Not a Matter of Effort, but of Relevance: An Evening at Guanghua
Nelson Chou｜Cultural Systems Observer · AI Semantic Engineering Practitioner · Founder of Puhofield
S0｜An Ordinary Evening at Guanghua
That evening, at Guanghua Digital Plaza in Taipei, I found myself thinking about how quietly some roles disappear.
My phone — an iPhone 16 Pro Max — had taken a few knocks during a recent trip to the Philippines.
The device itself was fine.
What cracked was the screen protector.
The detail mattered.
The protective layer absorbed the impact.
The core remained intact.
I went to Xiaohao Film on the fifth floor.
This was not a product you could install yourself.
Between the protector and the screen was a gel layer designed for shock absorption.
It required a controlled environment and practiced hands.
I handed over the phone.
“Come back in thirty minutes.”
With time to spare, I decided to take care of another small task.
My car key fob uses a CR1632 battery.
One main remote, one backup, one card-style spare — all the same model.
Since I was already at Guanghua, I assumed it would be easy.
I walked from the sixth floor down to the first.
Component shops.
Electronics counters.
Accessory stalls.
Each answer was the same:
“No CR1632.”
I asked an AI assistant where I could find one nearby.
The answer sounded confident — a specialty battery store across the street, about five minutes away.
I followed the directions.
The shop didn’t have it.
I walked back.
Standing at the entrance of Guanghua, waiting for my phone, I opened Shopee.
Three CR1632 batteries.
NT$45 each.
Five minutes.
Pickup near my home in a couple of days.
That was the moment something shifted.
S1｜When Presence Is No Longer Required
What struck me was not the price difference, nor the convenience of mobile apps.
It was something more fundamental.
Some transactions no longer require a person to be present.
Buying a battery had become one of them.
Years ago, walking into a specialty shop meant something.
You needed advice.
You needed confirmation.
You needed someone to translate specifications into decisions.
That human layer once justified the store.
But that evening, the decision had already been made before I spoke to anyone.
The specification was exact.
CR1632.
There was nothing left to interpret.
When a task no longer requires judgment, experience, or presence, adding a human in the middle does not increase its value.
It only adds friction.
Once a role loses its necessity, effort alone cannot save it.
S2｜Education as a Misplaced Middle Layer
What unsettled me most was not the battery, nor the phone.
It was how familiar the pattern felt.
The same logic appears again and again in education.
For a long time, education functioned as a necessary intermediary.
Teachers translated knowledge.
Institutions certified competence.
Classrooms structured access to information that was otherwise difficult to reach.
That structure once made sense.
But when information becomes searchable, comparable, and instantly accessible, the role quietly shifts.
The intermediary is no longer the gatekeeper of knowledge.
Yet many educational systems continue to behave as if nothing has changed.
This creates an uncomfortable situation.
Everyone involved senses the misalignment.
Administrators know it.
Teachers know it.
Students know it.
And yet, from top to bottom, the system keeps moving forward as if the original premise were still intact.
Courses are promoted as “popular.”
Programs take pride in enrollment numbers.
New layers of AI tools are added on top — as if teaching students how to use tools could compensate for the fact that the underlying role itself has shifted.
But if the destination is wrong, speed only takes you further away.
No matter how capable the student,
no matter how advanced the tool,
no matter how efficient the workflow —
a misplaced role cannot be rescued by acceleration.
What makes this particularly difficult is that the incentives are no longer aligned with outcomes.
In many universities, a professor’s survival does not depend on whether students become meaningfully capable in the real world.
It depends on evaluation cycles, publication counts, internal reviews, and promotion criteria.
Teaching becomes secondary.
Continuation becomes primary.
The system does not collapse because it is inefficient.
It persists because it still serves the people inside it.
And that is precisely why adaptation is so slow.
When an intermediary no longer creates value for those it claims to serve, but continues to benefit those who occupy the position, the role does not disappear on its own.
It lingers.
Not because it is needed,
but because letting go would require honesty.
S3｜When Systems Move Without Asking for Permission
Earlier that day, I had lunch with colleagues from a research institution.
The conversation drifted, almost casually, toward a topic that carried far more weight than it first appeared to.
Across the country, review processes are being accelerated toward full digitalization.
Project applications.
Ethics reviews.
Interim evaluations.
Final assessments.
