The Generative AI Paradox: "What It Can Create, It May Not Understand"
The recent wave of generative AI has sparked unprecedented global attention,
with both excitement and concern over potentially superhuman levels of
artificial intelligence: models now take only seconds to produce outputs that
would challenge or exceed the capabilities even of expert humans. At the same
time, models still show basic errors in understanding that would not be
expected even in non-expert humans. This presents us with an apparent paradox:
how do we reconcile seemingly superhuman capabilities with the persistence of
errors that few humans would make? In this work, we posit that this tension
reflects a divergence in the configuration of intelligence in today's
generative models relative to intelligence in humans. Specifically, we propose
and test the Generative AI Paradox hypothesis: generative models, having been
trained directly to reproduce expert-like outputs, acquire generative
capabilities that are not contingent upon -- and can therefore exceed -- their
ability to understand those same types of outputs. This contrasts with humans,
for whom basic understanding almost always precedes the ability to generate
expert-level outputs. We test this hypothesis through controlled experiments
analyzing generation vs. understanding in generative models, across both
language and image modalities. Our results show that although models can
outperform humans in generation, they consistently fall short of human
capabilities in measures of understanding, as well as weaker correlation
between generation and understanding performance, and more brittleness to
adversarial inputs. Our findings support the hypothesis that models' generative
capability may not be contingent upon understanding capability, and call for
caution in interpreting artificial intelligence by analogy to human
intelligence.
65430bc1e48d91b86947f570
Peter West
65430bc1e48d91b86947f571
Ximing Lu
admin_assigned
2023-11-02T13:33:59.254Z
640928bd3461c51cf7378707
/avatars/b29fcb7388b81f8686086352f6321d06.svg
Ximing Lu
user
Ximing
65430bc1e48d91b86947f572
Nouha Dziri
admin_assigned
2023-11-02T13:34:16.647Z
625888c2c964680d85d70bff
/avatars/2ba91e452c5ea577ec9f1f71abc2fa49.svg
Nouha Dziri
user
nouhadziri
65430bc1e48d91b86947f573
Faeze Brahman
admin_assigned
2023-11-02T13:34:24.034Z
65282b8d578679aac7888aec
https://cdn-avatars.huggingface.co/v1/production/uploads/65282b8d578679aac7888aec/dibBkhH-z1c70mJZZxJ7u.jpeg
Faeze Brahman
user
faezeb
65430bc1e48d91b86947f574
Linjie Li
admin_assigned
2023-11-02T13:34:38.516Z
63db16fff03c3d71ef397206
/avatars/bfb7e0d730b7d03302799d5d2828d97d.svg
Linjie Li
user
linjieli222
65430bc1e48d91b86947f575
Jena D. Hwang
claimed_verified
2025-06-05T07:31:48.958Z
65c157eaf9957360824b0d87
https://cdn-avatars.huggingface.co/v1/production/uploads/65c157eaf9957360824b0d87/c1NWTKsFLATJLR7W6Kmqz.jpeg
jena hwang
user
jenah
65430bc1e48d91b86947f576
Liwei Jiang
admin_assigned
2023-11-02T13:35:49.725Z
5efe5c89ff69163f6f59e628
/avatars/c7ea475c50fcce528c9b748f279058eb.svg
Liwei Jiang
user
liweijiang
65430bc1e48d91b86947f577
Jillian Fisher
65430bc1e48d91b86947f578
Abhilasha Ravichander
admin_assigned
2023-11-02T13:36:04.913Z
6349886c429608888c42319a
/avatars/f84b5fe8b76172878274754e3399d6ec.svg
Abhilasha Ravichander
user
lasha-nlp
65430bc1e48d91b86947f579
Khyathi Chandu
65430bc1e48d91b86947f57a
Benjamin Newman
65430bc1e48d91b86947f57b
Pang Wei Koh
admin_assigned
2023-11-02T13:36:19.220Z
641b4263abfce26bcf7b27de
/avatars/e91b4205e4f74b0dd8c333c23203a924.svg
Pang Wei Koh
user
pangwei
65430bc1e48d91b86947f57c
Allyson Ettinger
admin_assigned
2023-11-02T13:36:26.716Z
6500b18c9d5687f825518282
/avatars/2abc8340eae436253b8b835eb8cfa505.svg
Allyson Ettinger
user
aettinger
65430bc1e48d91b86947f57d
Yejin Choi
admin_assigned
2023-11-02T13:36:32.912Z
64d42729f63b01b7f676b176
/avatars/52e54bdd6a1fb6c774a40cd70f3d7925.svg
Yejin Choi
user
yejinchoinka
The Generative AI Paradox: "What It Can Create, It May Not Understand"
The recent wave of generative AI has sparked unprecedented global attention,
with both excitement and concern over potentially superhuman levels of
artificial intelligence: models now take only seconds to produce outputs that
would challenge or exceed the capabilities even of expert humans. At the same
time, models still show basic errors in understanding that would not be
expected even in non-expert humans. This presents us with an apparent paradox:
how do we reconcile seemingly superhuman capabilities with the persistence of
errors that few humans would make? In this work, we posit that this tension
reflects a divergence in the configuration of intelligence in today's
generative models relative to intelligence in humans. Specifically, we propose
and test the Generative AI Paradox hypothesis: generative models, having been
trained directly to reproduce expert-like outputs, acquire generative
capabilities that are not contingent upon -- and can therefore exceed -- their
ability to understand those same types of outputs. This contrasts with humans,
for whom basic understanding almost always precedes the ability to generate
expert-level outputs. We test this hypothesis through controlled experiments
analyzing generation vs. understanding in generative models, across both
language and image modalities. Our results show that although models can
outperform humans in generation, they consistently fall short of human
capabilities in measures of understanding, as well as weaker correlation
between generation and understanding performance, and more brittleness to
adversarial inputs. Our findings support the hypothesis that models' generative
capability may not be contingent upon understanding capability, and call for
caution in interpreting artificial intelligence by analogy to human
intelligence.
Generative AI models can produce outputs surpassing human experts but fall short in understanding, suggesting a divergence from human intelligence.
generative AI generative capabilities expert-level outputs understanding capability generative AI paradox adversarial inputs