AI agents struggle to use world‑model simulators for foresight

Kari Jaaskelainen

08 Jan 2026 — 1 min read

TL;DR: Giving AI agents a "what happens next?" simulator doesn’t automatically make them smarter.

Researchers tested whether agents built on vision–language models can use a generative world model—a tool that predicts future states—to preview outcomes before acting.

Agents rarely choose to simulate: in some setups, fewer than 1% of decisions used the simulator.
When they do, they often misread the rollouts (~15% misuse).
Results are inconsistent: performance can even drop by up to 5% when simulation is available or forced.

Analysis points to a core bottleneck: deciding when to simulate, how to interpret predictions, and how to weave that foresight into step‑by‑step reasoning.

Bottom line: to get reliable "look‑before‑you‑leap" behavior, we need mechanisms that teach agents to use simulators strategically—not just plug them in.

Paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.03905v1

Paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.03905v1

Register: https://www.AiFeta.com

AI Agents WorldModels Simulation Foresight VLM Research MachineLearning

Meet GRACE: a moral governor for safer, more transparent AI

AI agents are getting powerful—so how do we make sure they do the right thing, not just the effective thing? Meet GRACE, a reason-based moral governor that keeps AI behavior aligned with human norms by separating moral reasoning from goal-driven decision-making. * Moral Module: uses deontic logic and explicit reasons

Why some fine-tuned LLMs miss phishing—and how to fix it

Not all fine-tuned LLMs spot phishing equally. A new study tests Llama 3.1 8B, Gemma 2 9B, and Mistral on high-stakes phishing detection—and uses SHAP and mechanistic interpretability to reveal why models do (or don’t) generalize. * Architecture × data diversity matters: Gemma 2 9B hits state-of-the-art performance (F1

AI that explains itself—by following the science

AI that explains itself—by following the science Black-box AI can be powerful, but it often can’t tell us why it made a decision. Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs) try to fix that by predicting human-understandable concepts first, then the final answer. The catch: standard CBMs ignore domain-specific cause-and-effect and

Meet GenomAgent: A Team of AI Specialists for Smarter Genomics Q&A

TL;DR: Finding reliable answers in genomics is hard. GenomAgent turns one big AI into a coordinating team of specialists—and beats the current leader by 12% on a key benchmark. Genomic facts live across many databases. Standard chatbots struggle because they can’t flexibly query those sources. GeneGPT added

Read more

Meet GRACE: a moral governor for safer, more transparent AI

Why some fine-tuned LLMs miss phishing—and how to fix it

AI that explains itself—by following the science

Meet GenomAgent: A Team of AI Specialists for Smarter Genomics Q&A