Ah, large language models (LLMs); those enigmatic, sentence-spinning wonderkids that seem to know everything but also, well, nothing. They’re in our apps, on our phones, writing blog posts (maybe even this one, who knows?). However here comes the million-dollar question: Can they achieve true intelligence? Not just spit out plausible answers or write a witty poem, but actually think, reason, and understand the way we do? Let's dig in and unpack what that would actually mean, where the technology currently stands, and whether we’re just scratching the surface or hitting a ceiling.
Before we go any further, what do we even mean by "intelligence"? Is it simply passing a Turing Test, tricking someone into thinking they’re talking to a human? That’s not enough, right? When you chat with an LLM, you’re not expecting it to truly understand you. You know it’s just stringing together patterns from massive amounts of data. But is that really all there is to intelligence?
For humans, intelligence is a rich cocktail of skills: problem-solving, creativity, adaptability, and—here’s the kicker—understanding. You get what it feels like to be sad or happy, frustrated or elated. When you watch a loved one in pain, you don’t just see their facial expression; you feel their sorrow, often physically. Empathy is part of our intelligence.
An LLM? Oh well, it's only regurgitating patterns it has seen before, not genuinely "feeling" or "knowing." However, does that mean they can never be truly intelligent?
Alright, so let’s talk about what these LLMs, like GPT-4, are actually doing. They’re not simply smart—they’re pattern-predicting juggernauts. They've been trained on a mind-boggling amount of data, from the latest Reddit threads to 18th-century literature. When you give them an input, they're predicting what word comes next based on patterns they’ve seen in their training data.
They can generate text that sounds eerily human, answer questions with speed, translate languages, write code, and even tackle creative tasks like generating poetry or solving coding problems. Some recent updates have been astonishing. Meta’s Llama 3.1 model, for instance, has shown improvements in abstract reasoning tasks. GPT-4 can even simulate entire conversations with remarkable fluidity.
You’ve probably interacted with these models—maybe you’ve even had one summarize an article, simulate customer service, or help you write an essay. Pretty neat, right? But there’s one thing to keep in mind: They don’t “know” what they’re saying. They just know what statistically comes next in a sentence. For example, you could ask an LLM to write a love letter, and it’ll likely give you something dreamy—based on patterns from centuries of love letters—but does it feel that love? Spoiler: Nope, it’s just guessing the most appropriate words based on probability.
So, where do these super-charged autocomplete machines fall short? First off, context. Start a long and deep conversation with an LLM, and after a while, things start to fall apart. You might notice your AI assistant repeating itself, offering irrelevant responses, or losing track of what you’ve been talking about for the last 10 minutes. It’s like a friend who nods at all the right times but is clearly zoning out halfway through your story.
LLMs also struggle with reasoning. Sure, they can come up with creative outputs, but ask them to solve a tricky puzzle or make a judgment call that requires long-term coherence, and they get fuzzy. Ever tried asking an LLM a logic problem? Sometimes, they’ll get it right. But other times… let’s just say it’s like trying to reason with your cat. Another limitation comes down to creativity. While LLMs can seem creative—think of that AI-generated painting or a poem about quantum physics—they’re actually just playing sophisticated word games. They excel at combinatorial creativity, taking existing concepts and blending them in novel ways. Margaret Boden, a cognitive scientist, defines creativity as something that is novel, surprising, and valuable. In this sense, LLMs can indeed create something new, but the catch is that it's always grounded in the data they’ve been fed. They’re really good at remixing, not inventing.
True transformational creativity — the kind that shakes up industries or invents entirely new art forms—is still beyond the reach of LLMs. So when we marvel at an AI-generated artwork, we’re often impressed by the sheer novelty of the idea that a machine could do this, but it’s not rewriting the rules of creativity. It’s a dazzling illusion, sure, but it’s still rooted in imitation.
Let's get philosophical for a second. John Searle’s Chinese Room argument offers a thought experiment that directly applies here. Imagine a person inside a room with a giant manual on how to respond in Chinese. This person can follow instructions perfectly and respond with the right Chinese characters every time—but they don’t actually understand Chinese. They’re just following the rules.
This is essentially what LLMs are doing. They don’t understand the language they generate, they’re simply predicting what’s likely to come next in a sequence of words based on patterns they’ve seen before. Sure, it looks like understanding, but under the hood, it’s just rules and probability.
