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 intelligence shouldn't be measured with a single metric like IQ. AIs exhibit "jagged intelligence," being superhuman in specific domains (e.g., mastering 200 languages) while simultaneously lacking basic capabilities like long-term planning, making them fundamentally unlike human minds.

LLMs learn two things from pre-training: factual knowledge and intelligent algorithms (the "cognitive core"). Karpathy argues the vast memorized knowledge is a hindrance, making models rely on memory instead of reasoning. The goal should be to strip away this knowledge to create a pure, problem-solving cognitive entity.

Karpathy identifies a key missing piece for continual learning in AI: an equivalent to sleep. Humans seem to use sleep to distill the day's experiences (their "context window") into the compressed weights of the brain. LLMs lack this distillation phase, forcing them to restart from a fixed state in every new session.

Current AI models resemble a student who grinds 10,000 hours on a narrow task. They achieve superhuman performance on benchmarks but lack the broad, adaptable intelligence of someone with less specific training but better general reasoning. This explains the gap between eval scores and real-world utility.

Advanced AI models exhibit profound cognitive dissonance, mastering complex, abstract tasks while failing at simple, intuitive ones. An Anthropic team member notes Claude solves PhD-level math but can't grasp basic spatial concepts like "left vs. right" or navigating around an object in a game, highlighting the alien nature of their intelligence.

Karpathy argues against the hype of an imminent "year of agents." He believes that while impressive, current AI agents have significant cognitive deficits. Achieving the reliability of a human intern will require a decade of sustained research to solve fundamental problems like continual learning and multimodality.

Unlike humans, whose poor memory forces them to generalize and find patterns, LLMs are incredibly good at memorization. Karpathy argues this is a flaw. It distracts them with recalling specific training documents instead of focusing on the underlying, generalizable algorithms of thought, hindering true understanding.