IB AI Policy: What Students Need to Know in 2025
By Michael Thompson · Education Specialist; 10 years teaching the IB at Bromsgrove School · Published 21 May 2026 · Updated 12 June 2026
The IB AI policy sets out exactly where generative AI helps your work and where it crosses into academic misconduct. Most students know they shouldn't paste ChatGPT output into their Extended Essay - but the rules go further than that, covering brainstorming, paraphrasing, translation assistance, and even how you cite an AI tool when you do use it legitimately. The International Baccalaureate distinguishes between being a 'content creator' and a 'content imitator', and that framing shapes every judgement a teacher or examiner makes about your submitted work. This guide unpacks the official position, explains the practical do's and don'ts, and covers what happens if AI use is flagged after submission.
Key Takeaways
- The IB frames integrity around authorship: Its academic integrity policy distinguishes between 'content creators' (acceptable) and 'content imitators' (not acceptable) - you must be the originating mind behind your work.
- AI as a thinking aid is generally acceptable: Using a generative AI tool to brainstorm ideas, generate a reading list, or check grammar falls within the spirit of the IB's guidance, provided you disclose it.
- AI as a drafting tool is not acceptable: Generating paragraphs, arguments, or analysis with an AI and submitting them as your own constitutes academic misconduct under the IB academic integrity policy.
- You must cite any AI tool you use: If you use a generative AI tool in the preparation of an Internal Assessment or Extended Essay, you are expected to acknowledge it - just as you would any other source.
- The IB does not rely solely on detection software: Schools are responsible for enforcement, and the IB is explicit that no AI detection tool is conclusive - context and teacher judgement both matter.
- Consequences can follow submission: If AI misconduct is found after work is submitted, it can be treated as a breach of academic integrity, which risks score cancellation in the relevant component.
In This Article
- The IB's Official Position on Generative AI
- What Counts as Academic Misconduct vs Acceptable AI Assistance
- How to Cite AI Tools in Your IA and Extended Essay
- AI Detection Tools and How Schools Enforce the IB AI Policy
- Practical Examples: Where the IB AI Policy Draws the Line
- Consequences If AI Misconduct Is Found After Submission
- What to Do Before Your Next Submission
1. The IB's Official Position on Generative AI
The IB AI policy sits inside a broader framework: the IB's academic integrity policy applies to all aspects of a student's academic life, not only to formal assessments. That scope is wider than most students expect. It covers class notes, practice essays, and collaborative work, not just the Internal Assessment or Extended Essay you submit for marks.
The IB frames its position on generative AI around a single distinction: are you a content creator or a content imitator? The IB has published a student-facing PDF titled "content creator, not a content imitator" to explain where that line falls. Using AI to generate text, arguments, or analysis that you then pass off as your own thinking places you firmly in the imitator category, regardless of how much you edit the output afterwards.
The counterintuitive detail here is that the policy is not a blanket ban on AI tools. The IB's concern is attribution and authentic intellectual engagement, not the technology itself.
Being "principled" is identified as one of the most important attributes in the IB learner profile in this context. All students in IB programmes are expected to act honestly, responsibly, and ethically across their work.
If you are unsure where you stand, the IB has produced a checklist, "Ten tips for acting with integrity", aimed directly at students. Read it before your next submission, not after.
2. What Counts as Academic Misconduct vs Acceptable AI Assistance
The IB's academic integrity policy draws a clear conceptual line: you must be a "content creator, not a content imitator." In practice, that means the intellectual work submitted under your name must originate with you, not with a language model.
Unacceptable AI use
These cross the line regardless of how much you edit the output afterwards:
- Using a tool like ChatGPT to generate the argument or thesis for your Internal Assessment
- Asking an AI to draft paragraphs of analysis that you then lightly reword
- Submitting AI-produced interpretations of data, texts, or artworks as your own thinking
- Using AI to write any portion of the Extended Essay body, even as a "starting point"
Acceptable AI use
The following are generally considered permissible, provided your school's own guidelines agree:
- Brainstorming possible IA research questions (you still choose and develop the question)
- Asking an AI to suggest secondary sources or reading directions you then verify yourself
- Running a completed, self-written draft through a grammar or spell-checker
- Using an AI translation tool to understand a source written in a language you are studying
The blurry middle
The genuinely difficult case is AI-polished language. If you write a clumsy sentence and ask an AI to rephrase it more clearly, the words are now the model's, even if the idea was yours. The IB's framing is that submitted work must reflect your own authorship throughout, not just your ideas filtered through a model's prose style. A teacher reading your IA can reasonably tell when the register shifts between paragraphs, and that inconsistency is itself a flag worth knowing about.
