← 政策图谱Atlas 申请环节Admissions 学生规范Guidelines
No.29 / 52 · 52 所大学 AI 使用政策比较研究No.29 of 52 · AI Use Policies at 52 Universities

UC San Diego

University of California San Diego加州大学圣地亚哥分校

来源层级 · 校级通用Source level · University-wide 10 / 12 项有明文规定10 of 12 provisions addressed 采集于 2026-08-29Accessed 2026-08-29 申请环节 · UC 系统共同规定Admissions · UC system (shared source)

ai.policy.nestudy.cn/UCSD

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.

Students should apply human judgment and ensure that AI supports rather than replaces the thinking or skill being assessed.

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

十二项条款The twelve provisions

10 / 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?

默认禁止Prohibited by default主流口径MOST COMMON
The binding policy expects individually assigned work to be completed without unauthorized aid. The AI-literacy guidance emphasizes that course expectations and the learning objectives of an assessment matter; prohibited or unauthorized aid may constitute cheating.

编码说明CODING NOTEBinding floor bars unauthorized aid on individual work, and unauthorized aid is tied to possible cheating; no universal campus AI permission rule is stated.

52 校中 19 所与此相同 · 该条主流口径：默认禁止（19/45）19 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?

教师可定但有底线Instructor rules within limits主流口径MOST COMMON
Students must follow the instructor’s disclosure or citation requirements and should not assume that citing AI makes otherwise unauthorized assistance acceptable.

编码说明CODING NOTEInstructor rules govern disclosure and citation, but citing AI cannot legitimize assistance the integrity policy treats as unauthorized.

52 校中 33 所与此相同 · 该条主流口径：教师可定但有底线（33/45）33 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?

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

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?

依课程而定Course dependent
The reviewed campus sources do not prescribe one university-wide AI citation formula. Students must follow the instructor’s disclosure or citation requirements

编码说明CODING NOTENo campus-wide citation format; the duty and its form are set by each instructor.

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)

↓ 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?

一般性提醒General caution
UC San Diego frames AI literacy as the ability to evaluate output origins, bias, limitations, accuracy, and broader ethical implications.

编码说明CODING NOTEAccuracy and bias appear as AI-literacy competencies; the accompanying human-judgment language is phrased as should, not a duty.

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)

↓ 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 ↗

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
The AI-literacy guidance emphasizes that course expectations and the learning objectives of an assessment matter; prohibited or unauthorized aid may constitute cheating.

编码说明CODING NOTEUnauthorized aid is framed as possibly constituting cheating; the wording is may constitute, not an automatic classification.

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?

质疑其可靠性Reliability questioned
The AI-literacy page warns that purported AI detectors may be falsely treated as valid and accurate. The reviewed sources do not establish a detector score as reliable proof under the academic-integrity policy.

编码说明CODING NOTEWarns detectors may be wrongly assumed valid; the file records the absence of a stated adjudication limit rather than an explicit one.

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)

↓ 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?

一般性提醒General caution
Because the reviewed student pages do not state one detailed universal upload rule, users must follow applicable data classifications, copyright, course rules, and platform terms and avoid uploading material they lack authority to share.

编码说明CODING NOTENo universal upload rule; users are pointed to applicable data classifications and told not to upload material they lack authority to share.

52 校中 9 所与此相同 · 该条主流口径：禁止上传受限数据（20/31）9 of 52 take this position · most common: Restricted data prohibited (20/31)

↓ 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 ↗

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?

提供机构版工具Institution-provided tool主流口径MOST COMMON
UC San Diego promotes supported platforms evaluated under UC information-security, communications, export-control, and FERPA requirements. TritonGPT is hosted on campus infrastructure so the university maintains control of its data.

编码说明CODING NOTETritonGPT is campus-hosted, and supported platforms are vetted against UC security, export-control, and FERPA requirements.

52 校中 19 所与此相同 · 该条主流口径：提供机构版工具（19/24）19 of 52 take this position · most common: Institution-provided tool (19/24)

↓ 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 ↗
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
Students should apply human judgment and ensure that AI supports rather than replaces the thinking or skill being assessed.

编码说明CODING NOTERules are tied to protecting the thinking or skill an assessment targets, though stated as should.

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 ↗

申请环节的 AI 政策AI in the application

admissions/29-UC-San-Diego.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 UC 系统本科 AI 规则/指导（共同来源）UC system undergraduate AI rules and guidance (a shared source, not a campus policy)

UC 系统声明允许 AI 辅助可读性，要求 PIQ 由本人独立写作、内容和最终文字属于本人；2026–27 first-year 指南另提早期构思/整理，须保留本人作品与声音。有真实性核验和虚假申请后果，非 UCSD 独有规则。

