← 政策图谱Atlas 申请环节Admissions 学生规范Guidelines
No.21 / 52 · 52 所大学 AI 使用政策比较研究No.21 of 52 · AI Use Policies at 52 Universities

Carnegie Mellon

Carnegie Mellon University卡内基梅隆大学

来源层级 · 面向教师Source level · Instructor-facing 8 / 12 项有明文规定8 of 12 provisions addressed 采集于 2026-08-21Accessed 2026-08-21 申请环节 · 本科 AI 官方指导Admissions · Official undergraduate guidance

原文摘录Excerpt

选取标准:对高中读者最具引用价值的一句原文。Selected as the sentence most quotable for a high-school reader.

The page warns that ChatGPT may sound convincing while being factually incorrect and cannot validate the information or sourcing it has generated.

↓ 在原文中的位置↓ Where it appears in the source

十二项条款The twelve provisions

8 / 12

每项附该校原文中的依据语句,以及图谱 52 校中持同一立场的校数。颜色越深,规定越明确、越具约束力(不代表优劣);斜纹表示该来源未作表述。Each provision gives the supporting sentence and how many of the 52 universities in the atlas take the same position. Darker means more explicit and binding (not better); hatching means the source does not address it.

许可Permission使用许可由谁决定who decides whether AI may be used

默认规则Default rule

Default rule默认规则

作业未说明可否使用 AI 时,适用何种规则?When an assignment says nothing about AI, what applies?

交由教师决定Instructor decides, no default
The university policy intentionally allows instructors to define what is authorized or unauthorized and what constitutes plagiarism or cheating.

编码说明CODING NOTENo institutional fallback is stated; the university policy delegates authorization and the definition of plagiarism or cheating to instructors.

52 校中 14 所与此相同 · 该条主流口径:默认禁止(19/45)14 of 52 take this position · most common: Prohibited by default (19/45)

课程规则优先Instructor override

Instructor override课程规则优先

任课教师的规定是否优先于校级规定?Does an instructor's rule take precedence over the institution's?

课程规则优先Course rule supersedes
The university policy intentionally allows instructors to define what is authorized or unauthorized and what constitutes plagiarism or cheating.

编码说明CODING NOTEThe university policy deliberately hands definition of authorized/unauthorized use, plagiarism and cheating to instructors.

52 校中 12 所与此相同 · 该条主流口径:教师可定但有底线(33/45)12 of 52 take this position · most common: Instructor rules within limits (33/45)

分级许可Tiered scale

Tiered scale分级许可

是否设有分级的使用许可框架?Is there a graduated permission framework?

未作表述Not addressed

本项目采集的官方来源未就此条款作出表述;这不代表该校没有相关规定。The official source collected here does not address this provision; this does not mean the university has no rule on it.

52 校中 32 所同样未作表述32 of 52 are likewise silent

透明Transparency使用后须说明的内容what must be declared after use

披露要求Disclosure

Disclosure披露要求

使用 AI 是否须予披露?为强制还是建议?Must AI use be disclosed, and is that required or recommended?

依课程而定Course dependent
One model permits AI but requires the student to cite the tool’s contribution, include the specific version, and provide the exact prompt and full response in an appendix.

编码说明CODING NOTECitation duty comes from course policy; CMU only recommends that policies specify how to cite, and offers one model policy that requires it.

52 校中 14 所与此相同 · 该条主流口径:强制披露(20/46)14 of 52 take this position · most common: Required (20/46)

过程留证Process evidence

Process evidence过程留证

是否须保留草稿、提示词或编辑历史?Must drafts, prompts or edit history be kept?

建议留证Recommended主流口径MOST COMMON
One model permits AI but requires the student to cite the tool’s contribution, include the specific version, and provide the exact prompt and full response in an appendix.

编码说明CODING NOTETool, version, prompt and full response in an appendix appear as example course-policy language, binding only if an instructor adopts that model.

