The savings disappear the moment you hit real-world complexity. Disparate data sources and messy inputs, ambiguous situations without clear rule sets, or actually any domain where the rules aren't already obvious. And someone still has to write all those rules.
Frontier AI systems are simply not reliable enough to operate without human oversight in high-stakes physical environments. The Pentagon's demand was, in structural terms, a demand to eliminate the human's ability to redirect, halt, or override the system. Amodei's refusal was an insistence on maintaining State-Space Reversibility - the architectural commitment to keeping the human in the loop precisely because the system lacks the functional grounding to be trusted outside it.
The incessant AI predictions are frightening and incite panic like an ongoing tornado siren from the edge of town. The idea that humans willingly replaced themselves with their technology might give future generations pause. Or maybe not---if those future generations are AI.
Consistent with the general trend of incorporating artificial intelligence into nearly every field, researchers and politicians are increasingly using AI models trained on scientific data to infer answers to scientific questions. But can AI ultimately replace scientists? The Trump administration signed an executive order on Nov. 24, 2025, that announced the Genesis Mission, an initiative to build and train a series of AI agents on federal scientific datasets "to test new hypotheses, automate research workflows, and accelerate scientific breakthroughs."
I am a worrier, and have been for most of my life. At some point, someone dear and smart teased me that I worry about the wrong things. The things that hit me, she noted, were never the things I worried about. For a while that left me feeling like an incompetent worrier-until my research caught up. I realized that the things I worry about often don't end up hurting me precisely because worrying helps me diffuse them ahead of time.
In fact, I didn't even think to ask ChatGPT what might work in my favor if I just stayed the course.I was a "LLeMming": a term Lila Shroff uses to describe compulsive AI users in The Atlantic. Lila Shroff shares that just as the adoption of writing reduced our memory and calculators devalued basic arithmetic skills, AI could be atrophying our critical thinking skills.
A dyad has three parts, not two: Partner A, Partner B, and the relationship or agreements between them. A dyad of two experts who cannot communicate clearly will often lose to a dyad of less-skilled individuals who coordinate effectively.
Autonomous agents take the first part of their names very seriously and don't necessarily do what their humans tell them to do - or not to do. But the situation is more complicated than that. Generative (genAI) and agentic systems operate quite differently than other systems - including older AI systems - and humans. That means that how tech users and decision-makers phrase instructions, and where those instructions are placed, can make a major difference in outcomes.
By comparing how AI models and humans map these words to numerical percentages, we uncovered significant gaps between humans and large language models. While the models do tend to agree with humans on extremes like 'impossible,' they diverge sharply on hedge words like 'maybe.' For example, a model might use the word 'likely' to represent an 80% probability, while a human reader assumes it means closer to 65%.
This process, becoming aware of something not working and then changing what you're doing, is the essence of metacognition, or thinking about thinking. It's your brain monitoring its own thinking, recognizing a problem, and controlling or adjusting your approach. In fact, metacognition is fundamental to human intelligence and, until recently, has been understudied in artificial intelligence systems. My colleagues Charles Courchaine, Hefei Qiu, Joshua Iacoboni, and I are working to change that.
For the past three years, the conversation around artificial intelligence has been dominated by a single, anxious question: What will be left for us to do? As large language models began writing code, drafting legal briefs, and composing poetry, the prevailing assumption was that human cognitive labor was being commoditized. We braced for a world where thinking was outsourced to the cloud, rendering our hard-won mental skills, writing, logic, and structural reasoning relics of a pre-automated past.
Each of these achievements would have been a remarkable breakthrough on its own. Solving them all with a single technique is like discovering a master key that unlocks every door at once. Why now? Three pieces converged: algorithms, computing power, and massive amounts of data. We can even put faces to them, because behind each element is a person who took a gamble.
When a scientist feeds a data set into a bot and says "give me hypotheses to test", they are asking the bot to be the creator, not a creative partner. Humans tend to defer to ideas produced by bots, assuming that the bot's knowledge exceeds their own. And, when they do, they end up exploring fewer avenues for possible solutions to their problem.
Harry frowned. "I'm not seeing the value in it. Can you explain it clearly? Is there any other solution?" Tom leaned in. "This isn't making much sense. You could try this instead. It's simpler." Leina sighed. "Next time you present, put more thought into your reasoning." Meanwhile, Ron trembled with anxiety. He wanted to make a point but ended up rambling. This was his second failed attempt at defending his ideas.
