Primarily because I don't want to police AI as source discovery stuff. Too much policing means students doing googles and using the AI summary would be afoul of my policy and I don't want to deal with that. So the illicit use to write your paper is banned but I'm not really checking that and basically am upfront that their work is their own and they're responsible for checking shit like this (also why this bungle is so infuriating). The whole "generate a wikipedia on a topic" trick it does can be a good starting point for key names, sources, etc and I don't want to say all of that is banned.

And while I think since students pay for the writing center that's a better use of time and resources (or hell meeting with me), if a student wanted to chat about their essay with the bot instead, I could see this as potentially useful for those with really bad social anxiety. Balancing what the bot says with what I say isn't the WORST outcome (indeed as long as there's multiple vectors of critique/possibility the student has to weigh and choose between my pedagogy is basically working). I don't like it, but I don't like a lot of stuff.

But fundamentally it's because policing this kind of stuff is a time sink and a strict anti AI policy is just a ton of work. Instead, I try to assume student work is student work until presented with something otherwise. Which is also why this student is in danger not because of gen AI use but instead fabricated materials.

I try to be a generous and kind reader. I don't want to be a cop. But shit like this forces my hand (I can't pretend otherwise!) and it really bugs me. I want to help the students with THEIR work and writing and I try not to jeopardize that by constantly assuming it's not theirs. Leaving the door open helps avoid starting with that attitude too early.