Policy presence
The University of Tokyo has 5 source-backed public claims for policy presence; deterministic analysis status: unclear.
Tokyo, Japan
The University of Tokyo
The University of Tokyo has 22 source-backed AI policy claims from 6 official source attributions. Review state: agent reviewed; 22 reviewed claims. Last checked May 9, 2026.
The University of Tokyo AI policy short answer
v1 public contract
The University of Tokyo has 22 source-backed AI policy claims from 6 official source attributions, including 22 reviewed claims. The record review state is agent reviewed; original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, confidence, and public JSON are preserved for citation. Last checked May 9, 2026. Discovery context: The University of Tokyo is listed as QS 2026 rank =36.
Citation-ready summary
As of this public record, University AI Policy Tracker lists The University of Tokyo as an agent-reviewed AI policy record last checked on May 9, 2026 and last changed on May 17, 2026. The record contains 22 source-backed claims, including 22 reviewed claims, from 6 official source attributions. Original-language evidence snippets and source URLs remain canonical, with public JSON available at https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/u-tokyo.json. The entity-level confidence is 95%. This tracker is not legal advice, not academic integrity advice, and not an official university statement unless the linked source is the university's own official page.
Policy signals in this record
- Evidence includes AI tool treatment claims.
- Evidence includes Academic integrity claims.
- Evidence includes Privacy claims.
- Evidence includes Teaching claims.
- Evidence includes Procurement claims.
- Evidence includes Source status claims.
- Evidence includes Other policy claims.
- Evidence includes Security review claims.
Review: Agent reviewed
This reference record summarizes visible public data only. Official sources and original-language evidence remain canonical; confidence is separate from review state.
This page 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.
Policy profile
Deterministic source-backed dimensions derived from this record's public claims.
Review: Machine candidate
Policy profile rows are machine-candidate derived metadata. They are not final policy conclusions; inspect the linked claim evidence before reuse.
Analysis page-quality metadata is available at /api/public/v1/analysis/page-quality.json.
AI disclosure
The University of Tokyo has 1 source-backed public claim for ai disclosure; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Coursework
The University of Tokyo has 5 source-backed public claims for coursework; deterministic analysis status: blocked.
Exams
The University of Tokyo has 5 source-backed public claims for exams; deterministic analysis status: blocked.
Privacy and data entry
The University of Tokyo has 4 source-backed public claims for privacy and data entry; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Academic integrity
The University of Tokyo has 3 source-backed public claims for academic integrity; deterministic analysis status: allowed.
Approved tools
The University of Tokyo has 5 source-backed public claims for approved tools; deterministic analysis status: blocked.
Named AI services
The University of Tokyo has 5 source-backed public claims for named ai services; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Teaching guidance
The University of Tokyo has 5 source-backed public claims for teaching guidance; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Research guidance
The University of Tokyo has 2 source-backed public claims for research guidance; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Security and procurement
The University of Tokyo has 4 source-backed public claims for security and procurement; deterministic analysis status: conditionally_allowed.
Coverage score measures breadth of public, source-backed coverage only. It is not a policy quality, strictness, legal adequacy, safety, or compliance score.
Evidence-backed claims
22 reviewed evidence-backed public claim
Ai Tool Treatment
University of Tokyo will not uniformly prohibit generative AI tools like ChatGPT in education; instead, it actively explores their potential while continuing dialogue on practical knowledge and long-term impact.
Review: Agent reviewed
Evidence originale
Evidence 1東京大学の方針として、ChatGPTを始めとした言語生成系AIツールの教育現場での利用を一律に禁止することはしません。その問題点を理解しつつも教育・研究・業務利用における可能性を積極的に探り、活用する上での実践的な知識や注意、長期的な影響に対する対話を継続し、発信していく方針を取ります。
Affichage localise only
As a University of Tokyo policy, we will not uniformly prohibit the use of language-generation AI tools such as ChatGPT in educational settings. While understanding the issues, we will actively explore their potential for education, research, and administration, and continue dialogue on practical knowledge, precautions, and long-term impact.
Ai Tool Treatment
UTokyo does not enforce a blanket prohibition on generative AI tools; it actively explores their potential and provides practical guidance.
Review: Agent reviewed
Evidence originale
Evidence 1The University of Tokyo does not enforce a blanket prohibition on the use of generative AI tools. Instead, we are actively exploring their potential and plan to provide practical guidance for their use.
Academic Integrity
UTokyo states it is unacceptable to present AI-generated text as one's own when submitting class assignments.
Review: Agent reviewed
Evidence originale
Evidence 1It is unacceptable to present text generated by AI tools as your own when submitting class assignments.
Privacy
UTokyo warns students to never input confidential information, personal information, or unpublished research results into AI tools, as the information might be leaked or used for AI training.
Review: Agent reviewed
Evidence originale
Evidence 1Information entered into AI tools can potentially be used in some form for AI training. Never input confidential information, personal information, or unpublished research results, as the information might be leaked.
Ai Tool Treatment
University of Tokyo will not uniformly prohibit generative AI tools like ChatGPT in educational settings, per official policy signed by the Executive Vice President.
