Artificial Intelligence FAQs
The increased availability of AI writing and design tools has raised a number of questions for instructors and students alike. Recognizing that the pace at which these technologies are developing, as well as the infancy of established best practices for AI in postsecondary education, below are the university’s current recommendations in the form of questions and answers.
Instructors who'd like to learn more about AI in higher ed are encouraged to review the Centre for Excellence in Learning & Teaching's new Teaching Resources page, join our community of practice (external link) (CoP) and/or to explore the faculty-led video presentations that have taken place during our CoP Lunch and Learns.
Unless explicitly stated by the instructor, students should assume that using AI to complete assessments is prohibited. If students use AI to complete assessments, instructors may consider it 1) misrepresentation of personal identity or performance and/or 2) plagiarism and/or 3) cheating.
IF your instructor gives you permission to use AI, the expectation is that you cite the output just as you would cite any other source.
While AI is something that should be avoided when creating anything that will be evaluated by your professor, AI can be a great learning companion, assuming you understand that AI output needs to be critically evaluated. Cornell University (external link) devised these key questions that you can use to interrogate the integrity of the AI output:
- Is the AI-generated content accurate? How can you test or assess the accuracy?
- Can other credible sources (outside of generative AI) validate the data or item produced?
- How does the information generated impact or influence your thinking on this topic?
- Who is represented in this data? Is the data inclusive in terms of the material’s scope and the perspectives that it presents?
As well, we have some (google doc) student tips (external link) that you may find useful.
Currently, Policy 60 (opens in new window) does not explicitly address AI usage. However, if a student were to submit text, images, designs or any other academic work generated by AI without proper attribution, instructors could consider that plagiarism. Further, instructors could consider AI use to be cheating as described in Policy 60, Appendix A, Section 3.1:
“having ready access to and/or using aids or devices (including wireless communication devices) not expressly allowed by the instructor during an examination, test, quiz, or other evaluation.”
* Please note that Policy 60 is currently under review and we anticipate that specific language on artificial intelligence will be added.
Not unless the student receives permission from the instructor.
Grammarly, Quillbot, ChatGPT, ParaphraserAI, DeepL Translator, Google Translate, OpenAI Playground
Practical Responses to ChatGPT (external link, opens in new window) , external link from Montclair State University
Artificial Intelligence and Writing (external link, opens in new window) , external link from the University of Central Florida
AI Technology and Academic Integrity (external link, opens in new window) , external link from York University
Eight ways to engage with AI writers in higher education (external link, opens in new window) , external link from Times Higher Education
Educator Considerations for ChatGPT (external link, opens in new window) , external link from OpenAI
Assessment Design (external link, opens in new window) , internal link from the Centre for Excellence in Learning and Teaching
No. There are a number of tools available as well as a significant amount of research dedicated to effectively watermarking AI generated text, but the tools are unreliable and potentially raise privacy concerns.
For more on AI detection, see:
Kirchenbauer, J., Geiping, J., Wen, Y., Katz, J., Miers, I., & Goldstein, T. (2023) A Watermark for Large Language Models. arXiv:2301.10226.
Kirchner, J., Ahmad, L., Aaronson, S., & Leike, J. (2023, January 31). New AI classifier for indicating AI-written text. https://openai.com/blog/new-ai-classifier-for-indicating-ai-written-text
Mitchell, E., Lee, Y., Khazatsky, A., Manning, C., & Finn, C. (2023). DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvature. arXiv:2301.11305.
AI can be leveraged to improve the quality of your feedback for student assignments. However, it's important to ensure that you're aware of the data privacy policies for any external tools intend to use and that you make sure you're not entering students' sensitive information or personal identfiers.
The Centre for Excellence in Learning and Teaching will provide updates and resources for faculty through their new Generative AI (opens in new window) page, and is maintains a curated list of (google doc) ChatGPT/AI resources (external link) . (opens in new window)
The AIO provides presentations and workshops on AI Literacy, Leveraging AI in the Classroom, and Mitigating the impact of AI on Student Assessment. If you'd like to request a presentation, please complete (google form) this form (external link) .
Additionally, a community of practice has been formed to share resources and discuss best practices. If you'd like to join the community of practice, you can do so (google form) here (external link) .
The AIO also encourages faculty to explore these tools, test them, learn about how they work and what their limitations are, so that they're better equipped to address these matters in the classroom.
Sample syllabus statement suggestions:
- “If you submit work that doesn’t reasonably reflect your knowledge of the material and/or the skills being assessed, that work will be considered to be in breach of Policy 60: Academic Integrity.”
- “The unauthorized use of Generative AI (e.g., ChatGPT, Quillbot, Grammarly, Google Translate) is prohibited and will be considered to be in breach of Policy 60: Academic Integrity.”
- “Generative AI may only be used for idea generation or as a study aid, but not for the creation of submitted work.”
- “Falsified citations or misrepresentation of source material will be considered a breach of Policy 60. You are responsible for the accuracy of the work you submit.”