University AI Policy Tracker
APIGitHub
Language
ENZHFRPL

Bangalore, India

Indian Institute of Science

RankingQS World University Rankings 2026: =219UpdatedMay 15, 2026

No reviewed summary yet

Reviewed record

Reviewed claims

3 reviewed claims

Privacy

IISc faculty-facing AI guidance says entering data into an open AI tool should be treated like posting it publicly unless there are strong reasons to trust the tool, and says not to input sensitive, confidential, or restricted information into open AI tools.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence94%

Normalized value: do_not_input_sensitive_confidential_restricted_information

Last checked
May 15, 2026
Last changed
May 15, 2026

Original evidence

Evidence 1
Hence, entering data into an AI tool should be regarded as equivalent to posting it in public (unless there are strong reasons to trust that a specific tool will not use your queries). Do not enter, contribute, or otherwise input sensitive, confidential, or restricted information into open AI tools.

Localized display only

The faculty presentation warns against entering sensitive, confidential, or restricted information into open AI tools.

Source language
English (en)
Snapshot hash
704962d4…
Retrieved
May 15, 2026
Evidence locator
Private and Confidential information slide

Research

The IISc committee report recommends full, precise, and transparent disclosure of generative AI use in research publications, theses, and other Institute documents, with details depending on how the tools were used.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence93%

Normalized value: research_disclosure_recommended

Last checked
May 15, 2026
Last changed
May 15, 2026

Original evidence

Evidence 1
Use of generative AI should be fully disclosed, with attribution that is precise, transparent, and with adequate details. In particular, when one is using generative AI in publications, one should follow the guidelines of the Journal, Conference, or Publisher. For thesis and other Institute documents, one should follow the guidelines for publications given below.

Localized display only

The report recommends detailed disclosure and attribution for generative AI use in publications, theses, and other Institute documents.

Source language
English (en)
Snapshot hash
711c2189…
Retrieved
May 15, 2026
Evidence locator
Section 6, Disclosure and Attribution

Teaching

An IISc committee report recommends 'allowed with attribution' as the default institutional policy for AI tool use in courses, while allowing instructors, departments, divisions, or programmes to tailor the baseline policy.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence91%

Normalized value: recommended_default_allowed_with_attribution

Last checked
May 15, 2026
Last changed
May 15, 2026

Original evidence

Evidence 1
We recommend allowed with attribution as the default institutional policy. This default policy should be articulated via an appropriate channel, such as the Student Handbook. Furthermore, this default policy can be tailored at each level in the hierarchy: individual course instructor, department, division, or programme.

Localized display only

The committee recommends an allowed-with-attribution default for coursework AI use, with tailoring by instructors or academic units.

Source language
English (en)
Snapshot hash
711c2189…
Retrieved
May 15, 2026
Evidence locator
Section 5.3, Transparent and Simple Course Policies

Source record

Official sources

2 sources

Record information, JSON & citation
Reviewagent reviewedConfidence94%Snapshot statusNot publishedJSONPublic JSON

Citation: University AI Policy Tracker. "Indian Institute of Science AI Policy Tracker record." Last checked May 15, 2026. https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/indian-institute-of-science

Original university source language remains canonical. This tracker is not an official university statement.

Open change log