AI doesn't have to reason to take your job

is a senior writer at Future Perfect, Vox's effective altruism-inspired section on the world's biggest challenges. She explores wide-ranging topics like climate change, artificial intelligence, vaccine development, and factory farms, and also writes the Future Perfect newsletter.
A humanoid robot shakes hands with a visitor at the Zhiyuan Robotics stand at the Shanghai New International Expo Centre in Shanghai, China, on June 18, 2025, during the first day of the Mobile World Conference. Ying Tang/NurPhoto via Getty Images
In 2023, one popular perspective on AI went like this: Sure, it can generate lots of impressive text, but it can't truly reason — it's all shallow mimicry, just 'stochastic parrots' squawking.
At the time, it was easy to see where this perspective was coming from. Artificial intelligence had moments of being impressive and interesting, but it also consistently failed basic tasks. Tech CEOs said they could just keep making the models bigger and better, but tech CEOs say things like that all the time, including when, behind the scenes, everything is held together with glue, duct tape, and low-wage workers.
It's now 2025. I still hear this dismissive perspective a lot, particularly when I'm talking to academics in linguistics and philosophy. Many of the highest profile efforts to pop the AI bubble — like the recent Apple paper purporting to find that AIs can't truly reason — linger on the claim that the models are just bullshit generators that are not getting much better and won't get much better.
Future Perfect
Explore the big, complicated problems the world faces and the most efficient ways to solve them. Sent twice a week. Email (required)
Sign Up
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
But I increasingly think that repeating those claims is doing our readers a disservice, and that the academic world is failing to step up and grapple with AI's most important implications.
I know that's a bold claim. So let me back it up.
'The illusion of thinking's' illusion of relevance
The instant the Apple paper was posted online (it hasn't yet been peer reviewed), it took off. Videos explaining it racked up millions of views. People who may not generally read much about AI heard about the Apple paper. And while the paper itself acknowledged that AI performance on 'moderate difficulty' tasks was improving, many summaries of its takeaways focused on the headline claim of 'a fundamental scaling limitation in the thinking capabilities of current reasoning models.'
For much of the audience, the paper confirmed something they badly wanted to believe: that generative AI doesn't really work — and that's something that won't change any time soon.
The paper looks at the performance of modern, top-tier language models on 'reasoning tasks' — basically, complicated puzzles. Past a certain point, that performance becomes terrible, which the authors say demonstrates the models haven't developed true planning and problem-solving skills. 'These models fail to develop generalizable problem-solving capabilities for planning tasks, with performance collapsing to zero beyond a certain complexity threshold,' as the authors write.
That was the topline conclusion many people took from the paper and the wider discussion around it. But if you dig into the details, you'll see that this finding is not surprising, and it doesn't actually say that much about AI.
Much of the reason why the models fail at the given problem in the paper is not because they can't solve it, but because they can't express their answers in the specific format the authors chose to require.
If you ask them to write a program that outputs the correct answer, they do so effortlessly. By contrast, if you ask them to provide the answer in text, line by line, they eventually reach their limits.
That seems like an interesting limitation to current AI models, but it doesn't have a lot to do with 'generalizable problem-solving capabilities' or 'planning tasks.'
Imagine someone arguing that humans can't 'really' do 'generalizable' multiplication because while we can calculate 2-digit multiplication problems with no problem, most of us will screw up somewhere along the way if we're trying to do 10-digit multiplication problems in our heads. The issue isn't that we 'aren't general reasoners.' It's that we're not evolved to juggle large numbers in our heads, largely because we never needed to do so.
If the reason we care about 'whether AIs reason' is fundamentally philosophical, then exploring at what point problems get too long for them to solve is relevant, as a philosophical argument. But I think that most people care about what AI can and cannot do for far more practical reasons.
AI is taking your job, whether it can 'truly reason' or not
I fully expect my job to be automated in the next few years. I don't want that to happen, obviously. But I can see the writing on the wall. I regularly ask the AIs to write this newsletter — just to see where the competition is at. It's not there yet, but it's getting better all the time.
Employers are doing that too. Entry-level hiring in professions like law, where entry-level tasks are AI-automatable, appears to be already contracting. The job market for recent college graduates looks ugly.
The optimistic case around what's happening goes something like this: 'Sure, AI will eliminate a lot of jobs, but it'll create even more new jobs.' That more positive transition might well happen — though I don't want to count on it — but it would still mean a lot of people abruptly finding all of their skills and training suddenly useless, and therefore needing to rapidly develop a completely new skill set.
It's this possibility, I think, that looms large for many people in industries like mine, which are already seeing AI replacements creep in. It's precisely because this prospect is so scary that declarations that AIs are just 'stochastic parrots' that can't really think are so appealing. We want to hear that our jobs are safe and the AIs are a nothingburger.
But in fact, you can't answer the question of whether AI will take your job with reference to a thought experiment, or with reference to how it performs when asked to write down all the steps of Tower of Hanoi puzzles. The way to answer the question of whether AI will take your job is to invite it to try. And, uh, here's what I got when I asked ChatGPT to write this section of this newsletter:
Is it 'truly reasoning'? Maybe not. But it doesn't need to be to render me potentially unemployable.
'Whether or not they are simulating thinking has no bearing on whether or not the machines are capable of rearranging the world for better or worse,' Cambridge professor of AI philosophy and governance Harry Law argued in a recent piece, and I think he's unambiguously right. If Vox hands me a pink slip, I don't think I'll get anywhere if I argue that I shouldn't be replaced because o3, above, can't solve a sufficiently complicated Towers of Hanoi puzzle — which, guess what, I can't do either.
Critics are making themselves irrelevant when we need them most
In his piece, Law surveys the state of AI criticisms and finds it fairly grim. 'Lots of recent critical writing about AI…read like extremely wishful thinking about what exactly systems can and cannot do.'
This is my experience, too. Critics are often trapped in 2023, giving accounts of what AI can and cannot do that haven't been correct for two years. 'Many [academics] dislike AI, so they don't follow it closely,' Law argues. 'They don't follow it closely so they still think that the criticisms of 2023 hold water. They don't. And that's regrettable because academics have important contributions to make.'
But of course, for the employment effects of AI — and in the longer run, for the global catastrophic risk concerns they may present — what matters isn't whether AIs can be induced to make silly mistakes, but what they can do when set up for success.
I have my own list of 'easy' problems AIs still can't solve — they're pretty bad at chess puzzles — but I don't think that kind of work should be sold to the public as a glimpse of the 'real truth' about AI. And it definitely doesn't debunk the really quite scary future that experts increasingly believe we're headed toward.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

