to provide the UChicago community with information on the latest tools integrating generative AI, as well as training, resources, and guidance.


At the University of Chicago, AI transcription or assistant tools may not be used to secretly record or join meetings, per the Business Conduct Policy.

Business Conduct Policy: Staff must act with honesty and integrity, safeguard confidential information, and prevent unauthorized disclosures. Prohibits recording conversations without consent. AI transcription/assistant tools may not be used to secretly record or join meetings.

Policy Crosswalk: Business Conduct Policy


At the University of Chicago, AI tools may not be used to generate harassing, discriminatory, or otherwise unlawful content, including the use of AI to create or alter images, audio, and videos, per the Policy on Harassment, Discrimination, and Sexual Misconduct.

Policy on Harassment, Discrimination, and Sexual Misconduct: Prohibits unlawful harassment, discrimination, and sexual misconduct. AI tools may not be used to generate harassing, discriminatory, or otherwise unlawful content. This includes the use of AI to create or alter images, audio, and videos.

Policy Crosswalk: Policy on Harassment, Discrimination, and Sexual Misconduct


At the University of Chicago, entering sensitive data into AI tools without review and approval by security, privacy, and the appropriate data steward may create an unauthorized data disclosure that may violate University policy, federal and state law, sponsor or contract obligations, and data use agreements.

Entering sensitive data into AI tools without review and approval by security, privacy, and the appropriate data steward may create an unauthorized data disclosure. Such disclosures may violate University policy, federal and state law, sponsor or contract obligations, and data use agreements.


U-M ITS offers a generative AI platform available to all active U-M faculty, staff, and students on the Ann Arbor, Flint, and Dearborn campuses and Michigan Medicine, with service offerings described as equitable and accessible.

ITS is now offering a generative AI platform available to all active U-M faculty, staff, and students on the Ann Arbor, Flint, and Dearborn campuses and Michigan Medicine. These service offerings are equitable, accessible, and support everything from basic consumer usage to advanced research and experimentation.


U-M does not recommend the use of AI-detection technology given their high error rate. False positives and negatives are possible, and even likely.

U-M does not recommend the use of AI-detection technology at this time given their high error rate. False positives and negatives are possible, and even likely.


U-M requires using approved ITS AI Services for university data. Only data classified as Low may be used with AI services lacking a U-M contract or data agreement.

When working with university data in AI platforms: Use approved ITS AI Services. Only use university data classified as Low with AI services that do not have a contract or data agreement with U-M.

Appropriate Use of AI Services & U-M Policy


U-M requires that AI-generated computer code is always reviewed by a human, with professionally trained peer code reviews for applications handling Restricted or High data.

Ensure AI-generated computer code is always reviewed by a human. Conduct code reviews with professionally trained peers for all new or significantly changed applications, particularly those that maintain, process, transmit, or store data classified as Restricted or High.


U-M ITS AI Services include HIPAA safeguards and may be used with Protected Health Information (PHI).

ITS AI Services include the safeguards required by HIPAA. Accordingly, you may use these services with Protected Health Information (PHI).

Sensitive Data with U-M AI Service Offerings section


U-M requires AI use in teaching and learning to align with principles of honesty, candor, openness, and integrity in scholarship and research, including appropriate disclosure and citation.

When using AI services for teaching, learning and knowledge production, U-M community members must: Align with the university's principles for honesty, candor, openness, and integrity in scholarship and research, including appropriate disclosure and citation where AI has been used.

For Teaching, Learning, and Knowledge Production section


U-M leaves GenAI policy to individual instructors, who may allow, restrict, or forbid AI use in their courses. Course policies should be clearly articulated in syllabi.

Instructors are disciplinary experts responsible for what is taught, appropriate pedagogies, and assessment methodologies. GenAI may influence all three, and as such, instructors need flexibility to allow or disallow the use of GenAI tools.


U-M advises students that data shared with external AI tools is not private and may be accessible by external parties. Students should not share private or sensitive information.

Understand that in most cases, the data you share is not private and will be accessible by external parties hosting the GenAI-based tools. Do not share information that is considered private, or sensitive, such as credit card information, personal details such as ID numbers or addresses, and so on.