Review: Agent reviewed
Evidence originale
Evidence 1The University of Tokyo will not uniformly prohibit the use of natural language-generation AI tools, such as ChatGPT, in educational settings.
Teaching
UTokyo leaves decisions on AI tool use in individual classes to faculty, who should decide based on maximizing educational effectiveness rather than following a blanket university rule.
Review: Agent reviewed
Evidence originale
Evidence 1言語生成系AIを使わせる・使わせない・どう使うかという判断も、教員やそのグループが教育効果を最大にすることを目標に行うべきものであると考えます。
Affichage localise only
Decisions on whether to allow or prohibit generative AI, or how to use it, should be made by faculty with the goal of maximizing educational effectiveness.
Privacy
UTokyo requires instructors who allow AI use to explain associated risks to students: information leakage, data concentration in few companies, copyright concerns, and potential bias.
Review: Agent reviewed
Evidence originale
Evidence 1言語生成系AIを利用する場合には、学生に対し、利用に付随する①個人情報や機密情報の漏洩の危情報の漏洩の危険性、②限られた企業への情報集中の助長、③著作権侵害の懸念、④学習された内容に偏りが生じる可能性があることなど、現在社会で指摘されている問題点があることも合わせてご説明ください。
Affichage localise only
When allowing AI use, instructors should explain to students: (1) risk of personal/confidential information leakage, (2) concentration of information in few companies, (3) copyright infringement concerns, (4) potential bias in learned content.
Academic Integrity
UTokyo states that submitting AI-generated answers by copy-pasting them entirely provides no learning effect and should basically not be permitted.
Review: Agent reviewed
Evidence originale
Evidence 1言語生成系AIで作成された解答を丸ごとコピー・ペーストして提出することは、学生にとって何ら学習効果もなく、基本的には認めるべきではありません。
Affichage localise only
Submitting answers generated by AI by copying and pasting them entirely provides no learning effect for students and should basically not be permitted.
Teaching
UTokyo warns faculty not to over-rely on AI detection tools, as they are insufficient evidence of inappropriate student AI use given the rapid evolution of generative tools.
Review: Agent reviewed
Evidence originale
Evidence 1AIによって生成された文章であるかの検出ツールは過信しない。生成ツール自身が急速に変化する中で過信はできませんし、ましてや学生が不正に言語生成系AIを利用した証拠としては不十分であるという認識を持っていただきたいと思います。
Affichage localise only
Do not over-rely on AI detection tools. They cannot be trusted as the generators themselves change rapidly, and their judgments are insufficient as evidence of inappropriate AI use by students.
Privacy
UTokyo instructs faculty not to input exam questions directly into generative AI tools, as exams are highly confidential documents.
Review: Agent reviewed
Evidence originale
Evidence 1試験問題は機密性が高い文書ですので、基本的に言語生成系AIにそのままの形で入力しないでください。
Affichage localise only
Exam questions are highly confidential documents, so in principle do not input them directly into generative AI tools.
Procurement
UTokyo centers its university-wide generative AI service on Microsoft Copilot, leveraging existing Microsoft contracts for low operational and cost burden.
Review: Agent reviewed
Evidence originale
Evidence 1全学構成員向けの生成AIサービスは，当面，Microsoft Copilotによる生成AIチャットの提供を中心として位置付けます．Microsoft社との既存の契約の下で提供されるクラウドサービスであり，大学の運用負担・費用負担が小さいためです。
Affichage localise only
For now, the university-wide generative AI service will center on Microsoft Copilot for AI chat, as it is a cloud service provided under existing Microsoft contracts with low operational and cost burden for the university.
Ai Tool Treatment
UTokyo does not uniformly prohibit generative AI tools; it actively explores their potential in education and research while providing practical usage guidance.
Review: Agent reviewed
Evidence originale
Evidence 1東京大学では，生成AIツールの利用を一律に禁止することはせず，教育・研究等における利用の可能性を積極的に探るとともに，活用上の実践的な注意を発信していく方針を取っています．
Affichage localise only
UTokyo does not uniformly prohibit generative AI tools, and takes a policy of actively exploring their potential in education and research while disseminating practical precautions.
Teaching
UTokyo leaves the decision on whether to allow AI tools and the conditions for their use to the discretion of individual instructors, varying by class.
Review: Agent reviewed
Evidence originale
Evidence 1The decision whether or not to allow the use of generative AI tools will depend on the class. This decision, along with the conditions for their use, is left to the discretion of individual instructors.
Teaching
UTokyo advises faculty to test their own assignments with generative AI tools to understand how well AI can complete them, and use this understanding to inform assessment design.
Review: Agent reviewed
Evidence originale
Evidence 1Try to make generative AI tools such as ChatGPT, Bing AI, and Bard do the assignments and exams you have given in the past. Determine how well your assignments can be completed by generative AI tools like ChatGPT and incorporate this understanding into the design of your educational policies and methods.
Teaching
UTokyo requires instructors to clearly state their AI stance per class/assignment, and when allowing AI use, to explain risks: information leakage, data concentration, copyright concerns, and potential bias.
