Artificial Jagged Intelligence

Ethan Mollick (my emphasis):

In some tasks, AI is unreliable. In others, it is superhuman. You could, of course, say the same thing about calculators, but it is also clear that AI is different. It is already demonstrating general capabilities and performing a wide range of intellectual tasks, including those that it is not specifically trained on. Does that mean that o3 and Gemini 2.5 are AGI? Given the definitional problems, I really don’t know, but I do think they can be credibly seen as a form of Jagged AGI - superhuman in enough areas to result in real changes to how we work and live, but also unreliable enough that human expertise is often needed to figure out where AI works and where it doesn’t. Of course, models are likely to become smarter, and a good enough Jagged AGI may still beat humans at every task, including in ones the AI is weak in.

Karpathy:

Some things work extremely well (by human standards) while some things fail catastrophically (again by human standards), and it’s not always obvious which is which, though you can develop a bit of intuition over time. Different from humans, where a lot of knowledge and problem solving capabilities are all highly correlated and improve linearly all together, from birth to adulthood.

Karpathy adds (and I agree):

Personally I think these are not fundamental issues. They demand more work across the stack, including not just scaling. The big one I think is the present lack of cognitive self-knowledge”, which requires more sophisticated approaches in model post-training instead of the naive imitate human labelers and make it big” solutions that have mostly gotten us this far.

[…]

For now, this is something to be aware of, especially in production settings. Use LLMs for the tasks they are good at but be on a lookout for jagged edges, and keep a human in the loop.

The phrase has recently been used by Satya Nadella and Sundar Pichai.

Quote