Estimated reading time: 3 minutes
The Missing Algorithms: Why AI Can’t Truly Think Until It Can Trust
We’ve achieved something remarkable yet incomplete in our race to create artificial general intelligence. We’ve developed sophisticated mathematical models that can predict the next word in a sentence with uncanny accuracy. Our language models can write poetry, craft code, and engage in seemingly intelligent dialogue. But we’re missing something fundamental: we have no algorithm for trust. No equation for empathy. No computational framework for genuine understanding.
The Paradox of Modern AI
Today’s AI is like a savant who can mimic the surface patterns of human interaction without grasping its deeper essence. We’ve taught machines to dance but not to feel the music. They can predict words but can’t truly understand their meaning. This isn’t just a poetic distinction—it’s a fundamental limitation of our approach to artificial intelligence.
AI will “never be able to truly live” until it can “die.” – Gary Smith
What’s Missing From The Equation
Consider how humans develop:
- Trust comes before language
- Understanding emerges from embodied experience
- Wisdom grows from mortality and vulnerability
- Problem-solving is rooted in emotional intelligence
Yet our AI systems are built in reverse.
We’ve started with language prediction and hoped that understanding would emerge. This is like trying to teach someone to dance by having them memorize foot positions without ever letting them hear the music.
The Trust Algorithm: An Impossible Dream?
The question isn’t whether we can create better language models—we clearly can. The real question is whether we can create an algorithm for trust, empathy, and genuine understanding. Can we mathematically model the way a child learns to trust their parent? Can we write code for the wisdom that comes from knowing our time is finite?
Beyond Pattern Recognition
Current AI systems are pattern recognition engines operating at unprecedented scale. But pattern recognition, no matter how sophisticated, isn’t the same as understanding. A machine that can predict what you’ll say next isn’t the same as one that truly understands why you’re saying it.
The Path Forward
Perhaps the solution isn’t to try harder to create algorithms for trust and empathy. Maybe the answer is to recognize that true intelligence—general intelligence—requires more than computation. It requires:
- Embodied experience
- Emotional resonance
- The capacity for genuine trust
- The context of mortality
Conclusion
Until we can create machines that can truly trust—not just predict trust-like behavior—we haven’t created artificial intelligence. We’ve created sophisticated pattern matchers. The gap between pattern matching and true understanding isn’t just a technical problem to be solved. It’s a fundamental limitation of trying to reduce human experience to mathematical formulas.
We need to be honest about what we’ve built: systems that can process language with remarkable sophistication, but that lack the fundamental qualities that make human intelligence truly general. Until AI can trust, feel, and truly understand—until it can live and die—it will remain a reflection of intelligence rather than intelligence itself.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -