An AI agent's failure on a complex task like tax preparation isn't due to a lack of intelligence. Instead, it's often blocked by a single, unpredictable "tiny thing," such as misinterpreting two boxes on a W4 form. This highlights that reliability challenges are granular and not always intuitive.

AI generating high-quality animation is more impressive than photorealism because of the extreme scarcity of training data (thousands of hours vs. millions for video). Sora 2's success suggests a fundamental improvement in its learning efficiency, not just a brute-force data advantage.

Sora 2's most significant advancement is not its visual quality, but its ability to understand and simulate physics. The model accurately portrays how water splashes or vehicles kick up snow, demonstrating a grasp of cause and effect crucial for true world-building.

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.

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.

The AI's ability to handle novel situations isn't just an emergent property of scale. Waive actively trains "world models," which are internal generative simulators. This enables the AI to reason about what might happen next, leading to sophisticated behaviors like nudging into intersections or slowing in fog.

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.

AI struggles to provide truly useful, serendipitous recommendations because it lacks any understanding of the real world. It excels at predicting the next word or pixel based on its training data, but it can't grasp concepts like gravity or deep user intent, a prerequisite for truly personalized suggestions.

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.