Technique in the simplest sense, as per my hybrid definition garnered by reading the works of Josef Hoffman and Charles Rosen, is the ability to negotiate passages of music precisely and with absolute control. I would also like to add, that as Charles Rosen aptly states (I am not quoting, but relating from memory a generalization of the text), the way we strike the keys has no impact on the quality of sound. We like to think that a certain motion of the arms or swinging of the elbows produces a different sound, but it simply does not. A piano key is a button. You push it at a certain velocity, and hold it for a certain length, and the sound that emanates from the machine (because the piano is really a mechanical object aside from being an instrument) is relative to that velocity and length. Whether you smack the key with a hammer or with your finger, if the velocity is the same, the sound will be the same. You push a button, something happens. It doesn't matter whether the button is pushed with your finger, a stick, or a mallet. The impact on sound by pressing the keys differently is garnered by a visual interpretation of what the sound would be like if it really did have an impact on tone quality. If you see the pianist really sink into the keys, you can see that he wants a heavy sound, and that is what makes it sound heavy. The visual perception, not any real difference in sound.
Therefore technique is not the playing of music but the facilitation of a passage and must be considered an independent factor. In this sense, can a human be more efficient than a machine? No, a human does not possess the same level of precision that a programmed machine does. Speed and clarity are not the only factors, but volume, and note length as well, and even tempo. In this, a human will never be able to match a programmed machine. Thus, as proposed by the topic's author, a PROGRAMMED machine does possess the superior technique, independent of art.
Think you can keep perfect tempo with evenness of tone and length? Think again. You may think you can, but your ear does not catch everything. Go hook up a quality Midi Keyboard to a computer, and start up GarageBand or a similar MIDI editing program, and play a scale or arpeggio, anything you please. Then look at the MIDI sequence. You'll be surprised. Pleasantly or unpleasantly surprised, however, is the question.
However, we cannot lose sight of the purpose of building a formidable piano technique. Yes, it is nice to be able to play clean, fast, even scales and arpeggios, etc. But aside from that and being able to play very difficult music, is not the purpose of developing that technique to make it easier for us to convey our musical ideas? Many people could do great justice to monumental piano works yet they simply do not have the physical capability to do so. Their emotions and their intellect run beyond the capabilities of their hands.
Having that perfect technique, that precise digital control, is more about making it easier to convey our musical thoughts than it is to be able to play things at "x" speed.
Yes, technique and artful playing are independent in theory, but in practice, they are very much intertwined as technique can limit or aid in the latter.
Topic: My assessment of what constitutes the greatest technique.