A brain with a wind-up crank
Editorial

AI Isn't Actually Intelligent: Why We Need a Reality Check

4 minute read
Timothy Cook avatar
By
SAVED
The gap between marketing hype and technical reality is misleading us about what these systems can actually do.

We're living through one of the greatest marketing campaigns in technological history. "Artificial Intelligence" has become the catch-all term for everything from autocomplete suggestions in Grammarly to self-driving vehicles. The term "AI" is creating a dangerous conflation between sophisticated automation and genuine intelligence.

When 'Artificial Intelligence' Isn’t Intelligent at All

The reality is that most systems labeled as "AI" are advanced pattern-matching machines that excel at statistical pattern matching and prediction within specific domains. For example, if you use ChatGPT to craft a persuasive essay about climate change, it's not actually understanding environmental science, weighing ethical implications or developing a personal stance. Instead, it's recognizing that essays on this topic typically include phrases like "overwhelming scientific consensus," "urgent action needed" and "future generations," then statistically predicting which combinations of these patterns will produce text that humans rate as convincing.

Try pushing ChatGPT outside its trained patterns. Ask it to write about climate change from the perspective of a medieval peasant, or to argue why climate action might harm indigenous communities, and the responses become generic, safe, undetailed or nonsensical. The LLM hasn't learned to think about climate change. It's only learned to mimic the statistical patterns of climate change discourse it encountered in its training data and try to apply it to something new.

What Current Systems Actually Do

Recent research from Apple provides compelling evidence for why this distinction matters more than we've been willing to admit. Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, Claude and others process text by predicting statistically likely sequences of words based on massive training datasets. They don't understand meaning, form beliefs or have intentions. They identify patterns in human-created text and generate responses that follow those patterns convincingly.

Apple's research shows that when given the complete solution algorithm for complex problems, even reasoning models fail to execute them correctly. This is equivalent to giving someone the exact answer key and watching them still fail the test.

The researchers discovered three distinct performance complexities.

  • At low complexity, traditional LLMs often outperform reasoning models.
  • At moderate complexity, these reasoning models are generally excellent. This is where marketing claims focus.
  • At high complexity, reasoning models experience complete, catastrophic collapse.

Think of the honor student who has memorized every study strategy for the test but cannot adapt in an interview when those strategies don't apply. Current AI systems exhibit this exact behavior pattern. When approaching their failure threshold, these systems actually reduce their token output rather than increasing it. Just like a student giving shorter answers when problems become difficult or completely freezing up.

Even more revealing is that reasoning models could handle 100 correct steps in one type of problem but fail after just 5 steps in another, despite both requiring similar logical reasoning. This inconsistency reveals that their apparent "intelligence" is actually domain-specific pattern recognition, not generalizable reasoning or "thinking" that marketing would claim.

Related Article: OpenAI Doesn't Understand Education. That's a Big Problem.

What Driverless Tech Teaches Us About Limits

Self-driving cars represent another category of mislabeled "intelligence." These systems use powerful sensor arrays, mapping data and decision trees to navigate roads and make decisions. They follow programmed responses to environmental input — essentially very complex if-then statements executed at high speed. 

An example of this has been when driverless vehicles encounter construction zones with human flaggers directing traffic. They often become paralyzed because this scenario doesn't match their programmed decision trees. They can't interpret the nuanced hand gestures as contextual cues that human drivers instinctively understand. The car might detect the flagger as an "object" and the gestures as "movement," but it cannot reason about the meaning behind those gestures in the way a human driver immediately grasps "this person is telling me to wait, then proceed slowly."

Likewise, autonomous haul trucks in mining operations can efficiently transport materials along predetermined routes and respond to basic obstacles — like other vehicles or equipment blockages — by stopping or rerouting along the programmed pathways. However, when faced with an unexpected geological event like a small landslide that partially blocks their route, these systems cannot creatively problem-solve. They cannot assess whether the debris could be safely navigated around, whether the route should be temporarily abandoned or whether human intervention is needed. They simply freeze and await human operators to reprogram their parameters or physically clear the obstruction.

5 Missing Pieces of Real Intelligence

True intelligence involves several capacities that current AI systems lack entirely:

  1. Self-Awareness: Understanding one's own mental states and limitations
  2. Flexible Reasoning: Applying principles from one domain to completely different contexts
  3. Genuine Understanding: Grasping meaning rather than processing symbolic relationships
  4. Intentionality: Acting based on beliefs and desires rather than programmed responses
  5. Adaptive Problem-Solving: Working harder and changing strategies when facing increased complexity

Current AI systems demonstrate none of these characteristics. Apple's research proves they fundamentally operate through computation rather than cognition, with built-in scaling limitations that prevent genuine reasoning.

How ‘AI’ Marketing Warps Public Understanding

This isn't semantic nitpicking. The conflation of advanced automation with intelligence creates unrealistic expectations and obscures genuine technological capabilities and limitations.

Apple's findings reveal that despite having access to massive computational resources, these systems can't scale their reasoning to match problem complexity. They're fundamentally limited by their training data patterns, not by processing power.

When we attribute human-like qualities to pattern-matching systems, we risk:

  • Overrelying on tools that lack genuine understanding
  • Misallocating resources toward technological solutions for problems requiring human judgment
  • Developing systems that appear capable but fail catastrophically in edge cases
  • Assuming AI that handles routine tasks will scale to complex, strategic challenges

Related Article: How to Prompt Reasoning Models for Better Results

Matching AI Capabilities to Real-World Tasks

For educators and students, these findings are particularly significant. Just as we wouldn't expect our pattern-matching honor student to handle authentic, complex learning challenges, we can't assume that AI tools will naturally scale up to genuine educational complexity.

Learning Opportunities

Acknowledging these systems as sophisticated tools rather than intelligent agents allows us to leverage their actual capabilities effectively. Statistical prediction and pattern recognition are enormously valuable for specific applications, from medical diagnosis support to language translation assistance.

The key is matching tools to appropriate tasks while maintaining clear boundaries about what these systems can and cannot do.  We don't need to wait for "true AI" to benefit from current technologies. We just need to be honest about what we're actually working with: powerful computational tools that mimic intelligent behavior without possessing intelligence itself.

fa-solid fa-hand-paper Learn how you can join our contributor community.

About the Author
Timothy Cook

Timothy Cook, M.Ed., is an educator and researcher exploring how AI shapes student cognition and learning. Connect with Timothy Cook:

Main image: jolygon | Adobe Stock
Featured Research