Teaching & Learning
- The University’s general guidance emphasizes academic integrity and indicates instructors should be consulted for how generative AI intersects with academic honesty
- The Law School sets a default rule (unless an instructor specifies otherwise) that students may not use generative AI in submitted work for academic credit in ways that would constitute plagiarism, and also states that using generative AI to compose part or all of a paper is a violation even if documented with citations; instructors may set their own policies and must state deviations in the syllabus
For guidance on how generative AI tools intersect with academic honesty, it is recommended that instructors contact the Chicago Center for Teaching and Learning. (See Academic Honesty & Plagiarism in the Student Manual for University policy.)
b) For all work that a student submits for any form of academic credit, generative AI may not be used in a way that would constitute academic plagiarism if the generative AI were a human author whose work was used without attribution.
Thus, using generative AI to compose all or part of a paper, even if the use of generative AI is fully documented in properly placed footnotes, is a violation of the default policy.
Instructors have flexibility to set policy for the use of generative AI in their classes. The Law School sets a default for use of generative AI, but each instructor can set their own policies.
Deviations from the default policy shall be stated in writing in the syllabus posted on Canvas for the class.
- The Law School sets a default rule (unless the instructor specifies otherwise) that use of generative AI is prohibited on any exam, and clarifies that students must not prompt or engage with generative AI during the exam and must produce every word of the exam answer themselves during the exam period
a) For exams, unless the instructor specifies otherwise, the use of generative AI is absolutely prohibited in any exam.
Commentary: Students must not prompt or engage with generative AI in any way during an exam and (as was always the case) every word of the exam answer must be produced by the student themselves during the exam period.
- Separately, university guidance emphasizes that users are responsible for reviewing the accuracy of AI-generated content
- The Law School policy explicitly states that its default exam prohibition does not extend to using generative AI when studying for an exam (as long as it does not violate other aspects of the policy), and provides examples such as asking for case holdings or lists of arguments while preparing an outline
This default prohibition does not extend to the use of generative AI when studying for an exam, so long as it does not violate any other aspect of this policy. For example, while preparing an outline in advance of an exam, a student could ask tools like ChatGPT for the holding of Marbury v. Madison or for a list of arguments for and against judicial review.
AI-generated content may be misleading or inaccurate. Generative AI technology may create citations to content that does not exist. Responses from generative AI tools may contain content and materials from other authors and may be copyrighted. It is the responsibility of the tool user to review the accuracy and ownership of any AI-generated content.
- The provided sources do not define a university-wide student policy specific to AI code generation for programming assignments
- The Academic Technology Solutions teaching guidance provides examples of instructional uses that include "Drafting quiz questions and code challenges," but it does not state student permissions or restrictions for graded programming work
Drafting quiz questions and code challenges
Research
- The provided sources do not define a specific university-wide policy on using AI to draft or edit research manuscripts
- The PhoenixAI usage guidelines describe the service as intended to assist users in "conducting research" and "generating content" for educational, research, and professional development purposes, while requiring compliance with applicable laws and intellectual property requirements
Welcome to the University of Chicago's PhoenixAI Service, a powerful tool designed to assist students, faculty, and staff in generating content, conducting research, and enhancing academic and professional work.
The service is intended for educational, research, and professional development purposes.
- It also states that researchers using AI tools in human subjects studies must inform the IRB, and the IRB must be aware of any technology used to collect, process, or analyze human subjects data
- The university’s generative AI guidance prohibits using confidential data with publicly available generative AI tools without prior security and privacy review and lists examples including FERPA and HIPAA data and potentially unpublished research
The use of confidential data with publicly available generative AI tools is prohibited without prior security and privacy review. This includes personally identifiable employee data, FERPA-covered student data, HIPAA-covered patient data, and may include research that is not yet publicly available.
Researchers who wish to use AI tools in studies involving human subjects must inform the Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB must be aware of any technology used to collect, process, or analyze human subjects data.
- It also requires IRB notification for human subjects research uses of AI tools, emphasizing that the IRB must be aware of any technology used to collect, process, or analyze human subjects data
- The university’s generative AI guidance flags that some grantors have policies prohibiting use of generative AI tools in analyzing or reviewing grant applications or proposals, citing NIH as an example
Some grantors, including the National Institutes of Health, have policies prohibiting the use of generative AI tools in analyzing or reviewing grant applications or proposals.
Researchers who wish to use AI tools in studies involving human subjects must inform the Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB must be aware of any technology used to collect, process, or analyze human subjects data.
Academic Integrity
- The Student Manual requires proper acknowledgment of sources when written or electronic sources are consulted and indicates the source should be identified (including by website and date accessed)
- The Law School policy states its default compares generative AI use to using a human-created source without attribution and further specifies that composing all or part of a paper with generative AI violates the default policy even if fully documented in footnotes
Proper acknowledgment of another's ideas, whether by direct quotation or paraphrase, is expected. In particular, if any written or electronic source is consulted and material is used from that source, directly or indirectly, the source should be identified by author, title, and page number, or by website and date accessed.
b) For all work that a student submits for any form of academic credit, generative AI may not be used in a way that would constitute academic plagiarism if the generative AI were a human author whose work was used without attribution.
