Providers already use AI tools to outline modules, draft explanations, generate practice questions and produce images. Pretending otherwise helps nobody. The question that matters to a learner is whether a qualified person stood behind the final version.
What the Standard says
Standard CS 5 allows AI-assisted content on one condition: it goes through the same peer review as everything else before it is published. The reviewer is a qualified human who did not write the draft.
What the reviewer does differently with AI-assisted drafts
- Opens every reference. AI tools can produce citations that look right and do not exist.
- Checks regulatory statements against the regulator. A confident paragraph about registration requirements may describe last year's rules, or another country's.
- Checks the numbers. Doses, thresholds, dates and hours are verified one by one.
- Reads for local fit. Australian and New Zealand law, terminology and practice differ from the overseas material these tools have mostly learned from.
Who is responsible
The provider. If a published activity contains an error, "the tool wrote that part" is not an answer. The reviewer's name is on the record.
"The tool wrote that part" is not an answer. The reviewer's name is on the record.
What we do not require
We do not ask providers to label which sentences were AI-assisted, and we do not ban any tool. We check the control that protects the learner: expert human review before publishing, recorded.
