← 政策图谱Atlas 申请环节Admissions 学生规范Guidelines
No.01 / 52 · 52 所大学 AI 使用政策比较研究No.01 of 52 · AI Use Policies at 52 Universities

Stanford

Stanford University斯坦福大学

来源层级 · 校级通用Source level · University-wide 7 / 12 项有明文规定7 of 12 provisions addressed 采集于 2026-08-21Accessed 2026-08-21 申请环节 · AI 明文仅见于研究生Admissions · Graduate programmes only

ai.policy.nestudy.cn/Stanford

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.

Absent a clear statement from a course instructor, use of or consultation with generative AI shall be treated analogously to assistance from another person.

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

十二项条款The twelve provisions

7 / 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?

等同他人协助Treated as outside help
Absent a clear statement from a course instructor, use of or consultation with generative AI shall be treated analogously to assistance from another person.

编码说明CODING NOTEWith no course statement, AI is treated like help from another person; using it to substantially complete an assignment or exam is not permitted.

52 校中 7 所与此相同 · 该条主流口径：默认禁止（19/45）7 of 52 take this position · most common: Prohibited by default (19/45)

↓ 在原文中的位置↓ Where it appears in the source在图谱中与其他学校对照 ↗Compare with the others in the atlas ↗

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
Individual course instructors are free to set their own policies regulating the use of generative AI tools in their courses, including allowing or disallowing some or all uses of such tools.

编码说明CODING NOTEInstructors may allow or disallow any or all uses; the default rule applies only absent a clear course statement.

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)

↓ 在原文中的位置↓ Where it appears in the source在图谱中与其他学校对照 ↗Compare with the others in the atlas ↗

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?

非正式分类Informal categories主流口径MOST COMMON
In particular, using generative AI tools to substantially complete an assignment or exam (e.g. by entering exam or assignment questions) is not permitted. Students should acknowledge the use of generative AI (other than incidental use) and default to disclosing such assistance when in doubt.

编码说明CODING NOTENo named ladder, but the text distinguishes substantial completion (barred), incidental use (no acknowledgement), and other use (acknowledge).

52 校中 15 所与此相同 · 该条主流口径：非正式分类（15/20）15 of 52 take this position · most common: Informal categories (15/20)

↓ 在原文中的位置↓ Where it appears in the source在图谱中与其他学校对照 ↗Compare with the others in the atlas ↗
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?

存疑即披露Default to disclosing
Students should acknowledge the use of generative AI (other than incidental use) and default to disclosing such assistance when in doubt.

编码说明CODING NOTEPhrased with should, not must; incidental use is carved out, and doubt resolves toward disclosing.

52 校中 1 所与此相同 · 该条主流口径：强制披露（20/46）1 of 52 take this position · most common: Required (20/46)

↓ 在原文中的位置↓ Where it appears in the source在图谱中与其他学校对照 ↗Compare with the others in the atlas ↗

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?

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 33 所同样未作表述33 of 52 are likewise silent

在图谱中与其他学校对照 ↗Compare with the others in the atlas ↗
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?

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 14 所同样未作表述14 of 52 are likewise silent

在图谱中与其他学校对照 ↗Compare with the others in the atlas ↗

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?

学术不端Academic integrity violation主流口径MOST COMMON
to set clear guidelines to students about what uses are and are not consistent with the Stanford Honor Code, the BCA has set forth policy guidance regarding generative AI in the context of coursework.

编码说明CODING NOTEFramed as Honor Code consistency under the conduct board; the operative test is the analogy to assistance from another person. Plagiarism is never named.

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

↓ 在原文中的位置↓ Where it appears in the source在图谱中与其他学校对照 ↗Compare with the others in the atlas ↗

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?

须提前告知后方可使用Permitted with advance notice
OCS recommends course instructors provide clear advance notice that they may use detection software to review work submitted for use of generative AI.

编码说明CODING NOTEAdvance notice is recommended to instructors, not required; no limit is stated on how detector output may be used as evidence.

