A senior Russian official overseeing science and higher education policy recently spoke about how students handle final qualifying works when artificial intelligence tools are available. The official stressed that students must clearly define their research goals and the scope of text processing when they rely on automated assistance. The core message is that AI can help with drafting but it cannot replace the student’s responsibility for framing the task and guiding the study.
The official described a nuanced stance. Attitudes toward AI are not negative, yet full endorsement is not claimed. The moment for integrating AI is viewed as approaching, but the student retains central ownership of the research aim and the content of the work. In today’s tech landscape, automatically produced text still requires study and interpretation, and the student remains involved in setting the target, outlining the task, and explaining the chosen topic in depth.
AI is seen as a tool for locating and organizing information rather than a substitute for student effort. The belief is that most of the essential work remains in the student’s hands. When AI is used, it should be reflected in the assessment, recognizing that the student curated the approach and the supervisor actively participated in policy and review processes. If a university has authorized AI usage in its internal regulations, grading practices may acknowledge the portion produced with artificial intelligence as a partial contribution rather than the entire piece. Overall, the stance remains pragmatic rather than alarming.
The official noted that there are no outright prohibitions against neural network use, and many students already employ AI in their writing tasks. There is no official ban on AI, he explained, and students are increasingly turning to AI tools to assist with drafting. The university referenced in the discussion was the first to publicly declare this approach. Students frequently use external writing services for theses, yet the question remains what is more effective: paying for a full thesis or crafting it with AI assistance. Leadership emphasizes providing clear, understandable guidance to both students and supervisors.
In a notable development, Moscow City Pedagogical University approved the use of AI technologies for final qualification works. The university stressed that students should still independently analyze, process, and justify borrowed information. This policy seeks to balance the efficiency of AI with the essential task of human reasoning and critical evaluation.
There is also an anecdote about a former student who earned a top grade for a diploma written with a neural network, illustrating the real world impact of evolving policies. The example highlights the importance of transparent handling of AI contributions and rigorous scholarly critique when final judgments are made.