Teaching & Learning
- Students are directed to ask instructors when uncertain
- Use of generative AI in coursework is generally at instructor discretion
- The university states that unauthorized use can constitute academic dishonesty, while faculty may choose to allow some or all AI use if they clearly communicate expectations in the syllabus or assignment instructions
Any use of Generative AI tools must be permitted by course instructors and be used in strict compliance with course syllabi and assignment directions. Students are responsible for understanding if and when such use is authorized.
As with any type of assistance or collaboration, unauthorized use of Generative AI in assignments may violate Stony Brook’s academic integrity expectations. Students should always ask if they are unsure of what is or is not allowed.
Unauthorized use of artificially generated content, including text and images, is considered academically dishonest.
Depending on the course or assignment, instructors may allow students to use GenAI for some, all, or no coursework. Therefore, to avoid violating the Academic Integrity Policy, students must follow the course/assignment-specific guidelines for AI use, if any. If a course/assignment does not clearly specify how AI use is allowed or not allowed, students should ask their instructor.
Use of artificial intelligence (AI) software is generally prohibited unless expressly authorized by the instructor and clearly outlined in the syllabus or assignment instructions. Any permitted use of AI must be appropriately acknowledged and cited in accordance with course expectations.
The following are examples of AI use policy for course syllabi or assignment prompts:
Use of AI is prohibited in this course.
Use of AI is allowed in this course only if properly cited and acknowledged.
Use of AI in this course is unrestricted.
- AI use in exams and assessments is not governed by a single blanket permission; it depends on the instructor’s stated rules
- The university treats unauthorized assistance as academic dishonesty, and the sample syllabus language says AI is generally prohibited unless expressly authorized
Any use of Generative AI tools must be permitted by course instructors and be used in strict compliance with course syllabi and assignment directions. Students are responsible for understanding if and when such use is authorized.
As with any type of assistance or collaboration, unauthorized use of Generative AI in assignments may violate Stony Brook’s academic integrity expectations. Students should always ask if they are unsure of what is or is not allowed.
Use of artificial intelligence (AI) software is generally prohibited unless expressly authorized by the instructor and clearly outlined in the syllabus or assignment instructions. Any permitted use of AI must be appropriately acknowledged and cited in accordance with course expectations.
- It recommends critical evaluation of AI outputs because responses may be inaccurate, fabricated, or biased
- The university permits students to use generative AI as a learning support tool for studying and understanding concepts, but warns that they remain responsible for verifying accuracy and for following course-specific rules
Generative AI can be a valuable tool for supporting your coursework and learning. However, it should not replace critical thinking, responsible study habits, or your own original work.
Students may use AI to support their learning by:
Researching unfamiliar concepts,
Explaining topics in simpler terms,
Practicing with sample questions or study guides,
Getting feedback on clarity or structure,
Helping brainstorm ideas (if permitted).
Any use of Generative AI tools must be permitted by course instructors and be used in strict compliance with course syllabi and assignment directions. Students are responsible for understanding if and when such use is authorized.
Always remember: AI-generated content may be inaccurate, misleading, incomplete, or entirely fabricated. It can also reflect social biases or make up fake sources. You are responsible for verifying all information and for ensuring your work complies with academic integrity standards.
- No university-wide programming-specific rule was found
- Coding-related AI use falls under the general course policy framework: it is allowed, restricted, or prohibited based on instructor or assignment directions, and unauthorized use may be academically dishonest
Any use of Generative AI tools must be permitted by course instructors and be used in strict compliance with course syllabi and assignment directions. Students are responsible for understanding if and when such use is authorized.
Depending on the course or assignment, instructors may allow students to use GenAI for some, all, or no coursework. Therefore, to avoid violating the Academic Integrity Policy, students must follow the course/assignment-specific guidelines for AI use, if any. If a course/assignment does not clearly specify how AI use is allowed or not allowed, students should ask their instructor.
Research
- For graduate students on academic probation, AI-generated text in academic work is prohibited unless expressly permitted by the instructor
- Graduate thesis and dissertation policy allows use of AI tools for copyediting and formatting help, but not for generating or rewriting substantial intellectual content
- Students must disclose AI use in the acknowledgments, remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of the work, and should consult their advisor before use
Students may use AI-based tools to assist in copyediting and manuscript formatting. However, students may not use these tools to draft or revise substantial portions of text in a way that would substitute for the student's own intellectual contribution.
