Why Human Stories Matter in the Age of AI Pitches?
Today on
@BetaTale, an expert posted a pitch that our system flagged as “highly likely to be AI-generated.” That immediately sparked an interesting discussion: what should we do with such pitches?
Strategically, I believe that the value of our platform — and of expert platforms in general — lies in offering the opinions of real human beings.
Yes, in many ways humans lose to machines. AI is faster, better structured, more analytical, with broader access to data — it can essentially represent all the documented expertise in the world.
Humans are subjective, inconsistent, know less, make mistakes, and filter their output through their cognitive biases.
And that’s exactly what makes them valuable.
I once read a column by Wired editor
@StevenLevy. He described attending a 2024 writers’ conference, where people were worried about “the prospect of a marketplace flooded by books authored by prompting neural nets.”
Then, Levy says, he had a revelation.
“I put it to the audience something like this: Let’s say you read a novel that you really loved, something that inspired you. And only after you were done were you told that the author had not been a human being, but an artificial intelligence system … a robot. How many of you would feel cheated?Almost every hand went up.”
Why?
“The reason for that feeling,” he continued, “is that when we read — when we take in any piece of art, actually, in any medium — we’re looking for something more than great content. We are seeking a human connection. ...
This remains true even if the author is long dead. If someone still reads Chaucer (has he been cancelled yet?), somehow, across centuries, we can still vibe with the mind of a guy from the 14th century — someone who’d probably be great to chat with over a beer or a goblet of mead."
I agree with Levy. I’d call it “the story.”
For me, the value of many things in this world is created through the story of the person behind them.
Sure, AI could paint a technically better picture than most existing or past artists. But what does “better” even mean?
When I visit the Tate Britain and see a painting that looks average to me, I read the little card beside it — then maybe look up more on Wikipedia. Suddenly, a vast world of history and context unfolds: the artist, their world, their circumstances.
Honestly, I feel like I’ve learned more about history by exploring the context of artworks and their creators than I ever did in school.
How could AI replace that? A bodiless demon with no fate or backstory, unconnected to the world?
To put it simply: the most important thing about a work created by a living person isn’t originality, creativity, or even a unique opinion (AI is getting scarily good at mimicking those). It’s the fact that it’s an expression of a real human being.
I believe we’ll eventually see creative works come with a kind of “human-made certificate” — and those works will be worth a lot.
There’s little value in auto-generating “expert blurbs” for every topic. What has always been most valuable is what’s rare, hard to find, fragile, imperfect. That’s what makes it unique. What’s easy to generate in abundance? That tends to be cheap — or worthless.
Take AI-generated music. It’s been around for years. It’s often just as good — maybe even better — than what human artists can do. And it can be created in endless amounts per second, tailored to any purpose. But this hasn’t destroyed musicians. If anything, it’s made human performers more precious. Why do we follow our favorite artists on Instagram, read news about them, build a personal relationship with them over time?
Because what we care about — first and foremost — is the person.
That’s why many artists and musicians remain popular even as they age. They may no longer be as sexy, energetic, or fashionable. But we value their story. And we’d rather see an aging icon than a no-name beauty — because the icon has a story. And that story is partly ours, too.
That’s what Steven Levy called “the connection.”
In the future, we’ll be surrounded not only by virtual AI, but also by billions of physical robots from Tesla, Amazon, Google. There will be endless AI-generated text, music, films, AI actors, and more.
Against that backdrop, human actions — a text, a poem, a song, or a personal opinion — will become even more precious.
Like the value of a natural diamond in a world where synthetic ones can be mass-produced so cheaply they’re used in construction tools.
So, here’s what we decided to do.
1) We’re introducing an AI checker for users. It will assess how likely a given expert pitch is to be human-written versus AI-generated.
These tools are imperfect, I know — so I’d love your suggestions on how to improve it.
2) We’ll scan all pitches and show journalists a notice indicating how likely the pitch was generated by AI. The journalist can then decide what to do with that information.
3) We’ll also update our terms of service with a policy on AI use. We value AI as a helpful tool — for brainstorming, research, etc. But journalists need to hear the real voice of an expert. If you know of other platforms with similar rules, we’d love to learn from them.
4) Journalists will also be able to rate experts and leave public feedback. Experts should know that a bad review could damage their reputation on the platform — to the point that other journalists might avoid their pitches entirely.
What do you think?
#AI #PR #Journalism #Wired #StevenLevy #Betatale #HumanConnection #MadeByHuman #MediaEthics #FutureOfWork #ExpertVoices #AuthenticityMatters