52 校中 1 所与此相同 · 该条主流口径：不得作为唯一或主要证据（8/14）1 of 52 take this position · most common: Not sole or primary evidence (8/14)

↓ 在原文中的位置↓ Where it appears in the source在图谱中与其他学校对照 ↗Compare with the others in the atlas ↗
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

在图谱中与其他学校对照 ↗Compare with the others in the atlas ↗

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

在图谱中与其他学校对照 ↗Compare with the others in the atlas ↗
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
While these tools have applications that foster student learning and understanding, these tools can also be used in ways that bypass key learning objectives.

编码说明CODING NOTERules are justified by the risk that AI use bypasses key learning objectives, while granting the tools can support learning.

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)

↓ 在原文中的位置↓ Where it appears in the source在图谱中与其他学校对照 ↗Compare with the others in the atlas ↗

补充信息Further detail

要求披露的内容What must be disclosed

使用范围与程度Extent of use

申请环节的 AI 政策AI in the application

admissions/01-Stanford.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 AI 明文仅核实于研究生/特定项目Explicit AI rules verified only for graduate or specific programmes

本科文书页要求本人措辞与真实声音，但本次未核验到本科专门 AI 使用细则。研究生指南提醒慎用生成式 AI；GSB MBA 禁止他人或工具代写，均不得外推至本科。

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 Short, verbatim English excerpts from live official webpages; whitespace and layout may be normalized. Chinese analysis is separate. Saved readable source bodies may retain some menus or comments; URL and retrieval metadata are in research/group1.json, not inserted into source text.
  • 适用范围Scope note Undergraduate application writing is the primary scope. Graduate personal-statement advice and Stanford GSB MBA rules appear only as explicitly scoped supplements; neither is an undergraduate rule.
  • 证据状态Evidence status graduate-only-ai — undergraduate authenticity guidance verified; explicit generative-AI advice verified only in the graduate guide, with a separate MBA person-or-tool ghostwriting rule.
  • 校内 AI 政策原文Original campus-AI source file 01-Stanford.md (separate scope; not an admissions rule).
  • 用途说明Use note 本文件供来源比较与核验，不构成学校新增规定；未说明不代表许可。

关键发现（中文）

  • 本科申请文书应以自己的话介绍自己，并保留真实声音；这是可核验的真实性要求，不是逐项列出的 AI 禁用或许可清单。[S1]
  • 在本科文书页、申请状态 FAQ 及定向检索范围内，未取得明确说明 AI 头脑风暴、语法检查、翻译或生成文书的本科专门规则。不能把未找到解释为许可。[S1][S2]
  • 人文与科学学院的研究生申请指南明确提醒慎用生成式 AI，以免陈述不忠于本人经历；其措辞是审慎建议，不是全面禁止，也没有“只允许头脑风暴”的清单。[S3]
  • GSB MBA 文书规则禁止由另一人或工具代写，可能拒绝申请或撤销录取；允许他人指出错误，由申请人自己修改并保留思想、声音与风格。这不是本科规则，也不是禁止一切 AI 辅助。[S4]

Official sources

1. [S1] Application and Essays

  • 官方来源Official source https://admission.stanford.edu/apply/first-year/apply.html
  • 发布单位Issuing unit Stanford Undergraduate Admission
  • 页面日期Page date 2026-07-21 (explicit page update/publication date)
  • 适用范围Scope undergraduate
  • 来源性质Authority kind official-advice
  • 采集时间Retrieved 2026-09-24T23:06:33+08:00; full-text (ordinary public HTTP request)

[S1-Q1]

The essays are your chance to tell us about yourself in your own words; there are no right or wrong answers and you should allow your genuine voice to come through.

