I'm a computer science student with a minor in philosophy, so my brain is basically a battlefield of logic and abstract thought 24/7. I've been following the AI writing conversation with tons of interest, and I wanted to throw a slightly different question into the ring.
We all know how to spot the technical tells of AI writing—the statistical patterns, the overuse of certain transition words, the perfect grammar. We've all seen the lists. But I'm more interested in the philosophical side of it. We're so focused on how to detect ai writing, but are we spending enough time defining what makes the human alternative so special?
My proposition for this debate is this: We shouldn't just be looking for "mistakes" or "patterns" that an AI makes. Instead, we should be celebrating the specific, beautiful, and often illogical things that only a human can do. Then, the detection becomes a byproduct of recognizing human brilliance!
Here are a few things I think are uniquely human:
We all know how to spot the technical tells of AI writing—the statistical patterns, the overuse of certain transition words, the perfect grammar. We've all seen the lists. But I'm more interested in the philosophical side of it. We're so focused on how to detect ai writing, but are we spending enough time defining what makes the human alternative so special?
My proposition for this debate is this: We shouldn't just be looking for "mistakes" or "patterns" that an AI makes. Instead, we should be celebrating the specific, beautiful, and often illogical things that only a human can do. Then, the detection becomes a byproduct of recognizing human brilliance!
Here are a few things I think are uniquely human:
- Intentional Imperfection: A human might use a sentence fragment for dramatic effect. An AI sees it as a grammatical error to be fixed.
- Weird, Personal Analogies: Did you just compare your childhood trauma to a broken vending machine? That's so specific and bizarre and wonderful. No AI would generate that because it's not in the data.
- Emotional Truth Over Factual Accuracy: A human writer might exaggerate a memory ("It was a million degrees outside!") to convey a feeling, while an AI would undercut the emotion by stating the actual average temperature.
The most human thing I've ever read was an essay about grief where the writer described their grandmother's hands as "map of a country that no longer exists." No AI would ever make that connection—it's too personal, too illogical, too aching. Human writing bleeds. AI just... types. 