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; per-source retrieval timestamps are ISO 8601 UTC).
  • 格式说明Format note Exact English excerpts are separate from Chinese summaries. Whitespace is normalized; wording is retained. Local snapshots retain visible text (including some navigation) for validation. Blocked responses are not policy evidence.
  • 适用范围Scope note S1为UC全系统本科申请诚信声明，适用于UC申请（包括UC San Diego），非UCSD独立校区AI政策；S2为UCSD本科入口；S3为UC系统官方说明。
  • 证据状态Evidence status uc-system-ai-guidance — UC全系统本科申请诚信声明允许内容/编辑建议及生成式AI辅助可读性，但PIQ须由学生独立写作，内容和最终文字必须属于本人；声明列出真实性核验及虚假申请处罚。
  • 校内／课程指导（非招生政策）Original campus/course guidance (not admissions policy) 29-UC-San-Diego.md

中文结论 / Findings

  • 系统诚信声明允许内容和编辑建议，包括AI辅助可读性；同时要求PIQ体现本人想法经历、由本人独立写作，内容和最终文字属于本人。[S1]
  • UC可能要求证明内容/文字为本人；一般虚假申请可导致拒录、撤销录取、取消注册、开除或撤销学位，不是任何AI使用都会受罚。[S1]
  • UCSD本科申请要求页列明PIQ要求，并在申请说明中提及UC Application；这里明确标示UC全系统诚信声明，不冒称UCSD独有AI规则。[S1][S2]
  • UC官方新闻区分工具辅助与完全AI生成回答，并说未注明来源的AI生成PIQ可能导致失去UC录取考虑资格；主要规则仍取自诚信声明。[S3]

Official sources and source text

[S1] Statement of Application Integrity

  • 发布单位Publisher University of California (UC application system)
  • 链接URL https://apply.universityofcalifornia.edu/docs/StatementOfIntegrity.pdf
  • 页面日期Page date 2023-08 — PDF footer: Last updated August 2023.
  • 适用范围Scope undergraduate-system-wide
  • 来源性质Authority policy
  • 采集方式Retrieval full-text; HTTP 200; 2026-09-24T15:07:00.249946+00:00

[S1-Q1] PIQ authorship, AI readability and verification

The personal insight responses should reflect the student’s own ideas and experiences, be independently written by the student and reflect the student’s personal writing style. Students may receive advice on content and editing, including the use of generative artificial intelligence software to assist with readability, but content and final written text must be their own. Students must not plagiarize or copy from sources in print or online nor use any other person’s words or published works. UC conducts regular screenings to verify the integrity of the responses, may request authentication of the content or writing as the student’s, and will take action when it is determined that the integrity of the response is compromised.

[S1-Q2] general falsification penalties

Students found to have falsified application information will be subject to penalties up to and including denial of admission, withdrawal of an admission offer, registration cancellation, expulsion or revocation of a University of California degree.

[S2] First-Year Student Application Requirements

  • 发布单位Publisher UC San Diego Admissions
  • 链接URL https://admissions.ucsd.edu/first-year/application-requirements.html
  • 页面日期Page date not stated / not verified — Not stated.
  • 适用范围Scope undergraduate
  • 来源性质Authority official-admissions-instructions
  • 采集方式Retrieval full-text; HTTP 200; 2026-09-24T15:07:00.407128+00:00

[S2-Q1] UC San Diego undergraduate PIQ requirement

The personal insight questions are about getting to know you better – your life experience, interests, ambitions and inspirations. This is your opportunity to tell us who you are, what’s important to you and the contributions you would make to the UC San Diego Triton community. You must answer 4 out of 8 questions. Each answer is limited to 350 words.

[S3] How the University of California evaluates student applications

[S3-Q1] system explanation and qualification

And, while using AI as a tool is one thing, using a completely AI-generated answer is another — and one that is equivalent to academic dishonesty. UC runs plagiarism checks on applications, and if your PIQs are found to have been generated by AI with unattributed sources, you could be disqualified from UC admission entirely.

[S4] Frequently Asked Questions

  • 发布单位Publisher UC San Diego Admissions
  • 链接URL https://admissions.ucsd.edu/faq/index.html
  • 页面日期Page date not stated — Not stated.
  • 适用范围Scope undergraduate
  • 来源性质Authority official-faq
  • 采集方式Retrieval full-text; HTTP 200; 2026-09-24T15:17:51.755158+00:00

本页用于校区FAQ范围核查；未提取AI政策性引文。

[S5] Planning Ahead

  • 发布单位Publisher UC San Diego Admissions
  • 链接URL https://admissions.ucsd.edu/first-year/planning-ahead.html
  • 页面日期Page date not stated — Not stated.
  • 适用范围Scope undergraduate
  • 来源性质Authority official-advice
  • 采集方式Retrieval full-text; HTTP 200; 2026-09-24T15:17:53.648318+00:00

[S5-Q1] campus advice to plan, write, review and seek trusted-adult feedback

Give yourself plenty of time to plan, write, review and get feedback from trusted adults.