Use of AI tools must be disclosed in the acknowledgments section of the thesis or dissertation.
Students are fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of all submitted work, including any portions prepared with the assistance of AI.
Students should consult their dissertation/thesis advisor before using AI-based tools in preparing the thesis/dissertation.
Students on academic probation may not submit work generated in whole or in part by generative AI tools, including but not limited to ChatGPT, unless expressly authorized by the course instructor.
The use of AI to generate text, complete assignments, or assist with academic work without instructor approval will be considered a violation of this condition.
- No general university-wide permission for AI-driven data analysis was explicitly defined beyond these restrictions
- Faculty guidance also warns against using AI tools to fabricate or manipulate data and emphasizes verification of outputs
- The university requires caution when using AI with research-related data because sensitive, regulated, or confidential information must not be entered into public AI systems unless institutional requirements are met
Do not input confidential, proprietary, or regulated data into public AI tools unless approved by the University and covered under a contract that includes appropriate data protection terms.
Examples of data that should not be entered into public GenAI tools include:
Protected Health Information (PHI)
Personally Identifiable Information (PII)
Student records covered by FERPA
Confidential research data
Export-controlled or proprietary information
Passwords or credentials
Do not use GenAI tools to fabricate, falsify, or misrepresent research data, citations, or academic content.
Always verify AI-generated content for factual accuracy, bias, and appropriateness before sharing or submitting it.
- No explicit grant-proposal- or IRB-specific AI rule was identified in the provided sources
- In the medical school policy, submitting AI-generated work as one’s own without attribution or authorization is treated as academic dishonesty
- The university explicitly prohibits AI use to fabricate, falsify, or misrepresent research content, and it places responsibility on the user to verify accuracy
Do not use GenAI tools to fabricate, falsify, or misrepresent research data, citations, or academic content.
Always verify AI-generated content for factual accuracy, bias, and appropriateness before sharing or submitting it.
Submitting generated material as one’s own, or using artificial intelligence tools without explicit authorization or proper attribution, is considered academic dishonesty.
Academic Integrity
- For theses and dissertations, AI use must be disclosed in the acknowledgments section
- The medical school policy also states that unapproved or unattributed AI use is academic dishonesty
- When AI use is permitted, students must acknowledge and cite it according to course expectations, and the university provides a template statement for disclosure
If your instructor allows Generative AI use, you should acknowledge and cite that use according to the citation style or format required by the course.
Suggested disclosure statement:
I used [tool name] to help [describe task, e.g., brainstorm ideas or revise grammar], and I reviewed and edited the output to ensure accuracy and compliance with course expectations.
Any permitted use of AI must be appropriately acknowledged and cited in accordance with course expectations.
Use of AI tools must be disclosed in the acknowledgments section of the thesis or dissertation.
Submitting generated material as one’s own, or using artificial intelligence tools without explicit authorization or proper attribution, is considered academic dishonesty.
- Unauthorized AI use may be sanctioned as academic dishonesty, including in the medical school and graduate probation contexts
- The university does not treat AI detectors as conclusive evidence and says they should not be used alone to determine misconduct
- Suspected AI misuse is handled through normal academic integrity procedures, with faculty expected to document concerns and submit allegations to the Office of Academic Integrity
No. AI detection tools are not reliable enough to be used as the sole basis for an allegation of academic dishonesty.
Faculty may use AI detection tools as one part of a broader review process, but concerns about possible unauthorized use should be supported by other factors such as inconsistencies in a student’s work, sudden shifts in writing style, lack of supporting drafts, or inability to explain submitted material.
If you suspect that a student has used generative AI in violation of your course policy, you should follow Stony Brook’s standard academic integrity procedures. This includes gathering any relevant documentation, speaking with the student if appropriate, and submitting an allegation to the Office of Academic Integrity.
Can students appeal AI-related academic dishonesty allegations?
Yes. Students have the same rights and responsibilities in AI-related cases as they do in any academic integrity matter. Allegations are reviewed through the standard academic judiciary process.
Unauthorized use of artificially generated content, including text and images, is considered academically dishonest.
