For centuries, the growth of human knowledge has been shaped by division. What began as natural curiosity gradually evolved into rigid structures. Subjects became departments, disciplines became domains, and experts were required to specialize. The deeper you went, the more respected you became. But the cost of this depth was often the loss of breadth.
This structure served its time. In an era when information was scarce and mastering even one domain could take a lifetime, it made sense to draw boundaries. To become a doctor, physicist, or historian meant decades of focused study, mentorship, and apprenticeship under the rules and customs of that field. The guild-like nature of this system provided stability and trust.
Yet these same walls have also kept knowledge apart. Even when researchers and thinkers wished to collaborate across fields, they often found themselves restrained by protocols, vocabularies, and hierarchies that discouraged integration. Interdisciplinary work was praised in theory, but in practice it could mark someone as an outsider, neither fully accepted in one field nor easily recognized in another.
AI’s Lack of Majors
What makes artificial intelligence so quietly revolutionary is not just its speed or scope. It is the fact that AI has no major. It does not declare a specialization or wear a label. It simply learns from data, regardless of whether that data comes from physics, poetry, anthropology, or accounting.
The default assumption may be that AI is best suited for IT-related tasks like coding, automation, or data processing. But this assumption misses a crucial point. AI is good at anything if it has seen enough data about it. Whether it’s analyzing climate models or composing music in the style of Bach, writing a legal contract or offering a literary critique, its capacity to generate knowledge is not boxed into any single field.
This has profound implications. It suggests that domain boundaries are artificial limitations; human inventions rather than inherent truths. The fact that AI can move seamlessly from one area to another shows that these divisions are not based on necessity but on tradition.
And yet, we still cling to them.
The Irony of Interdisciplinarity
For decades, universities and research institutions have emphasized the value of interdisciplinary thinking. Panels, journals, and grants are often labeled with that buzzword. But anyone who has truly attempted to work across disciplines knows how difficult it is. True collaboration between, say, a philosopher and a geneticist requires not only mutual respect but also a shared language, and that shared language is often absent.
Furthermore, once you step outside your disciplinary identity, you risk losing the very legitimacy that allowed you to speak in the first place. The historian who begins working with data scientists may be viewed with suspicion by traditional historians. The biologist who starts writing on ethics may not be taken seriously by ethicists. You cannot fully return to your original field without proving yourself all over again.
This creates a strange paradox: we praise boundary-crossing thinkers but rarely reward them. Instead, the safest path remains to pick one domain and stay within its comfort zone. The problem, of course, is that the world does not work in domains. Real problems, climate change, inequality, health crises, technological disruption, are never confined to a single field. They demand a broader vision.
The Digital Shift Opened the Door
The pandemic accelerated a shift that was already underway. With schools and universities forced online, the physical infrastructure of learning suddenly disappeared. No more lecture halls or departmental offices. No more classroom walls. In the digital sphere, a learner can move from philosophy to neuroscience to environmental studies within seconds. The idea of walking down the hallway to consult a different department now seems quaint.
In this new reality, the boundaries that once defined academic life begin to blur. There is no architectural reason why economics should not sit beside art history, or why biology should not be discussed alongside theology. The structure of knowledge becomes fluid.
And yet, many online programs still replicate the old models. They digitize syllabi, but keep departments intact. They move classrooms to Zoom but keep majors rigid. It is as if we have relocated the university to the cloud but refused to redesign it for the new environment. The opportunity is there, but the mindset lags behind.
New Schools for a New Age
Fortunately, some institutions are beginning to see this more clearly. Experimental universities like Minerva, Zen University in Japan, and forward-thinking programs in places like the University of Nevada are reimagining education from the ground up. These schools emphasize critical thinking, interdisciplinary exposure, real-world relevance, and global mobility. They challenge the idea that learning must be confined to a subject, a classroom, or even a campus.
Such programs are still rare, but they point the way forward. In the decades ahead, we may witness a complete rethinking of what it means to be educated. The classroom may not vanish, but it will no longer be the primary place where wisdom is cultivated. Instead, learning may take the form of global conversations, digital mentorships, collaborative problem-solving, and AI-supported inquiry that crosses every boundary.
In this vision, the purpose of education is not to master a single subject but to develop the ability to think well in any context to recognize patterns, ask good questions, challenge assumptions, and connect the dots between seemingly unrelated domains.
Rethinking Expertise Itself
The very idea of an “expert” may need to change. Traditionally, to be an expert meant having rare, deep knowledge that others did not have. In the age of AI, where information is instantly accessible and endlessly summarized, expertise is less about what you know and more about how you think.
We still need deep knowledge, but it is no longer enough to memorize facts or perform routine tasks. AI can do that better. What cannot be automated is wisdom, judgment, discernment, and the ability to see meaning in complexity. These are not the fruits of specialization alone. They require breadth, curiosity, and ethical awareness.
In this way, the expert of the future may resemble something closer to the ancient philosopher; a person who does not claim certainty, but who pursues truth across boundaries, guided by love of knowledge and a commitment to human flourishing.
The Role of AI in Human Thinking
AI, then, is not just a tool for experts. It is a new kind of companion for human thought. It can provide summaries, comparisons, and simulations. It can suggest perspectives we hadn’t considered. But it cannot choose what is worth asking. It cannot decide what matters.
That remains our task. And to fulfill it, we must become the kind of thinkers who can ask better questions, who can see beyond disciplines, who can think like philosophers but act with the tools of scientists, artists, engineers, and teachers.
The irony is that while AI offers domain-specific knowledge at superhuman speed, it cannot yet grasp the world as a whole. Only we can do that. But to do so, we must be willing to leave behind the mental categories that no longer serve us.
Beyond the Curriculum
Perhaps this is why categorizing writing, learning, or even identity feels increasingly strange. The modern world pushes us to define ourselves narrowly: by job title, academic major, or professional label. But the digital and AI age may call us to something older and freer; a life of inquiry that cannot be contained in a box.
This is not a rejection of discipline, but a rebalancing. Discipline helps refine thought. But when discipline becomes territorial, it hardens into dogma. What we need is a rhythm between depth and openness: the humility to learn carefully and the courage to cross boundaries.
We do not have to abandon what came before. We can still respect the elders of every field, the ones who have carried knowledge forward through generations. But we must also make space for a new kind of thinker; one who learns from many sources, collaborates across lines, and sees AI not as a threat but as a partner in expanding human understanding.
A Quiet Renaissance
It may not feel like a revolution yet. But perhaps it is already happening, quietly, steadily, beneath the surface. People are learning from YouTube tutorials, forming study circles on Discord, writing or coding with AI, and sharing ideas across continents. The boundaries are already weakening. The old maps of knowledge are beginning to fade.
What will emerge is not chaos, but a new order. A living network of thought, built not on separation but on connection. A new kind of education. A new kind of expertise. A new kind of philosopher.
And perhaps, with the help of our artificial companions, a new kind of wisdom.
Image by Frits de Jong
Tom’s Blog 