While AI can attempt complex, hour-long tasks with 50% success, its reliability plummets for longer operations. For mission-critical enterprise use requiring 99.9% success, current AI can only reliably complete tasks taking about three seconds. This necessitates breaking large problems into many small, reliable micro-tasks.

Building software traditionally required minimal capital. However, advanced AI development introduces high compute costs, with users reporting spending hundreds on a single project. This trend could re-erect financial barriers to entry in software, making it a capital-intensive endeavor similar to hardware.

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.

Despite marketing hype, current AI agents are not fully autonomous and cannot replace an entire human job. They excel at executing a sequence of defined tasks to achieve a specific goal, like research, but lack the complex reasoning for broader job functions. True job replacement is likely still years away.

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.

If AI were perfect, it would simply replace tasks. Because it is imperfect and requires nuanced interaction, it creates demand for skilled professionals who can prompt, verify, and creatively apply it. This turns AI's limitations into a tool that requires and rewards human proficiency.

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 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 perceived limits of today's AI are not inherent to the models themselves but to our failure to build the right "agentic scaffold" around them. There's a "model capability overhang" where much more potential can be unlocked with better prompting, context engineering, and tool integrations.