AI Writing Panic Overblown: Human Editors Still Essential

A new study published in the Journal of Judgement and Decision Making in the US has sparked headlines suggesting that humans cannot always distinguish between AI-generated and human-written prose. However, Monocle editor Josh Fehnert argues that this fear is an over-cooked red herring. The study, dubbed "Bot or not," found that while participants often could not tell the difference, they preferred works they were told were written by humans, even when they were not. Fehnert points out that the study's main conclusion could be summed up as "there's no accounting for taste," noting that not all human authors are good. He compares the panic to pitting a calculator against mental arithmetic, emphasizing that human endeavor is interesting precisely because it is done by imperfect, irrational people. The study also found that AI stories lack nuance, complexity, and ambiguity, and that people like them for their simplicity. Fehnert stresses the renewed importance of human editors and journalists, as AI cannot gather news or bear witness. He concludes that computers lack humor, irony, and whimsy, and that the idea of AI replacing human creativity should be taken with a pinch of salt. The article was published on Monocle's website, and Fehnert humorously notes his own inferiority to machines but asserts his role as editor for now.