Moravec’s Paradox: What It Means for Engineers, AI, and Our Kids
Artificial intelligence keeps surprising us.
It writes code, trades stocks, beats world champions at chess — yet struggles with things a toddler does effortlessly: recognizing context, moving in the physical world, or understanding common sense.
This contradiction has a name.
What is Moravec’s Paradox?
Moravec’s Paradox states:
Tasks that are easy for humans are hard for computers, and tasks that are hard for humans are often easy for computers.
In simple terms:
Computers excel at logic, calculations, and formal rules
Humans excel at perception, intuition, movement, and social understanding
This feels backwards — and that’s why it’s called a paradox.
Why is it called “Moravec’s” Paradox?
The concept was articulated in the 1980s by Hans Moravec, a robotics researcher at Carnegie Mellon University.
At the time, most AI researchers believed that:
Once we solve high-level reasoning (chess, math, logic), everything else will be easy.
Moravec noticed the opposite:
Chess and math were solved relatively quickly
Vision, motor control, and common sense turned out to be brutally hard
His key insight combined AI with evolutionary biology.
The evolutionary explanation
Human abilities did not evolve equally.
Perception and motor skills evolved over hundreds of millions of years
Abstract reasoning (math, logic, formal thinking) evolved very recently
What feels effortless to us is often deeply optimized by evolution — and therefore extremely complex.
What feels hard to us is often easier to formalize in code.
Evolution already paid the computational cost. Computers have not.
Classic examples
| Task | Humans | Computers |
|---|---|---|
| Multiply large numbers | Hard | Easy |
| Chess calculations | Hard | Easy |
| Recognize a face | Easy | Historically very hard |
| Walk on uneven ground | Easy | Very hard |
| Understand sarcasm | Easy | Extremely hard |
Even today, with deep learning, the paradox still holds — just less obviously.
Moravec’s Paradox in modern AI
Large language models can:
Write code
Explain finance
Pass exams
Yet they still:
Hallucinate confidently
Lack real-world grounding
Struggle with responsibility and accountability
AI is powerful in abstract symbol manipulation, but weak in embodied understanding.
This distinction matters — a lot.
What this means for software engineers
Moravec’s Paradox is not a threat — it’s a filter.
What is being commoditized
CRUD-heavy applications
Simple APIs
Boilerplate frontend and backend code
Glue code without domain depth
AI is getting very good here.
What remains valuable
System design and architecture
Distributed systems and performance
Low-latency and high-reliability systems
Regulated domains (finance, trading, risk)
Ownership, judgment, and accountability
The closer your work is to real-world consequences, the safer it is.
The winning position
Not “AI engineer” vs “software engineer”, but:
Engineers who use AI to build systems that AI alone cannot be trusted to run.
AI becomes leverage, not replacement.
A 5-year career hedge (high level)
Short term: become AI-augmented, not AI-dependent
Mid term: combine AI with deep domain expertise
Long term: move toward ownership, architecture, and decision-making
Pure abstraction gets cheaper.
Judgment gets more expensive.
What Moravec’s Paradox means for our kids
This may be the most important part.
What not to over-optimize
Memorization
Narrow technical skills
Passive consumption
These are easy to automate.
What will matter more
Critical thinking
Creativity
Communication
Emotional intelligence
Physical skills and coordination
Curiosity and adaptability
Ironically, the most human skills are the most future-proof.
Coding still matters — but as a thinking tool, not a guaranteed career.
The bigger shift
Old model:
Learn a skill → use it for 30 years
New model:
Learn how to learn, adapt, and combine domains
Moravec’s Paradox reminds us that intelligence is not just computation — it is context, embodiment, and responsibility.
Final takeaway
AI will keep getting better at what computers are good at.
Humans should double down on what evolution already made rare.
The future belongs to hybrids — not pure technologists, and not pure creatives, but people who can connect judgment, systems, and meaning.
Moravec’s Paradox isn’t bad news.
It’s a map.

Comments
Post a Comment