中文说明：本科官方申请说明。原文直接强调自己的措辞与真实声音，没有出现 AI、ChatGPT 或生成式 AI 的用途细则。页面明确显示更新时间 July 21, 2026 8:47 AM；这不是独立 AI 政策的生效日。

2. [S2] Application Status FAQ

  • 官方来源Official source https://admission.stanford.edu/apply/first-year/submitted.html
  • 发布单位Issuing unit Stanford Undergraduate Admission
  • 页面日期Page date 2026-09-11 (explicit page update/publication date)
  • 适用范围Scope undergraduate
  • 来源性质Authority kind policy
  • 采集时间Retrieved 2026-09-24T23:06:34+08:00; full-text (ordinary public HTTP request)

[S2-Q1]

We do not add supplementary materials like writing samples, research papers, or other special work to your application file, and we do not offer an option for applicants to upload supplementary materials to their file.

中文说明：本科 FAQ 是补查范围记录；所引段落说明研究论文等补充材料的处理，不是 AI 使用规范。不要由这段话推断 Stanford 不存在另外规定的艺术作品集渠道。页面明确显示更新时间 September 11, 2026 9:11 AM。

3. [S3] Writing Your Personal Statements

[S3-Q1]

Think very carefully about the use of generative AI (artificial intelligence) bots, as these may lead to statements that are not authentic to your own experiences.

中文说明：本页属于 Guide on Getting Into Grad School，面向研究生申请准备；只提醒 AI 可能损害经历真实性。不能把 “Think very carefully” 改写成 “禁止生成式 AI”。

4. [S4] Essays — MBA Application

  • 官方来源Official source https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/programs/mba/admission/application/essays
  • 发布单位Issuing unit Stanford Graduate School of Business
  • 页面日期Page date not stated
  • 适用范围Scope graduate (MBA; includes MBA/MSx joint applicants)
  • 来源性质Authority kind policy
  • 采集时间Retrieved 2026-09-24T23:06:33+08:00; full-text (ordinary public HTTP request)

[S4-Q1]

Appropriate feedback occurs when others review your completed application — perhaps once or twice — and apprise you of omissions, errors, or inaccuracies that you later correct or address. After editing is complete, your thoughts, voice, and style remain intact.

[S4-Q2]

Inappropriate coaching occurs when you allow others to craft any part of your application for you and, as a result, your application or self-presentation is not authentic.

[S4-Q3]

It is improper and a violation of the terms of this application process to have another person or tool write your essays. Such behavior may result in denial of your application or revocation of your admission.

中文说明：本页是 GSB MBA 的正式申请要求，也提到 MBA/MSx 联合申请者；未据此覆盖所有独立 MSx 项目或其他研究生院。工具代写被明文禁止，但页面并未点名 AI，也未逐项宣布语法检查或构思工具禁用。

Permitted / prohibited / not stated（按用途）

  • 本科明确允许的 AI 用途：本次核验材料未逐项说明。
  • 本科真实性边界：用本人措辞、保留真实声音；没有足够依据将其标记为“本科全面禁用 AI”。[S1]
  • 本科未说明：AI 构思、提纲、语法/拼写、翻译、改写、科研工作中的 AI、AI 披露及专门处罚。FAQ 对研究论文等补充材料的处理另见 [S2]。
  • 仅研究生补充：H&S 提醒慎用生成式 AI；MBA 允许保留本人思想和声音的反馈，不允许他人或工具代写，可能拒录或撤销录取。AI 语法检查、翻译等细项在这些来源中也未单独规定。[S3][S4]

