March of the machines: we're losing our creative edge to AI

Muscling into most endeavours, artificial intellience is beating its human makers. By Steven Boykey Sidley

- Steven Boykey Sidley

A little over two weeks ago, ChatGPT-5 was announced to mixed reviews, some breathless, some scathing. At the time, I was at the early stages of planning an article about a subject somewhat further afield than my usual hunting grounds.

Just before I started writing, curious about ChatGPT-5, I asked it to write the piece, using prompts such as “rigorous, well-sourced and referenced research”, “trends and statistics”, “contested issues”, “major players”, “up-to-date anecdotes and incidents”, “light humour and satire” and “pull quotes from experts”.

I switched to Word before it had finished thinking and wrote my article for the next few hours. I then switched back to the ChatGPT tab to read its attempt.

There's no other way to say this — the ChatGPT-5 article was better than mine in every metric you care to measure: better structured, better written, more perceptive, more deeply sourced, more surprising, full of “voice” and more interesting to read.

I could go on, but it’s too depressing. (Note: when I reported a similar incident some months ago using a previous version of ChatGPT, the Al's attempt was good, but not better than mine. Not this time.)

I quickly closed ChatGPT-5 (in a horrified, slamming-shut-Pandora’s-box sort of way) and sent my own article to the publication. I couldn't, in good conscience, send the AI article, even if it was better, even if I was the person who prompted it.

I am struggling to understand why.