You will have noticed that there has been a lot of debate about the use of AI at the Institute for German Studies recently. We have also noticed uncertainty among students regarding the use of text-generating AI, so we as a Student council would also like to position ourselves on AI. On 2 June 2025, we discussed our position on the use of image- and text-generating software at the university.

We partially understand that text-generating AI in particular makes everyday study life, especially exams, much easier and saves a lot of time, which is the more convenient way, especially during the exam phase.

However, we have noticed that some students fail due to the use of text-generating AI - not because the mere use has been penalised, but rather because the generated texts that were submitted as exams do not meet academic standards and students who might have passed with self-written texts fail because of something like this. We think that's a great pity.

As a Student council, it is our job to understand the students' interests and act accordingly. We thought long and hard about whether we wanted to work for the short-term success of a quickly written examination paper or the long-term success of acquiring academic writing skills.

The vast majority decided in favour of long-term success for our fellow students. We believe that, as students, we not only want to promote and challenge scholarship, but also ensure that our future teachers, editors, publishers, lecturers, journalists and other Germansitians continue to maintain their maturity to work independently. After all, what constitutes the humanities if not analysing and penetrating language and literature?

As a result, we appeal (and recommend!) that you prepare your examinations independently and do not use text-generating AI models. Instead, we want to encourage you to show your own potential in your exams and to grow with your requirements.

We therefore welcome lecturers being given more leeway to schedule oral examinations in suspected cases of AI-generated examination performance. Conversely, this measure protects us students from being wrongly accused of using AI by giving us the chance to prove our knowledge in the oral examination.

Nevertheless, as a Student council, we expect lecturers to base their suspicions about the use of AI-generated examination services on markers that go beyond the mere presence of dashes (this approach also causes a decrease in the use of already underrepresented punctuation) or tools for the supposed recognition of AI-generated texts. We also believe that lecturers have a responsibility to pay more attention to teaching students how to write scientifically in introductory courses.

Furthermore, in line with the climate and environmental protection concepts of Carl von Ossietzky University, we as the Student council take the view that image- and text-generating AI should not be a mandatory part of an examination. Students must not be forced to use AI models.