Automated programs are not limited by stamina, attention span, sleep cycles, etc. so I don't think AIs being better at something is necessarily an indicator of failure for humans.

Dogs were used to rotate roasting spits in Britain during the Early Modern era: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnspit_dog Does this mean humans were inferior to dogs at the task? Absolutely not. It was just a more efficient alternative based on what was available to them at that point in time.