The rule of thumb: if removing the AI's contribution would leave you with nothing submittable, that contribution was not assistance, it was authorship.
3. How to Cite AI Tools in Your IA and Extended Essay
The IB's academic integrity policy treats AI tools as sources. If you used one during the preparation of assessed work, you must acknowledge it, in the same way you would cite a textbook, a dataset, or an interview.
Where you place that acknowledgement depends on how the tool was used:
- Works cited / bibliography - if you used an AI tool to retrieve information, generate ideas you then developed, or explore a topic. List the tool, the prompt you used (or a summary of it), and the date.
- Methodological note or appendix - if the AI was part of your research process, for example running a transcript through an AI summariser before coding themes in a Psychology IA.
- Brief acknowledgement note - for light-touch use such as grammar checking, placed at the end of the piece or in a preface.
The counter-intuitive gotcha: a grammar check feels trivial, but if your school's subject teacher interprets it as AI-assisted redrafting of your argument, an undisclosed acknowledgement becomes a potential misconduct finding. Disclosing it costs you nothing. Omitting it creates risk.
A concrete example of how placement differs in practice:
| AI use | Where to acknowledge |
|---|---|
| ChatGPT brainstorming session for EE research questions | Works cited, with prompt summary and date |
| Grammarly grammar and spelling pass | Brief acknowledgement note, end of document |
| AI-generated translation of a primary source | Methodological note or appendix |
The IB is explicit that acting "honestly, responsibly, and ethically" applies to all aspects of a student's academic life, not only final submissions. That scope matters: notes, drafts, and planning documents shared with your supervisor are included.
When in doubt, over-disclose. A one-line acknowledgement of minor AI use has never cost a student marks. Undisclosed use that surfaces later has.
4. AI Detection Tools and How Schools Enforce the IB AI Policy
No AI detection tool gives a definitive verdict, and the IB is clear on this point. The organisation does not endorse any specific detector as conclusive, which means **schools must apply contextual judgement** rather than treating a software flag as proof of misconduct. That is a more demanding standard, not a more lenient one.
Your school is the first line of enforcement. Teachers and IB coordinators are responsible for identifying suspected misconduct before work is submitted to examiners. A coordinator who knows your writing style across two years of coursework is a far more reliable signal than any algorithm. This is the non-obvious gotcha: a piece of work that passes a detector but reads differently from your supervised in-class writing can still trigger a referral.
The IB has produced a two-part Q&A with its Academic Integrity Manager, covering both how schools can promote integrity and how they should address cheating when it arises, according to the IB's academic integrity page. Schools are expected to use resources like this to build consistent, evidence-based processes rather than relying on a single tool's output.
The practical consequence for you: "the detector won't catch it" is not a strategy. The IB AI policy is enforced by people who read your work in context, not by software that reads it in isolation. Schools already have your earlier drafts, your supervisor meeting notes, and your teacher's assessment of your written voice. That paper trail is what enforcement actually rests on.
5. Practical Examples: Where the IB AI Policy Draws the Line
The IB AI policy does not treat all AI use the same way. The distinction it draws, between being a "content creator, not a content imitator", is the clearest way to read each scenario below.
| Use case | Acceptable? | Condition |
|---|---|---|
| Brainstorming initial ideas with an AI chatbot | Yes | You develop the ideas independently afterward; the thinking on the page must be yours |
| Fixing grammar or improving sentence clarity | Yes | Disclose it; the substance and argument must stay unchanged |
| Asking AI to generate an essay structure or outline | Borderline | The intellectual organisation of your argument should come from you, not the tool |
| Generating body paragraphs for an IA or Extended Essay | No | Not acceptable under any circumstances |
| Using AI to translate a foreign-language source | Generally yes | Acknowledge it clearly, as you would any translation aid |
The gotcha most students miss: using AI to "clean up" language sounds minor, but if the tool rewrites a sentence so heavily that the reasoning shifts, that crosses into the prohibited zone. A grammar check that changes "this suggests" to "this proves" has altered your argument, not just your phrasing. Examiners assess the quality of your thinking, and any tool that quietly upgrades it misrepresents what you can do.
