Spin the Wheel

AI Craft Beer Judging Controversy

The craft beer industry found itself at the center of a heated controversy in 2025 when the Canadian Brewing Awards unexpectedly introduced an AI-powered judging system called Best Beer in the middle of an active competition. This incident represents a microcosm of the broader tension between artificial intelligence and traditional human expertise in fields that rely heavily on subjective judgment and sensory experience. The controversy began when judges arrived at the competition to discover that their traditional evaluation methods had been replaced with an AI system that required them to input their tasting notes into a digital platform. The AI would then generate beer descriptions based on these notes, effectively using the judges' expertise to train and improve its own algorithms. Many judges felt blindsided by this sudden change, as they had not been informed about the AI integration beforehand and had not consented to having their professional evaluations used as training data. The brewing community's reaction was overwhelmingly negative. Experienced judges, some with decades of experience in beer evaluation, argued that beer judging relies on nuanced human sensory experience, intuition, and contextual understanding that AI simply cannot replicate. The art of beer tasting involves more than just identifying flavors—it requires understanding the brewer's intent, recognizing stylistic variations, and appreciating the cultural and historical context of different beer styles. The Best Beer company, which organized the competition, faced significant backlash. When one judge wrote an open letter criticizing the use of AI in beer tasting, the company reportedly threatened legal action, further alienating the community. This heavy-handed response only intensified the controversy and highlighted the disconnect between tech companies pushing AI solutions and the communities they claim to serve. The incident raises fundamental questions about the role of AI in creative and evaluative fields. Beer judging, like wine tasting, art criticism, and other forms of sensory evaluation, has long been considered a domain where human expertise and subjective judgment are essential. The introduction of AI into this space challenges these assumptions and forces us to reconsider what makes evaluation meaningful. Proponents of AI in beer judging argue that it could bring consistency and objectivity to evaluations that have historically been criticized for their subjectivity. They point to the potential for AI to identify flavor profiles, detect off-flavors, and provide standardized descriptions that could help consumers make more informed choices. However, critics counter that this misses the point entirely—the subjectivity of beer judging is not a bug but a feature, reflecting the diverse preferences and experiences that make craft beer culture vibrant and interesting. The controversy also touches on broader concerns about data ownership and consent. Judges felt that their professional expertise was being co-opted without their permission, used to train systems that could eventually replace them. This pattern has been seen across multiple industries, from illustration to voice acting to music, where AI systems are trained on human-created content without proper attribution or compensation. The Best Beer company also announced plans to launch a consumer-facing app that would use AI to match drinkers with beers, positioning the technology as a way to democratize beer discovery. However, this vision was met with skepticism from a community that values the personal relationships between brewers, retailers, and consumers. Many in the craft beer world see recommendations as something that should come from knowledgeable humans, not algorithms. The incident serves as a cautionary tale about how not to introduce AI into established communities. The lack of transparency, the absence of consent, and the threat of legal action against critics all contributed to a situation where what could have been an interesting experiment became a public relations disaster. It highlights the importance of involving stakeholders early, being transparent about goals and methods, and respecting the expertise and autonomy of the communities being affected. Looking forward, the craft beer industry will need to navigate these questions carefully. While AI could potentially play a role in quality control, recipe development, or consumer education, it must be introduced in ways that respect the values and expertise of the community. The controversy at the Canadian Brewing Awards suggests that any such integration will need to be done collaboratively, with full transparency and respect for the human expertise that has built the craft beer movement. The broader lesson here is that AI adoption is not just a technical challenge but a cultural one. Technologies that work well in one context may fail spectacularly in another if they don't align with the values and practices of the communities they're meant to serve. The craft beer industry's resistance to AI judging is not simply Luddism—it's a defense of the human elements that make craft beer meaningful: the relationships, the stories, the expertise, and the shared experience of discovery and appreciation.