In the age of AI, is it better to be a specialist or a generalist?

When I was in high school, I took a class in which the teacher wrote on the board:

“The fox knows many things, the hedgehog just one.”

Thereafter, we entered into a fervent discussion of whether it was better to be a hedgehog or a fox. But first we had to break down, what the heck did either of them mean.

Two Different Cognitive Approaches

Originally attributed to the Greek poet Archilochus "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing," infers a distinction between two different cognitive styles or approaches to knowledge and life.

The hedgehog represents individuals who focus on a single, overarching vision or principle that guides all their actions and thoughts. They have a clear, central vision that gives coherence to everything they do and say. Hedgehogs are often seen as steadfast and resolute, relating all they encounter to this central, organizing principle.

Conversely, the fox represents individuals who are adaptable, pragmatic, and have a wide array of interests and strategies. Foxes are knowledgeable about many things, pursue multiple goals, and are comfortable with complexity and contradiction. They do not seek to fit the world into a single unifying theory but instead embrace its variety and adapt to its many facets.

Is it Better to be a Specialist or Generalist?

This echoes the timeless debate – is it better, in modern society, to be a specialist or a generalist?

Better yet, in the age of AI, is it better to be a specialist or a generalist?

I grew up with mainly the influence of Monists. I was told that it’s important to concentrate on one thing and one thing only, hone in on those skills and become absolutely irreplaceable. I grew up with Malcolm Gladwell’s tenet, to put 10,000 hours in something to be really good at it. Seen also in Anders Ericsson’s, Peak , reiterates that deliberate practice, specifically designed to improve performance, is what leads to true expertise. But as I grew older, as times changes rapidly, I began to think that maybe Monism worked in an age with a low penetration of technology.

Has the Context Changed to Warrant a New Answer?

We hear about adapting to change so often these days and being comfortable with the uncomfortable and it sounds to me that these traits were describing, more and more so, the characteristics of the fox. Perhaps it means that if we continued to be resolute and loyal to our Monist ways, that we might be blind-sighted by the changing times. The wrench here is the technology part. I didn’t grow up with the iPad as my babysitter, or with Google as my part-time tutor. I grew up in the age where we had to learn about the Dewey decimal system since that was the way information was organized in a physical library. But the characteristic of the generation of children now has information readily available at their fingertips, and a more readily consumable version at that with the advent of LLMs. I couldn’t have imagined writing the same paper in the same way as I did it, pouring hours upon hours in reading JSTOR journals, some, with information completely unusable for the paper anyway. Now, with tools like Perplexity , one can pinpoint exactly what new book or article to dig into since the paragraphs it generates contains a citation.

Knowing that AI is good at repeatable, specialized tasks and currently weak on general tasks, you might say that we should probably concentrate on doing what AI cannot do or can’t do well. AI has beat us in computer vision detecting possible tumors and playing Go, two very specialized tasks. Our brains can’t possibly calculate at a more precise rate than the possible moves that a supercomputer can calculate. But ask the same supercomputer to fold some laundry and you’ll likely find an error.

Narrow and General AI

The fox and the hedgehog is synonymous to narrow and general AI. Narrow AI , also known as weak AI, is designed to perform specific tasks and is limited to its programmed capabilities. This type of AI excels in handling particular tasks, such as facial recognition, language translation, or driving a car. It operates within a defined set of parameters and does not possess the ability to perform outside of its specific function. The hedgehog's approach in the analogy is similar to how narrow AI operates. Just as the hedgehog uses its one big idea or strategy (curling up into a ball for protection) to handle challenges, narrow AI uses its specialized programming to efficiently solve problems within its scope. It does not adapt or learn beyond its initial configuration but performs the assigned tasks with precision and reliability.

General AI , or strong AI, on the other hand, is more akin to the fox, known for its cunning and ability to devise numerous strategies to tackle a wide range of situations. General AI aims to mimic human cognitive abilities, making it capable of learning, understanding, and functioning across a variety of tasks that require intellectual capabilities similar to those of humans.

This type of AI is not yet fully realized but is the subject of extensive research and development. The goal for general AI is to process and integrate information from diverse sources, apply reasoning, and use knowledge in contexts that were not explicitly pre-programmed. Like the fox, which navigates complex environments with a variety of tactics, general AI would ideally handle multiple, unrelated tasks, learn from new experiences, and adapt to changes dynamically.

Conclusion

Nevertheless, I’d love to go back to the same teacher and ask the same question again, examining it with data points of the current time.

Maybe it’s better to be one or the other depending on the situation or context that we’re in. For example, in areas like cybersecurity, where specific and deep knowledge is necessary to counteract threats effectively, the hedgehog approach might dominate. In other roles, like consulting, foxes will dominate because of their nimble ability to adapt to the new industry.

Or, maybe the answer isn’t to be a fox or hedgehog. Maybe the right answer is to be an adaptable hedgehog or a resolute fox. For that is what the CEO of IDEO, a design firm, has also concluded and propagates the ideal of T-shaped talent development , to go deep in a field, but also develop the right skills to be able to work on a variety of projects.

What’s your take?

?