º£½ÇÂÛ̳

Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools and Sample Syllabus Policy Statements

Possible AI Syllabus Statements

º£½ÇÂÛ̳ recommends that instructors include a policy in all their syllabi regarding the use (and misuse) of generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT) in their courses. Rather than banning these tools, faculty are encouraged to create AI policies that teach students how to use them ethically and effectively within their discipline. Having a clear policy ensures students understand expectations for appropriate use of generative AI tools. Instructors should clearly communicate their policy to students and engage in regular discussions about generative AI use, particularly before major assignments.

Below are examples of statements you may use or modify to suit your course needs. The examples have been arranged according to three degrees of AI use permissions: Restrictive, Supervised and Permissive.

• Restrictive policies require students to complete all assignments without the use of GenAI.
• Supervised policies allow students to complete assignments with GenAI according to the instructor’s directions. These policies may require that students acknowledge the use of GenAI, such as submitting inputs and outputs with assignments, citation practices, writing a memo that GenAI was used and in what ways, etc.
• Permissive policies allow students to complete assignments using GenAI as a close collaborator without instructor directions (students use GenAI however they wish to complete assignments) and may not require documentation or acknowledgement that GenAI was used.

Determine which category your syllabus may fit under. Also consider if you will have a range of these policy types across different assignments. Consider using the to develop ranges of GenAI use or non-use in your policies.

For guidance on creating your own syllabus statement, you can find helpful information compiled by .

In addition to UM System's information, we ask that instructors think about the following considerations as they craft policies:

• Lead with learning outcomes and disciplinary values, not with the motivation to curb cheating or protect academic integrity. Academic integrity is a tool for critical inquiry and problem-solving. Consider if GenAI can scaffold or not scaffold learning in these areas and how they affirm disciplinary values students should learn.
• If you use GenAI in your instruction to create lesson plans, discussion questions and assignments, be transparent with students about how you use GenAI. Just as you expect transparency from your students about GenAI use, you should be transparent with your students.
• Do not upload or copy and paste student work into any GenAI product to help with assessment, as this may violate FERPA.

Detecting AI Plagiarism

Detection tools claim to identify work as artificially generated but cannot provide clear evidence that supports the case. Current tests of these tools show significant margins of error, which can lead to a student being wrongly accused of improper use of generative AI. AI detectors are based largely on probabilities based on the datasets used to train these tools, which result in different results from tool to tool. The AI tool then gives you a “best guess” if the content was created using an artificial tool. Detection tools have also been shown to be biased against certain populations of students, such as non-native speakers. Given the unreliability of these tools and the risk of false results, we do not recommend using these detection tools as the single piece of evidence to support a violation of the academic integrity policy.

You can find additional useful information on .

Examples of AI Restrictive Policies

From The University of Chicago

In this course, we will be developing skills and knowledge that are important to discover and practice on your own. Because use of AI tools inhibits development of these skills and knowledge, students are not allowed to use any AI tools, such as ChatGPT or DallE 2, in this course. Students are expected to present work that is their own without assistance from others, including automated tools. If you are unclear if something is an AI tool, please check with your instructor. Using AI tools for any purpose in this course will violate the university’s academic integrity policy. Source: 

From The University of Texas at Austin

All assignments should be fully prepared by the student. Developing strong competencies in the skills associated with this course, from student-based brainstorming to project development, will prepare you for success in your degree pathway and, ultimately, a competitive career. Therefore, the use of generative AI tools to complete any aspect of assignments for this course is not permitted and will be treated as plagiarism. If you have questions about what constitutes a violation of this statement, please contact me. Source:

Also From The University of Texas at Austin

The emergence of generative AI tools (such as ChatGPT and DALL-E) has sparked interest among many students in our discipline. The use of these tools for brainstorming ideas, exploring possible responses to questions or problems, and creative engagement with the materials may be useful for you as you craft responses to class assignments. While there is no substitute for working directly with your instructor, the potential for generative AI tools to provide automatic feedback, assistive technology and language assistance is clearly developing. Please feel free to reach out to me well in advance of the due date of assignments for which you may be using generative AI tools and I will be happy to discuss what is acceptable. Source:

Examples of AI Supervised Policies

From º£½ÇÂÛ̳, Conservatory

At the º£½ÇÂÛ̳ Conservatory, we believe that performing arts students should explore and express the full depth of their humanity and creativity. We value the messy work of creation over the digital sheen of perfection provided by AI technology. While that technology can enhance learning, we want to ensure that our educational spaces remain places where students’ distinctive voices are heard, celebrated and allowed to flourish.

