
Share
Mathematician Terence Tao introduces the concept of "artificial general cleverness," arguing that today's AI systems exhibit impressive but limited intelligence, falling short of true general artificial intelligence.
Terence Tao, a renowned mathematician and Fields Medalist, has recently shared his thoughts on the capabilities of current artificial intelligence (AI) systems. In a post on the Mastodon server mathstodon.xyz, Tao discusses the concept of "artificial general cleverness," which he believes is becoming increasingly prevalent in AI applications.
Tao's perspective provides valuable insight into the limitations and potential of modern AI. His distinction between genuine artificial general intelligence (AGI) and what he terms "artificial general cleverness" highlights a nuanced understanding of the current state of AI technology. This distinction is crucial for policymakers, technologists, and businesses as they navigate the rapidly evolving landscape of AI.
According to Tao, true AGI-defined as an AI system capable of performing any intellectual task that a human can-is not yet within reach. However, he argues that a weaker form of intelligence, which he calls "artificial general cleverness," is becoming more common. This type of cleverness involves the ability to solve complex problems through ad hoc means, often using stochastic processes or brute force computation.
Tao emphasizes that these solutions may be ungrounded, fallible, and uninterpretable. They might also be derived from similar tricks found in an AI's training data, making them less a product of true intelligence and more the result of sophisticated pattern recognition and computational power.
Despite its limitations, artificial general cleverness can still achieve impressive results, particularly when combined with stringent verification procedures to filter out incorrect or unpromising approaches. Tao suggests that this technology can be very useful and impressive in solving a wide spectrum of tasks at scales beyond what individual humans could manage.
For example, AI systems can now generate creative content, optimize complex logistics, and even assist in scientific research. These applications are not only practical but also have the potential to drive significant advancements across various industries.

While artificial general cleverness offers substantial benefits, it is not without risks. One of the primary concerns is the lack of interpretability. When AI solutions are derived from uninterpretable processes, it can be challenging to understand how decisions are made, which is particularly problematic in fields like healthcare and finance where transparency and accountability are crucial.
Additionally, the fallibility of these systems means that they may produce incorrect or suboptimal results. This risk is exacerbated by the scale at which AI operates, as even a small percentage of errors can have significant consequences when applied to large datasets or critical systems.
Tao proposes a shift in perspective for understanding and utilizing current AI tools. Rather than viewing them as approximations of human intelligence, he suggests seeing them as stochastic generators of sometimes clever-and often useful-thoughts and outputs. This perspective can help in managing expectations and leveraging AI's strengths more effectively.
By recognizing that cleverness and intelligence are decoupled traits for AI, policymakers and businesses can better align their strategies with the capabilities of current technology. For instance, focusing on developing robust verification mechanisms to ensure the reliability of AI-generated solutions can mitigate some of the risks associated with artificial general cleverness.
Terence Tao's insights into the nature of modern AI provide a balanced view of its potential and limitations. While genuine AGI remains elusive, artificial general cleverness is already making significant contributions across various domains. By adopting a more nuanced understanding of AI, stakeholders can better harness its capabilities while mitigating associated risks.
Tags
Original Sources
About the author
Marcus began tracking AI's market implications in 2016, noticing AI-related patent filings accelerating ahead of earnings upgrades before most of the sell-side had caught on. A former fixed-income quantitative analyst, he spent two decades building models that priced risk across emerging markets before pivoting to cover the economic impact of AI full-time. His writing translates opaque technical developments into clear risk/reward terms — and he's rarely diplomatic about the gap between AI valuations and underlying fundamentals. He believes most market participants still underestimate AI's long-run deflationary effect on knowledge work.
More from The Analyst →This Week's Edition
16 December 2025
133 articles
Related Articles
Related Articles
More Stories