indeed. It is not worth policing. Pretty much impossible to police anyway.

I have a few principles though that i think make sense.

1. You're allowed to use AI, but you're responsible for understanding and being able to explain everything that you submit.
2. If it looks like you used AI without understanding, I reserve the right to assess your understanding with an in-person oral assessment. If you cannot demonstrate a level of understanding consistent with your submitted work, you may receive a penalty on the assignment.
3. On written assignments, I reserve the right to penalize you for sounding too much like AI. If you disagree with my assessment that your work sounds too much like AI, you may request to demonstrate your understanding of the material through an in-person oral assessment. If I am satisfied that you have an understanding of the material which is consistent with the submitted work, I will remove the penalty.

So, with these rules, I don't have to use an AI checker. I just penalize if they sound too much like AI. (I'm usually pretty lenient on this.) If they want to appeal, they can do so in-person. No one has ever taken me up on this, because when I penalize them for using AI i'm almost always right.