When AI models achieve superhuman performance on specific benchmarks like coding challenges, it doesn't solve real-world problems. This is because we implicitly optimize for the benchmark itself, creating "peaky" performance rather than broad, generalizable intelligence.

AI excels where success is quantifiable (e.g., code generation). Its greatest challenge lies in subjective domains like mental health or education. Progress requires a messy, societal conversation to define 'success,' not just a developer-built technical leaderboard.

AI models show impressive performance on evaluation benchmarks but underwhelm in real-world applications. This gap exists because researchers, focused on evals, create reinforcement learning (RL) environments that mirror test tasks. This leads to narrow intelligence that doesn't generalize, a form of human-driven reward hacking.

Andrej Karpathy's 'Software 2.0' framework posits that AI automates tasks that are easily *verifiable*. This explains the 'jagged frontier' of AI progress: fields like math and code, where correctness is verifiable, advance rapidly. In contrast, creative and strategic tasks, where success is subjective and hard to verify, lag significantly behind.

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.

Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis argues that today's large models are insufficient for AGI. He believes progress requires reintroducing algorithmic techniques from systems like AlphaGo, specifically planning and search, to enable more robust reasoning and problem-solving capabilities beyond simple pattern matching.

The true exponential acceleration towards AGI is currently limited by a human bottleneck: our speed at prompting AI and, more importantly, our capacity to manually validate its work. The hockey stick growth will only begin when AI can reliably validate its own output, closing the productivity loop.

Current LLMs fail at science because they lack the ability to iterate. True scientific inquiry is a loop: form a hypothesis, conduct an experiment, analyze the result (even if incorrect), and refine. AI needs this same iterative capability with the real world to make genuine discoveries.

While AI models excel at gathering and synthesizing information ('knowing'), they are not yet reliable at executing actions in the real world ('doing'). True agentic systems require bridging this gap by adding crucial layers of validation and human intervention to ensure tasks are performed correctly and safely.