Choosing a GenAI tool to use - Privacy risks


Staff setting summative assessment must: declare whether/how students can use AI; review assessment design for alignment with permitted AI use; ensure equality of baseline AI tool provision where authorised; specify declaration forms for student AI use; only identify suspected unauthorised AI use through marking or university-endorsed detection tools (none currently endorsed); and handle misconduct under usual disciplinary regulations.

Those setting summative assessment must
- declare whether and how students can use AI in summative assessment, e.g. by a category system for different assignments on courses.
- review their summative assessment design and criteria by task to ensure alignment with the permitted use of AI
- where students are authorised to use AI tools for their summative assessments, ensure that there is an equality of baseline provision of appropriate AI tools.
- specify the forms of declaration expected of students
- only identify suspected unauthorised use of AI in summative assessment through the marking process or through AI detection tools that have university endorsement. NB. as at the date of the l...

University of Oxford Education Committee


Oxford requires postgraduate research students to include a statement on their use of generative AI in their final thesis submission.

Students are required to include a statement on their use of Gen AI in their final submitted thesis. This is effective as of submission in Trinity Term 2026, but it is recommended that such a statement is included in every thesis submitted from the point of publication of this guidance. The statement should be placed immediately after the abstract. The statement must include a formal declaration that any Gen AI use complies with University, divisional and (where applicable) departmental guidance, where and how Gen AI has been used in preparation of the thesis and summarising how specific uses of Gen AI will be referenced in the text

Acknowledging and referencing use of generative AI tools section

Generative AI Use — Mathematical, Physical and Life Sciences Division


Students undertaking summative assessment must: complete assessment in line with the AI use declaration for each assignment; acknowledge their AI use via a formal declaration in the prescribed format; and understand that submitting work breaching AI specifications constitutes cheating and may constitute plagiarism, handled under usual disciplinary regulations.

Students undertaking summative assessment must
- complete summative assessment in line with the declaration as to whether and how AI can be used in each specific assignment they will complete for their course.
- acknowledge their use of AI as part of the summative assessment submission and use a formal declaration in the format prescribed by the assessment setter.
- be aware that submitting work that breaches the specifications defined for a particular assignment constitutes cheating and may constitute plagiarism; cases of suspected unauthorised use of AI will be handled under the usual disciplinary Regulations and using the associated processes.


The University's policy on AI use in summative assessment is based on three principles endorsed by Education Committee in Trinity term 2025: (1) educational practice must be grounded in values of integrity, honesty and transparency, which must be clearly articulated and frequently discussed; (2) every discrete unit of assessment must be carefully designed to be fit for its specific purposes, clearly articulated to students; (3) every summative assessment must be accompanied by a clear explanation of what appropriate assistance is permitted and what is forbidden, specifying how students should report assistance received.

The policy is based on three principles for acceptable use of AI which were endorsed by Education Committee during Trinity term 2025:
- Educational practice in teaching and assessment must be grounded in values of integrity, honesty and transparency. These values need to be clearly articulated and frequently discussed.
- Every discrete unit of assessment must be carefully designed to be fit for its specific purposes. These purposes need to be clearly articulated to students.
- Every element of summative assessment must be accompanied by a clear explanation of what appropriate assistance is permitted and what is forbidden. Where assistance is permitted, the assignment should specify exactl...


All cloud-based generative AI tools must be subject to a security risk assessment before being used with University information. Free and open-source services generally cannot complete a full assessment and should not be used for confidential information.

Before any processing of Internal or Confidential information using generative AI services, the following steps must be taken to mitigate risk.
1. As with all service providers holding or processing university information, information supplied to the tool in the form of questions or other artefacts is typically stored by the third-party service provider and is subject to the threats from cyber criminals and other malicious actors, such as hostile nation states. Therefore, all cloud-based Generative AI tools should be subject to a security risk assessment before being used. The Information Security GRC Team has a TPSA tool to help complete an assessment. It is generally not possible to com...

University of Oxford Information Security Team


ChatGPT Edu and Google Gemini, when licensed via the AI Competency Centre, have been approved for processing of Confidential University data by the Information Security team. University data processed through these licensed platforms will not be used to train AI models. Confidential data must only be used with the University's approved, SSO-protected platforms.

ChatGPT Edu, licensed via the AI Competency Centre, has been approved for processing of Confidential University data by the Information Security team. University data processed by ChatGPT Edu under an AI Competency Centre licence will not be used to train the AI model.

