This is not an argument against AI. I use it daily, I build with it, and by most measures I'm on the winning side of the system it's creating, which is exactly why this argument needs to be made now, and why I'm in a position to make it.
The debate about artificial intelligence keeps returning to the same question: is it intelligent? I'm not going to spend much time there. LLMs are not intelligent, not because of what they can or can't do, but because of what they are: statistical pattern matching at scale over human-generated data. They're mimicry, not cognition, and that's not a controversial claim if you understand the architecture.
But a lot of people are making a different argument. They're pointing at capability failures: LLMs can't reliably count the letter "r" in "strawberry", therefore they're not intelligent. The problem with that argument is that many humans can't either, because they're illiterate, or because they process language differently. If that's your criterion, you've excluded a significant portion of humanity from intelligence before you've even reached AI, and if you then adjust the criterion to accommodate those humans, you need to explain why the adjusted criterion still excludes LLMs.
That adjustment — finding a definition of intelligence that cleanly separates humans from machines — is where the danger lives, not because it might accidentally vindicate LLMs, but because every definition proposed, when applied consistently, ends up drawing a line through humanity itself.
This is not a new problem. It has a history, and the history is not abstract. Defining humanity by capability has been used before to sort people into those who matter and those who don't, and the vocabulary changes, but the structure doesn't.
What's new is the comparison class. As long as humans were the most productive agents in the economy, tying dignity to output was cruel to those at the bottom but didn't threaten the category as a whole. AI changes that arithmetic, and on an expanding set of measurable tasks, AI outproduces humans, cheaper, faster, without complaint. If your framework measures human worth by productive contribution, that framework now has a benchmark humans will increasingly fail to meet.
The people most invested in that framework are aware of this. Some of them are building the AI, some of them are funding the political movements that will decide what to do with the humans who don't compete well, and they are not hiding their contempt for what they call low-productivity people, they are writing it in public and funding it into policy.
The requirement — not the solution, the requirement — is to decorrelate human dignity from productive output, not because work has no value, not because contribution doesn't matter, but because human dignity has to be prior to and independent of what a person produces, or it isn't dignity at all, it's a performance review.
This principle isn't new. It predates capitalism, predates the nation-state, predates the industrial revolution. The biblical tradition knew it well: the Jubilee year cancelled debts and returned land regardless of what people had produced, gleaning rights fed those who couldn't work without requiring them to justify their hunger, and Sabbath rest was mandatory, even for the productive. In each case, the logic is the same: human dignity primes over efficiency, subsistence is not means-tested, and neither is worth.
In a world where a small number of people and systems can automate the productive output that once required millions, that principle stops being ancient wisdom and starts being urgent policy, and survival cannot remain a reward for contribution, it has to be a starting point.
Most serious human rights frameworks rest on the same premise. What's new is that we can no longer afford to pay lip service to it while quietly grounding it in utility, because AI is removing the ambiguity, and the logical conclusion of measuring human worth by output, in a world where AI outproduces humans, is not prosperity, it's a sorting mechanism.
The AI debate is not asking us whether machines are intelligent, it's asking us whether we meant what we said about humans.