52 校中 18 所与此相同 · 该条主流口径:建议留证(18/19)18 of 52 take this position · most common: Recommended (18/19)

责任Accountability错误与违规的责任归属responsibility for errors and violations

核实责任Verification duty

Verification duty核实责任

AI 输出有误或虚构引注时,由谁负责?Who is responsible when AI output is wrong or a citation is invented?

一般性提醒General caution
The page warns that ChatGPT may sound convincing while being factually incorrect and cannot validate the information or sourcing it has generated.

编码说明CODING NOTEThe page warns ChatGPT can sound convincing but be wrong; a duty to assess validity appears only inside optional model course-policy language.

52 校中 11 所与此相同 · 该条主流口径:须自行核实(17/38)11 of 52 take this position · most common: Verification required (17/38)

违规定性Integrity framing

Integrity framing违规定性

违规使用在纪律体系中如何定性?How is a violation classified in the disciplinary system?

未授权协助Unauthorized assistance
CMU’s Academic Integrity Policy already implicitly covers generative AI because it may be unauthorized assistance.

编码说明CODING NOTEFramed as possible unauthorized assistance under the Academic Integrity Policy; whether it is a violation depends on instructor authorization.

52 校中 3 所与此相同 · 该条主流口径:学术不端(28/44)3 of 52 take this position · most common: Academic integrity violation (28/44)

检测器证据Detector evidence

Detector evidence检测器证据

AI 检测工具的结果能否作为证据?Can AI-detection results be used as evidence?

质疑其可靠性Reliability questioned
The FAQ also cautions that AI detection is extremely limited and enforcement may be difficult and unreliable.

编码说明CODING NOTEDetection is called extremely limited and enforcement unreliable; no rule about detector output as evidence in adjudication.

52 校中 5 所与此相同 · 该条主流口径:不得作为唯一或主要证据(8/14)5 of 52 take this position · most common: Not sole or primary evidence (8/14)

边界Boundaries数据、版权与工具的限制limits on data, copyright and tools

数据与隐私Data & privacy

Data & privacy数据与隐私

哪些内容不得输入 AI 工具?What must not be entered into an AI tool?

未作表述Not addressed

本项目采集的官方来源未就此条款作出表述;这不代表该校没有相关规定。The official source collected here does not address this provision; this does not mean the university has no rule on it.

52 校中 21 所同样未作表述21 of 52 are likewise silent

机构工具Institutional tools

Institutional tools机构工具

学校是否指定或提供 AI 工具?Does the institution designate or provide AI tools?

未作表述Not addressed

本项目采集的官方来源未就此条款作出表述;这不代表该校没有相关规定。The official source collected here does not address this provision; this does not mean the university has no rule on it.

52 校中 28 所同样未作表述28 of 52 are likewise silent

理由Rationale规则的依据the stated basis for the rules

学习理由Learning rationale

Learning rationale学习理由

规则是否以“不得绕过应习得的能力”为依据?Are the rules grounded in not bypassing the skills to be learned?

明确以学习目标为据Explicit learning-objective rationale主流口径MOST COMMON
why the rule supports the course’s learning objectives.

编码说明CODING NOTECMU recommends course policies explain why the AI rule supports the course's learning objectives, not just state a penalty.

52 校中 22 所与此相同 · 该条主流口径:明确以学习目标为据(22/37)22 of 52 take this position · most common: Explicit learning-objective rationale (22/37)

补充信息Further detail

要求披露的内容What must be disclosed

工具名称Tool name提示词PromptsAI 输出内容AI output正式引注Formal citation

申请环节的 AI 政策AI in the application

admissions/21-Carnegie-Mellon.md

该校招生办公室就申请人使用 AI 的公开表述,以本科新生申请为主。英文为逐字原文,中文为整理者的分析。证据状态描述找到了什么材料,不是宽严等级;未说明不代表允许。What this university's admissions office says about applicants using AI, chiefly for first-year undergraduate applications. English passages are verbatim; the Chinese is the collector's analysis. The evidence status describes what material was found, not how strict the rules are; silence does not mean permission.