Google Gemini, licensed via the AI Competency Centre, has been approved for processing of Confidential University data by the Information Security team. University data processed by Google Gemini under an AI Competency Centre licence will not be used to train the AI model.

The University provides several enterprise-grade AI tools that have passed internal Third-Party Security Assessments (TPSA). Accessing these tools via Single Sign-On (SSO) ensures that user data is not used to train external AI models. Confidential data must only be used with the University's approved, SSO-protected platforms.

University-supported AI Platforms section

The University's AI provision | IT Services


For PGR students, the following uses of generative AI are not permitted in summative assessments: substantive original writing by GenAI (verbatim or closely paraphrased for chapters or parts thereof) which constitutes plagiarism; using AI to produce plots or data visualisations directly from prompts; and entering private or confidential data into third-party AI tools.

Substantive original writing by Gen AI, including either verbatim or closely paraphrased use of Gen AI content, for, e.g., chapters, or parts of chapters, including introduction or conclusion chapters or for a literature review, would fall under the definition of plagiarism or be otherwise a failure of research integrity and is therefore not permissible.
The use of generative AI to produce plots or data visualisations directly from prompts is prohibited.
Private or confidential data must not be entered into third-party AI tools.


External custom GPTs should not be used to process confidential University data or sensitive personal data. No non-public University data (including confidential, internal, or personal data) may be incorporated in any custom GPT shared with external users.

External custom GPTs should not be used to process confidential University data or sensitive personal data. If you are considering inputting internal University data to an external custom GPT, please discuss this with the Information Security GRC team in advance. Any inputting of personal data to an external custom GPT should also be discussed with the Information Compliance team.

Be aware that any information incorporated in a custom GPT, either as Instructions specifying the behaviour of the GPT or as Documents uploaded to the GPT, may be accessed by users of the custom GPT. No non-public University data should be incorporated in any custom GPT that you intend to share with external users. For the avoidance of doubt, this includes any confidential or internal University data, as well as any personal data.


Unapproved AI transcription bots should not be used in Teams meetings. The inbuilt Teams Transcription facility or Microsoft Copilot may be used subject to appropriate data protection considerations. Other AI transcription bot services should be avoided, and meeting organisers should set options to prevent participants from adding unapproved transcription bots.

There should be no use of unapproved AI transcription bots in Teams meetings by any participants.
It is permissible to record meetings using the inbuilt Teams Transcription facility or Microsoft's Copilot subject to appropriate data protection considerations.
Use of any AI transcription bot services other than the inbuilt Teams Transcription or Microsoft's Copilot should be avoided.
Meeting options should be set by the organisers so as to prevent internal or external meeting participants from adding unapproved transcription bots.

AI transcription bots in meetings section


For PGR summative assessment (transfer, confirmation, thesis), the following AI uses are permitted without declaration: local editing tools (grammar assistants, spell-checkers, code debuggers making small local changes); AI for background research, language translation, bibliography creation, and general subject understanding; and AI for coding where coding serves a research purpose but is not the substantive output. Students remain responsible for correctness of any code used.

The use of local editing tools—such as grammar assistants, code debuggers, and spell-checkers—is permitted and need not be declared. These tools only make small, local changes (for example, fixing spelling, grammar, or small pieces of code), usually affecting just a few words or tokens at a time.
The use of AI tools for background research, language translation, creation of bibliography indices and general subject understanding is allowed and does not have to be declared.
Use of Gen AI for coding purposes is permitted, where the coding serves a purpose in the research but is not the substantive output of the project.


Unauthorised use of generative AI falls under the University's plagiarism regulations and is subject to academic penalties in summative assessments. Students must learn and practise academic skills of note-taking and clear attribution to differentiate their own work from AI-derived material. Where AI use is authorised, students should give clear acknowledgment of how it has been used.

Students using AI during their studies must learn and practise the same academic skills of note-taking and clear attribution which are safeguards against plagiarism, ensuring clear differentiation of their own work from any text or material derived from generative AI tools. Unauthorised use of AI falls under the plagiarism regulations and would be subject to academic penalties in summative assessments. Where the use of generative AI in preparing work for examination has been authorised by the department, faculty or programme, students should give clear acknowledgment of how it has been used in their work.

