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.

Related Insights

AI won't replace designers because it lacks taste and subjective opinion. Instead, as AI gets better at generating highly opinionated (though not perfect) designs, it will serve as a powerful exploration tool. This plants more flags in the option space, allowing human designers to react, curate, and push the most promising directions further, amplifying their strategic role.

Using AI to code doesn't mean sacrificing craftsmanship. It shifts the craftsman's role from writing every line to being a director with a strong vision. The key is measuring the AI's output against that vision and ensuring each piece fits the larger puzzle correctly, not just functionally.

AI's strength lies in solving "differentiable" problems where being "close enough" is acceptable, like generating an image. Classical code is better for non-differentiable tasks requiring exact precision, like arithmetic or hashing. This framework helps architects decide where to deploy AI versus traditional algorithms.

Large language models are insufficient for tasks requiring real-world interaction and spatial understanding, like robotics or disaster response. World models provide this missing piece by generating interactive, reason-able 3D environments. They represent a foundational shift from language-based AI to a more holistic, spatially intelligent AI.

True creative mastery emerges from an unpredictable human process. AI can generate options quickly but bypasses this journey, losing the potential for inexplicable, last-minute genius that defines truly great work. It optimizes for speed at the cost of brilliance.

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.

The most creative use of AI isn't a single-shot generation. It's a continuous feedback loop. Designers should treat AI outputs as intermediate "throughputs"—artifacts to be edited in traditional tools and then fed back into the AI model as new inputs. This iterative remixing process is where happy accidents and true innovation occur.

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.

The recent leap in AI coding isn't solely from a more powerful base model. The true innovation is a product layer that enables agent-like behavior: the system constantly evaluates and refines its own output, leading to far more complex and complete results than the LLM could achieve alone.

Programming is not a linear, left-to-right task; developers constantly check bidirectional dependencies. Transformers' sequential reasoning is a poor match. Diffusion models, which can refine different parts of code simultaneously, offer a more natural and potentially superior architecture for coding tasks.