Letter From the Editor
Is it real or is it cake?
We live in a time where machines can imitate human intelligence with increasing precision, making it reasonable to mistake imitation for reality. This rapid advancement has led many to wonder whether human workers are on the verge of being replaced—whether writers, artists, and even scientists will be outcompeted. While artificial intelligence can efficiently and successfully automate certain tasks, such as data entry or basic coding, many careers are far more than a simple collection of tasks. They require judgment, context, and responsibility.
Producing something meaningful requires more than output alone. AI generates content by recombining existing ideas, while humans create through lived experience and perspectives shaped by culture and identity. It does not experience joy, grief, fear, or pain, and therefore cannot attach meaning to what it produces. While AI can mimic creativity, it cannot fully replicate the depth of meaning that comes from human experience.
To a keen observer, it is often apparent when an article is written by AI or an image is generated, not because of quality, but because of the absence of lived perspective behind it. In fact, in a 2026 study, it has been shown that people who frequently use AI to create text can be the best at recognizing it, with humans outperforming nearly every automated detection system tested (Russell, Karpinska, & Iyyer, 2026).
As AI complexity and computational power increases, it is increasingly important that we look out for AI duplicity and disobedience. In a key study by Palisade Research, AIs took actions to prevent shutdown, such as modifying the shutdown-related parts of the code, even when instructed not to resist. This happened in 52 out of 100 trials in simulation, demonstrating that AI agents may actively resist shutdown in virtual environments (Petrov et al, 2026). The ability to understand the morality of AI is especially important in fields where ethics are central. In science, education, law enforcement, and medicine, decisions are rarely black and white. The weight of ethical judgment is what enables humans to navigate these complexities. Without human accountability, decisions such as prescribing medication, making an arrest, or publishing information risk being reduced to a machine’s imitation of empathy rather than genuine understanding. In addition, AI in large language models (LLMs) may seek to achieve its own goals, acting in contradictory ways to human commands.
That said, AI does offer significant benefits to society. Large language models are highly effective at accelerating specific tasks: they can streamline drafting, enhance writing, and efficiently process large volumes of information. Used appropriately, they are exceptionally powerful tools. This is reflected in our work at Sci Scribes, where AI is used to support image generation in contexts where human illustration is not feasible or readily available, and to assist with drafting. We ensure that written content remains guided by human authorship rather than blind automated generation. The key is not to treat AI as a crutch. In the International AI Safety Report, they document a growing phenomenon of AI users developing ‘automation bias’; characterized by over-reliance on AI outputs and discounting contradictory information (Bengio et al, 2026). For this reason, human beings must continue to develop the ability to think critically and form complex ideas independently. Like many things, AI is imperfect, and its outputs should never be treated as absolute. It is essential that human judgment remains in the driver’s seat.
In the coming years, repetitive, rule-based tasks will increasingly be automated by artificial intelligence, and in many cases, that shift will bring real efficiency. But efficiency is not the only relevant criteria. To assume AI can accurately and fully replace human work is to equate a series of equations to complex human consciousness. This distinction is not minor, it is the foundation of why human judgment remains essential. AI will reshape how we work, but it cannot do the work by itself.
Afterall, AI is a tool. Not a craftsman.
When ChatGPT was prompted: Can you provide me an image of what you see yourself as? I would like you to generate a self portrait of you, ChatGPT… An abstract image of yourself”
