I’ve been thinking about who actually wins in the age of AI.
For years the advice was:
“Be a specialist.”
Then AI arrived, and people started saying:
“No, be a generalist.”
I don’t think either is right.
The people who seem to have the biggest advantage are becoming expert generalists.
Not people who know everything.
People who have real depth in at least one area, but can connect ideas across many.
AI can explain accounting.
It can explain psychology.
It can explain software engineering.
It struggles much more with deciding which of those disciplines matters most for the problem in front of you.
That feels like the new scarce skill.
The more answers become free, the more valuable it becomes to ask:
• Which question comes first?
• Which mental model applies?
• What assumption are we making?
• What field are we ignoring?
I’ve started thinking that learning in the AI era shouldn’t just be about accumulating knowledge.
It should be about practicing judgment.
That’s one of the reasons I’ve been building a daily practice centered on questions rather than answers. The goal isn’t to know more than AI. It’s to become better at directing it.
Curious whether others see the same shift.
Are we entering the age of the expert generalist?
[link] [comments]