This isn’t about a contest about what cohort is more or less valuable in general. Everyone is of course different. It’s an exploration into different types of skillsets, some of what’s been going on lately with AI and challenging some assumptions.

What I want to try is to run a thought experiment about workers in general and ageism in particular. With all the talk of AI displacement, I keep wondering if there’s a less dystopian view. A lot of roles may change or vanish, but we could also see growth in niche areas. And maybe the loud claim that “we won’t need so many people” turns out to be overstated. If so, do deep skills and hard-earned judgment become more valuable, not less?

Some companies who claim they’ve cut staff thanks to AI may discover they cut too deep, losing exactly the people they really need. Meanwhile, expertise may be repriced. AI is impressive, but has limits, even if it can hollow out early-career task bundles. That raises the value of people who can frame problems, validate outputs, and own outcomes. I’m a heavy user of modern AI tools and workflows, yet even with the “Something Big Is Happening” hype, there still seems to be plenty of room for talented, experienced humans See Joe Procopio’s “It Turns Out, AI Agents Suck At Replacing White-Collar Workers” for one of many examples.

Maybe this sounds naïve, but perhaps multiple cohorts will remain valuable, just in different ways. Through it’s looking to be a rocky transition. Yes, Skynet could wake up next week, but there’s also a world where things mostly work out fine. I know I’m supposed to say “if you’re not using AI in the shower to automate everything, you’re doing it wrong.” I’ll work on the clickbait. For now, let’s talk about what’s actually changing. By the way, that’s quickly become the clickbait headline style I find most ridiculous. Maybe it’s just my feed, (or maybe I am doing things wrong), but have you noticed how many use that framing, “If you’re still doing X – or not doing Y – you’re doing it wrong?” Since just about everything is about context, these seem especially foolish attempts at FOMO.

Kids These Days

Younger generations, (however you want to personally define that), are often far more fluent with modern tools than those of us in the GenX plus cohort were at their age. (Obviously in some cases, some of the tech wasn’t even there.) And they’ve grown up swimming in information; more volume, more variety, better teaching methods. But by definition, most early-career workers have limited lived experience. They may have had a few jobs in high school and college, maybe even a small side hustle, but the rest has been school, hobbies, and a first job or two. Their tech, however, is moving incredibly fast. One interaction I found highly amusing was when my 20-something nephew commented on something my elementary school age daughter was doing and said, “yeah, we didn’t have anything like that when I was growing up.”

Through all of this, or perhaps due to all of this, some may also have less intuition than older cohorts did at the same age, not because they’re incapable, but because so much is abstracted away. More services handle more of life, reducing cognitive load in ways that can erode “practice-based” skills (navigation via GPS is the cliché example). Sol Rashidi calls this “Intellectual Atrophy™.” Even if that term is AI-focused, the broader pattern predates LLMs. And yet, younger workers can be astonishingly capable especially in tech while still missing some “common sense” that usually comes from scar tissue plus environment.

[Read more…]

First off, apologies for the bad puns in the headline. I am a dad though. So bad dad puns just come with the territory. Here, I saw a chance for a double, so had to take it.

Today it’s time to discuss some pros, cons, risks, and mitigations for the reality that our cellphones have accidentally become our gatekeepers to all manner of things digital. And often physical as well. You likely already know how integrated, (and dependent), a lot of digital activities have become on our mobile devices. But how? And what might this mean? Smartphones as identity gatekeepers has been discussed before. However, what we’re experiencing now in the mid 2020s is arguably a new level.

How did our cell phone companies become the gatekeepers of our identities?

How many things now push for multi-factor authentication via our smartphones? There’s products where it seems if you don’t have a smartphone, you’re simply not going to be able to participate. How might this play out? Do phone companies know about this? Of course. Will they try to exploit this role to just extract more fees given they’re arguably in strategically poor commodity businesses with competitive margin pressure?

Phones are no longer just credentials; they’re becoming identity custodians. Security is often thought of as three things: What you have, (such as debit card), what you know, (PIN code), and what you are, (biometrics.) With our phones we seem to have shifted from just something you have to the thing that vouches for everything else.

Recovery, coercion, or loss were not first-class design considerations.

[Read more…]

If you follow crypto, you’ve likely noticed the rise in DeFi activity the past several months. As Traditional Finance (TradFi) evolves and co-opts parts of crypto, we’re seeing emergence of a hybrid model called Centralized Finance (CeFi) and watching what may be an inflection year. Every year seems like “the year of SOMEthing,” but with trillions finding new pathways, it seems a fair statement now. Growth of Decentralized Finance (DeFi) despite easier Central Exchange (CEX) options is telling. DeFi remains difficult and risky. Yet it’s growing as percentage of crypto activity. Some of this may be episodic, but it reveals a deeper signal about marketplace pain points: users will endure hardship just to escape worse systems. It’s a story of value over comfort, like drivers taking a pothole-filled detour to avoid a toll road they no longer trust, but there’s someplace they’ve just got to go.

[Read more…]