Institutional & Administrative
- The university advises against using AI as the sole basis for grading or disciplinary judgments
- Recommendation-letter content is specifically restricted in the medical school policy because letters must be personally authored
- Faculty and staff may use AI tools for teaching and administrative work, but they are expected to review outputs for accuracy, protect sensitive data, and communicate course-specific AI rules to students
Faculty may use Generative AI in a variety of ways to support teaching, such as:
Creating lesson plans or classroom materials,
Generating examples or discussion prompts,
Drafting quiz questions or rubrics,
Providing feedback on student work,
Supporting accessibility or multilingual instruction.
Faculty are expected to review all AI-generated content for accuracy, relevance, and bias before using it in academic settings.
Faculty should clearly communicate their expectations about student use of AI in course syllabi and assignment instructions.
AI detection tools are not reliable enough to be used as the sole basis for an allegation of academic dishonesty.
Do not input confidential, proprietary, or regulated data into public AI tools unless approved by the University and covered under a contract that includes appropriate data protection terms.
Any letter of recommendation or Medical Student Performance Evaluation must be drafted personally by the faculty member, using their own knowledge and judgment.
Stony Brook University Libraries uses AI in a variety of ways. Examples include chatbots for initial user queries and AI-powered search features in databases. Guiding principles for AI at SBU Libraries include transparency, accountability, fairness, privacy and security, and human oversight.
- These requirements align with the university’s broader data classification and access policies requiring protection of sensitive and restricted data
- It specifically identifies PHI, PII, FERPA-covered student records, confidential research data, export-controlled information, and credentials as restricted
- The university prohibits entering confidential, proprietary, or regulated data into public AI tools unless there is university approval and contractual data protection
Do not input confidential, proprietary, or regulated data into public AI tools unless approved by the University and covered under a contract that includes appropriate data protection terms.
Examples of data that should not be entered into public GenAI tools include:
Protected Health Information (PHI)
Personally Identifiable Information (PII)
Student records covered by FERPA
Confidential research data
Export-controlled or proprietary information
Passwords or credentials
University Data must be classified into one of the following categories according to the level of security controls necessary to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of that data:
Level 1/Public Data
Level 2/Moderately Sensitive Data
Level 3/Highly Sensitive Data
Level 4/Restricted Data
Access to Protected and Restricted Data shall be limited to users with a legitimate University business need for such access.
- It publicly describes AI innovation efforts and provides centralized guidance through academic, instructional, and IT units
- The university has an institution-level AI strategy focused on responsible innovation, guidance, and support rather than a single standalone binding AI code
- The provided sources show governance through institutional communications, guidance pages, and unit-level policies, but do not set out a single comprehensive university-wide governance framework in one document
Stony Brook University is committed to exploring the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) in ways that support our academic mission, research enterprise, clinical care, and operational excellence.
As AI technologies continue to evolve, the University is taking a thoughtful and collaborative approach to their use—one that emphasizes innovation, responsibility, privacy, accessibility, and academic integrity.
This guidance is intended to help members of the Stony Brook community use Generative AI tools responsibly and effectively.
This page provides guidance for instructors on how to approach the use of AI in teaching and learning contexts.
This guide outlines key considerations for using AI tools at Stony Brook University, especially in relation to privacy, security, and institutional policy.
DocuMark: Responsible AI Use for Academic Integrity
Knowing your institution's AI policy is step one. DocuMark helps enforce it fairly by empowering universities to manage AI-generated content, prevent cheating, and support student writing through responsible AI use.
Common Questions About Academic medical center at State University of New York at Stony Brook's AI Policies
Academic medical center at State University of New York at Stony Brook has defined AI policies in 12 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 100%.
When AI use is permitted, students must acknowledge and cite it according to course expectations, and the university provides a template statement for disclosure. For theses and dissertations, AI use must be disclosed in the acknowledgments section. The medical school policy also states that unapproved or unattributed AI use is academic dishonesty.
The university does not treat AI detectors as conclusive evidence and says they should not be used alone to determine misconduct. Suspected AI misuse is handled through normal academic integrity procedures, with faculty expected to document concerns and submit allegations to the Office of Academic Integrity. Unauthorized AI use may be sanctioned as academic dishonesty, including in the medical school and graduate probation contexts.
The university prohibits entering confidential, proprietary, or regulated data into public AI tools unless there is university approval and contractual data protection. It specifically identifies PHI, PII, FERPA-covered student records, confidential research data, export-controlled information, and credentials as restricted. These requirements align with the university’s broader data classification and access policies requiring protection of sensitive and restricted data.