In a stunning development that has shaken Silicon Valley to its core-processing units, researchers have confirmed what Roman centurions have suspected for millennia: today’s most advanced AI Large Language Models cannot reliably interpret or generate Roman numerals. The same systems that supposedly threaten human civilization struggle with a counting system mastered by average third-graders and anyone who’s ever had to sit through movie credits.
When in Rome, Don’t Ask the AI to Count
Dr. Eliza Thornberry, who leads the Advanced Numerical Assessment Lab at the Institute for Computational Antiquities, discovered the flaw while attempting to use leading AI models to translate ancient texts.
“I asked it to convert 1988 to Roman numerals, and it confidently produced ‘MCMLXXXIII’,” explained Thornberry. “That’s 1983. When I pointed this out, it apologized and offered ‘MCMLXXXIIX’, which isn’t even valid Roman numeral syntax. It’s like watching a Harvard professor confidently misspell ‘cat’.”
Further testing revealed that while models occasionally get simple conversions right, consistency remains elusive. One major AI system correctly identified MCMXCIX as 1999, but when asked to convert 1999 to Roman numerals, it produced “MIMCMXCIX” – a nonsensical combination that would make Julius Caesar reach for the hemlock.
Hallucinating vs. Lying: A Very Important Semantic Distinction That Absolves All Responsibility
The AI industry has rallied to defend their digital offspring with their favorite term: “hallucinations.” These aren’t errors, executives insist – they’re creative neural interpretations of reality that just happen to be completely wrong.
“Our models aren’t lying about Roman numerals,” explained Chad Volumetric, Chief Innovation Disruption Officer at QuantumThought Technologies. “They’re having a mathematically immersive experience that transcends traditional numerical frameworks.” When pressed on whether this was just a fancy way of saying “getting basic math wrong,” Volumetric’s AI assistant suddenly experienced connection problems.
Industry spokesperson Aria Nebula elaborated: “When an AI confidently states that IX equals 11, it’s not ‘wrong’ – it’s exploring alternative numerical realities. Similarly, when we claim our models are approaching human-level intelligence, we’re not ‘exaggerating’ – we’re engaging in aspirational forecasting.”
The Emperor’s New Neural Networks
What makes the Roman numeral revelation particularly damning is that these systems are trained on vast portions of the internet, including presumably every Wikipedia page explaining Roman numerals, thousands of educational sites, and countless documents containing them. Yet somehow, when processing this relatively simple system of seven letters, the vaunted pattern-matching capabilities of machine learning fall apart like a soggy algorithm.
“We’ve trained our models on approximately 17 trillion tokens of data,” noted Dr. Raymond Singularity from OpenMind AI. “That’s enough text to fill the Library of Congress several times over. Yet somehow, the concept that ‘IV’ means ‘4’ remains elusive. It’s like trying to teach quantum physics to a particularly confident goldfish.”
Secret Silicon Valley Memo: “Just Keep Moving the Definition of Intelligence”
An internal document from a leading AI lab reveals the industry’s strategy for handling such embarrassing limitations: “When our systems fail at tasks humans find trivial, immediately pivot to showcasing tasks humans find difficult. If the AI can’t count in Roman numerals but can process a million chess moves, focus exclusively on the chess.”
The memo continues: “Remember our core messaging: when AI succeeds, it’s because we’re geniuses; when it fails, it’s because intelligence is an ineffable, complex phenomenon that no one truly understands anyway.”
Follow the Money (Which, Thankfully, Doesn’t Use Roman Numerals)
The Roman numeral fiasco reveals a peculiar economic reality: venture capitalists have poured approximately $MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM (a number the AI assures me is correct) into developing systems that struggle with concepts mastered by ancient civilizations without electricity, indoor plumbing, or JavaScript frameworks.
“We’ve spent billions creating AI that can generate photorealistic images from text prompts,” said venture capitalist Morgan Warbucks of Exponential Partners Capital Ventures Partners. “The fact that it simultaneously thinks ‘XL’ means ‘extra large’ rather than ’40’ is just an exciting opportunity for our next funding round.”
When reminded that Roman numerals are a deterministic system with clear rules, Warbucks smiled knowingly. “So was democracy, but look how we’ve optimized that.”