In the º£½ÇÂÛ̳ Conservatory, we welcome the exploration of generative AI tools under the following guidelines:

• Students must be the primary author of any submitted work.
• Students must properly cite the use of generative AI tools. 
  • See or .
• Students must not use AI to bypass key learning objectives of the class.
• Students must obtain permission for AI use in each class project.
• Students should be mindful of the shortcomings of such tools and understand that the information they provide might not be accurate.

From º£½ÇÂÛ̳, School of Humanities and Social Sciences

English Language and Literatures

The º£½ÇÂÛ̳ First Year Composition Committee invites students to use LLMs like ChatGPT as tools best suited for integration into your writing process. That means you may not use LLMs to create whole or partially generated text from an LLM that takes the place of your original writing. Doing so would count as plagiarism according to the University of Missouri System Academic Conduct on unauthorized use of generative AI. Using LLMs to support the writing process includes:

• Generating ideas
• Conducting research
• Generating thesis statements
• Discovering other arguments and perspectives
• Generating first drafts for in-depth revision and extension 
• Improving writing style and other global and local issues as a peer reviewer

I may use class time to guide you in using LLMs for your writing process or assign work that has you deploy LLMs for your writing process. We may also discuss the limitations and harms of these technologies, such as making up facts, creating sources that don’t exist and showing bias against marginalized communities' linguistic practices. 

If I do not provide specific instruction in the use of LLMs for the writing process, I expect you to keep an open line of communication with me regarding the use of AI writing tools. It is important to consult me before using them in an assignment. If, in consideration with me, you do use ChatGPT or other AI tools, cite them in your Works Cited page and be prepared to argue a rationale for the appropriateness of their use. You will be expected to include the chat history with the LLM as evidence of your writing process.

Sharing how you used LLMs for your writing is helpful to me as an instructor and to the writing program itself. It allows the writing program to develop policies that meet the needs of students and instructors; knowing your experience playing with LLMs also helps us keep track of how the technology changes. In other words, have fun with LLMs, note that they are not perfect tools, and keep communicating with us! The only way you can be punished for using LLMs is if you keep it to yourself and pretend that you generated the content your peers and I read!

From Harvard

Certain assignments in this course will permit or even encourage the use of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) tools such as ChatGPT. The default is that such use is disallowed unless otherwise stated. Any such use must be appropriately acknowledged and cited. It is each student’s responsibility to assess the validity and applicability of any GAI output that is submitted; you bear the final responsibility. Violations of this policy will be considered academic misconduct. We draw your attention to the fact that different classes at Harvard could implement different AI policies, and it is the student’s responsibility to conform to expectations for each course. Source:

Also From Harvard

This course encourages students to explore the use of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) tools such as ChatGPT for all assignments and assessments. Any such use must be appropriately acknowledged and cited. It is each student’s responsibility to assess the validity and applicability of any GAI output that is submitted; you bear the final responsibility. Violations of this policy will be considered academic misconduct. We draw your attention to the fact that different classes at Harvard could implement different AI policies, and it is the student’s responsibility to conform to expectations for each course. Source:

Examples of AI Permissive Policies

From º£½ÇÂÛ̳, School of Science and Engineering, Computer Science

In general, there is no limitation on the use of generative AI for brainstorming, developing ideas, drafting responses for homework assignments, etc. However, such use must be documented to a degree of detail specified in the assignment. Also, these tools often produce inaccurate or incorrect answers and, despite the marketing claims of their makers, should not be relied upon as search engines. You are still responsible for the accuracy and correctness of anything you submit. In addition to errors, such tools can generate responses that are stereotyped, racist, sexist or otherwise biased. These tools are particularly poor at assessing the quality of their own responses. Failure to document use of these tools will be considered academic dishonesty. Likewise, prompts used with these systems are to be your own unaided work; you may be required to submit your prompts as part of your deliverables. These tools have not been vetted by the university for privacy, security or FERPA compliance. OpenAI has already had one data breach. These tools use all text entered into them for data mining and further training. Bias is baked into the training data used to train large language models. The capabilities of these systems can sometimes deteriorate as well as improve. Use of these tools is allowed for this course but is not required.