{
  "txid": "1639829444d504b40a6845cbbfceb860250a7d45ed204db2ecc4aefa2f5cb8ac",
  "block_height": 0,
  "time": null,
  "app": "treechat",
  "type": "post",
  "map_content": "Now is the time for generalists\r\nRuth Heasman\r\n@ruthheasman\r\nI've spent most of my adult life feeling like I'm doing career wrong.\r\nYou know that advice everyone gives? \"Pick a lane.\" \"Focus.\" \"Become an expert.\" I've heard it a thousand times, nodded along, then immediately gone back to whatever shiny new thing had caught my attention that week. Pattern design on Monday, app development on Tuesday, writing a book on Wednesday, messing about with blockchain on Thursday. My LinkedIn profile reads like someone having a midlife crisis in slow motion.\r\nTurns out I might have accidentally stumbled into the right strategy. Not through wisdom\u2014through an apparent inability to commit to anything.\r\nThe game changed while we weren't looking\r\nHere's something that's been nagging at me lately. I keep seeing stories about senior developers with 15 years of experience getting outpaced by the marketing person who learned to use Cursor last month. Not because the marketing person is smarter\u2014they just understood something faster than the rest of us.\r\nWe're not in a skills race anymore. We're in a direction, taste, and momentum race. And most of us have been training for the wrong event.\r\nIf you make your living with any kind of abstract reasoning\u2014writing, design, development, analysis\u2014you've probably felt that low-grade background anxiety. The quiet worry that maybe you're learning the wrong things. Building the wrong portfolio. Betting on skills that'll be worthless in 18 months.\r\nI've definitely felt it. I've built 50-odd apps this past year and I still sometimes wonder if I'm just arranging deckchairs on the Titanic.\r\nAI is a mirror, not a monster\r\nHere's what I've come to understand: AI is only as good as the data it's trained on. There's always a gap between emerging technologies and AI's ability to work with them. The newest frameworks, the cutting-edge tools\u2014AI is perpetually playing catch-up because it learned from documentation that's already outdated by the time it's published.\r\nBut the real insight isn't about AI's limitations. It's about what AI has revealed.\r\nWhen Midjourney hit and suddenly anyone could generate stunning images on command, it exposed something. Technical rendering skills weren't the valuable part\u2014they never were. Vision and taste are. When AI started writing clean code from prompts, it exposed something else. Syntax was never the valuable part. Architectural thinking and real world problem-solving is.\r\nAI is holding up a mirror. It's showing us what has always been true: tools get replaced, skills get commoditised, we learn new skills. But the impulse to build, invent, create, hone, cure, care, serve, improve and problem-solve? That doesn't get commoditised. It can only be developed through experience, living in and caring about the world, purposeful thinking, and actually doing things.\r\nThe generalist's accidental advantage\r\nConsider two people: a senior developer who spent 15 years getting really, really good at writing React components, versus someone from the sales team who spent six months learning to think about product, user experience, and what customers actually need, then used AI to build it.\r\nThe senior dev is a specialist whose skills just got commoditised. The sales person is a generalist with agency\u2014and with context that no amount of technical skill can replace.\r\nI'm not saying this to be doomy\u2014I'm genuinely relieved, because I was never going to out-specialist anyone anyway. My attention span wouldn't allow it. But it turns out that being mediocre at lots of things might actually be more useful than being excellent at one thing.\r\nThe people succeeding right now aren't the ones who can code the fastest. They're the ones who can see what needs to exist and orchestrate the tools to make it real.\r\nThe block size parable\r\nI've watched this play out in the Bitcoin world for years. While the BTC crowd endlessly debates block sizes, transaction fees, and whether Bitcoin should be \"digital gold\" or actual money, the BSV builders have been quietly getting on with it. Reinventing payment systems. Scaling the network. Building micropayment infrastructure. Shipping applications that simply couldn't exist on a network that costs $5 per transaction.\r\nThe BTC maximalists are so busy defending their dogma that they've stopped moving. Meanwhile, the people who decided the debate was settled years ago are now several laps ahead, building things the debaters said were impossible.\r\nThis is what's happening right now with AI. While some of us are reading articles debating whether AI tools are \"really useful\" or waiting for the technology to \"mature,\" other people are already six months deep into building things. While we're wondering if \"AI agents\" is just marketing hype, someone else is shipping products with agentic workflows and micropayments.\r\nThe cautious approach feels sensible. Gather information, weigh options, make an informed decision. But by the time you've finished your analysis, the race is already several laps in and you're still tying your shoes.\r\nYou don't have to have all the answers. You just have to move.