Review: Agent reviewed
Evidence originale
Evidence 1Clearly state your stance as instructor on the use of generative AIs for each class and assignment. If you do allow the use of generative AIs, please also explain to the students the issues that are currently known, including 1) the risk of leakage of personal and confidential information, 2) the increased collection of information by a small number of companies, 3) concerns about copyright infringement, 4) the possibility of biases in the learned content.
Teaching
UTokyo warns faculty that AI detection tools should not be over-relied upon, as their judgments are insufficient evidence of inappropriate student AI use.
Review: Agent reviewed
Evidence originale
Evidence 1Do not rely too heavily on tools that claim to detect whether a given piece of text was generated by AI. Those tools should not be over-relied upon as the generators themselves are changing rapidly. The judgments of such tools are insufficient to use as evidence that a student has inappropriately used generative AIs.
Academic Integrity
UTokyo policy states that even when AI use is allowed, simply copying and pasting AI-generated answers should not be accepted as it provides no learning effect.
Review: Agent reviewed
Evidence originale
Evidence 1Even when students are allowed to use generative AIs, simply copying and pasting the answers generated by the AI and submitting them should not be accepted, as that would provide no learning effect for the students.
Source Status
UTokyo's utelecon portal maintains a Policies and Guidelines index page linking to BYOD policy, generative AI information, and AI tools notifications.
Review: Agent reviewed
Evidence originale
Evidence 1Policies and Guidelines. Other. The University of Tokyo BYOD Policy. Information on Generative AI (ChatGPT, etc.). Notification to Students on the Use of AI Tools in Classes (ver. 1.0). Policy on the use of AI tools in classes. About Generative AI (ChatGPT, BingAI, Bard, Midjourney, Stable Diffusion, etc.).
Ai Tool Treatment
UTokyo provides Gemini and Microsoft 365 Copilot Chat as university-wide contracted AI chat services; there is no university-wide ChatGPT contract.
Review: Agent reviewed
Evidence originale
Evidence 1東京大学で全学的に契約している生成AIサービスの中で，チャット形式のものとして，主に以下の2つのサービスがあります: Gemini, Microsoft 365 Copilot Chat. なおよくお問合せいただきますが，ChatGPTについては全学での契約はありません。
Affichage localise only
Among university-wide contracted generative AI chat services, UTokyo primarily offers Gemini and Microsoft 365 Copilot Chat. Note: there is no university-wide ChatGPT contract.
Other
UTokyo warns that using AI-generated results as-is may entail future legal risks related to copyright and design rights.
Review: Agent reviewed
Evidence originale
Evidence 1It has been suggested that the output of AI tools, not just generative ones, may potentially pose problems related to copyright and design rights. Therefore, it is important to note that using generated results as is may entail legal risks in the future.
Procurement
UTokyo provides AI features embedded in multiple platforms (Zoom AI Companion, Slack AI, Cisco AI Assistant, Slido AI, Copilot in Teams) through university-wide contracts.
Review: Agent reviewed
Evidence originale
Evidence 1ZoomにおけるAI Companion, UTokyo SlackにおけるSlack AI, WebexにおけるCisco AI アシスタント, SlidoにおけるSlido AI, Microsoft TeamsにおけるCopilot in Teams
Affichage localise only
UTokyo also provides AI features embedded in Zoom (AI Companion), Slack (Slack AI), Webex (Cisco AI Assistant), Slido (Slido AI), and Teams (Copilot in Teams) as part of university-wide contracts.
Security Review
UTokyo has established security guidelines for generative AI use (March 2024), referenced in the AI service policy.
Review: Agent reviewed
Evidence originale
Evidence 1生成AIの利用にあたっては，以下で説明している注意事項なども参照してください。東京大学における生成AI利用に係るセキュリティガイドライン（2024年3月12日）
Affichage localise only
When using generative AI, please refer to the following precautions: UTokyo Security Guidelines for Generative AI Use (March 12, 2024).
Candidate claims
0 machine or needs-review claim
Candidate claims are not final policy conclusions. They preserve source URL, source snapshot hash, evidence, confidence, and review state so the record can be audited before review.
Official sources
6 source attribution
AIツールの授業における利用について（ver. 1.0）
utelecon.adm.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Notification to Students on the Use of AI Tools in Classes (ver 1.0)
utelecon.adm.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Policies and Guidelines - utelecon - 東京大学
utelecon.adm.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Policy on the use of AI tools in classes - utelecon (English)
utelecon.adm.u-tokyo.ac.jp
当面の全学構成員向け生成AIサービス提供方針について
utelecon.adm.u-tokyo.ac.jp
生成AI関連情報 - utelecon
utelecon.adm.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Change log
Source-check timeline and diff-style claim/evidence preview.
View the public change record for this university, including source snapshot hashes, claim review states, and a diff-style preview of current source-backed evidence.
Corrections and missing evidence
Corrections create review tasks and do not directly change this public record.
If an official source is missing, stale, moved, blocked, or incorrectly summarized, submit a source URL, policy change report, or institution correction for review. Corrections must preserve source URLs, source language, original evidence, review state, and audit history.