The Human Sport of Judging
The Human Sport of Judging
A small observation.
Right now there’s so much noise around AI, and we love taking sides.
On one side: AI slop.
Low-effort posts. Generic writing. Recycled insights. Content produced faster than it can be thought through.
On the other: something different.
Call them AI purity tests.
Spotting phrases. Looking for linguistic fingerprints. trying to determine if something was written by a person or by AI.
Both are understandable.
No one enjoys content that feels empty. And people naturally want authenticity from the voices they follow.
But the result is noise.
One side floods the feed. The other polices the language. Or shames the people using the tools.
Meanwhile, most people are simply trying to articulate and explore ideas with the latest tools.
Tools that can be used thoughtfully. Or carelessly.
Like most technologies before them.
The novel was once considered dangerous to young minds. The calculator would make students unable to think. Television would rot the culture.
Some of it was even true.
Every new tool follows the same pattern.
Excess on one side. Gatekeeping on the other.
Somewhere in the middle: people trying to share something useful.
That middle ground has always been the quietest place.
The tools are new. The sport is ancient.
Articulating ideas is difficult. If a tool gets you 1% closer to that, maybe it’s still better.
Better is a direction, not a destination.