Thus, using generative AI to compose all or part of a paper, even if the use of generative AI is fully documented in properly placed footnotes, is a violation of the default policy.
- The Student Manual states plagiarism and cheating are punishable under the University’s disciplinary system
- The provided sources do not define an institutional stance on AI detection tools; the Academic Technology Solutions page notes skepticism about detection tools but does not set an enforcement rule
To do so is plagiarism or cheating, offenses punishable under the University's disciplinary system.
While it is tempting to seek tools that claim to detect AI-generated outputs, most experts in teaching and learning have come to consider that a losing game.
Institutional & Administrative
- PhoenixAI usage guidelines apply to students, faculty, and staff and require compliance with existing university policies and applicable laws
- The Academic Technology Solutions teaching-tools page states the university offers generative AI tools to support instructors in teaching, and describes Phoenix AI as the university’s generative AI chat service customized for security, privacy, accessibility, and equity
Welcome to the University of Chicago's PhoenixAI Service, a powerful tool designed to assist students, faculty, and staff in generating content, conducting research, and enhancing academic and professional work.
By using the University of Chicago’s PhoenixAI Service, users agree to comply with all existing University policies, including but not limited to the following:
The University of Chicago offers a selection of generative AI tools to support instructors in teaching. Phoenix AI, the University’s generative AI chat service, is built with a large language models (LLM) from OpenAI and customized for security, privacy, accessibility, and equity.
- No regulated content (e.g., FERPA, PHI, RHI, or any other restricted data).”
- The university prohibits use of confidential data with publicly available generative AI tools without prior security and privacy review and states that AI tools processing or moving confidential data require a security review before acquisition
- The generative AI guidance directs community members to review an approved tools/use cases list that is updated bi-monthly with decisions approved by the CTO and CISO; if a tool/use case is not listed, paid tools go through procurement intake and free tools go through an evaluation form
The use of confidential data with publicly available generative AI tools is prohibited without prior security and privacy review. This includes personally identifiable employee data, FERPA-covered student data, HIPAA-covered patient data, and may include research that is not yet publicly available.
Generative AI systems, applications, and software products that process, analyze, or move confidential data require a security review before they are acquired, even if the software is free.
Members of the University community who wish to use a generative AI tool should first review the approved tools and use cases. This site is updated bi-monthly with decisions approved by the University’s Chief Technology Officer (CTO) and Chief Information Security Officer (CISO).
If a proposed tool or use case isn't listed on this table, the next step depends on whether the tool requires payment for use.
Please note: even when a tool is listed as approved, it is not risk-free. Approval simply means the tool can be used under specific conditions, but not that all data is safe to enter. Users are still responsible for evaluating the sensitivity of their data, understanding vendor limitations, and ensuring that confidential, regulated, or contract-restricted information is not shared with AI tools unless explicitly allowed.
Only for non-sensitive information. No regulated content (e.g., FERPA, PHI, RHI, or any other restricted data).
- The generative AI guidance states that the approved tools and use cases list is updated bi-monthly with decisions approved by the University’s CTO and CISO
- It also describes a review and escalation process for tools and notes that requests involving elevated or unresolved risk are escalated to senior leadership for final determination (including the CISO, CTO, and Chief Privacy Officer)
Members of the University community who wish to use a generative AI tool should first review the approved tools and use cases. This site is updated bi-monthly with decisions approved by the University’s Chief Technology Officer (CTO) and Chief Information Security Officer (CISO).
Requests involving elevated or unresolved risk are escalated to senior leadership for final determination.
If the proposed use is not prohibited by compliance regulations but exceeds standard risk tolerance, and the requester still wishes to proceed with the purchase, the request is escalated to senior leadership—the Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) and Chief Technology Officer (CTO), and the Chief Privacy Officer (CPO)—for guidance.
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 University of Chicago's AI Policies
University of Chicago has defined AI policies in 12 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 100%.
The Student Manual requires proper acknowledgment of sources when written or electronic sources are consulted and indicates the source should be identified (including by website and date accessed). The Law School policy states its default compares generative AI use to using a human-created source without attribution and further specifies that composing all or part of a paper with generative AI violates the default policy even if fully documented in footnotes.
The Student Manual states plagiarism and cheating are punishable under the University’s disciplinary system. The provided sources do not define an institutional stance on AI detection tools; the Academic Technology Solutions page notes skepticism about detection tools but does not set an enforcement rule.
The university prohibits use of confidential data with publicly available generative AI tools without prior security and privacy review and states that AI tools processing or moving confidential data require a security review before acquisition. The generative AI guidance directs community members to review an approved tools/use cases list that is updated bi-monthly with decisions approved by the CTO and CISO; if a tool/use case is not listed, paid tools go through procurement intake and free tools go through an evaluation form. The Approved and Restricted AI Tools page adds that even approved tools are not risk-free and that users remain responsible for ensuring confidential, regulated, or contract-restricted information is not shared unless explicitly allowed; it also includes per-tool restrictions such as “Only for non-sensitive information. No regulated content (e.g., FERPA, PHI, RHI, or any other restricted data).”