TechCrunch

32 minutes ago

• TechCrunch

Deezer starts labeling AI-generated music to tackle streaming fraud

Deezer announced on Friday that it will start labeling albums that include AI-generated tracks as part of its efforts to combat streaming fraud. The company reports that about 18% of the music uploaded each day — more than 20,000 tracks — is now fully AI-generated. Although most of these tracks don't go viral, Deezer says around 70% of their streams are fake and that they are designed to earn royalties fraudulently. To combat this, AI-generated tracks on Deezer are now clearly tagged. These tracks also won't appear in editorial playlists or algorithm-based recommendations, and fraudulent streams are being filtered out of royalty payments. The company says the new labels will be a game changer in helping listeners determine the difference between human-created music and AI content. Image Credits:Deezer Deezer notes that for now, AI-only songs make up just 0.5% of all streams on its platform, but that the trend is growing fast. 'We've detected a significant uptick in delivery of AI-generated music only in the past few months and we see no sign of it slowing down. It's an industry-wide issue, and we are committed to leading the way in increasing transparency by helping music fans identify which albums include AI music,' said Deezer CEO Alexis Lanternier in a press release. 'AI is not inherently good or bad, but we believe a responsible and transparent approach is key to building trust with our users and the music industry,' he continued. 'We are also clear in our commitment to safeguarding the rights of artists and songwriters at a time where copyright law is being put into question in favor of training AI models.' Techcrunch event Save $200+ on your TechCrunch All Stage pass Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections. Save $200+ on your TechCrunch All Stage pass Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections. Boston, MA | REGISTER NOW The move comes as Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group, and Sony Music Entertainment are reportedly in talks to license their work to AI startups Udio and Suno. The startups are being sued by the record companies for copyright infringement, and any deal would help to settle lawsuits between them, Bloomberg reported earlier this month.

Yahoo

34 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Could the "Next Nvidia Stock" Actually Be... Nvidia Stock?

