At the end of my keynote on the AI-ready graduate, there is a slide most speakers would never include. It is an AI disclosure statement. In plain language it says that I used generative AI to help build the presentation, what I used it for, and what was mine alone.
I put it there on purpose. Here is the thinking behind it.
The talk and the slide have to agree
The whole keynote argues one idea: AI is a tool to amplify human thinking, not replace it. A talk that makes that case while quietly hiding its own use of AI would not hold up. The disclosure slide is the argument, demonstrated. I am showing the exact thing I am asking the room to do.
What the disclosure actually says
It is specific, not a vague "AI was used here." It names the tool. It lists what the tool helped with: structuring the outline, drafting speaker notes, suggesting layout approaches, and refining wording. Then it draws a clear line. All of the research, the theoretical frameworks, the original analysis, and every final editorial decision are mine. My doctoral research is mine. I even include an APA-style reference entry for the AI, the same way I would cite any other source in an academic talk.
That is the standard I hold for myself: if AI helped make something I am putting my name on professionally, I say so. Not buried, not fuzzy. On the slide, in the document, where you can see it.
Why this matters in education specifically
We are asking students to be honest about when and how they use AI. Districts are writing academic integrity policies about exactly this. If the adults model secrecy, the message falls apart. You cannot ask a sophomore to cite their AI use while the keynote speaker, the curriculum vendor, and the consultant all pretend they wrote every word themselves.
The fastest way to teach honest AI use is to practice it out loud, in front of the people you are teaching. Disclosure is not a warning label. It is modeling.
Why it matters for trust
I help districts put AI to work. If I am not transparent about my own use of it, why would anyone trust me with theirs? Disclosure is not a confession that something is wrong. It is a standard that tells a client exactly what they are getting and who is accountable for it. The person stays accountable. The tool is just a tool.
The line I hold
AI helps me move faster and think wider. It does not make the decisions, hold the expertise, or carry the responsibility. That stays with me. Naming the tool does not shrink the work. It clarifies it. When you know what was assisted and what was judgment, you can trust the judgment more, not less.
How to do it yourself
It takes a few sentences. Name the tool. Say what it did. Say what was yours. If the work is academic or formal, add a citation. That is the whole practice. You do not need a policy committee to start being transparent about your own work this afternoon.
So here is mine, in the spirit of the thing: this newsletter, these posts, and many of the tools I build are made with AI as part of the process, and the thinking, the decisions, and the responsibility are mine. To evolve, you have to evaluate, and that includes being honest about how you make your own work.
If your district is working through what honest, practical AI use looks like for staff and students, that is a conversation I am glad to have.
Dr. Chris Sanzeri is the founder of Evalve Consulting, an AI implementation practice for education organizations. He spent 15+ years in education leadership and builds custom AI tools, automations, and local AI systems for schools and districts.