'Producing Images' or even 'Some Code that is Valid and Compiles' is in some ways one of the most misleading ways we assess quality of the AI.

It is getting very good at producing code that compiles - at the algorithmic level.

This is definitely noteworthy - and the AI is crossing a critical 'productivity threshold'.

But 'Drawing of a Proper Duck' is almost arbitrary because it may have nothing to do with the 'Specific Duck You Wanted'.

Everyone has tried to get AI to 'Draw The Thing They Want' and you notice immediately how it's almost impossible to 'adjust the image' along the vector you want - because ... and this is key:

-> the AI doesn't really understand what a Duck is, it's components, or fully how it made the duck <-

It just knows how to 'incant' the duck.

This becomes very clear when you try to get the AI to write proper documentation - it fails so miserably, even with direct guidance.

This is really strong evidence of how poorly the AI is generalizing, and that it is not 'understanding' rather it's 'synthesizing' from patterns.

We already kind of knew that - but we have not yet built an intuition for that until now.

Only now can we see 'how amazing the pattern synthesis' is - it's almost magic, and yet how it falls off a cliff otherwise

This has deep implications for the 'road ahead' and the kinds of things we're going to be able to do with AI.

In short: the AI is 'Wizard Level Code Helper, Researcher, and Worker' - but it very clearly lacks capabilities even one level of abstraction above the code itself.

LLMs were first trained by 'text' and now ... they are 'trained by our compilers'. Basically g++, javac, tsc are the 'Verifiable Human Rewards' in the post-training and reinforcement learning - and the AI is getting extremely good at producing 'code that compiles', but that's definitely an indirection from 'code that does what we want'.

It's astonishing that it took us all this time to internalize and start to discover what I think will be in hindsight a very obvious 'threshold' of it's capabilities.

We are constantly 'amazed' at the work that it can do, and therefore over-project it's capabilities.

I have no doubt that even with these limitations - the AI will unlock a lot more as it gets better - and - that it will 'creep up' the layers of abstraction of it's understanding.

But I strongly believe that the AI is going to get much 'wider' (pattern matching dominance) before it gets 'higher' (intrinsic understanding) - and - that this may be a fundamental limitation.

This may be 'the Le Cunn' insight - when he talks about the limitations of LLMs in detail - I believe this is that insight writ large.

Even the term AI - or certainly 'AGI' may be a misleading metaphor - were we to have always called it 'Stochastic Algorithms' or something along those lines, it's possible that our intuition would be framed a bit better.

The most interesting thing is how it is definitely amazing, world changing, novel and powerful and some ways - and obviously useless in others at the same time. That's the 'threshold' we need to better understand.

The last six months in LLMs in five minutes