There seems at least a solid probability that Nvidia stock still has not just good or even great but amazing growth potential left. Year-over-year earnings growth solidly in the double-digit percentages and a reasonable stock valuation should be all that's needed to keep Nvidia investors very happy. 10 stocks we like better than Nvidia › Many articles have been written over the last year or so about "the next Nvidia (NASDAQ: NVDA) stock," which refers to a stock that has the potential to post incredibly strong gains over at least the medium term, just like the artificial intelligence (AI) chip leader has done. With the risk of sounding like I've lost my mind, I think there's a good case to be made that "the next Nvidia stock" could actually be Nvidia stock. In other words, there seems at least a solid probability that Nvidia stock still has not just good or even great but amazing growth potential left. Think of it as "Nvidia the superstar stock 2.0." I say "at the risk of sounding like I've lost my mind" because I understand the law of large numbers strongly works against my thesis. This "law" basically means that the larger a company becomes, the more difficult it becomes to continue to grow revenue and earnings at a strong pace on a year-over-year percentage basis. And year-over-year earnings (and cash flow) growth is what largely powers stock prices higher. Nvidia is massive. It has a market cap of $3.55 trillion, as of June 18, making it the world's second most valuable publicly traded company, trailing Microsoft by just a sliver. Moreover, Nvidia management expects the company to generate revenue of $45 billion in its fiscal second quarter, which equates to an annual revenue run rate of $180 billion. To be clear -- I think it's highly unlikely that Nvidia will ever again be able to pump out a long consecutive string of year-over-year quarterly earnings growth in the very high double-digit to triple-digit percentages. But I don't think it has to do that in order to deliver stellar returns to investors for some time. Year-over-year earnings growth solidly in the double-digits plus a reasonable stock valuation should be all that's needed to keep investors very happy. What makes me have confidence in the "reasonable valuation" bit? Currently, Nvidia stock's valuation is reasonable by just about every measure, but that has not always been true. (For reference, it's trading at 25.4 times Wall Street's projected forward earnings per share, or EPS, as of June 18. That's an attractive valuation for a company that analysts expect will grow EPS at an average annual rate of 30% over the next five years.) The main reason I think the valuation will likely remain relatively reasonable (at least much of the time) for a while circles back to that law of large numbers. Wall Street analysts and many investors are well aware of this phenomenon, and I think most folks in both those groups will tend to continue to significantly underestimate Nvidia's future earnings growth potential due to thoughts like these: An investor and analyst thought: It's so massive, there's no way it can keep growing earnings much. An investor thought: After its massive run-up, I've missed my chance to buy Nvidia stock. (How many of us thought that about, say, Amazon many years ago, only to be proven wrong?) Consistent beliefs like these will help keep Nvidia stock's valuation reasonable in part because Wall Street analysts are going to tend to be too conservative in their estimates, in my view. Moreover, some investors will probably feel that Wall Street is being too liberal in their estimates because they themselves feel cautious given Nvidia's humongous size. Yes, this caution among many investors would likely slow down Nvidia stock's rise, but that's better than the stock frequently shooting up to unsustainable levels, only to plunge back down to Earth, in my opinion. This topic could be several articles, so here's just a brief list. 1. The company's now-annual cadence of launching new graphics processing unit (GPU) architectures for its products for its AI-accelerated data center, gaming, and other market platforms. Blackwell is its current architecture. 2. The approach of the widespread legalization of autonomous vehicles. Nvidia's GPUs will be the "brains" inside many of these vehicles. 3. The approach of the era of humanoid robots. Nvidia's GPUs will be the "brains" inside many of these robots. 4. The company will stay ahead of the innovation pack by entering emerging new technologies via organic growth and acquisitions. An example here is quantum computing, in which I think Nvidia will be increasingly involved. Before you buy stock in Nvidia, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Nvidia wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $659,171!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $891,722!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 995% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 172% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 9, 2025 John Mackey, former CEO of Whole Foods Market, an Amazon subsidiary, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Beth McKenna has positions in Nvidia. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Amazon, Microsoft, and Nvidia. The Motley Fool recommends the following options: long January 2026 $395 calls on Microsoft and short January 2026 $405 calls on Microsoft. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Could the "Next Nvidia Stock" Actually Be... Nvidia Stock? was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Forbes

35 minutes ago

• Forbes

Where Do Sustainability, Affordability Sit In Pursuit Of Smart Cities?

