AI performs poorly in areas where expertise is based on unwritten 'taste' or intuition rather than documented knowledge. If the correct approach doesn't exist in training data or isn't explicitly provided by human trainers, models will inevitably struggle with that particular problem.
Related Insights
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 "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.
The current focus on pre-training AI with specific tool fluencies overlooks the crucial need for on-the-job, context-specific learning. Humans excel because they don't need pre-rehearsal for every task. This gap indicates AGI is further away than some believe, as true intelligence requires self-directed, continuous learning in novel environments.
When selecting foundational models, engineering teams often prioritize "taste" and predictable failure patterns over raw performance. A model that fails slightly more often but in a consistent, understandable way is more valuable and easier to build robust systems around than a top-performer with erratic, hard-to-debug errors.
AI models have absorbed the internet's general knowledge, so the new bottleneck is correcting complex, domain-specific reasoning. This creates a market for specialists (e.g., physicists, accountants) to provide 'post-training' human feedback on subtle errors.
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.
AI struggles to provide truly useful, serendipitous recommendations because it lacks any understanding of the real world. It excels at predicting the next word or pixel based on its training data, but it can't grasp concepts like gravity or deep user intent, a prerequisite for truly personalized suggestions.
AI models excel at specific tasks (like evals) because they are trained exhaustively on narrow datasets, akin to a student practicing 10,000 hours for a coding competition. While they become experts in that domain, they fail to develop the broader judgment and generalization skills needed for real-world success.
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 most valuable AI systems are built by people with deep knowledge in a specific field (like pest control or law), not by engineers. This expertise is crucial for identifying the right problems and, more importantly, for creating effective evaluations to ensure the agent performs correctly.
