[tvanantwerp]

Not sure if its a sufficient explanation, but I like what I've heard from Cal Newport about this. More and more self-service IT systems were able to replace a lot of jobs. But the result is that now you are responsible for doing things via IT systems that were previously outsourced to somebody else. E.g., you're booking your own travel instead of using a travel agent. In some sense, things are more efficient because we don't need travel agents. But also, things are less efficient because now you just have to do this task yourself. Do this across dozens or hundreds of discretely tasks and fields, and you end up with a society where everybody is doing everything themselves in a web browser instead of having some expert or professional to do it for them. So less individual time and focus is spent on your own area of expertise, and more is spent trying to figure out any number of confusing IT systems built to replace a "less efficient" human system.

[FLT8]

I feel this even in my profession as software engineer. It used to be that I could focus on writing good software. Studying the domain, finding abstractions, picking the best language/approach for the problem at hand, designing domain models... Over time the expectations on developers have become greater. We're software builders, and testers. A lot of us have trained to become UNIX/windows/network/infrastructure engineers, often across multiple cloud environments. We're DBA's across multiple relational and NoSQL DB's. We're designers who need to understand the intricacies of accessibility. We're business experts too. And taking on all of these things has made us less focused. Less capable at our core jobs.

[realityfactchex]

Yes. I reflect on this from time to time. While there are some benefits, and hence the existence of the paradox, I am somewhat uncomfortable with this.

On one hand, it seems ludicrous that (assuming some minimum threshold of personal expectations), "everyone" has to learn "everything" in order to even be competitive. This seems odd for a number of reasons IMO: 1) This is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the specialization efficiency gains in economies of scale, etc. From the story about about automotive production, or making just about anything. 2) This has, for many, only recently been possible. 3) Even if "possible", it is still a WHOLE LOT to learn. Far beyond the (current, believed, practical, or desired) capabilities of many.

I think (1) is a reason why a lot of things can seen subjectively "worse" for those who have been around a while. A lot of things are "better", too, of course.

I conjecture a root cause might doing the cheapest thing for short term profit maximization instead of doing the thing most harmonious with the endeavor in the long run (which could be hard to impossible to stomach in a world of quarterly bonuses).

Personally, so far I have consciously chosen to not participate in being a full stack anything person. I have a niche, it is my sweet spot. I can report that this approach can be difficult. It is mildly successful but not greatly so. And given these trends, I think I'm going to figure something else. I frankly don't wish to know and manage everything about all systems (and I also don't think that's necessarily a great idea in many/most scenarios). That some people do is fine with me.

Another sad thought is that these "do anything" people are completely replaceable in the interchangeability sense, even if it costs a pretty penny. And market forces are pushing everyone (conceivably capable) to become "everything people", hence driving cost down and theoretical corporate (though not necessarily human) resilience high.

What are we to do about it? Just adopt this as beautiful, that one can do so much, and how limitless the mind is?

[hinkley]

I had some extremely bad experiences with information architects early in my career and came to think that architecture is a responsibility not a job title. I feel like instead of replacing travel companies we should have condensed agency job titles into responsibilities where one person does the work of three, and instead of doing away with agencies, have people specialize in a region, so you’re booked near the activities you enjoy.

My ex was good at working airline ticket price periodicity and hotel bookings. We were at an age where all our younger friends were getting married and rather than buying them a wedding present, she would save them $500-1000 on their honeymoon instead. She probably should have been consulting for second-gen travel websites on how to systematize it. But now I think we should have kept the human.

[acuozzo]

Related: The WWW + globalization has made even the process of purchasing consumer goods more difficult and stressful.

It's not even a matter of having a paradox of choice. It's that you now often have to spend hours becoming a mini-subject-matter-expert in, e.g., USB-C chargers to make sure you purchase one that won't set the house on fire and is sufficient for your use-case.

Consumer publications & websites (e.g., WireCutter) are in the pocket of BigWidget, so they can't really be relied upon. RTINGS is one notable exception, but I suppose it's just a matter of time with them too.

People with too little leisure time are screwed by this.

[detourdog]

With centralized IT there was a chance that technical support could be managed. If services are outsourced nobody really understnads the big pircture or what is going on.

[baxtr]

But AI agents will solve this! /s

[ukuina]

Why the sarcasm?

[bartonfink]

Because they're just another layer of self serving computer bullshit.