OpenAI co-founder Ilya Sutskever suggests the path to AGI is not creating a pre-trained, all-knowing model, but an AI that can learn any task as effectively as a human. This reframes the challenge from knowledge transfer to creating a universal learning algorithm, impacting how such systems would be deployed.

Digital computing, the standard for 80 years, is too power-hungry for scalable AI. Unconventional AI's Naveen Rao is betting on analog computing, which uses physics to perform calculations, as a more energy-efficient substrate for the unique demands of intelligent, stochastic workloads.

The popular conception of AGI as a pre-trained system that knows everything is flawed. A more realistic and powerful goal is an AI with a human-like ability for continual learning. This system wouldn't be deployed as a finished product, but as a 'super-intelligent 15-year-old' that learns and adapts to specific roles.

A "software-only singularity," where AI recursively improves itself, is unlikely. Progress is fundamentally tied to large-scale, costly physical experiments (i.e., compute). The massive spending on experimental compute over pure researcher salaries indicates that physical experimentation, not just algorithms, remains the primary driver of breakthroughs.

Current AI can learn to predict complex patterns, like planetary orbits, from data. However, it struggles to abstract the underlying causal laws, such as Newtonian physics (F=MA). This leap to a higher level of abstraction remains a fundamental challenge beyond simple pattern recognition.

We are building AI, a fundamentally stochastic and fuzzy system, on top of highly precise and deterministic digital computers. Unconventional AI founder Naveen Rao argues this is a profound mismatch. The goal is to build a new computing substrate—analog circuits—that is isomorphic to the nature of intelligence itself.

Instead of replacing entire systems with AI "world models," a superior approach is a hybrid model. Classical code should handle deterministic logic (like game physics), while AI provides a "differentiable" emergent layer for aesthetics and creativity (like real-time texturing). This leverages the unique strengths of both computational paradigms.

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.

A Harvard study showed LLMs can predict planetary orbits (pattern fitting) but generate nonsensical force vectors when probed. This reveals a critical gap: current models mimic data patterns but don't develop a true, generalizable understanding of underlying physical laws, separating them from human intelligence.