Why Understanding May Become More Valuable Than Intelligence
This is the sixth and final article in a series exploring capability, understanding, purpose, context and the human role in an age of AI.
We Have Spoken About Capability
Over the course of this series I have explored three stories.
The Wizard of Oz reminded us not to mistake capability for wisdom.
King Lear reminded us that information is not the same as understanding.
Gulliver’s Travels reminded us that innovation is not the same as purpose.
Along the way we considered another question:
What is my role?
And we explored the importance of people, organisations, places and context.
Each article approached the challenge from a different direction.
Yet they all point towards what I believe may become one of the defining challenges of the coming decade.
Not intelligence.
Understanding.
The Missing Layer
For much of the last twenty years we have focused on improving information.
Better data.
Better systems.
Better connectivity.
Better interoperability.
Better reporting.
More recently our attention has shifted towards action.
Automation.
Agents.
Decision support.
Autonomous systems.
The ability to do things.
What often receives less attention is the layer that sits between them.
Data alone does not produce understanding.
Action without understanding can produce unintended consequences.
Understanding is the bridge.
Shared Understanding Is Different
It is important to be clear about what I mean.
Shared understanding is not the same as agreement.
Nor is it the same as uniformity.
People can disagree and still possess shared understanding.
Different organisations can hold different responsibilities and still possess shared understanding.
Different communities can pursue different priorities and still possess shared understanding.
Shared understanding means that people recognise:
- the same context,
- the same relationships,
- the same constraints,
- the same opportunities,
- even when their perspectives differ.
Without this, coordinated action becomes difficult.
A Reflection
Perhaps the opposite of shared understanding is not disagreement.
Perhaps it is fragmentation.
The Challenge of Modern Organisations
Most contemporary challenges cross organisational boundaries.
Poverty.
Health.
Housing.
Education.
Employment.
Climate.
Community wellbeing.
No single organisation owns these problems.
No single dataset explains them.
No single perspective resolves them.
The challenge therefore becomes:
How do multiple actors develop a sufficiently shared understanding to act together?
This is where information, context and relationships become as important as technology.
Connecting Fragments
Throughout my work I have encountered similar patterns in very different environments.
Universities.
Communities.
Health.
Public services.
Digital transformation.
Information management.
Communications.
Storytelling.
At first glance these appear very different disciplines.
Yet they often revolve around the same challenge.
Information exists in fragments.
Knowledge exists in fragments.
Experience exists in fragments.
The task is connecting those fragments in ways that allow people to make sense of reality together.
Stories, Systems and Understanding
One of the observations that increasingly strikes me is that understanding emerges in many different forms.
Stories create understanding.
Conversations create understanding.
Data creates understanding.
Research creates understanding.
Communities create understanding.
None is sufficient on its own.
We often behave as though information and understanding are interchangeable.
They are not.
A spreadsheet is not understanding.
A report is not understanding.
A dashboard is not understanding.
An AI-generated summary is not understanding.
Each may contribute to understanding.
None guarantees it.
The Human Contribution
Throughout this series I have repeatedly returned to the human role.
This is because understanding remains deeply human.
Humans bring:
- meaning,
- context,
- experience,
- values,
- purpose,
- judgement.
We ask:
What matters?
Why does it matter?
For whom?
What are the consequences?
What trade-offs are acceptable?
Increasingly capable systems do not remove these questions.
If anything, they make them more important.
Understanding Before Action
One lesson I have observed repeatedly is that organisations are often eager to move directly from information to action.
It is understandable.
Action feels productive.
Action creates momentum.
Action demonstrates progress.
But action disconnected from understanding is risky.
The challenge is rarely:
What should we do?
The more important question is often:
What are we actually looking at?
Or perhaps:
What are we failing to see?
A Question Worth Holding
If AI makes action easier, does understanding become more important?
Perhaps This Has Always Been the Challenge
The more I reflect on it, the more I think these are not new questions.
They are human questions.
They appear in literature, philosophy, public services, business and everyday life.
The Wizard appeared powerful but lacked wisdom.
Lear possessed information but lacked understanding.
The inventors of Lagado possessed innovation but lacked purpose.
Different stories.
The same lesson.
Capability.
Understanding.
Purpose.
Each depends upon the others.
A Future Worth Building
Artificial Intelligence will continue to evolve.
Infrastructure will continue to improve.
Agents will become more capable.
Some decisions will become increasingly automated.
None of this is likely to stop.
The more interesting question is what kind of society emerges around these capabilities.
Will we use them to deepen understanding?
Will we use them to connect people and communities?
Will we use them to improve outcomes?
Or will we simply increase the speed at which we make the same mistakes?
The Real Bottleneck
Perhaps the bottleneck of the next decade will not be intelligence.
It may not even be data.
It may be our ability to develop shared understanding:
- between people,
- between organisations,
- between communities,
- and increasingly between people and intelligent systems.
The future may depend less on what our technologies know and more on how well we understand one another.
One Final Question
Throughout this series I have asked questions rather than offered answers.
Perhaps that is appropriate.
Because the most important question ultimately belongs to each of us.
As intelligence becomes increasingly abundant.
As capability becomes increasingly available.
As agency becomes increasingly automated.
What is my role?
What should I learn?
What responsibilities remain uniquely human?
And what future am I helping to create?
Closing Thought
Humans create meaning. Stories create connection. Organisations create structure. Technology creates capability. Shared understanding connects them all.
And in an age of abundant intelligence, that connection may become the most valuable thing we possess.
Epilogue
The Wizard of Oz asked:
What lies behind the curtain?
King Lear asked:
Do we understand what matters?
Gulliver’s Travels asked:
Why are we doing this?
Perhaps the AI age asks one final question:
How do we create enough shared understanding for people, organisations and intelligent systems to build a better future together?
That may be the most important question of all.
About the author
David Eccles is a co-founder of Wallscope, based in Edinburgh, Scotland. He writes about AI, organisational knowledge, interoperability, shared context and public-sector transformation, exploring how organisations can turn fragmented information into actionable knowledge.
🌐 https://wallscope.co.uk
🔗 https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidecclesedinburgh/
Shared Understanding in an Age of AI was originally published in Wallscope on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.