While Stormont debates budgets and Belfast’s tourist trail draws crowds, a quieter transformation is unfolding on the city’s campuses: students and staff are learning to live with, shape and regulate powerful generative AI tools. According to the Belfast News Letter, the shift is no longer just about plagiarism but about software that can mimic human writing so convincingly that markers question whether they are assessing student learning or the AI’s skill at imitation.
At Queen’s University Belfast, literature professor Dr Sean O’Kane described successive essays from the same student that “read like different authors” despite flawless citations and coherent arguments. At Ulster University, 62 per cent of surveyed academics suspected they had graded AI-assisted work this term without being able to prove it.
Those experiences mirror national findings. A University of Reading study submitted AI-generated essays to undergraduate assessments; most were not identified as machine-produced and several scored at or above cohort averages. The researchers urged redesign of assessments and staff training to counter sophisticated generative tools.
The scale of AI use is substantial. A Higher Education Policy Institute survey found around nine in ten UK undergraduates had used generative AI in assessments in the past year, mainly to explain concepts, summarise material or draft ideas. That prevalence means universities must balance legitimate, learning-enhancing uses with curbing over-reliance.
Belfast’s universities have begun to respond. Queen’s updated its academic integrity guidance for 2024–25, advising on AI acknowledgement and providing resources for staff and students. Ulster’s student guide clarifies permitted uses, embeds generative tools within its misconduct framework and requires acknowledgements in submissions. Both treat their policies as “living” documents.
Departments are also rethinking assessment. Queen’s computer science faculty now requires students to declare AI use and explain their editing and learning process, with oral exams piloted for final-year projects. Professor Alan McKittrick cited a student using AI to overcome dyslexia as an example of “AI as collaborator, not ghostwriter”.
Assistive potential is clearest in disability support. The Associated Press has noted that chatbots and predictive writing tools can provide personalised help at scale, though experts warn that unchecked reliance could impede skill development.
Detection technology remains an imperfect safeguard. An arXiv study of 14 detection tools found high error rates and a bias towards classifying texts as human, reinforcing warnings that automated detection alone is too weak for misconduct cases. Experts recommend layered approaches combining human judgement, redesigned assessments and transparent student practice.
Local industry is part of the mix. Belfast firms are developing dialect-sensitive detection tools and AI tutors, with reported venture funding of £2.3 million last quarter. One start-up, WritePath, markets an AI tutor that supports analysis rather than replacement of work.
The combination of guidance, redesigned assessments, student engagement and local tech innovation offers a model for responsible adoption. Both Reading researchers and HEPI recommend the steps Belfast institutions are already taking: staff training, templates for transparent acknowledgement and resilient assessment formats.
If Queen’s and Ulster can uphold academic standards while extending inclusive access to assistive AI, they could help position the UK as a leader in AI for education. As final-year psychology student Declan Moore told the Belfast News Letter, an AI assistant “is like having a tutor available 24/7” — so long as the final voice is the student’s. The challenge for institutions is to scale that benefit ethically and sustainably, ensuring innovation enhances learning rather than replacing it.
Created by Amplify: AI-augmented, human-curated content.
