Smart but Lacking Judgment: What Today's AI Is Still Missing

Working with large models in recent years has revealed a simple but uncomfortable truth. Modern AI systems appear increasingly intelligent, yet they often behave in ways that reveal a profound absence of judgment. They excel in benchmarks and produce impressive reasoning chains, but once placed in complex or open-ended situations, their limitations become immediately visible. A model can outperform expert programmers on competitive tasks, yet fail repeatedly on a trivial bug fix. It can provide structured explanations, yet overlook the most basic inconsistencies in its own output. It seems powerful in theory and oddly fragile in practice.

This contrast is not caused by a shortage of capability. It reflects something deeper. Current models do not possess a stable internal standard for evaluating their own decisions. They respond effectively to whichever objective we impose on them, but very little of this evaluation is self-generated. Most of what they understand as "good" or "bad," "promising" or "risky," still comes from external supervision or narrowly defined rewards. As a result, the system becomes highly optimized for tasks we measure and conspicuously unreliable for tasks we have not exhaustively specified.

Human learning displays the opposite pattern. Teenagers learn to drive within a few hours. A new researcher becomes productive within months. Even a beginner programmer quickly learns to sense when an idea is wrong, or when a direction is unproductive, long before any final outcome appears. Humans rely on a continuous stream of internal signals. When something feels off, the body reacts. When a line of reasoning grows unstable, discomfort arises. When several choices appear similar, intuition helps select the one that better preserves long-term coherence. These signals are imprecise but remarkably consistent. They form an internal value system that is active at every step of decision making.

From a machine learning perspective, this is a powerful form of internal evaluation. It resembles a value function, yet not the formal kind described in reinforcement learning textbooks. It is embodied, persistent, and independent of short-term objectives. It allows humans to generalize far beyond the situations they have explicitly encountered.

Large models today rarely possess such a mechanism. They can optimize almost any reward we provide, but they do not retain a stable sense of direction across tasks. Change the objective and the model adapts instantly, although in doing so it may lose whatever structure it previously relied upon. This plasticity makes the model flexible, yet undermines the formation of lasting judgment. In many ways, it is similar to a student who becomes extremely effective at passing exams while remaining unsure how to navigate situations without clearly defined criteria.

If we imagine future artificial general intelligence, it is helpful not to define it solely by capability boundaries. A mature intelligence is not simply a system that can solve many tasks. It is a highly efficient learner, capable of extracting structure from limited experience, transferring knowledge across domains, and recognizing when a chosen path is coherent or misguided. A system that lacks this internal sense of evaluation may become powerful but remains unstable. A system that develops such a sense gains an anchor that can guide its actions even when external rewards are absent or ambiguous.

This shift in perspective has influenced how I approach research as well. Earlier in my work, I focused mainly on improving performance: better metrics, stronger baselines, cleaner architectures, more efficient reinforcement learning pipelines. These still matter, but they no longer feel like the essential question. Instead, I find myself asking what kind of evaluative framework a future intelligent system will inherit from our design choices. When we add a new loss function or impose a new constraint, what kind of behavior are we implicitly encouraging? Are we shaping an intelligence that can form stable judgments, or one that optimizes endlessly without understanding why?

Research taste, in this sense, is not merely an aesthetic preference. It is a value system that guides us toward certain questions and away from others. If tomorrow's systems arise from the mechanisms we build today, then our choices carry more influence than we might assume. They become part of the foundations of a new kind of mind.

We may continue scaling models, refining architectures, and improving post-training for many years. These are natural paths for scientific progress. Yet beneath these technical questions lies a more fundamental one.

What kind of intelligence are we trying to create?

A system that excels at narrow objectives but lacks inner coherence will remain powerful in appearance but fragile in reality. A system that develops stable mechanisms for evaluation and judgment may eventually become a trustworthy partner in a complex world.

The greatest risk is not that we fail to create a powerful intelligence. It is that we create one without first deciding what "power" should mean.

Back to Home