Tom DAVID

We (at GPAI Policy Lab) want to share our V1 policy as an invitation for pushback. Some of what motivates it is our extrapolations of AI capabilities, internal conversations about their effects on cognition, and some empirical evidence. I think the expected cost of being somewhat over-cautious here is lower than the cost of being under-cautious, and the topic deserves considerably more attention than it's currently getting. I'd love to see more orgs publish their own policies on this, both to compare experiences and to develop shared best practices. I'd particularly welcome: - Counterarguments from people who think this kind of policy is overblown, counterproductive, or targets the wrong mechanisms. - Lessons from other AI safety or AI policy orgs that have tried something similar, what worked, what didn't, what you'd change for V2. - Specific critiques of the restrictions themselves: too narrow, too broad, wrong category, wrong threshold. - Or even alternative framings. Do you think "cognitive integrity" is the right handle? Is this a special case of a more general problem we should be thinking about differently? If you've written anything on this, or are working on something similar inside your own organization, I'd be very interested in hearing from you. Why I'm writing this I want to share a policy we've put in place internally at the GPAI Policy Lab, because I think the underlying problem is one that more AI safety and AI policy organizations should be thinking (and doing) something about now, rather than later. The concern is that daily use of capable AI systems can gradually compromise the cognitive integrity we most need to do our work. I take this very seriously, and I think more people should. A significant part of what we do requires good reasoning, good judgment, and object-level understanding of the issues. To preserve that, and to keep making progress in a world with AI agents, I don't think individual willpower is enough. My view is that we need