There is a weird collection of arguments for appraising the value of humans and their creative artifacts. It usually goes something like this: In the age of AI, we should still prefer humans in certain roles because AI could never perform the tasks required for that role. Or, a human can at least do it better . Or, perhaps the output from a human and AI may look similar, but human output is preferable for subtle stylistic reasons that an AI cannot reproduce. Or, at least the AI cannot reproduce it consistently. Observe the scuff marks around the base of the goalpost from constant movement. Allow 28 days for the concrete to cure. This line of thinking boils down to, “Humans are valuable if they produce high-quality output.” This argument dangerously depends on the existing-but-narrowing human-AI capability gap. The gap certainly existed in the past (2023-era ChatGPT). It may still exist now. I do not know if it will hold in the future. Consider instead “Humans are valuable.” You can just say it.…