# The University of Sydney bars AI from determining marks for assessments that count, and holds human markers fully responsible

Page: https://flyvolo.ai/en/changes/ev-20230928-university-lecturer-11
Date: 2023-09-28 · Stage: Constraint
Can this record move a task judgement? yes
Occupation: https://flyvolo.ai/en/careers/university-lecturer

## Scope

Australia, one university. The post relays guidelines its executive education committee agreed to apply university-wide: for assessments that count towards the final grade, marks and grades must not be derived or determined using AI at any stage, and AI must not determine the first instance of feedback comments; human markers are 100% responsible for the accuracy, validity and quality of all marks, grades and feedback. AI-generated marks are allowed for formative work under human review. A teaching-blog post relaying the decision; it says the guidelines will evolve.

## Source

- University of Sydney, Teaching@Sydney — 'Should we use generative artificial intelligence tools for marking and feedback?' (28 September 2023; guidelines agreed by the University Executive Education Committee) — https://educational-innovation.sydney.edu.au/teaching@sydney/should-we-use-generative-artificial-intelligence-tools-for-marking-and-feedback/ (primary source)

## What this means

At this university, a person sets every mark that counts towards a grade.

## What it does not show yet

One university's guideline, relayed on its teaching blog; it may have changed since and says nothing about actual use.

## How to verify it yourself

Open the Teaching@Sydney post and find "Marks and grades must not be derived or determined using AI".


More: https://flyvolo.ai/llms.txt