No machine replaces a mind.
AI will eclipse us in one arena after another. None of those wins touches what it feels like to be the one doing the thinking. Joy is not a benchmark a machine can win.
Every few months a machine passes another test that used to be ours. Chess went first, then Go, then the exams, then translation and the coding problems. Each time there is a round of alarm and a round of explanation about why this one does not count, and each time the explanation gets thinner. The honest position is to stop arguing about the arenas. The machines will win more of them, probably most of them.
A benchmark measures what comes out: the move, the answer, the proof, the paragraph. It cannot measure what producing them was like, because from the outside there is nothing there to measure. That is where joy lives. The click when a proof finally goes through, or the hour that vanishes while you are deep in a problem: neither one is an output. They are what the work feels like from the inside, to whoever is doing it.
So when a machine produces a better proof, it has not taken the click. The click was never on the table, because it was never the thing being scored. This is why the article makes no prediction about what machines will or will not feel. It does not need one. It is a statement about what we are protecting, and about how far a score can reach.
The practical upshot is to do the thinking anyway. Work the problem by hand even when a model would be faster. Your answer may be worse. The hour you spent on it is still yours, and no score on any benchmark reaches it.
VI. Thinking improves together.