"I just wish my instructors would be more clear about what is and isn't allowed."

"My professor for this course didn't say anything about it, so I thought using it in the way another prof showed us would be okay."

"I thought I was using it in the way this prof allowed! But now that I look back, I see her policy said one thing but her lecture slide said something else."

The above quotes are paraphrased versions of what we've heard in the UC San Diego Academic Integrity Office (AIO) from student after student reported for GenAI misuse. To be sure, some do admit to using it in ways they knew were not appropriate, but genuine confusion is also expressed. And who can blame them? GenAI tools are new. Very few people (faculty and students) understand how they work. Some faculty are allowing them and some are not. Some faculty are ignoring (or at least not talking about) the existence of the tools. 

It is critical that you have a GenAI Use Policy and that the policy is clearly articulated in writing (UC San Diego's Academic Integrity Policy requires it in writing).

Some students will of course still use the tools in ways prohibited by Policy (if you don't secure the assessment) for all the same reasons why students cheat via any method: procrastination ("I don't have time!"), extrinsic motivation ("I need the grade!"), peer effects ("everyone's doing it!"), low self-efficacy ("I can't do it!"), and lack of care about the course/assessment ("This is a stupid/meaningless assignment/course").  

However, for many of the 200 students we've seen at the AIO, their actions were a result of a genuine confusion about the rules, a lack of rules, a misunderstanding of the purpose of the assessment, and/or a lack of understanding of how these tools work. So, a clear policy is imperative, as is helping raise students' AI literacy.

We'll help you with policy in this guide. 

For teaching AI Literacy, the UC San Diego's Library Guide can be helpful, as can this set of modules from the College of Southern Idaho.