Contra Dwarkesh on Continual Learning

Dwarkesh Patel’s now well-read post on why he is extending his AI timelines focuses on the idea of continual learning. If you ask me, what we have already is AGI, so the core question is: Is continual learning a bottleneck on AI progress?

In this post, I argue that continual learning as he describes it actually doesn’t matter for the trajectory of AI progress that we are on. Continual learning will eventually be solved, but in the sort of way that a new type of AI will emerge from it, rather than continuing to refine what it means to host ever more powerful LLM-based systems.

Continual learning is the ultimate algorithmic nerd snipe for AI researchers, when in reality all we need to do is keep scaling systems and we’ll get something indistinguishable from how humans do it, for free.

To start, here’s the core of the Dwarkesh piece as a refresher for what he means by continual learning.

Sometimes people say that even if all AI progress totally stopped, the systems of today would still be far more economically transformative than the internet. I disagree. I think the LLMs of today are magical. But the reason that the Fortune 500 aren’t using them to transform their workflows isn’t because the management is too stodgy. Rather, I think it’s genuinely hard to get normal humanlike labor out of LLMs. And this has to do with some fundamental capabilities these models lack.

I like to think I’m “AI forward” here at the Dwarkesh Podcast. I’ve probably spent over a hundred hours trying to build little LLM tools for my post production setup. And the experience of trying to get them to be useful has extended my timelines. I’ll try to get the LLMs to rewrite autogenerated transcripts for readability the way a human would. Or I’ll try to get them to identify clips from the transcript to tweet out. Sometimes I’ll try to get them to co-write an essay with me, passage by passage. These are simple, self contained, short horizon, language in-language out tasks - the kinds of assignments that should be dead center in the LLMs’ repertoire. And they're 5/10 at them. Don’t get me wrong, that’s impressive.

But the fundamental problem is that LLMs don’t get better over time the way a human would. The lack of continual learning is a huge huge problem. The LLM baseline at many tasks might be higher than an average human's. But there’s no way to give a model high level feedback. You’re stuck with the abilities you get out of the box. You can keep messing around with the system prompt. In practice this just doesn’t produce anything even close to the kind of learning and improvement that human employees experience.

The core issue I have with this argument is the dream of making the LLMs we’re building today look more like humans. In many ways I’m surprised that Dwarkesh and other very AGI-focused AI researchers or commentators believe this — it’s the same root argument that AI critics use when they say AI models don’t reason. The goal to make AI more human is constraining the technological progress to a potentially impossible degree.

Human intelligence has long been the inspiration for AI, but we have long surpassed it being the mirror we look to for inspiration. Now the industry is all in on the expensive path to make the best language models it possibly can. We’re no longer trying to build the bird, we’re trying to transition the Wright Brothers’ invention into the 737 in the shortest time frame possible.

To put it succinctly. My argument very much rhymes with some of my past writing.

Do language models reason like humans? No. Do language models reason? Yes.

Will language model systems continually learn like humans? No.Will language model systems continually learn? Of course.

Interconnects is a reader-supported publication. Consider becoming a subscriber.

Dwarkesh writes “Rather, I think it’s genuinely hard to get normal humanlike labor out of LLMs.” This is because we’re still early on the buildout of the technology. Human labor takes an immense amount of context and quick thinking, both of which we’re starting to unlock with our language models. On top of this, human labor may not be what we want to create — we want to augment it.

Using LLMs as drop in replacements for humans is not a requirement for AGI nor is what Dwarkesh describes a fundamental limitation on AI progress. Francois Chollet cleverly poked at this weakness in his recent conversation with Dwarkesh at an ARC-AGI event:

Well, how do you define the difference between the ability to adapt to a new task and learning on the fly? It's, it sounds like the same thing to me.

Language models can already pick up subtle context extremely fast. ChatGPT’s memory feature has gotten far better for me. When we’re using the far more powerful models we can expect in the next 18 months this’ll already start to appear magical. Language models are extremely apt at inferring context even without us giving it to them. Soon we’ll be unlocking that subtle connection engine by providing immense, explicit context.

