Specialist vs generalist in the age of AI

“Do you think it’s better to specialise or keep getting better at being a generalist? I know AI will put the pressure on generalists first but it seems survival in this industry requires being a generalist these days.”

I was recently asked an interesting question regarding AI and software development - is it better to specialise, or become a better generalist? The short answer is neither – the frame around the question is too specific to be useful as a guide. Pause for a second and ask what skills are needed to “specialise”? What skills are needed to become a “better generalist”?

Once we peel away the details of specific techniques and tools, the core skills required for either approach are the same. We need critical thinking, creativity, curiosity, and an openness to learn and experiment with new ideas. No field is static, and even “specialists” such as doctors and accountants have minimum continuing education requirements to stay current. Those uncurious souls who stop learning are dead from the neck up, and nothing will help them.

Lessons from history

The specifics of what we do are not as important as our ability to learn and create unique solutions to problems. Humanity has gone through many technological revolutions before, and has been fine after an adjustment period. The adjustment period for integrating new technology into the social fabric has been steadily decreasing from the century long first Industrial Revolution, to a few decades for microprocessors, to a few years for blockchain and AI.

This is not just optimism - it’s borne out in the history of the oldest surviving companies. Stora, a Swedish paper and chemical company, first began as a copper mine in 1280. They survived for the last 737 years not because they were generalists, or specialists. As a company, they’ve done many different things to survive and thrive over the centuries. It has survived multiple wars, political instability, and several technological revolutions (including the Industrial Revolution).

Stora is not alone in this - there are many other multi-centenarian companies such as Nokia (started by making sewing machines), Sumitomo (copper and silver mining), and Mitsui (started as a miso store and pawn shop). Each of these companies have seen upheaval, war, and tectonic changes in their worlds, and survived not because they were generalists or specialists, but because they could adapt and grow into areas previously outside their core skillsets.

Thriving in interesting times

These companies and the others like them owe their survival to more than just luck. Their history describes something that is more than just specialist vs generalist. Each of these companies was a major player in their field. Stora supplied two thirds of Sweden’s copper at one point. Nokia dominated the mobile phone market for a time. It is clear that they built and maintained specialist knowledge as a prerequisite for survival.
However, that does not fully explain their longevity. They also share a common set of characteristics that we as individuals can take inspiration from.

Most importantly, these companies cultivated an ability to adapt themselves to the changes in the world around them. To do this, they are tolerant of new ideas, orienting themselves towards learning and experimenting with fields outside their current core competencies. Their ability to change, to move away from the core product that gave them their initial success is one of the most powerful examples we can follow.

They are able to move into new industries, and new areas because each of these companies from the entry level worker to the leadership team understand something powerful. They understand that the company’s identity is not defined by what they sell. It’s defined by the people who make up the company.

It’s this people-first approach that made Southwest Airlines great in their early years. It’s what enabled the American manufacturer, Barry-Wehmiller, to survive the multi-year long economic effects of covid without laying off any staff at all.

Kodak - a failure of identity

Defining themselves by their product line is what killed Kodak - they invented the digital camera, but could not see beyond their core product, photographic film. Their true identity as a company was not “we sell film for cameras”. It was in the “Kodak moment” - they were the company that put the power to preserve our fondest memories in our hands. They captured our birthdays, our graduation, they were there when we travelled for the first time and when we got married. At their peak, Kodak had a grip on 70% of the US domestic market for photography film. By forgetting what and who they were, they fell far and fast. Few know the name “Kodak” today and they’re a hollow shell of the titan they were in the 80s and 90s.

Evergreen skills

The historical examples are just one example of how the skills for thriving transcend a specialist/generalist dichotomy - the patterns for thriving can be seen again in the natural world. In Sweden’s Fulufjället National Park there’s a 9,565 year old spruce named Old Tjikko, growing on the mountain side. It has survived by nature of the extreme adaptability of the spruce tree - they can grow new roots from branches, and share the common trait of all plants - that of evolving to conditions in real time. During warmer periods Old Tjikko has stood upright as a tree, while in colder periods it has survived as a bush, using snow as insulation.

Much like Old Tjikko, we can grow the skills necessary to thrive in adversarial climates. The list of core competencies required is short: critical thinking, creativity, curiosity, and an openness to learn and experiment with new ideas.

These skills are not something that we must be born with. We can learn and develop them on our own, if we possess the intrinsic desire and discipline to do so. Make no mistake, it’s not always easy - nothing worth doing ever is. But it is not a chore - the process might be difficult, but if we look for it, we can find happiness in the pursuit. Mastery, autonomy, and the satisfaction of creating things that are uniquely our own are the rewards for seeking out these skills.

Cultivating your skillset

The way we develop these skills is really simple. We must actively engage with our interests and ideas instead of passively consuming the thinking of others. And no, we cannot use an LLM as a shortcut - if we aren’t putting in the effort mentally, we are merely consuming other people’s thinking by an automaton proxy.

A good example of how to engage instead of consume can be found in the realm of video games. In the early 2000s, the second Thief game was published. What followed was a flood of fan created missions using the game, art, fiction, collections of in-game lore and history. The people doing all of this were not just consuming the story of the game. They were forming a new one for themselves.
Anyone who has written a non-trivial piece will know that corralling one’s thoughts takes effort. Researching the in-game lore sparks questions that can only be answered by reading history, or science. It is this process of actively sparking new ideas, new questions to answer, new connections to other areas of interest that represents the best path for actively engaging in something.

Regardless of our interests, there is always an opportunity to create, and think, and tinker with them. We can write (don’t have to publish it), create art (don’t need to share it), record videos (don’t need to play it for others), discuss it on a forum with other enthusiasts, and more. The creation of each of these requires the key element of learning - active thinking and engagement with the ideas being presented. It is the only way to learn (and coincidentally also part of the reason why most people retain more if they write by hand instead of typing). We have to actively participate in our own curiosity and learning if we are to retain anything at all.

Concluding thoughts

The dichotomy between specialist and generalist is the wrong question to be asking in the face of a powerful paradigm shift such as LLMs. What is far more important is asking ourselves how we can turn the changes we face to our advantage. How might we adapt, learn, and grow from them. Unfettered curiosity and experimentation builds a rich and diverse collection of ideas, techniques, and patterns that we can draw on. It is this raw material, unique in nature to each one of us, that enables us to adapt to the world as it changes.

We must dive deep into our interests outside our fields of work. Create, instead of consume - write, draw, learn to throw clay on a potter’s wheel. Whatever it is, do not just passively sit back and absorb the results of other people’s thinking (whether that’s movies, video games, or books). Engage with the things we learn - the act of communicating our ideas to others (even just to a rubber duck) builds that store of memory and knowledge. They become available to us when we least expect it. Write, draw, record a video diary explanation, something, anything.

The creativity, autonomy, and mastery that comes from building a kaleidoscopic body of knowledge are part of what makes life enjoyable. In the face of another technological shift in society, there has never been a better time to become a person with a love of learning and thinking. Our capacity to learn and grow is what matters most.