Can I use AI in my degree? Academic integrity rules and how to stay on the right side of them

Yes—but only if the rules for the exact assessment allow that use. There is no single global rule: TEQSA’s student advice says permissions depend on institutional policies and may vary by subject or task, while the University of Sydney’s guidance places the permission label in the unit outline. The policy examples and sources here are Australian, so check the documents and rules for your own state or country. This guide is rated AI assists because an assistant can organize the documents, but the reader and unit coordinator must resolve meaning and permission.

Tools that work

Look in all of these places before using AI:

The unit outline: Find the Use of AI entry or column. A typical set of labels, illustrated by the University of Sydney, is AI prohibited, AI allowed, AI limited, and Not applicable. These are not universal international labels, so do not assume another institution uses them in the same way.
The assessment or task instructions: These may define what “allowed” or “limited” means for the particular submission. UNSW Teaching Gateway says students must receive course-specific instructions defining the categories of permissible AI use.
The institution’s academic integrity or AI policy: TEQSA’s student advice notes that institutional policies may restrict or ban use even when some subjects or tasks permit or request it.

Read the documents that apply rather than relying on a general article or another student’s interpretation. If the wording is missing, unclear or inconsistent, do not convert one school’s categories into another’s or choose the more favourable meaning.

The useful kind of tool is a general text-based assistant that can read document excerpts. It can extract exact permission wording, turn it into a checklist, compare an acknowledgement with the stated requirements, and draft a question for the coordinator. It cannot supply a missing rule, confirm that the document set is complete, establish what the coordinator intended, or decide whether a disputed use amounts to misconduct.

Only provide document excerpts you are permitted to share. The University of Sydney identifies inputting course material, another student’s work, external-partner intellectual property, and personal or health information as misuse.

A prompt to paste

Act as a document-reading assistant, not an academic-integrity decision maker. Read only the permitted excerpts supplied from [UNIT OUTLINE], [ASSESSMENT OR TASK INSTRUCTIONS], and [INSTITUTIONAL ACADEMIC INTEGRITY OR AI POLICY]. Extract and quote the exact wording that governs AI use in [ASSESSMENT]. List any permission level, scope restrictions, acknowledgement details, recordkeeping requirements, and unresolved conflicts. Do not infer permission, invent a clause or policy, convert one institution’s labels into another’s, give a legal conclusion, or decide whether misconduct occurred. If information is missing or ambiguous, say so and frame a question for [UNIT COORDINATOR]. Keep quotations separate from the checklist.

Follow-up prompts:

Draft a concise written query to [UNIT COORDINATOR] asking whether [PROPOSED USE] is permitted for [ASSESSMENT], and what acknowledgement or recordkeeping is required. Mark missing facts as questions and do not assume an answer.
Compare [ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DRAFT] with the acknowledgement requirements in [PERMITTED POLICY EXCERPTS]. List every missing detail and quote the relevant requirement. Do not invent a format or add unsupported facts.

How far AI gets you

AI assists. It can make the governing documents easier to compare, organize relevant passages, identify missing instructions and prepare a written query. It cannot turn an unclear permission label into authorization or replace the reader’s responsibility for sources, edits and final submission.

The decision must stay with you and, where the documents are ambiguous, the unit coordinator. An assistant can explain the available wording, but only the governing documents and authorized decision-maker can settle what the wording means for the assessment.

What you still do

A useful practical distinction is this: organizing or explaining your own notes and getting feedback on a draft sit on one side of the line; producing text, code, images or analysis that you then submit as your own work sits on the other. This is a distinction, not a universal permission rule. An assessment may allow either use, both or neither, and any restriction on uploading course material or other protected information still applies.

Permission also varies by purpose. UNSW Teaching Gateway, for example, describes course-specific categories ranging from no generative-AI use to use before the final artefact and use in completing an assessment. The University of Sydney says permitted use in an open, unsupervised assessment must be appropriately acknowledged, while AI generally cannot be used in a secure, supervised assessment unless the coordinator gives express permission.

According to the University of Sydney’s misuse examples, the following can amount to an academic-integrity breach:

Submitting AI-generated work without the acknowledgement your school requires.
Using AI in a secure or supervised assessment when its instructions prohibit use.
Inputting teaching or course materials, content generated by another student, external-partner intellectual property, or another person’s personal or health information.
Citing references that do not exist because the AI output was not verified, including invented references presented as real.

TEQSA also says that using AI inconsistently with institutional rules can result in a finding of academic misconduct. Do not ask an AI assistant to make that finding or to declare a use definitely acceptable.

To keep the decision with the people responsible for it:

Read the rules before starting. Check the unit outline, the assessment instructions and the institutional policy against the exact proposed use.
Ask the coordinator in writing when the wording is ambiguous. Identify the assessment, describe the proposed use and quote the unclear wording. Keep the response with your records rather than relying on an informal or remembered answer.
Use the acknowledgement format specified by your school. The University of Sydney’s published particulars are the tool name and version, the publisher, the URL and a brief description of how the tools were used. Do not replace school-specific requirements with a generic disclosure sentence.
Keep your own record of what you used and when. Record the tool, version, purpose, relevant inputs, outputs, edits and where the acknowledgement appears. The University of Sydney also notes that coordinators may require a log of AI inputs.
Verify every source yourself. Open each reference, confirm that it exists and check that it says what the work claims. The University of Sydney warns that unverified AI-generated references are not acceptable and that the student remains responsible for the submitted work.
Be ready to explain your work aloud. Victorian Department of Education guidance, which applies to the school sector rather than universities, says teachers should keep asking students to explain how they completed an assessment and discuss their understanding. Use that as preparation, not as permission to ignore the written rules.

The final reading, source checks, edits and compliance decision must remain yours. If the documents still do not answer the question, the coordinator or institution must resolve it; an AI-generated summary cannot supply authoritative permission.

Common questions

What should I do if the unit outline says `Not applicable`?

Do not assign that label a meaning on your own. Check the assessment instructions and institutional policy, then ask the coordinator what it means for the specific submission.

Does an acknowledgement make prohibited AI use acceptable?

No. An acknowledgement records use; it does not override a prohibition. The University of Sydney’s guidance distinguishes permitted, acknowledged use in open assessments from generally prohibited use in secure assessments unless express permission is given.

Do translation, paraphrasing and referencing tools need acknowledgement?

Under the University of Sydney’s guidance, its acknowledgement instructions include translation, paraphrasing and referencing tools. The same guidance says tools used only for basic spelling and grammar, and ordinary word-processing tools, do not require acknowledgement, but that distinction does not override task-specific restrictions.

What if AI was used before the task rules were checked?

Do not assume the earlier use was permitted. Preserve the record, stop relying on the output and ask the coordinator in writing whether it may be used, replaced or disclosed for [ASSESSMENT].

What kinds of systems count as AI?

The University of Sydney defines generative AI broadly as algorithms capable of creating text, images, video, music and code. A tool’s product category does not settle permission; the definitions and restrictions in the governing documents do.