March 3, 2024 Why Generalists LOVE AI. Nine years ago, I stumbled upon a video that gave some credence to the disposition of being a generalist, albeit in a world dictated by specialists. The main premise surmounted to a defence of the generalist in reference to their ability to bridge gaps between specialists, providing creative solutions, despite their lack of expertise in any given subject. However the winds of change have since gathered momentum, fuelled by the advancement of artificial intelligence, which is set to vindicate the generalist's shortcomings, by reshaping the very foundations upon which our professional world stands. The Rise of AI Only recently has the power of AI really shone through, with the meteoric rise of ChatGPT and other AI tools. More than just a simple chatbot these new AIs have been effective at writing code and creating images that are truly mind-blowing. The increase of interest in AI technology over the past five years As these technologies continue to develop, it would seem apparent that in the future, many of the specialist tasks will be completed by AI rather than humans. This trajectory prompts us to reimagine the division of labour between humans and AI, as we navigate a future where machines increasingly take on more tasks. Why Generalists Are Poised to Thrive As outlined in the Ted Talk, one reason why generalists are well-positioned to excel in the age of AI is their ability to bridge gaps between different domains and draw connections that specialists often overlook. AI systems, despite their remarkable capabilities, often operate within predefined parameters and only really excel in narrow areas. Generalists could therefore leverage AI tools when needed, freeing up their time and energy to continue to delve into new domains and synthesize information between disciplines. It is no longer unfathomable that in the coming years creative tasks such as creating blockbuster films, of which would have taken a team of people to complete, could be orchestrated by a single individual. In fact, these leaps in potential have already occurred time after time with technological advancements from the washing machine to computers. In Defence of the Specialist in a Generalists' World It is clear that some people, with the disposition of tunnel vision pursuit of specialised disciplines will still want to find a place. With this in mind, I want to suggest some areas of specialism which are likely safe from AI takeover. Interpersonal Skills & Care. It would seem that human emotions are best conveyed by humans. Therefore, any discipline that requires empathy and building rapport will continue to be human endeavours. Skills that involve caring for others, selling a product or public speaking will be great avenues to pursue if you want to specialise in something that AI will find near impossible to mimic. Bodily Movement & Competition A robot could dance, but the degree to which people will want to see this is debatable (...okay this could be pretty cool to see). Many endeavours that involve the human body such as sport would therfore likely be safe from AI. The addition of competition within the domain, adds further assurance that AI won’t be a threat in participation. This is because, using AI would give an advantage in competition. For instance, in such games as chess, in which AI already comfortable beat human opponents. The utilisation of AI would likely always be considered cheating, with the emphasis here being on human greatness being that of which is being measured for success. Problem Solving & Moral Reasoning If AIs become the superior specialists in the future, then aside from the possibility of self-creating AI’s, a human specialist in creating AIs would be useful. All AIs are to some degree: reflections of the genius of their creators. A human that solves a problem to improve the performance of AI will always be sought after. Aside from AI development, many philosophical and moral questions are most likely still going to be appreciated from humans rather than AI. No matter the advancement of AI, I’d hope that we wouldn’t begin to blindly follow the commands output when these go against our human reasoning. We Are Likely All Both Generalists & Specialists. After all the discussion around the differences between generalists and specialists, as a true generalist it seems odd to proclaim oneself as being either/or. Rather I’d suggest that these labels are merely modes of being. I am sure any “generalist” would happily focus their efforts on narrow tasks if this were to meet their aims. And, most “specialists” would - I hope, consider different options should their choice of specialisation become obsolete. In fact, this matching of both specialism and generalist does appear to be optimal. David Epstein outlined that athletes who waited to try a range of sports before specialising, performed better than those that specialised early. This is in a sense counter intuitive at first appraisal, because we would think that those who specialised early would have had a first movers advantage. The key here however, is that those that explored their options would be able to be selective in choosing a sport they had the best aptitude for, and incorporate skills learned from other sports, thus giving them a unique advantage in specific areas. In many cases the great examples of specialists are often perfected through mentorship rather than personal striving. In these cases it’s the mentor that sees the path to take and optimises their student towards specialism in a chosen domain. Khabib a supremely dominate UFC fighter, Venus and Serena, as well as, the Polgar twins and Tiger Woods all had the virtue of parents to train them in their chosen discipline. In these cases their pursuits were in competition within games that were unlikely to significantly change, making the edge of singular dedication realisable. It can be said even in these singular pursuits, that the need to have a diversified skillset is apparent. Khabib known for wrestling prowess, would still need to train to become a well-rounded fighter in other areas. In this sense neither generalists nor specialists truly rule at any given point. Instead, the winner will always be those who act optimally in the pursuit of a goal by knowing where their edge lies. For instance, referring to our specialist virtues of interpersonal skills, caring, bodily movement, competition, learning, and problem solving - these can be thought of as foundational human attributes innate to our being (as opposed to manufactured skills such as coding or creating a design). Thus, in a way - all individuals should lean into the skills that make humans what they ARE, while creating a skillstack around things humans WANT. This would effectively give the best of both worlds, with a generalist skills set geared towards a specialised goal.