Thursday, July 10, 2025
Smart Again
  • Home
  • Trending
  • Politics
  • Law & Defense
  • Community
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
Smart Again
  • Home
  • Trending
  • Politics
  • Law & Defense
  • Community
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
Smart Again
No Result
View All Result
Home Trending

AI doesn’t have to reason to take your job

June 20, 2025
in Trending
Reading Time: 9 mins read
0 0
A A
0
AI doesn’t have to reason to take your job
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter


In 2023, one popular perspective on AI went like this: Sure, it can generate lots of impressive text, but it can’t truly reason — it’s all shallow mimicry, just “stochastic parrots” squawking.

At the time, it was easy to see where this perspective was coming from. Artificial intelligence had moments of being impressive and interesting, but it also consistently failed basic tasks. Tech CEOs said they could just keep making the models bigger and better, but tech CEOs say things like that all the time, including when, behind the scenes, everything is held together with glue, duct tape, and low-wage workers.

It’s now 2025. I still hear this dismissive perspective a lot, particularly when I’m talking to academics in linguistics and philosophy. Many of the highest profile efforts to pop the AI bubble — like the recent Apple paper purporting to find that AIs can’t truly reason — linger on the claim that the models are just bullshit generators that are not getting much better and won’t get much better.

But I increasingly think that repeating those claims is doing our readers a disservice, and that the academic world is failing to step up and grapple with AI’s most important implications.

I know that’s a bold claim. So let me back it up.

“The illusion of thinking’s” illusion of relevance

The instant the Apple paper was posted online (it hasn’t yet been peer reviewed), it took off. Videos explaining it racked up millions of views. People who may not generally read much about AI heard about the Apple paper. And while the paper itself acknowledged that AI performance on “moderate difficulty” tasks was improving, many summaries of its takeaways focused on the headline claim of “a fundamental scaling limitation in the thinking capabilities of current reasoning models.”

For much of the audience, the paper confirmed something they badly wanted to believe: that generative AI doesn’t really work — and that’s something that won’t change any time soon.

The paper looks at the performance of modern, top-tier language models on “reasoning tasks” — basically, complicated puzzles. Past a certain point, that performance becomes terrible, which the authors say demonstrates the models haven’t developed true planning and problem-solving skills. “These models fail to develop generalizable problem-solving capabilities for planning tasks, with performance collapsing to zero beyond a certain complexity threshold,” as the authors write.

That was the topline conclusion many people took from the paper and the wider discussion around it. But if you dig into the details, you’ll see that this finding is not surprising, and it doesn’t actually say that much about AI.

Much of the reason why the models fail at the given problem in the paper is not because they can’t solve it, but because they can’t express their answers in the specific format the authors chose to require.

If you ask them to write a program that outputs the correct answer, they do so effortlessly. By contrast, if you ask them to provide the answer in text, line by line, they eventually reach their limits.

That seems like an interesting limitation to current AI models, but it doesn’t have a lot to do with “generalizable problem-solving capabilities” or “planning tasks.”

Imagine someone arguing that humans can’t “really” do “generalizable” multiplication because while we can calculate 2-digit multiplication problems with no problem, most of us will screw up somewhere along the way if we’re trying to do 10-digit multiplication problems in our heads. The issue isn’t that we “aren’t general reasoners.” It’s that we’re not evolved to juggle large numbers in our heads, largely because we never needed to do so.

If the reason we care about “whether AIs reason” is fundamentally philosophical, then exploring at what point problems get too long for them to solve is relevant, as a philosophical argument. But I think that most people care about what AI can and cannot do for far more practical reasons.

AI is taking your job, whether it can “truly reason” or not

I fully expect my job to be automated in the next few years. I don’t want that to happen, obviously. But I can see the writing on the wall. I regularly ask the AIs to write this newsletter — just to see where the competition is at. It’s not there yet, but it’s getting better all the time.

Employers are doing that too. Entry-level hiring in professions like law, where entry-level tasks are AI-automatable, appears to be already contracting. The job market for recent college graduates looks ugly.

The optimistic case around what’s happening goes something like this: “Sure, AI will eliminate a lot of jobs, but it’ll create even more new jobs.” That more positive transition might well happen — though I don’t want to count on it — but it would still mean a lot of people abruptly finding all of their skills and training suddenly useless, and therefore needing to rapidly develop a completely new skill set.

It’s this possibility, I think, that looms large for many people in industries like mine, which are already seeing AI replacements creep in. It’s precisely because this prospect is so scary that declarations that AIs are just “stochastic parrots” that can’t really think are so appealing. We want to hear that our jobs are safe and the AIs are a nothingburger.

But in fact, you can’t answer the question of whether AI will take your job with reference to a thought experiment, or with reference to how it performs when asked to write down all the steps of Tower of Hanoi puzzles. The way to answer the question of whether AI will take your job is to invite it to try. And, uh, here’s what I got when I asked ChatGPT to write this section of this newsletter:

Is it “truly reasoning”? Maybe not. But it doesn’t need to be to render me potentially unemployable.

“Whether or not they are simulating thinking has no bearing on whether or not the machines are capable of rearranging the world for better or worse,” Cambridge professor of AI philosophy and governance Harry Law argued in a recent piece, and I think he’s unambiguously right. If Vox hands me a pink slip, I don’t think I’ll get anywhere if I argue that I shouldn’t be replaced because o3, above, can’t solve a sufficiently complicated Towers of Hanoi puzzle — which, guess what, I can’t do either.

Critics are making themselves irrelevant when we need them most

In his piece, Law surveys the state of AI criticisms and finds it fairly grim. “Lots of recent critical writing about AI…read like extremely wishful thinking about what exactly systems can and cannot do.”

