Being You
A machine can never be a human
Welcome to this update from New World Same Humans, a newsletter on trends, technology, and society by David Mattin.
If you’re reading this and haven’t yet subscribed, join 28,000+ curious souls on a journey to build a better future 🚀🔮
What is left for humans in the age of intelligent machines?
In 2025, highly capable AI tools are already here. See, for example, OpenAI’s new Deep Research, which launched a couple of weeks ago.
And it looks as though superintelligence is imminent.
How should we deal with this? That is the fundamental challenge for all of us now. How will we live amid AGI? What will we do?
These are vast questions. But another, much simpler question can point the way towards answers. As AGI approaches, it seems to me that it has great power.
The question is this: what did you do this week that only a person could ever do?
To put it another way: what actions did you perform this week where being a person — and in some cases being the particular person that is you — was an intrinsic part of that action?
Most of us in the NWSH community are knowledge workers. We spent much of last week answering emails, writing reports, analysing data, and so on. The machines will soon be able to do all of that.
But the five minutes of career advice you gave to a junior colleague? That was about being a person. Sure, your colleague can find the same advice online. Sure, they can ask ChatGPT. But they wanted someone standing in the room with them. Someone who has lived and breathed the same path. Someone who can say I know how it feels.
Or there’s that call you had with your parents. When it comes to that, no other entity can take your place. Your parents don’t want to speak to another person, or an AI, or even an AI version of you. They want to speak to you.
There’s the reassurance you gave to a client (don’t worry, I’ve seen this before). The time you spent with your children. That message to a friend. The perspective you gave on a creative project, sought out because of the particular experience you shared on a rainy weekend five years ago with the person responsible for the work.
Superintelligence is about to turn almost every domain of human activity into replicable technique. In short: AGI and robots are about to eat everything.
At the end of this long journey with technology, what is left to us? The only answer is: the thing a machine, by definition, can never do. That is, be a human being.
There are things — counsel, empathy, entertainment, art — we’ll always want from other people. People who’ve experienced what we’re experiencing. Who can say this is what it felt like.
There are roles we play in the lives of others that must, by their very nature, be performed by a person. In the end those roles come down to a simple declaration. I, a human being, see you, another human being. It is a declaration no machine can make.
A machine can never be a human. In that truth we’ll find multitudes.
We’ll build a new economy around it. And if we get this right — though that, of course, is a big if — then superintelligence can liberate us into a world where we leave technique to the machines, and focus on the parts of life only we humans can inhabit.
So the answers you found to my question: pay attention to them.
They may just point towards your future. Towards what will be left to you inside the new world we’re building now.
The good news? The thing that the machines can never do is the most important thing of all. It always was.
This was #8 in the series Postcards from the New World, from NWSH. The title artwork is Colour Study: Squares with Concentric Circles (1913) by Wassily Kandinsky.
Love your point, and the reassurance it provides. However (un)fortunately (depending on who you ask) we still have some time to figure it out. Our fear of AI taking over all of our lives, might be inevitable in the end, but we're not there yet.
May I recommend to follow 'Wayfinder' by the fabulous Ezra Eeman (Chief Innovation Officer of Dutch NPO)? His latest excellent edition about the fallibility of current AI systems (#116 - An Inconvenient Truth
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/116-inconvenient-truth-ezra-eeman-5ktie?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_android&utm_campaign=share_via).
Or Gary Marcus' critique on DeepResearch, and its potential for flawed science? https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/deep-research-deep-bullshit-and-the?r=6pmg&triedRedirect=true
Also an interesting piece from FT about how to male money with AI. Missing the killer app, is it a technological solution looking for a problem? Making money from AI: Searching for a ‘killer app’ - https://on.ft.com/4hr3Aia via @FT
Anyway. You get my point.
Still, we definitely need to start answering the question about humans' unique added value. But it seems, luckily, that we do have some time to ponder an answer ;-)
What’s Left for Humans? A Framework for Thriving Alongside AI
Hi David,
I really enjoyed your piece on what remains uniquely human in the age of intelligent machines. Your central question—what did you do this week that only a person could ever do?—is an incredibly powerful way to frame our evolving relationship with AI.
I’d like to add another layer to this discussion by considering how humans will diverge in their approach to AI, and how that divergence might shape our future. I see three emerging categories of humAIns in this transition:
1️⃣ Critical humAIns – Those who integrate AI as a tool to augment their cognition while maintaining a strong, independent critical thinking process. These individuals don’t just consume AI-generated insights; they challenge, refine, and synthesize them, ensuring that their unique human perspective remains at the core. These people will shape policy, innovation, and ethical boundaries in an AI-driven world.
2️⃣ Adaptive humAIns – The majority, who use AI for support in tasks and decision-making but without deeply interrogating its outputs. They benefit from AI’s efficiency but don’t consistently engage in critical analysis. Whether they evolve towards Critical humAIns or slip into passivity depends on the education and cultural frameworks we put in place now.
3️⃣ Complacent humAIns – Those who delegate nearly all intellectual effort to AI, taking its outputs at face value and prioritizing speed and convenience over comprehension. The risk here is a loss of autonomy and agency, leading to a world where human decision-making becomes a mere formality, rubber-stamping what machines suggest.
Your article resonates deeply with this model, because it points to the roles that only humans can fulfill—mentorship, emotional connection, creativity infused with lived experience. But to preserve those roles, we need to ensure that we are actively training people to be Critical humAIns, not passively slipping into complacency.
In a way, this moment echoes the shift brought by the Industrial Revolution. Automation freed us from much physical labor, but at the cost of increasing sedentary lifestyles—so we built gyms to maintain our physical health. Now, AI is poised to free us from cognitive effort, and the question is: will we need mental gyms to maintain our critical thinking skills?
I think the key challenge isn’t just figuring out what is uniquely human, but also ensuring that we don’t atrophy those very qualities in the process. The economy you envision—one centered on distinctly human attributes—will only thrive if we actively cultivate those strengths instead of letting them fade under the convenience of automation.
Curious to hear your thoughts!
Best,
Pietro