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.
Related Insights
GI discovered their world model, trained on game footage, could generate a realistic camera shake during an in-game explosion—a physical effect not part of the game's engine. This suggests the models are learning an implicit understanding of real-world physics and can generate plausible phenomena that go beyond their source material.
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.
Today's AI models are powerful but lack a true sense of causality, leading to illogical errors. Unconventional AI's Naveen Rao hypothesizes that building AI on substrates with inherent time and dynamics—mimicking the physical world—is the key to developing this missing causal understanding.
Current AI can learn to predict complex patterns, like planetary orbits, from data. However, it struggles to abstract the underlying causal laws, such as Newtonian physics (F=MA). This leap to a higher level of abstraction remains a fundamental challenge beyond simple pattern recognition.
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.
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.
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.
Current multimodal models shoehorn visual data into a 1D text-based sequence. True spatial intelligence is different. It requires a native 3D/4D representation to understand a world governed by physics, not just human-generated language. This is a foundational architectural shift, not an extension of LLMs.
A Harvard study showed LLMs can predict planetary orbits (pattern fitting) but generate nonsensical force vectors when probed. This reveals a critical gap: current models mimic data patterns but don't develop a true, generalizable understanding of underlying physical laws, separating them from human intelligence.
Human intelligence is multifaceted. While LLMs excel at linguistic intelligence, they lack spatial intelligence—the ability to understand, reason, and interact within a 3D world. This capability, crucial for tasks from robotics to scientific discovery, is the focus for the next wave of AI models.