University AI Policy Tracker

Open, evidence-backed AI policy records for public reuse.

API docsGitHub repo

Change log

Justus-Liebig-University Giessen

Source-check timeline, source snapshot hashes, claim review state, and a diff-style preview of current source-backed claim evidence.

Review: Agent reviewedLast checkedMay 16, 2026Last changedMay 16, 2026Claims4Sources3
University pagePublic JSON

Change summary

Current public record freshness and review state.

Justus-Liebig-University Giessen currently has 4 source-backed claim records and 3 official source attributions. Latest tracked changed date: May 16, 2026.

This tracker is not legal advice, not academic integrity advice, and not an official university statement unless a linked source is the university's own official page.

Claim/evidence diff preview

Diff-style preview built from current public claim/evidence records. Full old/new source diffs require paired historical snapshots.

Justus-Liebig-University Giessen current policy evidence

Inserted lines represent current public claim and evidence records in the source-backed dataset.

+8-0
11 # Justus-Liebig-University Giessen AI policy record
2+teaching: JLU guidance says that when generative AI use is permitted in an exam task, the use, including prompting, is part of the assessed work and should be documented as good academic practice.
3+Evidence (de, 50e6028e8037): Studierende sollten sich versichern, ob ein Einsatz von generativer KI in der Bearbeitung der Prüfung erlaubt ist. Wenn ja, ist die Bearbeitung mit der KI, also insbesondere das „Prompten“, Teil der Prüfungsleistung und im Sinne guter wissenschaftlicher Praxis zu dokumentieren.
4+academic_integrity: JLU guidance states that if AI use is not allowed, or if AI is not addressed, using AI in the writing process and presenting external work as one's own can be treated as an attempted deception.
5+Evidence (de, 50e6028e8037): Wenn ein Einsatz nicht erlaubt ist (das ist auch dann der Fall, wenn KI nicht thematisiert wurde), kann eine Nutzung im Schreibprozess und das Ausweisen von fremden Leistungen als eigene zu einer Einstufung als Täuschungsversuch mit erheblichen Konsequenzen führen.
6+privacy: JLU HRZ guidance says external AI services such as chatgpt.com outside JLU kiChat require review or approval for personal, non-public, or confidential data, and states that chatgpt.com must not be used for personal or non-public information.
7+Evidence (de, eed490ff3796): Die Plattform chat.openai.com ermöglicht den direkten Zugriff auf Sprachmodelle wie GPT-5. Inhalte, die dort eingegeben werden, werden vom Anbieter außerhalb der EU verarbeitet und können für die Weiterentwicklung der Systeme genutzt werden. Aus diesem Grund darf die Plattform nicht für personenbezogene oder nicht-öffentliche Informationen verwendet werden.
8+ai_tool_treatment: JLU presents central AI offers for its members, including HRZ-provided JLU kiChat and API services described as secure and privacy-compliant AI solutions for research, teaching, and administration.
9+Evidence (de, 18811b720f43): Das HRZ der JLU bietet mit dem JLU kiChat und API-Services sichere und datenschutzkonforme KI-Lösungen für Forschung, Lehre und Verwaltung und stellt wichtige Informationen zu Serviceangeboten, aktuellen KI-Projekten sowie zum Umgang mit Künstlicher Intelligenz an der JLU zur Verfügung.

Claim changes

4 claim records

privacy

JLU HRZ guidance says external AI services such as chatgpt.com outside JLU kiChat require review or approval for personal, non-public, or confidential data, and states that chatgpt.com must not be used for personal or non-public information.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence90%Evidence1Languagesde

ai_tool_treatment

JLU presents central AI offers for its members, including HRZ-provided JLU kiChat and API services described as secure and privacy-compliant AI solutions for research, teaching, and administration.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence86%Evidence1Languagesde

academic_integrity

JLU guidance states that if AI use is not allowed, or if AI is not addressed, using AI in the writing process and presenting external work as one's own can be treated as an attempted deception.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence90%Evidence1Languagesde

teaching

JLU guidance says that when generative AI use is permitted in an exam task, the use, including prompting, is part of the assessed work and should be documented as good academic practice.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence90%Evidence1Languagesde

Source snapshots

3 source attributions