A significant hurdle for AI, especially in replacing tasks like RPA, is that models are trained and then "frozen." They don't continuously learn from new interactions post-deployment. This makes them less adaptable than a true learning system.
Related Insights
Even with vast training data, current AI models are far less sample-efficient than humans. This limits their ability to adapt and learn new skills on the fly. They resemble a perpetual new hire who can access information but lacks the deep, instinctual learning that comes from experience and weight updates.
The current limitation of LLMs is their stateless nature; they reset with each new chat. The next major advancement will be models that can learn from interactions and accumulate skills over time, evolving from a static tool into a continuously improving digital colleague.
People overestimate AI's 'out-of-the-box' capability. Successful AI products require extensive work on data pipelines, context tuning, and continuous model training based on output. It's not a plug-and-play solution that magically produces correct responses.
Many AI projects fail to reach production because of reliability issues. The vision for continual learning is to deploy agents that are 'good enough,' then use RL to correct behavior based on real-world errors, much like training a human. This solves the final-mile reliability problem and could unlock a vast market.
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.
Unlike deterministic SaaS software that works consistently, AI is probabilistic and doesn't work perfectly out of the box. Achieving 'human-grade' performance (e.g., 99.9% reliability) requires continuous tuning and expert guidance, countering the hype that AI is an immediate, hands-off solution.
AI's value is overestimated because experts view complex jobs as simple, solvable tasks. The real bottleneck is the unproductive effort required to build a custom training pipeline for every company-specific micro-task. Human workers are valuable precisely because they avoid this “schleppy training loop” by learning on the job, a capability current AI lacks.
While AI can effectively replicate an executive's communication style or past decisions, it falls short in capturing their capacity for continuous learning and adaptation. A leader’s judgment evolves with new context, a dynamic process that current AI models struggle to keep pace with.
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.
A key gap between AI and human intelligence is the lack of experiential learning. Unlike a human who improves on a job over time, an LLM is stateless. It doesn't truly learn from interactions; it's the same static model for every user, which is a major barrier to AGI.
