If we make AI less available in schools, we’re basically creating a two-tier system. Students with resources at home will still use it, while students who rely on school access fall behind. That’s a classic prisoner’s dilemma: individually, banning it seems fair, but collectively it rewards those who can sidestep the rule. The better move isn’t less use, it’s smarter use. Teach kids how to check AI output, cite it, and see it as a thinking partner, not an answer machine. Banning it just guarantees the cheating happens invisibly instead of being managed openly.

Take a student with dyslexia who struggles to decode word problems. With AI, they can paste the text and have it simplified or read aloud, letting them actually learn the math instead of drowning in the reading. That kind of tool vanishes if we cut AI back to just note-taking. I get your point that teachers should direct when AI is used, but restricting it to notes ignores how it levels the playing field for kids who process differently. The smarter strategy is teaching all students to use it honestly, not letting only the privileged kids use it at home while school bans it.

The cheating stat actually works against you. If 60-70% of teens cheat with AI, cutting school access doesn't change that — it just pushes them to use it at home with zero oversight. That's the worst outcome for everyone. You're treating notes as the only legitimate use, but notes help because they force active processing; AI can do the same when students summarize, question, and verify its output. The real issue isn't the tool, it's that assignments are still designed to be gameable. Less AI means less teaching kids how to handle a world where AI won't disappear.