This policy is incredibly misguided, ableist, neo‑Luddite, technophobic hogwash. Technologically mediated communication has been with us almost as long as communication itself. We already accept writing, printing, telegraphy, phones, keyboards, spellcheckers, compilers, search engines, and autocomplete as legitimate augmentations of human thought. Drawing the line at this particular class of tools feels arbitrary and, frankly, rooted more in fear than in principle. I get it: humans are instinctively protectionist. A tool that operates in the same “space” as what we think makes us special—our intelligence, our language—feels threatening. It looks like competition rather than amplification. But this is just the next step in the same trajectory. Like written language, printing, and telecommunications, generative models are tools that, on the whole, will raise our collective intelligence by reducing the cost of expressing, translating, and recombining ideas. They don’t replace human judgment, curiosity, or responsibility; they change the interface. Generative AI is, in a sense, just very advanced cave painting: humans using whatever is at hand to make marks that carry meaning across time and space. Refusing to engage with those marks because the paint got better doesn’t make the communication more “authentic”; it just makes the medium poorer.