AIMING TO offer a general framework for the responsible use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) in the academe, the Office of the Vice President for Higher Education issued a policy for how AI can enhance University research and creative work processes while adhering to ethical standards.

Released last January 13, the policy defined GenAI as AI systems that generate text, images, audio, video, or code through machine learning and large datasets.

Apart from providing AI-use guidelines, the policy also states that the University will strive to develop educators’ skills in AI literacy. This plan will provide educators with the necessary competence to guide students in the responsible use of GenAI.

Although the policy is meant for the use of the whole Higher Education Cluster, the announcement also noted that schools, departments, and other units are free to produce their own guidelines in response to the specific needs of their disciplines, provided that they are consistent with the general framework.

Aligned with the policy’s relevance and objectives, GenAI Task Force Chairman Johnny Go, SJ pointed out that the use of GenAI is not only widespread among students but also within faculty members. However, Go clarified that such use is a welcome development.

“Part and parcel of education today is to promote AI literacy among our students to equip them with the competencies and dispositions essential for thriving in an increasingly AI-rich world,” he expressed.

The policy release came after GenAI Task Force’s establishment last August 2024, which aimed to propose a GenAI Course Policy and examine ways to reconstruct instructional models using GenAI.

New GenAI regulations

While the University acknowledged GenAI’s potential to enhance learning and research, it also warned against the risks, particularly in undermining originality and critical thinking skills.

With this, the policy requires students to include statements specifying the use of GenAI in their projects. According to the policy, failing to properly attribute AI-generated content or using AI to bypass learning objectives is considered academic dishonesty and plagiarism, which may result in grade deductions, course failure, or further disciplinary measures under the Code of Student Conduct.

Instructors are also required to follow the same AI usage guidelines for course content creation and assessments. The policy stated that failure to comply will prompt the University to follow its established procedures for addressing complaints and misconduct.

Moreover, the policy explicitly prohibited the utilization of the said technology to generate misinformation or manipulate data, reinforcing the institution’s commitment to responsible AI use.

To uphold fairness and accountability, a structured process for detecting and evaluating AI-generated content was also established in the GenAI policy. While acknowledging the limitation of AI detection technologies, the policy mentioned that faculty members and researchers will still use such tools to identify potential misuse.

Behind the policy

In a bid to achieve AI literacy in the University, Go shared that the GenAI Task Force “provided the groundwork for the creation of the policy” by studying the GenAI technologies and their impact on education.

However, he clarified that the Task Force “opted not to propose a University-wide set of policies” and instead focused on “providing guidelines and models of GenAI Use Policies” that faculty members could consider in the classroom.

Go also stated that the GenAI Task Force presented their report to the Vice President for Higher Education Council, the President’s Council, and the School Forum to solicit feedback and collect recommendations for AI use.

When asked about the Task Force’s involvement in the regular policy updates stated in the guidelines, Go said that its involvement and work is already “complete.”

Following this, Go mentioned that the Ateneo Science & Art of Learning & Teaching Institute is working on a training program about the safe, ethical, and effective use of GenAI for improved learning, teaching, formation, and research.

Commenting on the relevance of the guidelines, Computer Society of the Ateneo President Jan Ericsson Ang believes that the policies are fair in preventing students from becoming too reliant on AI use.

“The main purpose of […] [an] educational institution is for us, the students, to learn and develop. If we take shortcuts, in the end, [we will be at a loss] without practicing our critical thinking […] and technical skills on our own,” he explained.

Meanwhile, Carl* (3 BS ME) felt that the new policy is not beneficial to the University’s academic community, as it merely reiterates rules and consequences that most people already know about due to similar discussions in social media and online articles.

However, both believe that the policy is a “stepping stone” and a step forward in establishing guidelines for the use of GenAI technology.

AI in the academe

With AI’s current use in the academe, Quantitative Methods and Information Technology Instructor Kerish Villegas noted that it becomes a challenge to develop course assessments that account for AI availability while ensuring that students still learn the fundamentals of the course.

Given these varied approaches to AI usage in education, Villegas suggested that the policy could adapt to this problem by removing ambiguity in using AI and including a common policy across all teachers regarding the acceptable level of AI use for students.

“Once we get through that, teachers can undergo training on [how to] design [courses] and [assessments to satisfy] the goal of not hindering [creativity] and also not removing the personal component of [students’ outputs],” Villegas explained.

Likewise, Carl also proposed having a course or discussion for students to learn how the policies may be applied in a practical sense instead of relying on a theoretical basis.

*Editor’s Note: The name of the interviewee has been changed to protect their identity and privacy.