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.

LLMs shine when acting as a 'knowledge extruder'—shaping well-documented, 'in-distribution' concepts into specific code. They fail when the core task is novel problem-solving where deep thinking, not code generation, is the bottleneck. In these cases, the code is the easy part.

AI models show impressive performance on evaluation benchmarks but underwhelm in real-world applications. This gap exists because researchers, focused on evals, create reinforcement learning (RL) environments that mirror test tasks. This leads to narrow intelligence that doesn't generalize, a form of human-driven reward hacking.

Even with vast training data, current AI models are far less sample-efficient than humans. This limits their ability to adapt and learn new skills on the fly. They resemble a perpetual new hire who can access information but lacks the deep, instinctual learning that comes from experience and weight updates.

The current limitation of LLMs is their stateless nature; they reset with each new chat. The next major advancement will be models that can learn from interactions and accumulate skills over time, evolving from a static tool into a continuously improving digital colleague.

The "bitter lesson" in AI research posits that methods leveraging massive computation scale better and ultimately win out over approaches that rely on human-designed domain knowledge or clever shortcuts, favoring scale over ingenuity.

A critical weakness of current AI models is their inefficient learning process. They require exponentially more experience—sometimes 100,000 times more data than a human encounters in a lifetime—to acquire their skills. This highlights a key difference from human cognition and a major hurdle for developing more advanced, human-like AI.

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.

The "bitter lesson" (scale and simple models win) works for language because training data (text) aligns with the output (text). Robotics faces a critical misalignment: it's trained on passive web videos but needs to output physical actions in a 3D world. This data gap is a fundamental hurdle that pure scaling cannot solve.