I was asked to provide a commentary to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine "Use of Race, Ethnicity, and Ancestry as Population Descriptors in Genomics Research" committee. This piece expands on my remarks from that talk. As a population geneticist, I focus on the use of genetic analysis to provide sample descriptors for human genetic samples, in particular the use of "genetic ancestry groups".While they come with a number of challenges, genetic sample descriptors are likely often unavoidable in practice, as scientists need them in order to combine and communicate findings. However, genetic sample labels are clearly a source of confusion, with slippage both in scope and between genetic versus social labels. One common genetic sample descriptor that researchers use is "genetic ancestry group": for example, labelling individuals living in the United States as having "European genetic ancestry" or "African genetic ancestry". I'll argue that these terms are imprecise and potentially misleading and that, for most applications, researchers simply mean genetic similarity or relatedness to some predefined set of samples. Given the issues associated with such labels, I believe that much of human genetics research should move away from using the term "genetic ancestry groups", and towards using more readily interpretable statements about genetic similarity (and relatedness) for sample descriptions. These statements are often nearly equivalent in terms of the information they contain, but simple statements about genetic similarity/relatedness are a more accurate statement of what population-genetic methods are providing, and importantly such language carries far less baggage in terms of its implicit depiction of the structure of human groups. This is not a new argument; see Mathieson and Scally (2020) and Lewis et al. (2022) for recent discussions about the need to be more precise about what we mean by genetic ancestry. However, here I actively call for the field of human genetics to move away from using genetic ancestry groups as a sample descriptor. In most applications, human geneticists are actually concerned with controlling for genetic similarity, geography, and environments in their comparisons rather than some vague notion of ancestral populations. A number of subfields of human genetics, including human population genetics and genetic anthropology, are more directly concerned with understanding history through reconstructing various aspects of genetic ancestors; in my view, this is largely a related but distinct enterprise from providing the field of human genetics with useful genetic sample descriptors.