AI comparisons are rigged, and jobs may be the real casualty
RexDouglass · x · 2026-07-29
The author argues that comparing human work against AI output is often rigged, because researchers and reviewers invent standards for agentic workflow products that they themselves would never meet.
They frame the debate as a culture war disguised as a rigor debate, then add two broader claims: that AI is likely to take many jobs, and that discussions about accuracy and review need to start from the assumption that most outputs are wrong unless proven otherwise.
Related event: AI Could Disrupt Reproducible Research with Low Hit Rates(3 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- Gary Marcus Dissects Why Current AI Falls Short of the Singularity — GaryMarcus · 2026-07-29
- A small AGI thought experiment: humans as general intelligence in an animal body — AaronBergman18 · 2026-07-29
- Gary Marcus says the singularity is still not here, and CEOs are overclaiming — Gary Marcus · 2026-07-29
- TEDx talk links rubber ducks, learning and AI — AlisonGopnik · 2026-07-29
- Cory Doctorow says AI is ordinary technology wrapped in a $1.4T bubble — Elijah_Meeks · 2026-07-29
- Sam Altman says founders should look for the next wave, not copy the hot trend — heyshrutimishra · 2026-07-29