What used to rely on physical paperwork, in-person meetings, and procedural presence is being redesigned into online systems — not as an experiment, but as a mandate.
This is not a decision made by one organization.
It is structural.
National in scope.
Once implemented, participation is no longer optional.
Some people welcome the shift.
Others resist it quietly.
Most comply without enthusiasm.
But the direction itself is no longer up for debate.
What disappears in this transition is not oversight or rigor.
What disappears is procedural theater.
Forms no longer need to be handed over in person.
Approvals no longer depend on who you know, or whether you appear at the right meeting.
The system does not care about presence.
It cares about inputs, criteria, and traceable decisions.
The implication is uncomfortable.
If a process can be completed without someone physically there —
without small talk,
without familiarity,
without ritual —
then the value of being “in the room” has already expired.
This is not a judgment.
It is an observation.
And it mirrors exactly what I experienced that evening at Guanghua.
When systems mature, they stop asking for permission from the roles they replace.
They simply move forward.
Those who adapt continue to participate.
Those who hesitate are still included — for now.
But the system no longer waits.
The question is no longer whether digitalization will arrive.
It already has.
The question is whether we are still holding on to roles whose relevance has already passed.
S4｜The Kind of Work That Doesn’t Disappear
Not all roles vanish when systems change.
Some become clearer.
The difference lies in whether the work still requires judgment, presence, and responsibility — or merely repetition.
This is where Xiaohao Film stands apart.
Screen protection of this kind is not a product you take home and apply yourself.
Between the protector and the screen is a gel layer designed to absorb impact.
The margin for error is small.
Dust, pressure, angle — each matters.
This is not a task that benefits from automation alone.
What Xiaohao provides is not convenience.
It is assurance.
The work happens in a controlled environment.
The hands know when to stop.
Experience guides decisions that cannot be fully standardized.
No app can replace that.
And that is precisely why this service remains relevant.
It is not positioned as an intermediary.
It does not stand between a user and a product.
It stands with the user, sharing responsibility for the outcome.
That distinction matters.
When something goes wrong, accountability does not disappear into a system.
It stays with a person.
This is the kind of role that survives technological shifts.
Not because it resists change,
but because it operates where change cannot fully reach.
When value comes from presence rather than process,
from judgment rather than access,
from responsibility rather than convenience —
the role does not shrink.
It sharpens.
S5｜When Human Value Is No Longer About Being in the Middle
Taken together, these moments form a pattern.
The battery purchase.
The phone repair.
The digitalization of review systems.
The quiet inertia inside education.
They all point to the same shift.
Human value is no longer defined by standing between people and systems.
For a long time, many roles existed precisely because access was limited.
Information had to be mediated.
Processes had to be guided.
Decisions had to pass through visible hands.
That era is ending.
What replaces it is not a world without humans, but a world that is far less tolerant of unnecessary intermediaries.
Systems now move directly.
Information flows without explanation.
Processes execute without ceremony.
In such an environment, occupying a position is no longer enough.
Value emerges elsewhere.
It appears where judgment cannot be automated.
Where responsibility cannot be deferred.
Where presence is not symbolic, but consequential.
This is where many institutions feel uneasy.
Education, in particular, struggles with this shift because it was built as a grand intermediary.
When that foundation erodes, adding new tools does not solve the problem.
Teaching students how to use AI does not restore relevance if the role being taught no longer exists.
The discomfort we sense is not technological.
It is existential.
Roles that once felt indispensable are discovering that their necessity was conditional.
And conditions have changed.
The choice is no longer between resisting or embracing technology.
The real choice is whether to remain in the middle —
or to move to where human presence still matters.
S6｜The Question No System Can Answer for You
By now, the pattern is difficult to ignore.
Some roles are fading not because people are failing,
but because the world no longer needs them in the same place.
This is an uncomfortable realization.
It is far easier to believe that more effort, more training, or better tools will restore relevance.
It is far harder to admit that the position itself may no longer be necessary.
Systems will continue to evolve.
Digitalization will continue to advance.
Processes will become cleaner, faster, and less dependent on human presence.
None of this asks for permission.
What remains unresolved is a quieter question — one no system can answer on our behalf.
Where do we choose to stand?
Not inside the flow, merely passing things along.
Not guarding access that no longer needs guarding.
But in places where judgment still carries weight,
where responsibility cannot be outsourced,
where presence changes outcomes.