This is my experience, too. Critics are often trapped in 2023, giving accounts of what AI can and cannot do that haven’t been correct for two years. “Many [academics] dislike AI, so they don’t follow it closely,” Law argues. “They don’t follow it closely so they still think that the criticisms of 2023 hold water. They don’t. And that’s regrettable because academics have important contributions to make.”

But of course, for the employment effects of AI — and in the longer run, for the global catastrophic risk concerns they may present — what matters isn’t whether AIs can be induced to make silly mistakes, but what they can do when set up for success.

I have my own list of “easy” problems AIs still can’t solve — they’re pretty bad at chess puzzles — but I don’t think that kind of work should be sold to the public as a glimpse of the “real truth” about AI. And it definitely doesn’t debunk the really quite scary future that experts increasingly believe we’re headed toward.

A version of this story originally appeared in the Future Perfect newsletter. Sign up here!



Source link

Tags: Artificial IntelligenceCareersdoesntFuture of WorkFuture PerfectInnovationjobLifereasonTechnology
Previous Post

The top priority of progressive politics may be slipping out of reach forever

Next Post

Facing a decision on Iran, Trump is as befuddled as ever

Related Posts

Ted Cruz Slashes Funding For NWS In Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill
Trending

Ted Cruz Slashes Funding For NWS In Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill

July 9, 2025
What Trump and Netanyahu want from each other
Trending

What Trump and Netanyahu want from each other

July 9, 2025
MAGA Cult Flips Out At Trump For Hiding Epstein’s List
Trending

MAGA Cult Flips Out At Trump For Hiding Epstein’s List

July 9, 2025
Do we have to take climate risks into our own hands now?
Trending

Do we have to take climate risks into our own hands now?

July 9, 2025
Rural hospitals will be hit hard by Trump’s signature spending package
Trending

Rural hospitals will be hit hard by Trump’s signature spending package

July 9, 2025
“Release the wrecking ball”: Supreme Court OKs Trump layoffs
Trending

“Release the wrecking ball”: Supreme Court OKs Trump layoffs

July 8, 2025
Next Post
Facing a decision on Iran, Trump is as befuddled as ever

Facing a decision on Iran, Trump is as befuddled as ever

“We are heartbroken”: Hospitalized lawmaker and wife recount assassination attempt

"We are heartbroken": Hospitalized lawmaker and wife recount assassination attempt

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • Trending
  • Comments
  • Latest
How a House bill could let Trump label enemies as terrorists

How a House bill could let Trump label enemies as terrorists

November 20, 2024
Why is everyone crashing out?

Why is everyone crashing out?

June 29, 2025
“A huge net positive”: Controversial “Squid Game” character challenges Western representation ideals

“A huge net positive”: Controversial “Squid Game” character challenges Western representation ideals

December 31, 2024
A new book suggests a path forward for Democrats. The left hates it.

A new book suggests a path forward for Democrats. The left hates it.

March 20, 2025
“The Ugly Stepsister” rewrites “Cinderella” as a grotesque and darkly funny feminist fable

“The Ugly Stepsister” rewrites “Cinderella” as a grotesque and darkly funny feminist fable

April 18, 2025
Wait, should I bother using antibacterial soap?

Wait, should I bother using antibacterial soap?

January 2, 2025
“They stole an election”: Former Florida senator found guilty in “ghost candidates” scandal

“They stole an election”: Former Florida senator found guilty in “ghost candidates” scandal

0
The Hawaii senator who faced down racism and ableism—and killed Nazis

The Hawaii senator who faced down racism and ableism—and killed Nazis

0
The murder rate fell at the fastest-ever pace last year—and it’s still falling

The murder rate fell at the fastest-ever pace last year—and it’s still falling

0
Trump used the site of the first assassination attempt to spew falsehoods

Trump used the site of the first assassination attempt to spew falsehoods

0
MAGA church plans to raffle a Trump AR-15 at Second Amendment rally

MAGA church plans to raffle a Trump AR-15 at Second Amendment rally

0
Tens of thousands are dying on the disability wait list

Tens of thousands are dying on the disability wait list

0
Ted Cruz Slashes Funding For NWS In Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill

Ted Cruz Slashes Funding For NWS In Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill

July 9, 2025
What Trump and Netanyahu want from each other

What Trump and Netanyahu want from each other

July 9, 2025
Labor Department backtracks on canceled grants for women

Labor Department backtracks on canceled grants for women

July 9, 2025
MAGA Cult Flips Out At Trump For Hiding Epstein’s List

MAGA Cult Flips Out At Trump For Hiding Epstein’s List

July 9, 2025
Takeover By Trump Allies Jeopardizes Jon Stewart And Stephen Colbert Shows

Takeover By Trump Allies Jeopardizes Jon Stewart And Stephen Colbert Shows

July 9, 2025
Do we have to take climate risks into our own hands now?

Do we have to take climate risks into our own hands now?

July 9, 2025
Smart Again

Stay informed with Smart Again, the go-to news source for liberal perspectives and in-depth analysis on politics, social justice, and more. Join us in making news smart again.

CATEGORIES

  • Community
  • Law & Defense
  • Politics
  • Trending
  • Uncategorized
No Result
View All Result

LATEST UPDATES

  • Ted Cruz Slashes Funding For NWS In Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill
  • What Trump and Netanyahu want from each other
  • Labor Department backtracks on canceled grants for women
  • About Us
  • Advertise with Us
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • DMCA
  • Cookie Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Contact Us

Copyright © 2024 Smart Again.
Smart Again is not responsible for the content of external sites.

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password?

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Trending
  • Politics
  • Law & Defense
  • Community
  • Contact Us

Copyright © 2024 Smart Again.
Smart Again is not responsible for the content of external sites.

Go to mobile version