In an experiment, a professional writer's colleagues couldn't reliably distinguish his satirical column from an AI-generated one. Some even preferred the AI's version, calling it more coherent or closer to his style, revealing AI's startling ability to mimic and even improve upon creative human work.
Related Insights
In the age of AI, the new standard for value is the "GPT Test." If a person's public statements, writing, or ideas could have been generated by a large language model, they will fail to stand out. This places an immense premium on true originality, deep insight, and an authentic voice—the very things AI struggles to replicate.
Surveys show people believe AI harms creativity because their experience is limited to generic chatbots. They don't grasp "context engineering," where grounding AI in your own documents transforms it from a generalist into a powerful, personalized creative partner.
Historically, well-structured writing served as a reliable signal that the author had invested time in research and deep thinking. Economist Bernd Hobart notes that because AI can generate coherent text without underlying comprehension, this signal is lost. This forces us to find new, more reliable ways to assess a person's actual knowledge and wisdom.
Studies show people often prefer AI-generated art based on quality alone, but their preference flips to the human-created version once they know the source. This reveals a deep-seated bias for human effort, posing a significant "Catch-22" for marketers who risk losing audience appreciation if their AI usage is discovered.
Earlier AI models would praise any writing given to them. A breakthrough occurred when the Spiral team found Claude 4 Opus could reliably judge writing quality, even its own. This capability enables building AI products with built-in feedback loops for self-improvement and developing taste.
Claude's proficiency in writing is not accidental. Its development, backed by Amazon's Jeff Bezos (who owns The Washington Post), involved training on high-quality journalistic and literary sources. This strategic use of superior training data gives it a distinct advantage in crafting persuasive prose.
When an Economist writer pitted his own satirical column against one generated by AI, several colleagues mistakenly identified the AI's version as his. They found the AI's writing more coherent and, in some cases, more representative of his style, highlighting AI's shocking proficiency in creative and nuanced tasks.
A study found evaluators rated AI-generated research ideas as better than those from grad students. However, when the experiments were conducted, human ideas produced superior results. This highlights a bias where we may favor AI's articulate proposals over more substantively promising human intuition.
The debate over AI's 'true' creativity is misplaced. Most human innovation isn't a singular breakthrough but a remix of prior work. Since generational geniuses are exceptionally rare, AI only needs to match the innovative capacity of the other 99.9% of humanity to be transformative.
Contrary to fears that AI averages out creativity, it can act as a partner to challenge a writer's habitual thinking, suggest alternative phrasings, and identify blind spots, ultimately leading to more original output.