Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

Why AI is Harder Than We Think

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2104.12871 v2 pith:E4PENWH5 submitted 2021-04-26 cs.AI

classification cs.AI
keywords commonfallaciesfieldharderintelligenceperiodspredictionsage-old
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Since its beginning in the 1950s, the field of artificial intelligence has cycled several times between periods of optimistic predictions and massive investment ("AI spring") and periods of disappointment, loss of confidence, and reduced funding ("AI winter"). Even with today's seemingly fast pace of AI breakthroughs, the development of long-promised technologies such as self-driving cars, housekeeping robots, and conversational companions has turned out to be much harder than many people expected. One reason for these repeating cycles is our limited understanding of the nature and complexity of intelligence itself. In this paper I describe four fallacies in common assumptions made by AI researchers, which can lead to overconfident predictions about the field. I conclude by discussing the open questions spurred by these fallacies, including the age-old challenge of imbuing machines with humanlike common sense.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A First-Principles Theory of Slow Thinking and Active Perception

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.5 of 10

    Active lifting of data distributions via latent-sequence sampling and max-rate uncertainty reduction formally derives slow-thinking LLMs and places them on representation and sampler hierarchies that can be climbed.

  2. Making AI Inevitable: Historical Perspective and the Problems of Predicting Long-Term Technological Change

    cs.CY 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    AI future debates are best understood as philosophical disagreements about history and technological change, not technical disagreements about the technology itself.

  3. Potemkin Understanding in Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLMs frequently pass definition questions yet fail to use the same concepts in classification, generation, and editing tasks, a gap the authors call potemkin understanding.

  4. Beyond Explainable AI (XAI): An Overdue Paradigm Shift and Post-XAI Research Directions

    cs.CY 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    Current XAI methods for DNNs and LLMs rest on paradoxes and false assumptions that demand a paradigm shift to verification protocols, scientific foundations, context-aware design, and faithful model analysis rather th...

Pith tools