Not at this time. Please refer to the honor code guidelines, below:
There are currently no foolproof methods for detecting the use of generative AI. However, certain red flags can indicate that a student may have used generative AI when completing an assignment. A report to the Judiciary Committee should not be based solely or primarily on artificial intelligence detector scores. A suspected case of unauthorized AI use to the judiciary committee should be supported by several factors indicating potential unauthorized AI usage, including (but not limited to):
• Content inconsistent with assignment instructions
• Fake/dead-end links
• Fake sources or references
• Inconsistencies between the voice and writing style of prior submissions for the student
• Examples of what generative AI produced when the assignment is put into a prompt
If you suspect the unauthorized use of generative AI, consider taking one or more of the following steps:
•Look for inaccuracies. Because generative AI tools frequently generate inaccurate information, a text with multiple errors or flagrant inaccuracies may be a sign that a student has used generative AI.
•Notice the incorporation of course teachings. If the student’s approach to the assignment diverges significantly from the approach presented in class without citing external sources of information, this may be an indicator of generative AI writing.
•Review tone. AI-generated writing is often very formulaic and may lack the emotion and depth of human-generated text. If a text reads as though it were written by a machine, this is a possible red flag.
•Compare to previous work. A major change in tone and style from previous writings could indicate that a student has used generative AI.
•Assess citations. Generative AI tools may cite journal articles, book chapters, and other academic sources that are not readily available to students. If a journal article, book chapter, or another source is not available through the Vanderbilt Libraries system, this may be a sign the source was identified by a generative AI writing tool.
•Check for fake or dead-end links. When asked to generate citations, generative AI tools often create fake URLs. Inclusion of several fake or dead-end links could be a red flag.
•While a single inaccuracy or a slight change in style may not necessarily mean that a student has used generative AI, repeated or egregious instances of the aforementioned red flags may indicate that a student has used generative AI tools.
The judiciary committee uses a preponderance of evidence standard when adjudicating cases. And will ultimately ask the question “is it more likely than not that this student gave and/or received unauthorized aid in some form on the assignment?” The judiciary committee does not have to determine if AI usage occurred, but if it is more likely than not that unauthorized aid was given or received.
When determining whether an Honor Code violation occurred, the judiciary committee will consider factors including (but not limited to):
•Assignment instructions
•Syllabus policies
•Comparisons between the assignment submission in question and the alleged student’s full body of work in the course
•Instructor analysis of the assignment submission for known indicators of artificial intelligence
•Student and instructor testimony
The judiciary committee generally will not consider the following factors:
•AI detection scores
•Other students’ work in the class (unless there is an allegation of collaboration)
•The alleged student’s work completed for other courses taught by other instructors
