Article
Can AI Replace Human Judgement?
AI can now produce the graphic for an advert. It writes the newsletter. It prepares the product page. The person who used to do this work is probably still sitting in the office. The question is what exactly their job is, and what it will be.
For a long time the story was that AI would take over the routine and leave people the important part. It does not have to be that way. AI can work out faster than a person where a company has the most potential to move revenue, acquisition, retention. And it can carry out the steps it proposes itself.
When AI makes both the decision and does the work, what is left for the person?
The obvious answer is judgement.
What Judgement Looks Like in Practice
It is the ability to look at an output and know whether it is good, and to know it in the context of a particular company, not in the abstract.
Take the work of an advertising specialist. AI generates ten graphics for them. If that person has no judgement about what a good advert graphic looks like in the context of that specific company (its customer, its brand voice, its market), then they cannot be the one whose judgement decides. They click on the one they like. That is not the judgement I mean. That is subjective taste with nothing behind it.
The same holds for the newsletter. For the product page. For anything that can be delegated to AI. The value of the person has moved from producing the thing to judging it. And only someone with real expertise, anchored in the context of the company, can judge it.
Why Most People Lack Judgement
Here is the uncomfortable part. Most people working in a given field today have worse judgement than AI. Not better. Some of them know it, and so they delegate the judgement too: they let AI decide what is good as well, because they cannot judge it more reliably themselves.
But when a person cannot judge quality properly, they cannot meaningfully delegate the work to AI either. To delegate is to stay responsible and able to check. Someone who cannot check only hands the work over and hopes, and their position loses its meaning.
In many companies you can see it clearly. There is someone who only picks from what AI generates, by feel, and changes nothing about the result. And there is someone who is critical of the result, and whose prompting actually gets the output corrected. That is the dividing line.
The minority on the other side of that line are different. Their judgement, anchored in the context of the company, is often far better than anything AI produces. And getting AI to their level is exactly the hard part.
Can AI Be Taught Judgement?
This is the crucial question. My answer: yes, but not in the way most people imagine, and never with a single prompt.
Join the Library
Full access to my findings, personal stories, and what I learn from the people I meet.
Join the Library · €29.99 per year How do you stop depending on social media? Can… How to Start With AI in a Company: Automating… Fable 5 vs Opus: I Ran the Same Audit… I Ran Object Detection on My Laptop, and Saw… Bot or Human? What My… Dependent on AI: Are We…Get the full article by email and feel free to reply if you want to discuss it further.
Summary
Common questions on this article's topic
Can AI replace human judgement?
Can AI be taught a company's judgement?
Why is internet training data not enough for judgement?
Whose job does AI replace first?
How do I know if my judgement is replaceable?
If you have any thoughts, questions, or feedback, feel free to drop me a message at mail@richardgolian.com.
LinkedIn
Related articles
A few days ago I interviewed a senior marketer. An experienced man, years of practice. I asked him about AI. He said he barely uses it. He had one bad experience with the output and decided he was too senior for it to add value when it is not perfect. I know the other side too: professionals who automate everything that can be automated.
Yesterday I could not tear myself away from the computer. When I lifted my head, it was half past eight in the evening. I had been sitting alone upstairs for about three hours.
Will AI take my job? A certified Google trainer told me in June 2024 that my profession would cease to exist. Twenty-two months later, my job title has not changed, but ninety percent of what I do during the day is different. I have delegated more of my thinking to AI agents than I thought possible. I am not afraid. This is why, and what it means for anyone asking the same question.
More articles
How and why I am gradually leaving social media and the big platforms. When I read that Meta is testing a new way to charge for organic posts that link outside its platform, it confirms how right I was to become steadily less dependent on the big platforms and on social media. It does not mean I have left them completely. It means that whether or not I stay in touch with my readers depends on them less and less, and today almost not at all.
One of my family members described a firm that has its data in several different tools, and its employees still join it by hand, in spreadsheets. That is the ordinary state of firms. When somebody tells such people not to do it by hand and to use AI, they will not understand. Most firms do not even have the basic connectors between the tools they use. These firms need help with AI transformation.
The same task, two models. Fable 5 against Opus 4.8. On paper Fable is the better model, with a larger context and stronger specs. And still it lost. Opus handled the task with a single round of checking for 721,000 tokens, while Fable needed nine rounds and burnt through 2.78 million tokens. The difference was not in the model, but in how I set the task. And I know it, because I measured it.
A few weeks ago I installed a small local AI model on my laptop that watches a live camera feed. I turned the webcam on in the dark, and in near total darkness it recognised me and the objects in the room. That such things exist, I have known for a long time. What opened my eyes was the accessibility. I installed it in one prompt, free, and it runs entirely on my machine, sending data nowhere.
I once wrote about building my own privacy-friendly analytics tool. It had bot detection from the first version, yet it was not enough. Direct visits took a strangely high share of my traffic. When someone claims that 20% of their visits are bots and 80% are humans, I used to think the same. Today I would say the opposite ratio is closer to the truth. This is how I got there.
I have Heidegger and my notebook beside me. I am asking where all of this is heading, where artificial intelligence is taking us.
Seventy per cent. That is where the first AI output begins, even when you give it the full company context and the best examples from the past. We are talking about the kind of output that cannot be defined programmatically. It is more complex. Often it is creative work. On one repeated type of output I reached eighty per cent within a week. Every further percentage point is harder than the one before.
For a long time we treated the internet as the main road. The place where work and relationships happen. Yet most of what we see on it today is, or soon will be, AI-generated: text, images, profiles and comments. The internet is turning into an online game full of bots, where you cannot be sure that a human is on the other side of anything. So I ask: was the online world the main road, or only a temporary detour that part of us will return from, back offline?
Europe does not have the capacity to face a full-scale, mass drone war of the kind we see in Ukraine. Three dependencies weaken it: China supplies the physical material for defence systems, the United States supplies capabilities Europe does not have, and twenty-seven states cannot agree how fast, or who pays. Rearmament plans exist, but they are being carried out slowly.
Four days in Catalonia. No computer, no AI, almost no social media. I bought this notebook so that I could write down what I would think about, and what I would come across and learn on the trip.