Reading history (pre-Industrial Revolution history), it feels like only liberal arts students can be considered talented; almost all the famous figures in Chinese history books are scholars. Confucius was certainly a liberal arts student. Even those emperors and generals who came from military backgrounds had to learn to compose poetry and prose if they wanted to be remembered in history. What did the imperial examinations test? Writing essays.
If you try to search your mind for a few "scientific figures" in ancient China, besides a handful of names like Zu Chongzhi and Zhang Heng, you'll probably have to resort to ChatGPT to compile a list.
The West is actually quite similar; Plato, Socrates, the beacons of Western civilization were mostly lit by philosophers (liberal arts students).
But in modern times, the situation changed dramatically. Science students started to shine. Names like Einstein, Newton, and Turing became household names. Even entrepreneurs liked to portray themselves as science students; for example, Elon Musk, despite being a management talent, was keen to project an image of himself as a science student capable of designing rockets and writing code. In today's world, it seems that only those who master mathematics, physics, and engineering are qualified to talk about "changing the world." But humanities students didn't decline. Those who sing and dance should be called liberal arts students, right? Those lawyers are liberal arts students too, right? Wasn't Trump a liberal arts student? Presidents are all liberal arts students, otherwise where would they get such great oratory skills? In modern society's celebrity list, the world after the Industrial Revolution began to see a division between the arts and sciences: on one side are liberal arts stars who rely on acting and singing, and politicians and lawyers who rely on debate and law; on the other side are scientists and engineers who change the world with formulas and code. However, standing in 2025, I feel that this boundary of "arts and sciences" is collapsing. Faced with such powerful AI, liberal arts students worry about being replaced by AI writing articles, while science students worry about being replaced by AI writing code. Perhaps the Industrial Revolution separated the arts and sciences, each coexisting peacefully; the AI revolution forces them to reunite, with those who don't integrate being eliminated. Let's turn back the clock to before the Industrial Revolution, to the long period of agricultural civilization before the 18th century. At this stage, those who could be considered "talented" in society were almost entirely what we would call "liberal arts students" today. The core competency back then was singular: reading and writing. Why was this? Because it was a slow-paced world with minimal change. Farming relied primarily on the transmission of experience, requiring no complex calculus. In an era of extremely high information transmission costs, mastering writing meant mastering the right to interpret "gods," "power," and the "legitimacy of rule." Confucius in China and Plato in the West were deified because the writings they left behind constructed the operating system of civilization. Even Newton, a giant who ushered in modern science, considered himself a "natural philosopher" at the time. Looking at the Bible, this cornerstone of Western civilization is a pinnacle of the "humanities." It has no formulas, no science, only stories and prophecies. It defined moral principles, legal principles, and even artistic aesthetics for millennia solely through the power of words. In that era, words were law, stories were truth—this is the ultimate manifestation of "reading and writing" as the core dominant force. As for arithmetic? That was the skill of accountants and craftsmen, belonging to the "artisan" class, far below rhetoric, philosophy, and literature. The conclusion is clear: in the pre-industrial era, liberal arts thinking—that concrete, emotional, and highly expressive ability—was the absolute dominant force in society. The Industrial and Information Age: The Great Divergence of Computing's Rise. Watt's improved steam engine not only released physical kinetic energy but also unleashed human "rationalism." History entered a phase of the "rise of science." From the Industrial Revolution to the Internet Age, the core logic has undergone a dramatic shift: from qualitative to quantitative, from vague to precise, and from storytelling to data analysis. Machines don't understand the concept of "the sunset and the lone wild goose flying together"; they only understand "0" and "1," voltage fluctuations, and gear meshing. If humanity wants to control machines, build massive industrial systems, and construct the Internet, it must master computation and logic. Thus, the famous "Great Divergence" occurred in human history: Discipline Independence: Mathematics, physics, and computer science were no longer appendages of philosophy, but became core engines of productivity. Dual-Track Wealth: Society saw the emergence of two paths to wealth. Liberal arts students rely on creativity, management, and law (like J.K. Rowling and Wall Street lawyers); science students rely on engineering, algorithms, and patents (like Edison and Musk). An Invisible Two-Way Hierarchy of Disdain: While everyone makes money, science students begin to grasp the "underlying code" of the world. Liberal arts students gradually become the "interpreters" and "modifiers" of the world, while science students are the "builders" of the world. At this stage, "separation of arts and sciences" is the optimal solution for efficiency. Society needs extremely specialized talents—you are responsible for tightening the screws to the maximum, and I am responsible for writing the contract flawlessly. I believe that with the advent of the AI revolution, the traditional division between arts and sciences will no longer be a good mechanism for the world to function. The concepts of arts and sciences can be relegated to the sidelines. This is because AI ruthlessly eliminates the once seemingly insurmountable "skill barrier" between arts and sciences. Your pride in "fluent writing" and "citing classical allusions" can be handled by ChatGPT in a second. Your years of hard work practicing "basic algorithms" and "code syntax" can be instantly transformed into Claude Code. When mid-level skills become cheap, the old survival model becomes obsolete. We are witnessing two dilemmas erupting simultaneously: The first: STEM students who lack humanities knowledge face the "tool person dilemma." When technical implementation is no longer scarce, "how" becomes extremely easy. At this point, **"what" and "why" become incredibly important.** An engineer who only understands code but not human nature will only be a downstream executor of AI. Because AI lacks aesthetics, empathy, and values. If science students lack narrative ability and ethical judgment, they cannot define the soul of a product, nor can they market the value of technology to human society. They will find that the code they painstakingly wrote is worthless without good humanistic packaging and contextual definition. The second type: Arts students who don't understand science face a "blind man's dilemma." The world has become completely digitalized and algorithmic. If you don't understand abstract thinking, logical modeling, and probability statistics, you can only treat AI as a chatbot. You cannot understand the structured logic behind Prompts, you cannot evaluate the authenticity of AI's output, and you don't even know how to break down a complex problem for AI to handle. Arts students lacking "computational thinking" will become passive consumers of algorithms, trapped in an information cocoon without realizing it. The "talent" of the future: Must be able to calculate clearly and explain clearly. With the support of AI, science students who can only write code and humanities students who can only write articles are no longer safe. Future top engineers must understand human nature like Steve Jobs, and comprehend that: Technology ultimately serves human intuition, feelings, and aesthetics; Cold, impersonal functions must be packaged with warm, meaningful stories to be truly accepted. Future top writers and content creators must also understand structure and logic, just like excellent product managers: They must know how to break down problems and design algorithm-friendly structures; they must understand how to use a clear framework to train and guide AI to complete collaborative creation. In this sense, the terms "liberal arts student" and "science student" are merely labels from an outdated era. What will truly be scarce in the future are "well-rounded talents"—those who can both calculate clearly and explain logically; who understand both models and human nature. Perhaps a world without the division between arts and sciences would be closer to the real world. As Charlie Munger said: "The real world, the real problems, are never presented to you in categorized ways according to academic disciplines." The AI revolution may very well force a major global educational transformation: We will no longer cultivate individuals with "only half a brain," but rather "new-type generalists" who can collaborate with machines in the AI era while simultaneously mastering both humanities and rationality.
Anais
Alex
Miyuki
Catherine
Weiliang
Joy
Kikyo