证据状态Evidence status 本科申请 AI 官方指导/建议Official AI guidance or advice for undergraduate applicants

本科FAQ说明AI只能辅助:语法拼写检查、结构或词汇改进建议,不能替代个人声音、经历与表达,并提示抄袭风险;未列本科专项处罚。Heinz研究生文书另禁AI写任何部分,不得把研究生拒录后果泛化到本科。[S1][S2]

52 所大学对照 →All 52 compared →

来源信息Source information

  • 访问日期Accessed 2026-09-24 (Asia/Shanghai)
  • 格式说明Format note Official pages were live-fetched using ordinary requests GET. Readable UTF-8 text is preserved locally; navigation/scripts were removed where tagged, and layout/whitespace may differ. Short English excerpts retain the source wording and were checked after whitespace normalization.
  • 适用范围Scope note 本科Admission FAQ为主;Heinz College MS in AI Systems Management研究生要求仅作分项目补充。
  • 证据状态Evidence status undergraduate-advice-ai — 各来源分别标明政策/申请认证或官方建议,不以搜索空白推断许可。
  • 原研究参考Original reference ../21-Carnegie-Mellon.md(原在校AI使用资料,不代替申请规则)

中文要点

本科FAQ说明AI只能辅助:语法拼写检查、结构或词汇改进建议,不能替代个人声音、经历与表达,并提示抄袭风险;未列本科专项处罚。Heinz研究生文书另禁AI写任何部分,不得把研究生拒录后果泛化到本科。[S1][S2]

Official sources and exact excerpts

[S1] Admission FAQ — Undergraduate Admission

  • 发布单位Publisher Carnegie Mellon University, Office of Admission
  • 官方链接Official URL https://www.cmu.edu/admission/admission/admission-faq
  • 页面日期Page date Not stated
  • 适用对象Audience / scope 本科申请者;直接回答ChatGPT/AI组织补充文书及改善语言的问题 (undergraduate)
  • 来源性质Authority official-advice — 官方本科FAQ的规范性建议,不附独立处分程序。
  • 采集方式Retrieval full-text; ordinary GET returned HTTP 200. Accessed/saved: 2026-09-24T23:04:50+08:00

[S1-Q1] supplementary assistance only

AI should never replace your unique voice, experiences and personal expression and, if used at all, should only serve as a supplementary tool to enhance your writing (i.e., grammar and spelling checks, suggested structural or vocabulary improvements).

[S1-Q2] plagiarism risk; caution

Additionally, if the generated content closely resembles published work, there may be a risk of unintentional plagiarism. Carefully consider any and all risks when using generative AI for any part of your application.

[S2] Master of Science in AI Systems Management Application Process

  • 发布单位Publisher Carnegie Mellon University, Heinz College of Information Systems and Public Policy
  • 官方链接Official URL https://www.heinz.cmu.edu/programs/artificial-intelligence-masters/admissions-how-to-apply
  • 页面日期Page date Not stated
  • 适用对象Audience / scope Heinz College MS in AI Systems Management研究生申请者 (graduate)
  • 来源性质Authority policy — 仅是Heinz研究生项目申请页,不构成本科统一禁令或处罚。
  • 采集方式Retrieval full-text; ordinary GET returned HTTP 200. Accessed/saved: 2026-09-24T23:05:44+08:00

[S2-Q1] graduate essay self-authorship

Your essay should contain only true information and your own, original content. You should not use artificial intelligence (AI), such as ChatGPT, to write any portion of your essay.

[S2-Q2] graduate document verification; methods not specified

The Heinz College Office of Admissions utilizes several methods to identify plagiarized, AI-generated, and falsified content in uploaded documents.

[S2-Q3] graduate possible denial

Submission of false, plagiarized or AI-generated material as part of the application for admission may result in automatic denial of admission to any degree program.