Generative AI tools and plagiarism section

An introduction to the use of generative AI tools in teaching

University of Oxford Centre for Teaching and Learning


Penn requires all community members (educators, staff, researchers, and students) to be transparent about the use of AI and to disclose when a work product was created wholly or partially using an AI tool.

Be transparent about the use of AI. Disclose when a work product was created wholly or partially using an AI tool and, if appropriate, how AI was used to create the work product.

General Guidance for Penn Community > Transparency section

Statement on Guidance for the University of Pennsylvania Community on Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence


Penn provides several licensed AI tools to its community, including Copilot Chat (Basic, free), Adobe Express (free), ChatGPT-EDU (purchase required), M365 Copilot Premium (purchase required), Gemini for Google Workspace (purchase required), Google NotebookLM (purchase required), Grammarly Pro (purchase required), Snowflake Data Analytics (purchase required), and Zoom AI Companion (free).

Penn offers access to a number of AI tools. The guidelines for protecting student privacy while using these tools are informed by the data risk classification and the privacy agreements of the tool being used.

Penn-licensed AI Tools section (tool table listing Copilot Chat, Adobe Express, ChatGPT-EDU, M365 Copilot, Gemini, NotebookLM, Grammarly Pro, Snowflake, Zoom AI Companion)


Users of AI at Penn are accountable for AI-generated content and should validate its accuracy with trusted first-party sources, being wary of misinformation or hallucinations.

The user of AI should endeavor to validate the accuracy of created content with trusted first party sources and monitor the reliability of that content. Users are accountable for their use of content created by AI and should be wary of misinformation or "hallucinations" by AI tools (e.g., citations to publications or source materials that do not exist or references that otherwise distort the truth).

General Guidance for Penn Community > Accountability section


Penn users should not input moderate or high-risk Penn data (per the Penn Data Risk Classification) or intellectual property into AI tools without careful consideration of data use policies, a protective contract, and review by Penn's Privacy Office and Office of Information Security.

Users of AI should avoid sharing personal or sensitive data with the tool and should not input moderate or high-risk Penn data as defined by the Penn Data Risk Classification, or intellectual property, without: Careful consideration and understanding of the tool's use of Penn data and the service provider's stated rights to the data, including, but not limited to whether the service provider offers the option to opt-out of using customer's data to train the AI; A contract in place to protect Penn data; and Review by Penn's Privacy Office and consultation with the Office of Information Security as coordinated by Procurement when moderate or high-risk data is involved.

General Guidance for Penn Community > Privacy & Contracts section


It is not permissible under HIPAA or Penn Medicine policy to share patient or research participant information with open or public AI tools and services such as ChatGPT; individual patient data and data sets (even if deidentified) may not be exposed to such tools absent institutional approval.

It is not permissible under the Health Information Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) or Penn Medicine policy to share patient or research participant information in connection with open or public AI tools and services, such as ChatGPT. This is because, as currently configured, such open or public tools and services can use and share any data without regard to HIPAA restrictions and other protections. Therefore, individual patient data and patient data sets (even if deidentified) may not be exposed to open or public AI tools or services, absent institutional approval.

General Guidance for Penn Community > Patient Privacy Protection section


Penn researchers should obtain IRB approvals prior to exposing research participant data to AI tools and should exercise caution when research involves high-risk data including PII and health information.

Researchers should adhere to federal or international requirements on obtaining informed consent, and Institutional Review Board approvals should be obtained prior to exposing research participant data to AI tools. Caution should be adopted when research involves the examination of high-risk data, including Personally Identifiable Information (PII) and research participant health information (both identifiable and non-identifiable) exposed to AI.

Additional Guidance > Guidance for Researchers section


Penn's Office of Audit, Compliance & Privacy mandates that users of publicly available (unlicensed) AI tools must not enter any information that could identify a student, including names, ID numbers, email addresses, or detailed descriptions of student work or engagement that could be identifiable to others.

Do not enter any information that could identify a student. This includes names, ID numbers, or email addresses, as well as detailed descriptions of student work or engagement in class that could be identifiable to others.

Publicly Available AI Tools > restrictions on unlicensed tools


Penn mandates that student work (papers, projects) must not be entered into unlicensed AI tools without the student's permission, even if anonymized, because this work is part of the student's confidential academic record.