\r\nThe agency question\r\nHere's the uncomfortable bit.\r\nThe developers who show up, do what they're told, write competent code, and go home\u2014they're in trouble. Not because they're bad at their jobs. Just because their jobs are becoming tasks, and tasks get automated.\r\nBut the people who can see what needs to exist, who can orchestrate tools, who can turn information into insights, who can communicate vision\u2014they're not competing with AI. They're using it.\r\nThe real question isn't \"Will AI replace me?\" It's \"Am I the kind of person who waits for instructions, or the kind who sees problems and solves them?\"\r\nI ask myself this more often than I'd like to admit. The honest answer is: it depends on the day.\r\nThe test\r\nWhen you encounter a problem, what do you do?\r\nIf you wait for someone to tell you how to solve it, or to solve it for you\u2014that's low agency.\r\nIf you try the obvious solution and give up when it doesn't work\u2014that's slightly higher, but not enough.\r\nIf you treat it like an experiment\u2014try something, get feedback, adjust, iterate until something works\u2014that's high agency. That's what makes you harder to replace.\r\nHigh-agency people don't care if the tools change; they'll learn the new ones. They don't care if their job disappears; they'll create a new one. They're not attached to skills. They're attached to outcomes.\r\nThe cost of failure has collapsed\r\nHere's the thing that changes everything: it's never been cheaper to try things.\r\nBuilding an app used to require months of development time, a team, and significant capital. Now I can spin up a working prototype in an afternoon. If it flops, I've lost a day. If it works, I've got a business.\r\nThis completely inverts the old logic. The old world rewarded careful planning because mistakes were expensive. The new world rewards rapid experimentation because mistakes are cheap. Running ten small experiments and having eight of them fail is now a better strategy than spending months planning one \"perfect\" launch.\r\nI've built over 50 apps at this point. Most of them aren't exactly setting the world on fire, many aren\u2019t even launched. But a few have found their audience, and I learned something from every single one. That portfolio of small bets is worth more than any single polished project would have been.\r\nIf you're a generalist with scattered interests, this is your playground. Each experiment draws on a different combination of your skills. Each failure teaches you something that applies to the next attempt. The breadth that used to feel like a weakness becomes a laboratory.\r\nWhat this means for scattered minds\r\nIf you're like me\u2014interests all over the place, portfolio that makes no coherent sense, constantly starting new projects before finishing old ones\u2014this might actually be your moment.\r\nNot because we're geniuses, but because we accidentally developed the habit of learning new things quickly, connecting dots across domains, and shipping things without waiting for permission.\r\nThe future belongs to people who can connect ideas across fields. Who can see what needs to exist. Who aren't waiting for a job description to tell them what to do.\r\nSo if you've been feeling guilty about your inability to focus, maybe stop. The world that rewarded pure specialism is fading. The world that rewards range, agency, and the ability to orchestrate tools and be excited by the possibilities they open up? That one's just getting started.\r\nWe're the lucky ones\r\nHere's something I try to remember on the days when the anxiety creeps in: we got lucky with our timing.\r\nFor most of history, if you saw a problem and knew how to fix it, you still couldn't. You needed funding. You needed permission. You needed to convince gatekeepers that your idea was worth pursuing. You needed years of specialised training just to get a seat at the table. Most good ideas died in the gap between vision and capability.\r\nThat gap is closing.\r\nToday, if you see a problem, you can actually solve it. Not mask the symptoms. Not write a proposal and wait for the conditions to be right. Actually solve it\u2014this afternoon, with the tools on your laptop.\r\nWe're not just surviving a disruption. We're living through the moment when creating things stopped being gatekept. When \"I have an idea\" stopped being the start of a long journey through institutions and started being the start of a build session.\r\nI don't know what comes next. Nobody does. But I know that the people who look back on this era with envy will be the ones who wished they'd been here when everything was still up for grabs.\r\nWe're here. It's up for grabs.\r\nMight as well grab something.https://x.com/ruthheasman/status/2014677570495684913?s=61",
  "media_type": "text/markdown",
  "filename": "|",
  "author": "14aqJ2hMtENYJVCJaekcrqi12fiZJzoWGK",
  "display_name": "ruthheasman",
  "channel": null,
  "parent_txid": null,
  "ref_txid": null,
  "tags": null,
  "reply_count": 0,
  "like_count": 7,
  "timestamp": "2026-01-23T13:49:50.000Z",
  "media_url": null,
  "aip_verified": true,
  "has_access": true,
  "attachments": [],
  "ui_name": "ruthheasman",
  "ui_display_name": "ruthheasman",
  "ui_handle": "ruthheasman",
  "ui_display_raw": "ruthheasman",
  "ui_signer": "14aqJ2hMtENYJVCJaekcrqi12fiZJzoWGK",
  "ref_ui_name": "unknown",
  "ref_ui_signer": "unknown"
}