An AI prohiition feels like a proof of work gate to me. Sure, people can go around it and use AI anyway, but then it puts them in the position of being willing to be dishonest from the start.

I was once playing mini golf. The course was not terribly great. it was often easy to hit your ball off the fairway you were supposed to be playing and "skip" over to the green or even to get a hole in one. Whereas if you stuck with the fairway you had to go through an obstacle of some difficulty.

One of the people I was playing with kept short-circuiting the holes and getting very low scores by jumping the links. He made light fun of me for being a "rule follower" because I wouldn't do the same.

I tried to explain that it had to do with the point of the game -- I was not playing mini golf to achieve a world-record score or even to beat him at easy shots. I was playing because it's fun to navigate the obstacles. He did not understand.

This is relevant here because the point of an AI prohibition is not AI is bad or that it isn't capable of helping a writer produce good work, but rather that by requiring someone to write a BIP without it, you are asking them to put a certain amount of skin in the game via their time and effort. And this might be a valuable thing.

And it is especially valuable if the person demonstrates that they are unwilling to do so. Because then the reviewers can meet this with an equal unwillinginess to put time and effort into review.