We don't know how bad most things are nor precisely how they're bad
Modern life is increasingly shaped by “good enough” technology, from AI-generated images to streaming media, that most people can’t easily tell is subtly worse than expert-crafted work. Commenters use examples like concert piano tuning, audio compression, tool quality, and lost building crafts to argue that only a tiny minority can perceive and maintain the highest standards, raising fears that automation and cost-cutting will quietly erase hard-won skills and refinements. Others counter that perfection is often unnecessary or too expensive, and that societies must choose where deep expertise truly matters and where approximate solutions are an acceptable trade-off.
Expertise, discernment, and “hidden” quality
- Many comments resonate with the idea that non‑experts can’t see how bad (or good) something is until shown by an expert: riding tack, sewing, anatomy in images, piano tuning, audio mastering, construction, etc.
- Several note that you can often feel that something is off (muddy orchestra, slightly off piano, bad mix) without being able to localize the fault.
- Others argue discernment is more continuous and learnable than the article implies: intermediate users can often reliably tell “better vs worse” even if they can’t do the work themselves.
“Good enough” vs pursuit of excellence
- One camp: even if only a few notice, aiming beyond “pretty good” is the whole point of art and craft; losing right‑tail expertise makes the world subtly worse.
- Counter‑camp: resources are finite; for many domains (pianos, pipe organs, niche crafts) “good enough for most people” is rational, and perfectionism can be pedantic or elitist.
- Some suggest a hierarchy of awareness: from audience who notice nothing, to those who vaguely sense quality, to experts who can diagnose specifics.
AI, automation, and erosion of skills
- Several extend the argument to AI: “$2 app” or model that does a 95–98% job risks hollowing out human expertise across domains, not just arts but also engineering and safety‑critical fields.
- Others note this is an old pattern (Luddites, industrialization) but agree the speed and breadth of current automation are new.
- A minority view: AI could eventually surpass human discernment (e.g., tuning, materials), revealing that current experts are themselves limited.
Audio, video, and “quality” debates
- Long subthreads debate sampling rates, bitrates, lossy vs lossless audio, and streaming video compression.
- Consensus: for most listeners, high‑bitrate lossy vs lossless is barely distinguishable; mastering and playback chain matter far more.
- Yet many describe very real perceived differences in cars, headphones, streaming platforms, or “fake Atmos,” often tied to EQ, codecs, room tuning, or placebo—ambiguity is acknowledged.
- In video, people complain that streaming “4K” is visibly worse than Blu‑ray, but market incentives favor cheaper, compressed delivery.
Loss of craft and historical analogies
- Commenters cite lost or degraded crafts: Renaissance architectural details, old instrument making, Damascus steel, pipe organs, journalism ethics, pre‑MP3 audio culture.
- Some argue lost arts can be rediscovered; others counter that the social and economic conditions that produced them may not recur.
- There’s broad agreement that consumer tolerance for mediocre but cheap/convenient output drives much of this decline.