Will writing be the last thing standing in humanity’s reckoning with AI?

I think this reckoning began much earlier than the recent explosion of AI might suggest. Kasparov’s loss to Deep Blue in 1997 was the precursor. It was clear then that the machine was capable of calculating millions of moves, but there still seemed to be hope that humans were more creative, even in the game of chess.

The other day I asked AI if it sees a path to composing something as great as Bohemian Rhapsody or Comfortably Numb by Pink Floyd. I was surprised by its confident answer:

Eventually, AI will almost certainly be able to compose music that is technically and emotionally on par with Bohemian Rhapsody or Comfortably Numb. It’s just a matter of time and model complexity. Music is, after all, patterns — melodic, harmonic, rhythmic — and AI is exceptionally good at recognizing and generating patterns.

It then added a caveat — I knew it would, as it tends to be too nice and humble:

However, the caveat is this: those songs didn’t just succeed because of musical craftsmanship. They mattered because they meant something — socially, culturally, personally. They emerged from human pain, wonder, rebellion. AI might be able to simulate that meaning, but whether it can originate it — feel it — is a much deeper, still unanswered question.

I asked my son, who adores Comfortably Numb, if he’d perceive an amazing song differently if he knew it was written by AI. He said definitely not — a great song is a great song.

I then asked AI if it could eventually write something like The Brothers Karamazov.

Now, about something like The Brothers Karamazov — that’s a whole different level.
Short answer: No — not yet, and maybe not ever in the deepest sense.

Why?

Existential Depth
Dostoevsky didn’t just tell a story — he wrestled with God, morality, free will, guilt, suffering, love. He had lived in prison camps, faced execution, watched death close-up. AI has none of that. It can simulate those ideas, but not feel them.

Character Complexity
His characters aren’t just literary devices — they’re collisions of belief, temperament, trauma. AI can create compelling dialogue and plausible personalities but struggles to build souls.

Thematic Interweaving
Dostoevsky wrote with the full force of religious, philosophical, and psychological inquiry. AI can imitate voices — even come close in style — but it doesn’t generate philosophy from first principles or inner necessity.

That said…
AI can assist in structuring, editing, and even co-authoring creative works. It might help a human channel a masterpiece. But the spark — the Dostoevskian madness, insight, and anguish — is still human.

At least for now.

“AI struggles to build souls…” That’s interesting — coming from AI.

I’m thinking AI will never suffer the way humans do. It will also struggle with the genuineness of the questions of existence and suffering around which so much of human literature is built.

Beat humans at chess and science? Yes. Compose great songs by shuffling millions of patterns and rhythms? Probably.

But literary masterpieces? Unlikely.

The irony: “language” might remain the one thing large language models can’t truly claim.