All Topics
All Topics
Technology
Technology
Design
Design
Programming
Programming
Science
Science
News
News
Gaming
Gaming
Entertainment
Entertainment
Business
Business
Finance
Finance
Sports
Sports
Health
Health
Food
Food
Travel
Travel
Art
Art
Music
Music
Books
Books
Education
Education
Politics
Politics
Personal
Personal
No algorithm. No AI slop. No ads. Just RSS. Pro-human. Indie writers. Real journalism. Open web. Chronological. Hand toasted.

The shifting goalposts in arguments for human superiority over AI

By

antirez

2d ago· 3 min readenOpinion

Summary

The article critiques the shifting arguments people use to defend human value over AI in creative roles. It points out that as AI capabilities improve, the goalposts keep moving—from "AI can't do it" to "humans do it better" to "human output has subtle stylistic advantages." The piece suggests these arguments are weak and constantly being redefined as AI proves capable of each new benchmark.

Key quotes

· 3 pulled
In the age of AI, we should still prefer humans in certain roles because AI could never perform the tasks required for that role.
Perhaps the output from a human and AI may look similar, but human output is preferable for subtle stylistic reasons that an AI cannot reproduce.
Observe the scuff marks around the base of the goalpost from constant movement.
Snippet from the RSS feed
There is a weird collection of arguments for appraising the value of humans and their creative artifacts. It usually goes something like this: In the age of AI, we should still prefer humans in certain roles because AI could never perform the tasks requir

You might also wanna read