I think philosophically the idea of humans competing with computers comes down to balancing two sometimes opposing things: A) which types of skills are interest

I think philosophically the idea of humans competing with computers comes down to balancing two sometimes opposing things: A) which types of skills are interesting to test, and B) which types of skills are inherently interesting for humans to have. For A, this comes up a lot in discussions about video game design and balance. Do we really want to be testing how good players are at detecting cloaked units or exactly counting groups of units in battles? I tend to think those aren't super interesting strategically, tactically, or mechanically. For B, there's a reason that human competitive weightlifting or sprinting is still interesting, even though everyone knows that machines could trivially win those competitions. Of course, those aren't really tasks that are considered primarily measures of intelligence (although, see Moravec's paradox). It's damn cool to see the limits of human ability stretched. Of course, questions about expensive gear, performance-enhancing drugs, and even prosthetics and cybernetics can already challenge our philosophy of what makes human competition "fair." We inherently want to test the inequalities of humans, both we're only interested in certain inequalities. Generally, we're interested in who can lift the most weight, not in who could take the most growth hormones without dying.