Research limitations

  • “未核验到本科专门规则”仅指本次公开页面与检索范围，不等于学校没有其他要求，也不等于允许 AI。未登录申请系统查看提交时认证。
  • 研究生指南及 GSB MBA 条款不能作为 Stanford 全校、本科或所有研究生项目的 AI 规则。
  • Stanford 在校课程 Honor Code/生成式 AI 指南、AI4ALL 夏校页面和学生创业工具新闻不作为本科招生证据。
  • 来源全文以普通公开 HTTP 请求取得；保存可读正文时可能保留部分菜单。文中短引文与本地正文逐条匹配。
Search log
  • 检索日期Research date 2026-09-24, Asia/Shanghai. Search results were leads only; findings above are based on retrieved official body text.
  1. 检索Query site.admission.stanford.edu application essays "AI"
    • 结果Result 以本科招生域名检索文书 AI 条款；最终核验 Application and Essays [S1]。
  2. 检索Query site.admission.stanford.edu "artificial intelligence" OR "ChatGPT" OR "own work"
    • 结果Result 第二组本科专门检索；未取得可核验的本科 AI 用途细则，续查 FAQ。
  3. 检索Query Stanford undergraduate admissions FAQ application essays ChatGPT authenticity
    • 结果Result 定位本科文书页面及二手线索；直接访问 Application Status FAQ [S2]，二手结论未作证据。
  4. 检索Query site.stanford.edu "personal statements" "generative AI"
    • 结果Result 找到并全文核验研究生指南 [S3]，明确限定研究生范围。
  5. 检索Query site.gsb.stanford.edu "another person or tool" essays
    • 结果Result 找到并全文核验 GSB MBA 文书要求 [S4]。
  6. 检索Query Stanford undergraduate application AI ChatGPT "admission.stanford.edu"
    • 结果Result 补查本科申请、夏校和新闻混杂结果；未把夏校或学生工具新闻当作本科政策。

官方原文The official text

univ/01-Stanford.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 Relevant policy text extracted from the official Stanford webpage; navigation and unrelated conduct guidance removed. Wording is retained; layout may differ from the webpage.
  • 适用范围Scope note Central Board on Conduct Affairs guidance for coursework under Stanford’s Honor Code; instructors still define permitted use for their courses.
  • 用途说明Use note This is source material for comparison, not a translation or the school’s final high-school policy.

Generative AI Policy Guidance

To give sufficient space for instructors to explore uses of generative AI tools in their courses, and to set clear guidelines to students about what uses are and are not consistent with the Stanford Honor Code, the BCA has set forth policy guidance regarding generative AI in the context of coursework.违规定性Integrity framing

As part of the BCA’s guidance on clear communication of a course’s generative AI policy, OCS recommends course instructors provide clear advance notice that they may use detection software to review work submitted for use of generative AI.检测器证据Detector evidence

If you are in doubt about whether a generative AI source (or any source) is permitted aid in the context of a particular assignment, talk with the instructor.

The Board on Conduct Affairs (BCA) has been asked to address the Honor Code implications of generative AI tools such as ChatGPT, Bard, DALL-E, and Stable Diffusion. These are novel tools, and both students and instructors have been experimenting with their use in academic settings.

While these tools have applications that foster student learning and understanding, these tools can also be used in ways that bypass key learning objectives.学习理由Learning rationale

To give sufficient space for instructors to explore uses of generative AI tools in their courses, and to set clear guidelines to students about what uses are and are not consistent with the Stanford Honor Code, the BCA has set forth the following policy guidance regarding generative AI in the context of coursework:

Absent a clear statement from a course instructor, use of or consultation with generative AI shall be treated analogously to assistance from another person.默认规则Default rule摘录Excerpt In particular, using generative AI tools to substantially complete an assignment or exam (e.g. by entering exam or assignment questions) is not permitted. Students should acknowledge the use of generative AI (other than incidental use) and default to disclosing such assistance when in doubt.披露要求Disclosure分级许可Tiered scale

Individual course instructors are free to set their own policies regulating the use of generative AI tools in their courses, including allowing or disallowing some or all uses of such tools.课程规则优先Instructor override Course instructors should set such policies in their course syllabi and clearly communicate such policies to students. Students who are unsure of policies regarding generative AI tools are encouraged to ask their instructors for clarification.

The BCA will continue to monitor developments in these tools and their use in academic settings and may update this guidance. Members of the community are encouraged to contact the BCA to provide input, suggestions, and comments on this policy.