Do not enter student work (e.g., papers, projects) without the student's permission, even if it is anonymized. This work is part of the student's confidential academic record.


Instructors must not require students to enter their own work into unlicensed AI tools or use such tools in assignments; unlicensed tools may be used optionally by students at the instructor's discretion, but Penn-licensed tools should be used for mandatory coursework components.

Do not require students to enter their own work into an unlicensed AI tool or use it in assignments. Unlicensed tools may be used optionally by students at the instructor's discretion but consider using a Penn-licensed tool for mandatory components of coursework to protect student data.


Individual instructors at Penn determine their own policies related to acceptable student use of generative AI in coursework.

Individual instructors determine their own policies related to acceptable student use of generative AI in coursework.


Penn community members should avoid uploading confidential or proprietary information to AI platforms prior to seeking patent or copyright protection, as doing so could jeopardize intellectual property rights.

Members of the Penn community should adhere to established principles of respect for intellectual property, particularly copyrights when considering the creation of new data sets for training AI models. Avoid uploading confidential and/or proprietary information to AI platforms prior to seeking patent or copyright protection, as doing so could jeopardize IP rights.

General Guidance for Penn Community > Intellectual Property section


University business processes using AI should have oversight, review, and verification of AI outputs in place to ensure reliability, consistency, and accuracy.

While automating tasks using AI may improve operational efficiency for University Business processes, oversight and review of the use of AI and verification of its outputs for these University business processes should be in place to ensure reliability, consistency, and accuracy.

General Guidance for Penn Community > University Business Processes section


Penn educators should provide students with clear guidelines on the use of AI within coursework and should disclose to students when course materials have been created with AI or when AI detection software will be used.

As expectations may vary between classes and instructors, it is important for instructors to provide students with clear guidelines similar to the guidelines on collaboration, on the use of AI within coursework, and when and how the use of AI within a course should be cited. Disclose to students when course materials have been created with the use of AI and when AI detection software will be used in the course.

Additional Guidance > Guidance for Educators section


In the absence of other guidance, Penn students should treat the use of AI as they would treat assistance from another person — if it is unacceptable to have another person substantially complete a task like writing an essay, it is also unacceptable to have AI complete the task.

In the absence of other guidance, treat the use of AI as you would treat assistance from another person. For example, this means if it is unacceptable to have another person substantially complete a task like writing an essay, it is also unacceptable to have AI to complete the task.

Additional Guidance > Guidance for Students section


Penn researchers should consult with department leadership and their discipline's publishing standards to determine how AI use should be accounted for with regard to authorship in publications.

Consult with your department leadership and your discipline's publishing standards to determine how the use of AI should be accounted for with regard to authorship in publications.


At Wharton Academy, AI-generated work should be cited like any other reference material, including how and where students used AI-generated information; using AI-generated work without crediting the source is considered plagiarism.

Using somebody else's work without crediting the source – including generative AI — is plagiarism. Guided by the policies of faculty, instructional teams, and staff, AI-generated work should be cited like any other reference material, including how and where students used AI-generated information.

Wharton Academy > Statement of AI Use section


Wharton Academy prohibits students from using AI to complete personal reflection or opinion-based tasks, from using AI to complete group assignments instead of collaborating with peers, and from using AI to cheat on exams or tests.

Don't use AI for personal reflection or opinion-based tasks. We are interested in hearing your opinions, your stories and your thoughts. Don't rely on AI for group assignments. Using AI to complete your portion of a group project instead of collaborating with your peers is considered academic dishonesty. Don't use AI to cheat on exams or tests.

Wharton Academy > Statement of AI Use > Don'ts section


Wharton Academy prohibits students from directly copying answers from generative AI tools and submitting them as their own, from using AI to paraphrase or rewrite plagiarized content, and from posting AI-generated discussion posts within course community forums.

Don't directly copy answers from generative AI tools and submit as your own. Don't use AI to paraphrase or rewrite plagiarized content. Don't post AI-generated discussion posts within the course community forum.


Wharton Academy permits students to use generative AI for brainstorming, learning efficiency, getting prompts, exploring different perspectives, asking for templates, getting preliminary feedback on written work, and language translation, at the discretion of faculty and instructional teams.

At the discretion of faculty, instructional teams and staff, Wharton Academy students may use generative AI tools.