Apple’s AI Research: Even the Smartest Bots Struggle with Complex Puzzles
Apple’s AI Research: Even the Smartest Bots Struggle with Complex Puzzles
Hey friend, you know how everyone’s buzzing about AI these days? Well, Apple just dropped some interesting research that throws a bit of cold water on the hype. They’ve been looking at how advanced AI models – the super-smart ones, not just your basic chatbots – handle complex problems, and the results are pretty surprising.
Apple’s researchers used some clever puzzle tests, like the Tower of Hanoi (you know, the one with the disks and pegs) and River Crossing puzzles. They weren’t just looking at whether the AI got the right answer; they were also analyzing *how* it tried to solve the problem. They compared two types of AI: standard Large Language Models (LLMs), like those powering many chatbots, and Large Reasoning Models (LRMs), which are designed to be better at logical thinking.
Here’s the kicker: on simple puzzles, the LLMs actually did better. They were faster and more efficient. But as the puzzles got harder, the LRMs initially took the lead, using longer and more complex reasoning steps. However, when the puzzles became *really* complex, both types of AI completely tanked! Their accuracy plummeted to zero, regardless of how much computing power they had.
What’s even weirder? As the puzzles got tougher, the LRMs started taking *shorter* reasoning shortcuts, even when they had plenty of processing power left. And even when given the correct solution steps, they struggled to follow them reliably. It turns out these super-intelligent AI aren’t so great at generalizing their knowledge – they seem to perform well only on problems similar to those they’ve seen during training.
So, what does this all mean? Apple’s research suggests that current AI, even the most advanced versions, have fundamental limitations in their ability to reason like humans. They’re good at specific tasks, but struggle with truly complex, abstract problems that require genuine understanding and flexible thinking. It’s a reminder that we’re still a long way from creating AI that can truly think like we do.
Disclaimer: This content is aggregated from public sources online. Please verify information independently. If you believe your rights have been infringed, contact us for removal.