中文解释(非原文)

本科证据归为官方招生建议,保留should/should never的强度,不伪装成已取得完整处罚规章。Heinz主文书/optional essay的规则更严格,属于研究生项目页面;其中any degree program的拒录用语不可移植为全CMU本科自动拒录承诺。

允许 / 禁止 / 未说明

  • 允许或认可的辅助:本科FAQ列举grammar/spelling checks、suggested structural or vocabulary improvements;仅作辅助、不得替代本人表达。[S1-Q1]
  • 禁止或反对的使用:本科用should never replace限制AI替代个人声音、经历与表达;Heinz研究生页面另明确不应用AI写文书任何部分。[S1-Q1][S2-Q1]
  • 未明确说明:本科AI翻译、独立头脑风暴、工具披露、比例阈值、检测及具体处罚均未列明,不能用研究生条款补齐。

检索与局限

实际执行的官方站点定向检索如下。摘要仅用于定位;规则结论均来自已取得的可读官方正文。

  • site:cmu.edu admission "AI" "essay" — 找到本科Admission FAQ与Heinz研究生申请页,分别核验范围。
  • site:cmu.edu admission "artificial intelligence" "application" "use" — 交叉定位申请相关说明,排除仅介绍学位/课程的AI内容;两页普通GET全文可读。

局限:

  • 本科FAQ以should/should never给出边界,没有AI专项处罚与检测流程。
  • 本科未明示翻译或实质改写许可;未提及不等于允许。
  • 研究生S2的拒录表述不得推及所有CMU本科申请者。
  • 两页未明确政策发布日期或更新时间。

“未说明”不代表允许。本次没有提交申请、创建申请账号、联系学校或修改原有大学资料/网站;未来申请周期、其他路径与院系仍须各自核对。

官方原文The official text

univ/21-Carnegie-Mellon.md

本项目采集的该校官方文本。图谱引用的语句已高亮,句末标签注明对应条款,点击可返回该条款。The official text collected for this university. Sentences the atlas cites are highlighted; the tag after each names the provision it supports and links back to it.

来源信息Source information

  • 访问日期Accessed 2026-08-21
  • 格式说明Format note Direct excerpts and concise, source-grounded summaries from official CMU teaching resources; navigation removed. Directly quoted wording is retained.
  • 适用范围Scope note The Eberly Center page is instructor-facing guidance grounded in CMU’s Academic Integrity Policy; instructors define authorized versus unauthorized assistance.
  • 用途说明Use note Source material for comparison and later high-school adaptation.

Generative AI Tools FAQ


CMU’s Academic Integrity Policy already implicitly covers generative AI because it may be unauthorized assistance.违规定性Integrity framing The university policy intentionally allows instructors to define what is authorized or unauthorized and what constitutes plagiarism or cheating.默认规则Default rule课程规则优先Instructor override

CMU recommends that course policies specify:

  • whether and when AI tools are authorized;
  • how students should cite assistance or AI-generated content and ideas; and
  • why the rule supports the course’s learning objectives.学习理由Learning rationale

Because students take courses with different rules, instructors should not assume that students can infer the correct rule. The resource advises discussing academic integrity early, giving examples, and inviting questions before work is due.

The page warns that ChatGPT may sound convincing while being factually incorrect and cannot validate the information or sourcing it has generated.摘录Excerpt核实责任Verification duty

Example course-policy language

One model permits AI but requires the student to cite the tool’s contribution, include the specific version, and provide the exact prompt and full response in an appendix.披露要求Disclosure过程留证Process evidence The student remains responsible for assessing the validity and applicability of output.

The FAQ also cautions that AI detection is extremely limited and enforcement may be difficult and unreliable.检测器证据Detector evidence

以下为整理者所写的高中适用要点,非该校原文,不作为任何条款的依据。Below: the collector’s notes on application to high school — not the university’s text, and not used as evidence for any provision.

High-school adaptation takeaways

  • Define authorized and unauthorized assistance separately for each course or assignment.
  • Explain the learning purpose behind restrictions rather than stating only a penalty.
  • When AI is allowed, consider requiring tool/version, prompt, output, and a description of student revision.
  • Students remain responsible for validating AI content; detector limitations should shape fair enforcement.