There's a significant gap between AI performance in simulated benchmarks and in the real world. Despite scoring highly on evaluations, AIs in real deployments make "silly mistakes that no human would ever dream of doing," suggesting that current benchmarks don't capture the messiness and unpredictability of reality.

Progress in robotics for household tasks is limited by a scarcity of real-world training data, not mechanical engineering. Companies are now deploying capital-intensive "in-field" teams to collect multi-modal data from inside homes, capturing the complexity of mundane human activities to train more capable robots.

The adoption of powerful AI architectures like transformers in robotics was bottlenecked by data quality, not algorithmic invention. Only after data collection methods improved to capture more dexterous, high-fidelity human actions did these advanced models become effective, reversing the typical 'algorithm-first' narrative of AI progress.

The effectiveness of an AI system isn't solely dependent on the model's sophistication. It's a collaboration between high-quality training data, the model itself, and the contextual understanding of how to apply both to solve a real-world problem. Neglecting data or context leads to poor outcomes.

Ken Goldberg quantifies the challenge: the text data used to train LLMs would take a human 100,000 years to read. Equivalent data for robot manipulation (vision-to-control signals) doesn't exist online and must be generated from scratch, explaining the slower progress in physical AI.

AI can generate art because it was trained on the internet's vast trove of images. It struggles with physical tasks like washing dishes because there is virtually no first-person video data for such actions. Solving this data-gathering problem is key to advancing robotics.

Today's AI systems exhibit "jagged intelligence"—strong performance on many tasks but inconsistent reliability on others. This prevents full job replacement because being 95% effective is insufficient when the remaining 5% involves crucial edge cases, judgment, and discretion that still require human oversight.

The most fundamental challenge in AI today is not scale or architecture, but the fact that models generalize dramatically worse than humans. Solving this sample efficiency and robustness problem is the true key to unlocking the next level of AI capabilities and real-world impact.

The central challenge for current AI is not merely sample efficiency but a more profound failure to generalize. Models generalize 'dramatically worse than people,' which is the root cause of their brittleness, inability to learn from nuanced instruction, and unreliability compared to human intelligence. Solving this is the key to the next paradigm.