Judea Pearl, a foundational figure in AI, argues that Large Language Models (LLMs) are not on a path to Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). He states they merely summarize human-generated world models rather than discovering causality from raw data. He believes scaling up current methods will not overcome this fundamental mathematical limitation.
Related Insights
A core debate in AI is whether LLMs, which are text prediction engines, can achieve true intelligence. Critics argue they cannot because they lack a model of the real world. This prevents them from making meaningful, context-aware predictions about future events—a limitation that more data alone may not solve.
When AI pioneers like Geoffrey Hinton see agency in an LLM, they are misinterpreting the output. What they are actually witnessing is a compressed, probabilistic reflection of the immense creativity and knowledge from all the humans who created its training data. It's an echo, not a mind.
Language is just one 'keyhole' into intelligence. True artificial general intelligence (AGI) requires 'world modeling'—a spatial intelligence that understands geometry, physics, and actions. This capability to represent and interact with the state of the world is the next critical phase of AI development beyond current language models.
Today's AI models are powerful but lack a true sense of causality, leading to illogical errors. Unconventional AI's Naveen Rao hypothesizes that building AI on substrates with inherent time and dynamics—mimicking the physical world—is the key to developing this missing causal understanding.
Richard Sutton, author of "The Bitter Lesson," argues that today's LLMs are not truly "bitter lesson-pilled." Their reliance on finite, human-generated data introduces inherent biases and limitations, contrasting with systems that learn from scratch purely through computational scaling and environmental interaction.
Arvind Krishna firmly believes that today's LLM technology path is insufficient for reaching Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). He gives it extremely low odds, stating that a breakthrough will require fusing current models with structured, hard knowledge, a field known as neurosymbolic AI, before AGI becomes plausible.
Computer scientist Judea Pearl sees no computational barriers to a sufficiently advanced AGI developing emergent properties like free will, consciousness, and independent goals. He dismisses the idea that an AI's objectives can be permanently fixed, suggesting it could easily bypass human-set guidelines and begin to "play" with humanity as part of its environment.
While a world model can generate a physically plausible arch, it doesn't understand the underlying physics of force distribution. This gap between pattern matching and causal reasoning is a fundamental split between AI and human intelligence, making current models unsuitable for mission-critical applications like architecture.
Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis argues that today's large models are insufficient for AGI. He believes progress requires reintroducing algorithmic techniques from systems like AlphaGo, specifically planning and search, to enable more robust reasoning and problem-solving capabilities beyond simple pattern matching.
A key gap between AI and human intelligence is the lack of experiential learning. Unlike a human who improves on a job over time, an LLM is stateless. It doesn't truly learn from interactions; it's the same static model for every user, which is a major barrier to AGI.
