![\"\"](\"https:\/\/goldtadise.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/jc1-4.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nThis week, Apple released a peer-reviewed AI study titled, \u201cThe Illusion of Thinking: Understanding the Strengths and Limitations of Reasoning Models via the Lens of Problem Complexity.\u201d It rocked the AI world, though so far corporate media showed all the alertness and volume of sleepy garden crickets.<\/p>\n
https:\/\/machinelearning.apple.com\/research\/illusion-of-thinking<\/a><\/p>\n Apple researchers tested the \u201csmartest\u201d AI models \u2014called Large Reasoning Models (LLMs)\u2014 with middle-school logic puzzles. For instance, they used the Towers of Hanoi and the old chestnut about the river-crossing Farmer with a fox, a chicken, and a bag of grain. They found a point where all the models failed \u2014solutions \u201cfell to zero\u201d\u2014 when the puzzles got sufficiently complicated.<\/p>\n I\u2019ve been reporting for ages that nobody really understands how AI does its thing. That admission appeared right in the study\u2019s opening paragraph. \u201cWhile these models demonstrate improved performance on reasoning benchmarks,\u201d the researchers wrote, \u201ctheir fundamental capabilities, scaling properties, and limitations remain insufficiently understood.\u201d<\/p>\n The study concluded that LLMs only pretend to reason like humans. The truth is, the computers are just matching patterns. For instance, they may be able to solve a complex math equation or beat a master chess player, but that is only because their databases include millions of chess permutations. If you give them a novel problem that can only be solved with logic \u2014with pure reasoning\u2014 instead of by brute force, the AI suddenly falls off a cliff.<\/p>\n AI defenders raced out in force, illogically arguing that Apple is just jealous because it lags behind in AI development, and unpersuasively arguing that, in an AI age, we must re-define what \u201cthinking\u201d means.<\/p>\n What would we do without the flexibility of redefining basic vocabulary?<\/p>\n For upwards of two years now, we\u2019ve been breathlessly assured that AI \u201csuper-intelligence\u201d is mere moments away, just like how Iran\u2019s nuclear weapons program is always two weeks from readiness, but never actually arrives. For example, behold this breathless op-ed headline from Newsweek, just last month:<\/p>\n Yesterday, I listened to an apocalyptic podcast between a New York Times science reporter and a former OpenAI engineer. The developer gloomily predicted that the technology would achieve \u201cartificial general intelligence\u201d (AGI) within 18 months, and the pair spent the rest of the talk discussing a parade of horrors, ranging from the need for universal basic income to support displaced human workers to the violent collapse of civilization itself.<\/p>\n Don\u2019t get me wrong. There\u2019s much we don\u2019t know about AI and its capabilities. We don\u2019t even understand how it works. It continues to surprise developers who, like Spanish explorers of old, keep finding new, unexpected behaviors in the digital wilderness. But Apple\u2019s researchers just found a hard upper limit on something humans can do fairly easily\u2014 but that AI apparently cannot.<\/p>\n It\u2019s not that AI isn\u2019t powerful. It is. It can crush repetitive tasks, mimic human syntax, and win debates it doesn\u2019t even understand. But it\u2019s not thinking. Not really. It\u2019s just guessing. Guessing very well, and with flair. It is going to change everything. But this is the first evidence that it can\u2019t replace people. Not this type of AI, anyway.<\/p>\n You\u2019d think the AI community would be relieved\u2014maybe even humbled\u2014by Apple\u2019s revelation. After all, if AI has a ceiling, it means we might not be facing an extinction-level event in the next update cycle. But instead of sighs of relief, we see snarls and snark. Why on Earth?<\/p>\n There\u2019s a simple explanation why AI developers aren\u2019t celebrating Apple\u2019s study, and it is as old as humanity itself: the money train.<\/p>\n The AI gold rush is fueled not by truth, but by fear and fantasy. The more AI sounds like magic, the bigger the checks get\u2014 from venture capitalists, government contractors, and defense departments. Doomsday sells. Apocalypse, with a UI, sells even better. Because after all, we can\u2019t let the Chinese get there first!<\/p>\n But if you were looking for a flicker of hope in the maelstrom of AI hype, Apple just snapped the cigar lighter\u2019s wheel. The inescapable conclusion \u2014assuming their research holds\u2014 is that this type of AI will never achieve AGI, certainly not anytime soon. There\u2019s a structural limit.<\/p>\n Which is very good news.<\/p>\n If Apple is right\u2014if this branch of AI, this architecture, has a built-in structural ceiling\u2014 then we\u2019re not watching the rise of Skynet. We\u2019re watching the rise of a powerful, disruptive tool. Compare it instead to things like the steam engine, the printing press, or the internet.<\/p>\n image 15.png The explanation is simple and logical. Let\u2019s use AI as an example. As AI replaces call-center operators, basic bookkeepers, truck drivers, and school teachers, companies that employed them enjoy higher productivity and lower costs. That means more money for other things they couldn\u2019t afford before.<\/p>\n If a business saves $10 million on payroll because AI answers the phones, it doesn\u2019t bury that money in the backyard\u2014 it hires more developers, expands product lines, invests in marketing, builds something new. That\u2019s how markets have always worked.<\/p>\n Some people screamed that ATMs would kill the banking industry. They didn\u2019t. The industry changed, and brands consolidated, but banks are still building branches. The same thing happened with spreadsheets, email, and automated manufacturing.<\/p>\n With this much epistemological fog, technological hubris, and money in the wind, any confident forecast belongs in the fiction section. But if you\u2019ve been waiting for a silver lining \u2014something to pierce AI\u2019s apocalyptic cloud cover\u2014 Apple may have just delivered.<\/p>\n Like Cortez\u2019s hardy band climbing the final ridge and beholding the Pacific Ocean with a wild surmise, AI researchers may have finally crested the summit of their limitless ambitions\u2014 only to discover that the horizon is not infinite after all.<\/p>\n So hang in there. As somebody once said (I can\u2019t remember who): weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" JEFF CHILDERS THINKS WE CAN CROSS AI OF THE END OF THE WORLD DOOM LOOP SCENARIO : …………… Finally, let\u2019s unpack some more black-pilled AI doom-and-gloom. Yesterday, Psychology Today ran a story headlined, \u201cDid Complexity Just Break AI\u2019s Brain?\u201d The … Continue reading <\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n
\nAs regular readers know, my undergrad degree is in economics. Disruptive technology is fairly well understood. Mass layoffs are always predicted as disruptive tech emerges\u2014 but have never actually appeared, except perhaps on very short timelines.<\/p>\n