Becoming an expert in one thing also narrows down the potential suitable work tremendously. Also these days nobody wants to pay the expert prices since.. Claude can so the expert stuff with a non-expert (at least in their mind)

▲

samiv 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Sibling commenters seem to be confused.

Usually experts are T shaped. Acquiring expertise always means the time spent is away from learning something else.

The deeper and greater the expertise the more niche the topic usually becomes and the less demand there is.

The world might need X million web developers but how many experts are there in browser technology. Or even experts in that domain something more niche like rendering or rendering niche like Angle and WebGL..you already go this deep and it boils down to a handful of individuals.

Also I didn't say that there would not be demand just that many businesses are not willing to pay for it anymore. Industry layoffs, AI are huge leverages that any potential employer can use to have all the advantage when negotiating compensation.

	▲	bombcar 10 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The T shape is important - but the base of the T doesn't have to be in tech. If you're an expert in a particular niche and a generalist in a particular business you'll find work. E.g., a web developer who knows a lot about how lawyers run their business.

▲

59nadir 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Claude can so the expert stuff with a non-expert (at least in their mind)

Opus is far better at most surface-level tasks than it is at tasks that require deep knowledge and understanding of domains; someone who is a complete generalist (who thus has only surface level knowledge in many, many things) is far more replaceable with LLMs than someone who has deep knowledge in one.

Consider the way LLMs actually are created; they are not created from billions of repos with deep knowledge behind them. The majority of their knowledge comes from a massive amount of surface-level work that's been done and can be sampled from: React starter templates, starter templates + what little customization someone needed, blog-tutorial-level stuff.

▲

konradha 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is a strong assertion that's directionally wrong. No matter the economy's state or any AI progress, experts are always searched for.

▲

arcbyte 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is not true at all. Not even a sliver of truth.

There must be a word for this style of post where you take your own inadequacies and fears and project them on to others?

▲

chrisweekly 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Not OP but I feel compelled to reply.

It's indisputable (borderline tautological) that specialization trades breadth for depth. This (obviously?) implies the risk of targeting a narrower market, and the upside of being more attractive to that smaller population. It's a typical "quality over quantity" tradeoff.

To say there's no "sliver of truth" in pointing that out (let alone w/ an unwarranted jab about projecting fears) is... strange and maybe hypocritical. TLDR your response came across as emotional and passive-aggressive, and confusing.

	▲	swiftcoder 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> It's indisputable (borderline tautological) that specialization trades breadth for depth I do not necessarily agree with this as stated. A specialist will have access to many roles within their speciality that are not open to a generalist. The market for generalists without deep expertise is also extremely crowded.

▲

jacknews 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Even if it's true that AI can replace an expert, and I really don't think it is, except in the simplest minds, the AI training companies are aggressively hiring experts...