AI models excel at specific tasks (like evals) because they are trained exhaustively on narrow datasets, akin to a student practicing 10,000 hours for a coding competition. While they become experts in that domain, they fail to develop the broader judgment and generalization skills needed for real-world success.
Related Insights
Anthropic's David Hershey states it's "deeply unsurprising" that AI is great at software engineering because the labs are filled with software engineers. This suggests AI's capabilities are skewed by its creators' expertise, and achieving similar performance in fields like law requires deeper integration with domain experts.
The proliferation of AI leaderboards incentivizes companies to optimize models for specific benchmarks. This creates a risk of "acing the SATs" where models excel on tests but don't necessarily make progress on solving real-world problems. This focus on gaming metrics could diverge from creating genuine user value.
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.
LLMs shine when acting as a 'knowledge extruder'—shaping well-documented, 'in-distribution' concepts into specific code. They fail when the core task is novel problem-solving where deep thinking, not code generation, is the bottleneck. In these cases, the code is the easy part.
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.
Salesforce's AI Chief warns of "jagged intelligence," where LLMs can perform brilliant, complex tasks but fail at simple common-sense ones. This inconsistency is a significant business risk, as a failure in a basic but crucial task (e.g., loan calculation) can have severe consequences.
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.
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.
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 central challenge for current AI is not merely sample efficiency but a more profound failure to generalize. Models generalize 'dramatically worse than people,' which is the root cause of their brittleness, inability to learn from nuanced instruction, and unreliability compared to human intelligence. Solving this is the key to the next paradigm.