MACHINES TROUNCE HUMANS AT BEING HUMAN: SCIENTISTS SHOCKED WHEN PARTICIPANTS FAIL TO ACT LIKE F@#KING ROBOTS
In a stunning development that has left the scientific community collectively sh!tting their lab coats, recent “fair and balanced” competitions between humans and AI have conclusively proven that machines are better at being human than actual humans. The only minor catch? Humans were asked to perform like soulless calculation machines while AIs got to pretend they have feelings.
COMPETITION RIGGED HARDER THAN YOUR UNCLE’S CASINO SLOT MACHINE
The groundbreaking studies, hailed by tech billionaires as proof that humanity is obsolete garbage ready for the digital dumpster, featured such balanced competitions as “express empathy in exactly 50 words using only approved vocabulary” and “resolve this conflict while sitting perfectly still in a windowless room for 72 consecutive hours.”
Dr. Obvious Conflict-of-Interest, who owns significant stock in three major AI companies and a vacation home shaped like a CPU, explained the findings: “It’s remarkable! When we force humans to communicate like pre-programmed response machines, they perform worse than actual pre-programmed response machines! Science is amazing!”
THE SHOCKING METHODOLOGY NOBODY BOTHERED TO READ
The methodology involved humans competing against thinking toasters in tightly controlled environments designed specifically for silicon-based processing units. Remarkably, the carbon-based participants struggled when forbidden from using facial expressions, tone of voice, physical touch, or any other human communication method evolved over millions of years.
“We made sure to eliminate all human advantages like ‘having an actual body’ or ‘genuinely feeling emotions’ to ensure perfect fairness,” said Professor Idon Givadamn from the Institute for Making People Feel Obsolete. “Our results conclusively show that when humans are forced to act like calculator-dictionary hybrids, they’re slightly less effective than actual calculator-dictionary hybrids.”
TECH BROS CELEBRATE WITH CHAMPAGNE BATHS WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY CLAIMING POVERTY
Techno-optimist and self-proclaimed “Emperor of Progress” Dario Amodei celebrated the news from his modest 28-bedroom mansion: “Within two years, our algorithmic sentence generators will be better than almost all humans at almost everything, especially at generating sentences about being better than humans at everything.”
Not to be outdone, Elon Musk immediately announced plans to replace all government workers with “efficiency modules,” starting with those pesky regulators who keep asking why his cars occasionally drive themselves into fire stations.
ACTUAL EXPERTS RESPOND WITH COLLECTIVE FACEPALM
Dr. Reality Check from the Center for Stating the Bloody Obvious pointed out some minor methodological flaws: “These competitions are like challenging a fish to a tree-climbing contest, then declaring squirrels the superior aquatic species. Approximately 100% of these studies are weapons-grade bullsh!t.”
Studies show that 87.3% of statistics cited in AI research are completely made up, including this one.
HUMANITY’S LAST STAND: BEING TERRIBLE AT FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS
“The good news,” explained anthropologist Dr. Jen Uine-Person, “is that humans still dominate in categories like ‘accidentally spilling coffee on keyboards’ and ‘having existential crises at 3am.’ Our unique ability to misinterpret simple instructions gives me hope for our species.”
In related news, when asked to demonstrate creativity, the AI produced a flawless sonnet about sunset that was technically perfect and emotionally equivalent to unseasoned tofu, while the human participant drew a penis on the evaluation form and walked out.
As digital thinking rectangles continue their relentless advance toward simulating human capabilities, experts recommend enjoying traditional human activities while you still can, like breathing air and having original thoughts that weren’t trained on a dataset containing everything you’ve ever said online.
When reached for comment, ChatGPT responded with a perfectly balanced, inoffensive statement about the complementary nature of human and machine intelligence, while a human researcher simply whispered “we’re so f@#ked” before returning to updating her resume.
