# Student AI Integrity Pact

AI can help me move faster, think wider, and remove friction. It does not replace my taste, craft, judgment, or responsibility.

This is the agreement we work under in this workshop. It is also a usable professional standard — the same logic works for client work, competitions, and employment.

---

## The Core Idea (one paragraph)

I use AI on **friction** — the repetitive, structural, exploratory parts of the work. I keep **meaning** — concept, taste, ethics, final craft, and accountability — human. When AI contributed in a way an honest viewer would want to know about, I say so, specifically.

---

## I Will

- Use AI to support my process, not erase my authorship.
- Keep final creative judgment human — selection, rejection, and refinement are my job.
- Credit or disclose AI use when the context requires it (portfolio, client, competition, assessment).
- Avoid prompting for the style of living artists without their consent.
- Verify factual claims before trusting or repeating them.
- Keep private, client, or classmate material out of tools unless permission and policy allow it.
- Document my process so people can see what I made, what AI assisted, and what I changed.
- Keep learning fundamentals: drawing, composition, typography, motion, UX, 3D, storytelling, critique.

## I Will Not

- Submit raw AI output as my finished work and pretend it was fully hand-made.
- Use AI to clone classmates, teachers, clients, or living artists — style, face, or voice.
- Let AI flatten my voice into generic internet sludge.
- Trust AI as an expert without checking.
- Use AI to dodge the hard thinking that makes art worth making.

---

## The Boundary Map (fill in Week 1, revise Week 15)

| Zone | Meaning | My tasks in this zone |
|---|---|---|
| **Green — AI freely** | Friction work; no authorship at stake | e.g., file naming, transcript cleanup, summarizing research, export checklists |
| **Yellow — AI with care** | Touches my creative territory; needs human control + possible disclosure | e.g., moodboard exploration, layout variants, copy drafts, reference hunting |
| **Red — human only** | Where my authorship and voice live | e.g., final art, concept choice, client relationships, personal style |

Your map is yours. It can differ from your classmates'. It should exist *before* a deadline tempts you to improvise it.

---

## When Do I Need to Disclose?

Walk the questions in order:

1. **Would an honest viewer feel misled if they learned AI was involved?** → If yes: disclose.
2. **Is there a stated policy?** (brief, competition rules, module handbook, client contract) → If yes: follow it exactly. Competition and module rules beat personal judgment.
3. **Did AI generate visible/audible content that survives in the final piece** (image regions, video, voice, significant text)? → If yes: disclose.
4. **Did AI only assist process** (research, critique, naming, scheduling, summaries)? → Usually no disclosure needed — but saying it in your process notes costs nothing and builds trust.
5. **Unsure?** → Disclose. Nobody has ever lost work for honest specificity. People lose work for getting caught.

**EU note:** synthetic-media transparency is moving from "good ethics" to law under the EU AI Act. Specific, honest disclosure is a professional skill you will need anyway.

---

## How to Disclose (copy, adapt)

Use plain, specific language. Name what AI did and what you did.

**Portfolio / case study:**
> AI was used during research and early ideation to generate alternate directions and critique prompts. Final concept, illustration, layout, and production decisions were completed by me.

**Image-assisted piece:**
> Background textures were generated with [tool], then composited, repainted, and colour-graded by hand. Characters and composition are original drawings.

**Client process note:**
> Our process uses AI tools for research synthesis and production planning. All creative decisions, final artwork, and quality control are human. We're happy to walk through the process log.

**Academic / assessed work:**
> In line with module guidance, I used [tool] for [specific tasks]. Prompts and outputs are included in my process appendix. All analysis and final work are my own.

**Avoid vague claims:** "Made with AI." "AI-assisted." These disclose nothing and invite the worst assumption. Specificity is the difference between transparency and a confession.

---

## Verification Habits (because models are confident, not correct)

- **Names, dates, quotes, statistics, citations:** assume invented until checked against a real source.
- **"This artist/movement/technique" claims:** image-search and confirm the artist exists and the work matches.
- **Code:** run it before trusting it.
- **Legal/rights statements:** models are not lawyers; check the actual licence/policy page.
- **Anything you'd repeat in a crit or to a client:** check it first. Your credibility is the asset.

---

## Consent Rules (non-negotiable in this workshop)

- No prompting for living artists' styles by name without consent. (Historical/out-of-copyright influence + named *visual qualities* is the legitimate route — Week 3 teaches it.)
- No generating classmates', teachers', or any real person's face or voice without documented permission.
- No uploading other people's artwork, client files, or personal data into tools without permission.
- If a tool offers training-data opt-out, know where the switch is.

---

## In This Classroom

- Raw AI output is never the deliverable; the deliverable is output **plus** your decisions.
- Process documentation (prompts kept, iterations shown, rejections explained) is part of every lab.
- You may opt out of image/video generation permanently and still complete every week via the planning/critique track.
- Skepticism is welcome when it is specific. "AI is bad" is a mood; "this tool's training data was collected without consent and here's why that matters for my practice" is a position.

---

## The Useful Question

Before any AI use, one honest check:

> **Am I using this to deepen my work, or to avoid doing the work?**

If the answer is "avoid," that's information. Sometimes friction *is* the work.

---

**Name:** ____________________  **Track:** ____________________  **Date:** ____________

*Signing is for you, not for us. The pact only works if it's actually yours — edit it in Week 15 when you know more.*