The IB's academic integrity guidance is explicit that honesty applies to "all aspects" of a student's academic life, which means these distinctions hold whether you are drafting, revising, or responding to supervisor feedback.
6. Consequences If AI Misconduct Is Found After Submission
The IB's academic integrity policy treats undisclosed AI use that constitutes submitted work in the same category as plagiarism. The distinction matters: using AI as a thinking tool is acceptable; presenting AI-generated text or analysis as your own is not. The policy applies to "all aspects" of a student's academic life, not just formal assessments.
What can actually happen to your result
If a concern is flagged, it typically moves through these stages:
- The teacher or examiner raises a suspicion and alerts the school's academic integrity coordinator.
- The school opens an internal review and decides whether to refer the case to the IB.
- The IB investigation team reviews the evidence, which can include draft history, AI detection flags, and examiner annotations.
- Confirmed misconduct can result in score cancellation for the affected component, a zero on that component, or in serious cases, withdrawal of the full diploma.
The counter-intuitive risk here is that a cancelled Internal Assessment component cannot simply be resubmitted. The damage flows forward into [your total point score](/guides/ib-predicted-grades) immediately.
Why disclosure upfront costs you nothing by comparison
A student who cites an AI tool correctly and stays within permitted use faces no penalty at all. A student whose undisclosed AI use is identified after submission faces a formal investigation record, regardless of outcome. Acting honestly and responsibly is not just an ethical expectation under the IB learner profile, it is the lowest-risk practical choice.
7. What to Do Before Your Next Submission
Three actions are worth doing this week, before your next IA draft or Extended Essay check-in lands on your supervisor's desk.
Download the IB's student-facing resources now. The IB publishes two documents on its academic integrity page: a PDF titled "content creator, not a content imitator" (851 KB) and a checklist called "Ten tips for acting with integrity" (1.6 MB). The checklist is the less obvious of the two, and the more useful one to print and keep beside your desk during drafting.
Ask your supervisor a specific question. The IB's policy sets the floor; your supervisor decides what disclosure they want in your particular component. Ask them directly: do they want AI use logged in a process journal, noted in acknowledgements, or documented elsewhere? Don't assume the answer is the same across your IA and Extended Essay.
Check whether your school has its own AI rules. Many schools have added an internal AI policy that sits alongside the IB's guidance and is stricter in practice. Your IB coordinator is the person to ask.
Download the checklist from the IB academic integrity page this week, before your next submission window opens. Then email your supervisor with one direct question: "What AI disclosure do you need from me for this component?" Two steps, both completable today.
FAQ
How does the IB AI policy work in practice?
The IB requires students to be the originating authors of all submitted work; AI can assist in preparation - such as brainstorming or grammar checking - but must be disclosed, and AI-generated content submitted as a student's own work constitutes misconduct.
Will the IB AI policy change?
The IB updates its academic integrity guidance as the landscape evolves - the main academic integrity page was last updated in February 2026 - so students should check the IB website before each major submission cycle.
Is using AI for an IB Internal Assessment ever allowed?
Using AI for tasks like brainstorming, identifying sources, or improving grammar is generally permissible if disclosed; using it to generate the actual analysis or arguments in an IA is not permitted under IB academic integrity policy.
Does the IB use AI detection tools to catch students?
The IB has been clear that no AI detection tool is conclusive, and schools are responsible for enforcement through teacher judgement and contextual assessment rather than automated detection alone.
What happens if AI use is found in my Extended Essay after submission?
If undisclosed AI use is confirmed, it can be treated as academic misconduct equivalent to plagiarism, with consequences including score cancellation for the affected component.
Where is the IB academic integrity policy stored?
The IB publishes its academic integrity policy and student-facing resources - including a PDF guide and a Ten Tips checklist - on the official IB website at ibo.org.
References
- Academic Integrity - International Baccalaureate® - https://ibo.org/about-the-ib/what-it-means-to-be-an-ib-student/responsibilities-of-students-and-ib-world-schools/academic-integrity/