Researchers found that multimodal AI models cannot tell time. The more variation there was in the clock face, the more the chatbot being tested was likely to misreadResearchers found that multimodal AI models cannot tell time. The more variation there was in the clock face, the more the chatbot being tested was likely to misread

Before AI Takes Our Jobs, Someone Better Teach It How to Tell Time

Am I the only one who didn’t know that AI cannot figure out time? I mean, every day, we hear all about generative AI “revolutionizing” everything and replacing everyone. Pretty genius little things. So imagine my shock when I learned that multimodal AI models cannot tell time. How did I know, you ask?

To start with, researchers at the University of Edinburgh recently found that multimodal large language models (MLLMs) like ChatGPT-4o, GPT-o1, Gemini-2.0, and Claude 3.5-Sonnet ran into accuracy problems while reading a clock face.

Things got worse when they were tested with clocks designed with Roman numerals, a colored dial, or a decorative hour hand. Some of the clocks also had a hand that tracked seconds in addition to minutes and hours. In the face of those design touches, the AI models reportedly fell into further errors.

This discovery was made during a test of a lineup of top MLLMs today, and to think that Gemini-2.0 performed the “best” with only 22.8% accuracy sounds hilarious. GPT-4.o and GPT-o1’s exact match accuracy stood at 8.6% and 4.84% respectively.

Per the researchers, these models struggled with everything. Which hand is the hour hand? Which direction is it pointing? What angle corresponds to what time? What number is that? According to them, the more variation there was in the clock face, the more the chatbot being tested was likely to misread the clock.

These are literally basic skills for people. Most six or seven-year-olds can already tell time. But for these models, it might as well be the most complicated astrophysics.

After the clock fiasco, the researchers tested the bots on yearly calendars. You know, the ones with all twelve months on one page. GPT-o1 performed the “best” here, reaching 80 percent accuracy. But that still means that one out of every five answers was wrong, including simple questions like “Which day of the week is New Year’s Day? If my child failed to get that right on a quiz, I would honestly be very worried.

I never would have thought that AI models could ever get confused by a common calendar layout. But then, it is not very shocking to find out. It all still boils down to a long-standing gap in AI development. MLLMs only recognize patterns they have already seen, and clocks, calendars, or anything that requires spatial reasoning don’t fit into that.

Humans can look at a warped Dali clock and still figure out roughly what time it is meant to display. But AI models see a slightly thicker hour hand and kind of short-circuit.

Why This Matters

It is easy (almost satisfying) to laugh at ChatGPT, Gemini, and these models for failing a task you learned when you were little. A task you do with so much ease. As someone who has gotten jilted by clients for the free work these things offer, albeit substandard, I admit I do find it really satisfying.

But as much as I want to just laugh it off, there is a more serious angle to this. These same MLLMs are being pushed into autonomous driving perception, medical imaging, robotics, and accessibility tools. They are being used for scheduling and automation as well as real-time decision-making systems.

Now, clock-reading errors are funny. But medical errors? Navigation errors? Even scheduling errors? Not so funny.

If a model cannot reliably read a clock, trusting it blindly in high-stakes environments is too risky a gamble for me. It just shows how far these systems still are from actual, grounded intelligence. And how much human common sense and nuance still matter. I am trying so hard to steer clear of taking this chance to make a human vs. AI case. I sure won’t use it to preach “Why I Hate AI and You Should Too.” But there is a problem that needs to be looked into.

As the study’s lead author, Rohit Saxena, put it, these weaknesses “must be addressed if AI systems are to be successfully integrated into time-sensitive real-world applications.”

Market Opportunity
Sleepless AI Logo
Sleepless AI Price(AI)
$0.03716
$0.03716$0.03716
-2.92%
USD
Sleepless AI (AI) Live Price Chart
Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

Visa Expands USDC Stablecoin Settlement For US Banks

Visa Expands USDC Stablecoin Settlement For US Banks

The post Visa Expands USDC Stablecoin Settlement For US Banks appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Visa Expands USDC Stablecoin Settlement For US Banks
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/12/17 15:23
Nasdaq Company Adds 7,500 BTC in Bold Treasury Move

Nasdaq Company Adds 7,500 BTC in Bold Treasury Move

The live-streaming and e-commerce company has struck a deal to acquire 7,500 BTC, instantly becoming one of the largest public […] The post Nasdaq Company Adds 7,500 BTC in Bold Treasury Move appeared first on Coindoo.
Share
Coindoo2025/09/18 02:15
Curve Finance votes on revenue-sharing model for CRV holders

Curve Finance votes on revenue-sharing model for CRV holders

The post Curve Finance votes on revenue-sharing model for CRV holders appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Curve Finance has proposed a new protocol called Yield Basis that would share revenue directly with CRV holders, marking a shift from one-off incentives to sustainable income. Summary Curve Finance has put forward a revenue-sharing protocol to give CRV holders sustainable income beyond emissions and fees. The plan would mint $60M in crvUSD to seed three Bitcoin liquidity pools (WBTC, cbBTC, tBTC), with 35–65% of revenue distributed to veCRV stakers. The DAO vote runs from up to Sept. 24, with the proposal seen as a major step to strengthen CRV tokenomics after past liquidity and governance challenges. Curve Finance founder Michael Egorov has introduced a proposal to give CRV token holders a more direct way to earn income, launching a system called Yield Basis that aims to turn the governance token into a sustainable, yield-bearing asset.  The proposal has been published on the Curve DAO (CRV) governance forum, with voting open until Sept. 24. A new model for CRV rewards Yield Basis is designed to distribute transparent and consistent returns to CRV holders who lock their tokens for veCRV governance rights. Unlike past incentive programs, which relied heavily on airdrops and emissions, the protocol channels income from Bitcoin-focused liquidity pools directly back to token holders. To start, Curve would mint $60 million worth of crvUSD, its over-collateralized stablecoin, with proceeds allocated across three pools — WBTC, cbBTC, and tBTC — each capped at $10 million. 25% of Yield Basis tokens would be reserved for the Curve ecosystem, and between 35% and 65% of Yield Basis’s revenue would be given to veCRV holders. By emphasizing Bitcoin (BTC) liquidity and offering yields without the short-term loss risks associated with automated market makers, the protocol hopes to draw in professional traders and institutions. Context and potential impact on Curve Finance The proposal comes as Curve continues to modify…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 14:37