I don’t know of anyone who has actually thoroughly digitized all the relevant context of their job and formatted it in a way that is easily readable by an LLM. GPT-5 Pro estimates that all of the writing on Interconnects would be only 500K tokens. That would fit into an existing LLM with no extra system, but I’ve never tried it.

The problem that Dwarkesh is facing is that we’re still using LLMs primarily in a single generation manner, which got far better with the introduction of reasoning models, but the economically useful way to use current tools in more complex intellectual domains will require a deep-research style approach over all of your recent work interactions. No one is giving language models that kind of context. None of the tools we use are set up properly to accumulate this type of context.

I expect this to change rapidly. ChatGPT, Claude, and the likes are all adding memory features across chats and countless connectors to other pieces of information in your professional life. These memory features will be omnimodal and essential to extracting the type of value Dwarkesh wants. Without them, I agree language models in their current form are hopeless at solving continual learning.

This is what I would expect the rumored $2000/month ChatGPT level subscriptions to work with. Each of these bespoke tasks needs to absorb a ton of context and reasoning tokens in order to make a directionally right output. If someone built the Claude Code equivalent for my Substack, with every post tagged by topic and performance metrics, I bet the AI could easily make useful suggestions on how to format my content.

Continual learning in how Dwarkesh presents it is a systems problem rather than a learning problem. I expect better context management over my information ecosystem to exist in 2026, but more work to be needed for the AI companies to know how best to reference it and unlock in-context learning that feels like rapid adaptation. Call that 2027.

The models that have been released in 2025 will make this far more tractable in the near future. Reasoning models have made in-context learning far more powerful, resulting in rapid progress on held-out and complex domains such as ARC-AGI. These models also have come with massive improvements in context length. Claude and Gemini have 1M+ token context lengths and GPT-5’s is at 400K — they’re all growing steadily. What is important with the context length numbers is that evaluations are showing that these are meaningful improvements that the models can leverage intelligently.

With these reasoning models and smart retrieval of context, the systems we are building will look indistinguishable from continual learning. This will definitely be multiple LLMs working together and will operate very differently than the first versions of ChatGPT we were given (and often still use today).

The path to continual learning is more context and more horsepower. This is directly in line with the direction AI investment is going. This doesn’t feel like a bottleneck, rather another product problem that we are going to solve. This sort of continual learning may not enable the type of raw intelligence and autonomy that many vocal leaders in AI describe as “superintelligence.”

Training models to be smarter on even more complex tasks — e.g. novel biological research — requires mastering agentic behaviors that need to be learned from scratch, as discussed in my post on “What comes next with RL”. There’s no internet scale pretraining data for such agentic tasks. My point is that not all jobs that require continual learning will require the frontiers of intelligence. I’m excited to write blog posts with the bliss of my ChatGPT 6 co-editor.

This technology coming soon will not be without its challenges. My first reaction to the continual learning post was more in line with “society isn’t ready for this” rather than commentary on its feasibility. I’ll repeat my warning:

For a long time I’ve written that AI models have a higher risk potential in terms of social outcomes because the modalities they interact with us in are far more personal… As AI is going to be so powerful as a standalone entity, breaking some of the symbiotic links will be good for adding friction that makes the technology easier to steer towards good outcomes. In short, be wary of wishing for end-to-end (reinforcement) learning when you’re part of the environment.2 It’s a destiny to dystopia.

What we have today is a form of AGI and it’ll soon get much better with better context and memory. The industrialization of language models is giving us incredible improvements across a wide swath of use-cases. These will blow past many basic primitives of intelligence in humans that have motivated AI for decades. First was models reasoning, then will come systems with continual learning. This is exactly what most AI companies are actually building — regardless of what their superintelligence messaging is.

Comments are open on this post, please continue the debate!