We (at GPAI Policy Lab), wanted to share our V1 policy as an invitation to argue about it. Some of what motivates it is extrapolation and conversations we had internally on AI capabilities, effects on the cognitions, 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.
- Experience 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 event 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 [...]

---

Outline:

(01:32) Why Im writing this

(03:33) The policy

(03:58) 1. Hard restrictions

(07:32) 2. Individual and collective warning signals

(08:37) 3. Protocol

---

First published:
April 24th, 2026

Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/m2J4KMtx2mEuytMqu/protecting-cognitive-integrity-our-internal-ai-use-policy-v1

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

“Protecting Cognitive Integrity: Our internal AI use policy (V1)” by Tom DAVID