Students edition
Courts, schools and exam rules are together setting out the new ground rules for AI in your studies this week, and they are fairer than you might think.
Highest court: using AI in your dissertation is not automatically fraud
The Council of State puts the burden of proof where it belongs: with the institution, not with you.
The Council of State issued three rulings on AI in dissertations. One student had accidentally included made-up sources (AI hallucinations) in his reference list. He was cleared, because the University of Groningen could not provide sufficient evidence. Two other students were not so fortunate, partly because they had not included their required AI declaration. The lesson: fraud requires real evidence, and the rules must be clear and enforceable.
Background for subscribersThe Council of State made clear that fraud must be proven. Two students lost their case because they had not submitted an AI declaration. That document therefore actively protects you. Record your use of AI in a declaration, save your prompts, and write in your own words. That way you are in a strong position if questions ever arise. At the same time: your school cannot simply run your exam work through an AI marking tool. The teacher remains ultimately responsible for your grade.
Groningen's AI rules are backfiring: students are hiding their use
ScienceGuide describes how the AI policy of the University of Groningen is working against itself. Supportive use of AI is permitted, but the moment any doubt arises, the conversation immediately turns to fraud. The result: students no longer feel safe being open and hide what they did.
Background for subscribersThis is a taster.
Subscribers read the whole Students edition: every story, each with its background in plain language.
Subscribe →