> jack of all trades, master of none

It amuses me that the opening paragraph contains this phrase because I understand it to be longer:

> A jack of all trades, master of none, is often better than a master of one.

The longer version speaks in favor of generalists over specialists and the short version is often used as a sentiment (such as in this case) of the opposite; that generalists are somehow worse than specialists because they "master" nothing. Funny how language changes like that.

The extended "original" versions of several idioms, including this one, were created in the 21st century. See, for example, this: https://english.stackexchange.com/a/508907

> But it seems more likely that the extra-long version was a very recent formulation, perhaps influenced by the memory of a concerted effort by educators in 1930 to alter the old adage to suit a new objective.

That does indeed seem likely. Admittedly, I see myself as a generalist so I have a bias towards the new version even if it's not the historical sentiment. Thanks for the read!

No.

"Generalists" usually carries an implication of a higher volume of less developed skills. GPU.

"Specialists" likewise refers to fewer more developed skills. CPU.

The future belongs to those who can maximize both trees. A high volume of highly developed skills.

That will likely take the form of a specialized skillset: Leveraging frontier technologies to advance complexity in market niches (presumably via heavy usage of AI). This aligns more with the "Specialist" than the "Generalist".

Shouldn't that be the other way around? CPUs are generalists, GPUs are specialists.

In practice yes. I was thinking in terms of processing threads.

Is there anything to say other than self-identified generalists think they are the best, specialists also think they are better too, everyone else doesn't care.

Cargo-culting Myers-Briggs? RLY?