> OpenAI’s terms explicitly prohibit developers from building GPTs that promote academic dishonesty. Yet the GPT Store is filled with GPTs suggesting they can b

> OpenAI’s terms explicitly prohibit developers from building GPTs that promote academic dishonesty. Yet the GPT Store is filled with GPTs suggesting they can bypass AI content detectors, including detectors sold to educators through plagiarism scanning platforms. The use of generative AI in academic contexts--both education and research--is turning out to be a vast ethical gray area. It seems that some people regard any use of AI for writing under one's own name to be dishonest. Others are willing to allow some AI use, but where they draw the line varies a lot. Is it okay, for example, to have an LLM correct word-level grammatical mistakes, rewrite a paragraph to make the author's point clearer, write a paragraph based on the author's bullet points, write a full first draft that the author then checks and revises by hand, translate phrases or sentences that the author has written in their native language, translate an entire paragraph or paper that the author wrote, etc.? Over the past year, I have conducted several workshops on LLMs for university faculty in Japan, and when I have polled them about the acceptability of each of those use cases, their responses have varied widely. At the institutional level, some universities discourage their students from using AI for writing at all, while others seem to be encouraging it. Just last week, I heard about two public universities in Japan that have contracted with Microsoft to provide Copilot to all of their students starting in April, when the new academic year begins here.