Policing Generative Tool Use

It does not matter whether you write with generative technologies or not. If you have no ideas, no curiosity, no necessity to think, then artificial intelligence will simply amplify the emptiness. It will generate fluent noise, decorative coherence, and nothing else. The result is regurgitated pattern-matching, consumed as novelty and mistaken for intelligence. Most people take the shortest cognitive path available, confuse speed with brilliance, and treat friction as failure. They are rewarded for producing whatever fits the slots they are given, for obeying interfaces they did not design and do not question. The comedy lies in how seriously this is taken, as if compliance were thought, and output the same thing as understanding.

This is why the industry forming around detection, interdiction, and surveillance of artificial intelligence use feels so familiar. Like cybersecurity, it endlessly reproduces itself as both problem and solution: one mirror facing another, calling the reflection progress. Entire economies now orbit the management of a misunderstanding, mistaking control for comprehension. Universities, governments, and organisations police form while ignoring logic, enforcing behaviour while leaving axioms untouched. From brutalising social policy to everyday institutional life, the pattern is the same: people complain about systems they depend on but cannot challenge, because survival itself has been wired into compliance. The real distinction is not whether the technology is used, but whether it is used well. Most do not. Artificial intelligence does not generate stupidity. It simply gives existing failures coherence, velocity, and scale.