Beyond Capability Comparisons: Rethinking Human Value in the Age of AI

Caleb Gross's article "You can just say it" presents a provocative challenge to one of the most persistent narratives in discussions about AI and human value: the argument that humans remain valuable primarily because we can still outperform AI in certain domains or produce outputs with qualities that AI cannot replicate.

The critique targets a familiar line of reasoning that goes something like this: "In the age of AI, we should still prefer humans in certain roles because AI could never perform the tasks required for that role. Or, a human can at least do it better. Or, 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. Or, at least the AI cannot reproduce it consistently."

This reasoning, as Gross correctly identifies, ultimately reduces human value to a comparative metric against AI capabilities. The problem with this approach is that it makes human dignity contingent on maintaining a technological advantage—a position that becomes increasingly precarious as AI systems continue to advance. As the author notes, "This argument dangerously depends on the existing-but-narrowing human-AI capability gap. The gap certainly existed in the past (2023-era ChatGPT). It may still exist now. I do not know if it will hold in the future."

The alternative proposed by Gross is refreshingly simple yet profound: "Consider instead 'Humans are valuable.' You can just say it. As a human yourself, I advise you to. You do not need to qualify it. This is a robust statement that is not conditional on a point-in-time snapshot of the leading frontier model's score on some recent benchmark."

This position aligns with philosophical and religious traditions that have long recognized inherent human dignity. The author references Genesis 1:27 ("God created man in his own image") and the principle from Magnifica Humanitas that "Human dignity does not depend on a person's abilities." These traditions suggest that human worth is intrinsic, not instrumental.

The article also offers an interesting analysis of "quality" in creative work, distinguishing between intent and material form. Gross observes that "many arguments for the value of creative artifacts focus too much on form at the expense of intent." This distinction becomes particularly relevant when considering generative AI, which can produce substantial form with minimally applied intent.

The author insightfully suggests that "'AI slop' is really a way of expressing that it's difficult to identify the intent behind the form." This helps explain why we often find AI-generated content unsatisfying, even when technically proficient—it lacks the human intentionality that typically informs creative work.

Gross includes a telling anecdote about preferring to see the prompt rather than the fully generated text when someone uses an AI to write an email: "If you're going to use an LLM to write me an email, I'd much rather you just send me the prompt; at least then I'd have an idea of what you actually meant to say." This highlights the importance of intent over form in human communication.

The article's core contribution is its challenge to instrumentalize human value. Instead of asking "What can humans do that AI cannot?"—a question that inevitably leads to a losing battle as AI capabilities expand—we might be better served by recognizing inherent human dignity independent of technological comparisons.

This perspective has significant implications for how we approach AI development and deployment. If human value is not contingent on our ability to outperform machines, then we can approach AI integration with greater confidence, focusing on how these tools can augment human capabilities rather than replace human judgment and creativity.

The argument also has important ethical dimensions. If human dignity is intrinsic rather than instrumental, then we have strong grounds for advocating for AI development that respects human autonomy, privacy, and agency, regardless of whether AI systems can perform certain tasks "better" than humans.

In a field often dominated by capability comparisons and benchmark results, Gross's article offers a necessary corrective, reminding us that some values transcend technological measurement. As AI continues to evolve, the question of human value may become increasingly urgent, and this article provides a foundation for answering it in a way that preserves our essential humanity.