Why "Treat AI Like a Person" Is More Precise Than It Sounds: A Case for Reading the Gap Map
· 9 min read
I ended last time with: "Treat AI like a person. The confusion mostly goes away."
I still believe that. But "like a person" is more precise than it sounds — and most people are using it imprecisely.
The mistake is treating human capability as a single axis, and AI as a point somewhere on it. Better or worse, faster or slower, ready or not. The actual shape is jagged. Which makes it considerably more useful.
The frame isn't just "AI is like a person." It's more useful than that: human capability is the map. The places where AI still can't match a person are exactly where the interesting work is.