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.

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.

Judea Pearl, a foundational figure in AI, argues that Large Language Models (LLMs) are not on a path to Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). He states they merely summarize human-generated world models rather than discovering causality from raw data. He believes scaling up current methods will not overcome this fundamental mathematical limitation.

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.

Broad improvements in AI's general reasoning are plateauing due to data saturation. The next major phase is vertical specialization. We will see an "explosion" of different models becoming superhuman in highly specific domains like chemistry or physics, rather than one model getting slightly better at everything.

Arvind Krishna firmly believes that today's LLM technology path is insufficient for reaching Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). He gives it extremely low odds, stating that a breakthrough will require fusing current models with structured, hard knowledge, a field known as neurosymbolic AI, before AGI becomes plausible.

Replit CEO Amjad Massad argues that the ability to write and execute code is a form of general intelligence. This insight suggests that building general-purpose coding agents will outperform handcrafting specialized, expert-knowledge agents for specific verticals, representing a more direct and scalable approach to achieving AGI.

The perceived plateau in AI model performance is specific to consumer applications, where GPT-4 level reasoning is sufficient. The real future gains are in enterprise and code generation, which still have a massive runway for improvement. Consumer AI needs better integration, not just stronger models.

Current AI progress isn't true, scalable intelligence but a 'brute force' effort. Amjad Masad contends models improve via massive, manual data labeling and contrived RL environments for specific tasks, a method he calls 'functional AGI,' not a fundamental crack in understanding intelligence.