中文归纳（与原文分开）

UC全系统本科申请诚信声明允许内容/编辑建议及生成式AI辅助可读性，但PIQ须由学生独立写作，内容和最终文字必须属于本人；声明列出真实性核验及虚假申请处罚。

可用 / Permitted or positively advised

内容与编辑建议，以及AI辅助提升可读性；前提为独立写作、内容和最终文字仍属于本人。[S1]

另见共享系统资料 UC5-Q1：UC 2026–27 first-year 申请指南正面提及 AI 辅助早期构思、整理本人思路，前提是最终 PIQ 保持本人作品与声音。这是 UC 系统指导，不是 UCSD 独有许可，也不自动扩展到转学或专项申请。

禁止或不建议 / Prohibited or discouraged

抄袭/复制印刷或在线来源、使用他人文字或已出版作品，以及虚假申请；完全AI生成回答不符合独立写作和本人最终文字要求。[S1][S3]

未明确 / Not stated or not verified

未逐项明确 AI 提纲、翻译或大幅改写许可，没有通用披露格式、检测阈值或软件名单；不能把 readability 扩大为代写或翻译授权。早期构思/整理已有共享 first-year 指导，见上节 UC5-Q1，不属于本次未说明项。

Search log

检索日：2026-09-24。搜索结果用于发现来源；只有成功实时取得的正文支持已核验规则。

  • 检索Query site:admissions.ucsd.edu "AI" application
    • 结果Result 未找到校区独立本科AI细则；核验其申请入口与PIQ要求。
  • 检索Query University California San Diego application personal insight AI artificial intelligence policy
    • 结果Result 定位并核验UC系统官方解释性报道。
  • 检索Query University California application statement integrity "generative artificial"
    • 结果Result 发现官方StatementOfIntegrity.pdf；下载后用pypdf提取核验AI辅助readability及本人最终文字条款。
  • 检索Query site:admissions.ucsd.edu "artificial intelligence" "personal insight"
    • 结果Result 追加校区定向检索；核验UCSD FAQ与Planning Ahead，未在正文找到AI专项措辞，后者提供真人反馈建议。
  • 检索Query UC San Diego undergraduate admissions ChatGPT AI personal insight essay guidance
    • 结果Result 结果主要指向既有校区PIQ要求、UC系统材料和二手网站；没有新增可验证的UCSD校区独立AI规则。二手网站关于披露/检测的断言未采用。

Limitations

  • 系统声明页尾为Last updated August 2023，是本次仍在线的官方PDF，不假定最近重新颁布。
  • AI具体段落针对PIQ；全申请真实性与PIQ专门规则的范围不可混同。
  • S3是系统官方新闻解释，不是独立校区规则；保留generated by AI with unattributed sources等限定。
  • Common App等平台由主项目另行处理；这里保留UC系统自身申请声明并标为system-wide。
  • 未说明不等于允许；本科、研究生、校区/学院与招生官建议的适用范围和效力不可相互替代。
  • 追加检查UCSD官方FAQ与Planning Ahead，只核验到一般申请和真人反馈建议，未发现校区独立AI细则；系统新材料由主项目共享补充，不标为UCSD独立政策。

官方原文The official text

univ/29-UC-San-Diego.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 2026-08-29
  • 格式说明Format note Concise, source-grounded summaries from official UC San Diego webpages; navigation removed.
  • 适用范围Scope note The Academic Integrity Policy is binding but not AI-specific. The Academic Integrity Office/Teaching + Learning Commons page provides AI-literacy guidance rather than one universal campus AI permission rule. Campus IT information addresses supported technology and security.
  • 用途说明Use note Source material for comparison and later high-school adaptation.

Official sources

  1. UC San Diego Academic Integrity Policy
  2. Artificial Intelligence in Education
  3. UC San Diego’s Support of AI

Course permission and academic integrity

The binding policy expects individually assigned work to be completed without unauthorized aid. The AI-literacy guidance emphasizes that course expectations and the learning objectives of an assessment matter; prohibited or unauthorized aid may constitute cheating.默认规则Default rule违规定性Integrity framing

The reviewed campus sources do not prescribe one university-wide AI citation formula. Students must follow the instructor’s disclosure or citation requirements披露要求Disclosure and should not assume that citing AI makes otherwise unauthorized assistance acceptable.课程规则优先Instructor override

AI literacy, verification, and responsibility

UC San Diego frames AI literacy as the ability to evaluate output origins, bias, limitations, accuracy, and broader ethical implications.核实责任Verification duty Students should apply human judgment and ensure that AI supports rather than replaces the thinking or skill being assessed.学习理由Learning rationale摘录Excerpt

Privacy and intellectual property

UC San Diego promotes supported platforms evaluated under UC information-security, communications, export-control, and FERPA requirements. TritonGPT is hosted on campus infrastructure so the university maintains control of its data.机构工具Institutional tools Because the reviewed student pages do not state one detailed universal upload rule, users must follow applicable data classifications, copyright, course rules, and platform terms and avoid uploading material they lack authority to share知识产权IP & copyright.数据与隐私Data & privacy

AI detection

The AI-literacy page warns that purported AI detectors may be falsely treated as valid and accurate. The reviewed sources do not establish a detector score as reliable proof under the academic-integrity policy.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

  • Ask whether AI would perform the skill being assessed and whether the teacher has explicitly allowed it.
  • Preserve student ownership of the reasoning and work being assessed.
  • Teach bias, hallucination, source checking, and responsible tool selection.
  • Prefer school-approved platforms and prohibit confidential or unlicensed uploads.
  • Treat detector scores as unreliable indicators, not findings of misconduct.