Conceptual Image of a Smart City getty The concept of smart cities has risen in the estimation of urban planners of all descriptions around the world. Many believe or are led to believe a future smart city or an existing one that's so remodelled would enhance affordability and sustainability. But will it? To answer that, grasping the concept first should be the right starting point. In that respect, if assertions by the likes of Microsoft and IBM are taken at face value, a smart city is one that utilizes digital information and communication technology to enhance various aspects of urban life, from infrastructure to public services, citizen engagement to city tax receipts. This may involve using artificial intelligence, predictive analytics, and more, to improve operational efficiency, sustainability, and the overall quality of life for city dwellers. But will it? There are legitimate fears that AI is, might be, redesigning our cities by stealth from real-team adjustable traffic lights to computer generated digital twins mimicking what whole neighborhoods would potentially look like before even a single brick has been laid. Furthermore, all that kit and its deployment can't be cheap and someone has to pay for it, cue the taxpayer. The concept of smart cities came to fore at the Abu Dhabi Infrastructure Summit, held in the Emirate from June 17 to 18, 2025, and evoked mixed emotions from attendees albeit with numerous examples of successes. For instance, Singapore's holistic balance of economic growth and social inclusivity, or Copenhagen's Nordhavn district's 5-minute city model, or for that matter Abu Dhabi's own Masdar City which balances heritage, innovation and sustainability, given it is backed by the Emirate's global renewable energy champion Masdar. Such innovative cities claim to promote a strong sense of place and identity for their residents and community. But their affluence in many ways sets them apart too. Can their experience and inexorable march to 'smarter' ways be replicated elsewhere? The answer is a complex one, according to Daniel Liu, executive director of MORROW Intelligence, a Singapore-based urban advisory firm. Daniel Liu, executive director, MORROW Intelligence speaks at the Abu Dhabi Infrastructure Summit in ... More the UAE on June 18, 2025. ADIS 'Smart technologies that bring efficiencies are of immense importance and they are all very important evolutions of city management. But smart cities don't come before cities," Liu said at summit panel. "These are cities with their individual socioeconomic and investment parameters and critical municipal issues that need to be resolved. So, not all urban planners enjoy some of the advantages that say Singapore or Copenhagen would.' Liu added that if the ultimate goal of planners and developers was urban excellence, it is something that doesn't exist in a vacuum. 'Issues of economic and social development cannot be sidestepped. This will likely be a journey of over 30 to 50 years marked by evolving challenges for many cities in the world.' Smart Decisions Needed Too Discovering urban excellence, and a smarter future, might in many cases bottle down to making smart decisions and not just smart technology, said Emre Arolat, founding partner and principal, Emre Arolat Architecture. 'The best cities are those with a sense of community and harmony where there's access to housing, and perhaps the ability to reach life's essentials within a 15 minute walk or a bicycle ride, if not 5 minutes as noted in Danish city. That's a reasonable metric already at play in many urban centers, (e.g. some suburbs in Paris) and its down to smart thinking and building.' Affordable housing needs to be at the heart of it all and its something that can never be ignored. 'But building affordable housing doesn't mean you have to sacrifice building high value real estate or vice versa if planners work on concepts strategically,' he added. And local, provincial or Federal governments around the world can be the arbiters of where future demand may or may not be, so that the challenge can be met in a systematic way, even if the planning and decision making stage is aided by the deployment of digital tools. Asma Aljassmi, executive director of projects control and operations, Aldar Projects, speaks at the ... More Abu Dhabi Infrastructure Summit on June 18, 2025. ADIS Even desirable affluent places like Abu Dhabi think of affordable housing, according to Asma Aljassmi, executive director of projects control and operations, at Aldar Projects, a developer owned by the government of Abu Dhabi. 'At Aldar we have a clear roadmap for development. From the get-go we incorporate affordability in what we do, what we design and what be build. Its included in our masterplan for specific projects. Being desirable places to live and work in should not be the sole preserve of luxury developments.' Powering Up Smart Cities With there being rising clamor for sustainability, the carbon footprint of the smart cities will also be called into sharp focus. The more digital and connected they are, the more electricity they'll consume, and the bigger the call might be on the power grids servicing them. Quite like the data center conundrum of powering new age technology and consumer needs with fossil fuels has already reared its head. For, just like hyperscale data centers will be increasingly serviced by power generated from natural gas for decades, so will smart cities for a considerable amount of time. Therefore, any lowering of the carbon footprint achieve via digital connectivity and efficiency might well be negated by carbon emissions from the chosen power source. Abu Dhabi's renewables-powered Masdar City offers a rare example to the contrary, alongside many European, especially Scandinavian and German mid-sized townships. But renewables-powered smart cities largely remain a pipe dream. This matters, because cities represent nearly 80% of the world's consumption, and by that argument nearly 80% of the world's carbon emissions. It is also indicative of the fact that urbanization is proliferating and is unlikely to be reversed. So, the fight against climate change as well as improving living standards probably would be won or lost in the cities, whether they are smart cities or not. The significance of the task ahead cannot be understated.