DeepSeek’s Deep Secret: AI Research Costs Were Exaggerated
The Roman numeral revelation comes on the heels of DeepSeek’s industry-shaking disclosure that training large AI models costs significantly less than previously claimed. While companies like OpenAI had suggested training costs in the hundreds of millions, DeepSeek demonstrated comparable results at a fraction of the price.
“It’s almost as if the established players had incentives to exaggerate the barriers to entry,” noted Dr. Cassandra Truth, a computational economist who has been unsuccessfully trying to get journalists to care about this for years. “Next you’ll tell me that claims about AI’s capabilities might also be slightly inflated.”
When asked if the Roman numeral problem might indicate other fundamental gaps in AI understanding, Dr. Truth laughed for approximately 10 seconds before excusing herself to “scream into the void.”
The Smartest People in the Room (As Long As the Room Doesn’t Contain Roman Clocks)
For decades, we’ve been assured that the “smartest people,” smarter than Albert Einstein and co, are working on AI. These geniuses have created systems that can generate convincing essays, create lifelike images, and compose music—yet somehow, these same brilliant minds have produced algorithms that think “IM” is how you write “999” in Roman numerals.
“Intelligence is multi-faceted,” explained Dr. Victor Frankenstein, who heads the Artificial Cognition Department at Prometheus Labs. “Our models excel at tasks requiring broad pattern recognition across vast datasets. Unfortunately, applying consistent rules to convert between number systems—something literally taught to children—remains an ‘open research question’.”
When asked whether this might suggest their systems lack true understanding rather than merely statistical pattern matching, Dr. Frankenstein grew visibly uncomfortable. “Look, do you want an AI that can write your college essay or not? Because we’re optimizing for what makes money, not what makes sense.”
AGI: Absolutely Guaranteed Inconsistency
The Roman numeral debacle casts further doubt on the timeline for Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), the hypothetical future AI system that would match or exceed human capabilities across all domains.
“We’re definitely just five years away from AGI,” insisted futurist Ray Kurtzwalla, who has been saying this exact sentence every year since 1999. “The Roman numeral thing is a minor hiccup. Sure, our systems can’t reliably count like ancient Romans, but they’re getting really good at generating images of cats wearing hats, which is clearly the more evolutionarily advanced capability.”
Others see the numeral issue as more fundamental. “If we can’t trust AI to tell us that MCM equals 1900, how can we trust it to make medical diagnoses or drive our cars?” asked Dr. Nora Cassandra, an AI ethicist whose warnings have been systematically ignored by everyone with funding power. “It’s like building a self-driving car that can handle complex highway merges but occasionally thinks red lights mean ‘accelerate dramatically’.”
VERDICT: We’re All Doomed (or Maybe Just Mildly Inconvenienced, Depending on How Much Stock You Own)
As AI systems continue their march toward theoretical world domination while stumbling over basic counting systems, experts recommend maintaining a healthy skepticism about industry claims. The next time your AI assistant confidently tells you that “MCMLXXI” is the Roman numeral for 2023, remember that this same technology is being positioned to revolutionize medicine, law, and creative industries.
“It’s not that AI isn’t impressive,” concluded Dr. Thornberry. “It’s that we’ve entered a strange reality where systems that can write a convincing legal brief can’t tell you which Super Bowl is coming up if you use Roman numerals. And somehow, we’re supposed to believe that self-awareness and consciousness are right around the corner.”
As of press time, leading AI models were still insisting that “IVXXM” is a valid Roman numeral, and VC funding continues to flow like wine at a particularly debauched bacchanal that no AI could accurately describe using Roman numerals.
Has your supposedly genius AI assistant ever made embarrassingly basic mistakes with Roman numerals or other simple systems? Share your AI fail stories in the comments below!
DONATE TO TECHONION: Because Someone Needs to Count the Ways AI is Failing
Support our journalism by donating any amount (preferably not in Roman numerals, as our payment processor—much like the AIs we critique—will probably convert MCMXCIX to “nineteen ninety-eleven”). Your contribution helps us continue investigating whether the emperor’s new algorithms are as intelligent as claimed, or if they’re just really good at making you think they understand what a VII is.