So, why aren’t we there yet? Why can’t LLMs just become fully intelligent beings? The short answer: they lack understanding and self-awareness. Sure, they can mimic intelligent behavior, but they don’t "know" they’re doing it. They don’t have subjective experiences—no sense of being or reflection.
Also, they struggle with long-term coherence. Have you ever had a long conversation with an AI and noticed that it starts to contradict itself or forgets what you talked about earlier? That’s because these models aren’t built to “remember” in the way we do. They lack the kind of awareness and understanding that keeps human thought coherent across time. This is where LLMs show their Achilles heel. Intelligence isn’t just about generating impressive text—it’s about sustained thought, memory, and understanding over time. Humans can keep a theme or a line of reasoning going through complex, multifaceted conversations. LLMs? They get lost after a few layers of complexity, and that’s a major hurdle on the path to true intelligence.
Ah, empathy or something known as the ability to feel and understand someone else’s emotions. Now, this is where things get really tricky. Can AI actually develop true empathy, or is it just good at faking it?
Let’s break it down. True empathy involves cognitive empathy (understanding another’s emotions) and emotional empathy (actually feeling those emotions). While LLMs can simulate cognitive empathy—responding to emotional cues in ways that seem appropriate—they don’t feel anything. They can recognize when you’re upset, based on keywords and patterns, and say, “I’m sorry to hear that.” But real empathy? That requires lived experience, emotions, and consciousness, none of which AI has.
The real challenge here is AI’s lack of subjective experience. It doesn’t know what it’s like to be sad or happy because it doesn’t have emotions. So even though it might give you a comforting response, it’s more like an emotional simulation than a true emotional connection. Empathy is more than just recognizing that someone is upset—it’s about connecting with that feeling on a personal level. And even if AI gets better at appearing empathetic, that opens up ethical concerns. Imagine a world where machines can convincingly act as though they care—would we start trusting them with deeply personal matters, not realizing they’re just running an algorithm to meet some corporate objective? That’s a future we’ll need to think about carefully.
Alright, so we’ve laid out where LLMs are right now and what’s holding them back, but are these limitations permanent? Or is there a path to genuine AI intelligence—dare we even say consciousness? Some promising directions could change the game. Researchers explore compositional generalization, which would allow models to combine known concepts and create new ones on their own, breaking free from rigid patterns. Another promising avenue is symbolic systems integration. LLMs are great at processing data, but they struggle with reasoning. Integrating symbolic reasoning systems such as an older, more structured form of AI—into LLMs, we could potentially enhance their ability to plan, reason, and make decisions. Combining these two paradigms might give AI the structured thinking it currently lacks.
On the horizon is test-time fine-tuning, a space where models adjust dynamically in real time, making them more adaptable and responsive to new contexts. This could help address one of the major shortcomings of LLMs: their difficulty maintaining long-term coherence in conversations and reasoning. And let’s not forget: tacit data utilization. This is about capturing that deep, intuitive human reasoning—things that are so ingrained in us that we don’t even realize we’re using them. Imagine teaching AI to understand those unspoken nuances and feelings we bring to complex tasks. If we could find a way to encode that into AI models, we might be one step closer to something resembling true intelligence.
So here we are, with LLMs that can predict what comes next in a sentence like a mind-reading wordsmith but who fail spectacularly at anything requiring deep reasoning, emotional understanding, or long-term coherence. Impressive? Yes. Truly intelligent? Not quite.
The current trajectory of LLMs suggests we’ll continue to see improvements in their ability to mimic intelligence—better, faster, more coherent responses, and maybe even some basic reasoning skills thanks to innovations like compositional generalization or symbolic systems integration. But achieving true intelligence, where machines think, reason, and empathize like humans, will take more than clever algorithms and bigger data sets. It’ll take a revolution in how we approach AI learning and understanding.
But who knows? Maybe intelligence in machines won’t look like human intelligence at all. Maybe we’re holding AI to the wrong standard. Perhaps true intelligence in machines will evolve into something completely different, something we can’t yet grasp. Will it ever happen? Honestly, who’s to say? But it’s worth asking: If AI does achieve intelligence, will we even recognize it when it arrives? Or will we always be skeptical, waiting for that elusive moment when a machine doesn't just seem intelligent but truly is? Let’s keep that conversation going because, honestly, this is only the beginning.
We are not only keeping up with tech innovation: we are imagining it. Whether you're a startup pushing boundaries or an enterprise ready to scale, our team is here to turn bold ideas into reality. Let’s build something extraordinary together. Reach out today, and let's discuss how
