Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) technology offers innovative opportunities for ideological and political education in colleges and universities but also presents multiple challenges. This paper discusses the potential of GenAI to empower ideological and political education by serving as an intelligent dialogue partner, content generator, and personalized tutor, as well as by innovating models, supplying resources, and providing personalized teaching. The paper analyzes the risks GenAI poses to ideological security, academic ethics, data privacy, and algorithmic responsibility. It proposes building a comprehensive ethical regulatory framework with value guidance as the core, multiple collaborative governance as the framework, literacy improvement as the basis, and technological empowerment as the guarantee to promote the healthy and orderly development of GenAI in ideological and political education. This framework would serve the fundamental goal of establishing morality and cultivating people.

Xiaoyu Shang, Shuairan Tang, Yijie Xin. Research on the Application Potential, Risks and Challenges of Generative AI in University Ideological and Political Education and Ethical Regulation. International Journal of New Developments in Education (2025), Vol. 7, Issue 10: 30-36. https://doi.org/10.25236/IJNDE.2025.071005.

[1] Lv Y Y. Application prospect of ChatGPT in University education evaluation: Logical evolution and development direction [J]. Journal of yunnan normal university (philosophy and social sciences edition), 2024, 56 (03): 127-136. The DOI: CNKI: SUN: YNSF. 0.2024-03-014.

[2] Miao F Y. Risk, cause and resolution: data manipulation, algorithm bias and ethical review of generative artificial intelligence from the perspective of contextualism [J]. Journal of kunming university of science and technology (social science edition), 2025, 25 (02): 49-56, DOI:10.16112/j.carolcarrollnki.53-1160/c.2025.02.122.

[3] Feng L, Ni G L. Digital transformation of ideological and political education based on generative artificial intelligence [J]. Ideological education research, 2024 (02): 46-53. DOI: CNKI: SUN: SIXI. 0.2024-02-007.

[4] You-hua liu. And its regulation path algorithm bias [J]. Journal of law, 2019, 40 (6): 55-66. The DOI: 10.16092/j.carolcarrollnki.1001-618-x.2019.06.006.

[5] Peng Lan. Multiple Factors Leading to the Information Bubble and the Path to "Break Free" [J]. Journal of Journalism, 2020, (01): 30-38 + 73. DOI: 10.15897/j.cnki.cn51-1046/g2.20191230.001.

[6] Yang Xi-xi, LI Ben-qian. The generation of structural deprivation: algorithm audience privacy deprivation logic [J]. Journal of shandong normal university (social science edition), 2023 of (6): 125-138. DOI: 10.16456/j.carolcarrollnki.1001-5973.2023.06.012.

[7] Tian-en wang. The evolution of the artificial intelligence algorithm and its ethical effect [J]. Journal of shanxi normal university (social science edition), 2024 ploidy (02): 36-44, DOI: 10.16207 / j.carolcarrollnki.1001-5957.20240206.001.

[8] Elizabeth lee, Li Yi. The rationality of technical defense [J]. Science, technology and dialectics, 2008, (01): 66-70 + 112. DOI: CNKI: SUN: KXBZ. 0.2008-01-014.

[9] Wang Huai-jun, RU Xu-hua. Artificial intelligence algorithm discrimination and its governance [J]. Philosophy of science and technology research, 2020 (02): 101-106. The DOI: CNKI: SUN: KXBZ. 0.2020-02-017.

[10] Cao J F. Toward Trusted AI: Governance challenges and countermeasures of ChatGPt-like generative artificial intelligence [J]. Journal of Shanghai institute of political science and law (review) under the rule of law, 2023, 38 (04): 28-42. DOI: 10.19916/j.carolcarrollnkicn31-2011/d. 2023.04.005.