This is not a call to abandon institutions, professions, or expertise.
It is an invitation to re-examine them honestly.
The future does not eliminate human value.
It exposes it.
And what it exposes is this:
Being useful is no longer about occupying a position.
It is about choosing one that still matters.
S7｜Why Some Systems Pretend Not to See the Shift
One reason this transition feels so slow is not a lack of technology.
It is a lack of honesty.
Many systems already know that their original function is weakening.
They sense it in declining trust, in performative metrics, in the growing gap between credentials and real-world capability.
Yet acknowledging the shift would force a difficult reckoning.
If the role is no longer necessary,
then maintaining it becomes a matter of self-preservation rather than service.
In education, this tension is especially visible.
Programs continue to promote themselves with confidence.
Courses are framed as indispensable.
AI literacy is added as a layer of reassurance.
But beneath these adjustments lies an unspoken truth:
the system benefits most from its own continuation.
Evaluation cycles must be completed.
Titles must be renewed.
Promotions must proceed.
The question of whether students are being prepared for roles that still matter is quietly deferred.
This is not a moral failure of individuals.
It is a structural reflex.
When survival depends on maintaining a position,
the system learns to look away from evidence that threatens it.
And so the shift is acknowledged everywhere —
except where it would require change.
S8｜Choosing Presence Over Position
What all of this ultimately points to is not decline, but choice.
Every period of systemic change redraws the map of human value.
Some paths close.
Others become visible for the first time.
The mistake is to assume that value must be defended where it once existed.
Sometimes the more honest response is to move.
Not toward louder claims of importance,
but toward places where presence still alters outcomes.
This does not require abandoning knowledge, skill, or experience.
It requires relocating them.
Away from roles built on mediation alone.
Toward work grounded in judgment, accountability, and consequence.
The future will continue to streamline what can be standardized.
It will quietly remove what only exists to slow things down.
What it cannot replace is the human capacity to stand in uncertainty,
to take responsibility when systems reach their limits,
and to remain present where outcomes are not guaranteed.
That is not a nostalgic idea of human value.
It is a practical one.
And it begins with a simple, difficult decision:
Not where you are positioned —
but where you choose to be present.
FAQ｜Frequently Asked Questions
Q1. Is this article arguing against technology or digital transformation?
No. The article does not oppose technology. It observes how technological systems change the location of human value. The core argument is not resistance, but repositioning — understanding where human judgment, responsibility, and presence still matter after systems mature.
Q2. Why does the author compare phone repair and battery purchases with education?
Because both reveal how intermediary roles function — and fail — under the same structural conditions. When access and information become direct, roles built purely on mediation lose relevance, regardless of the industry.
Q3. What does “intermediary collapse” mean in this context?
It refers to roles whose primary function was to stand between people and systems — translating, guiding, or controlling access — rather than contributing irreplaceable judgment or responsibility. When systems no longer require this mediation, the role collapses quietly.
Q4. Is education becoming obsolete according to this argument?
No. The article argues that certain educational roles are misaligned with current conditions. Education remains essential, but only where it cultivates judgment, ethical responsibility, and real-world consequence — not where it merely certifies access to information.
Q5. Why can some professions survive automation while others cannot?
Professions survive when value comes from presence, accountability, and non-standardized judgment. Tasks that can be fully specified, compared, and executed without interpretation tend to be automated or bypassed.
Q6. How does AI change the meaning of professional expertise?
AI accelerates access and execution, but it does not replace responsibility. Expertise shifts from knowing what to do, to knowing when not to, how to decide under uncertainty, and who bears the consequences of those decisions.
Q7. What is meant by “choosing presence over position”?
It means prioritizing roles where human involvement genuinely affects outcomes, rather than occupying positions sustained by legacy structures or procedural necessity. Presence implies responsibility, not visibility.
Q8. Who is this article written for?
For professionals, educators, and institutional decision-makers who sense misalignment in their roles but lack language to articulate it. It is also written for individuals navigating career transitions in systems undergoing rapid structural change.
References
(Selected high-authority sources, recent and foundational, for contextual grounding)
-
Autor, D. (2022). The Work of the Future: Building Better Jobs in an Age of Intelligent Machines. MIT Press.
-
Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The Second Machine Age. W. W. Norton & Company.
-
Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 254–280.
-
OECD. (2023). Education at a Glance 2023: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing.
-
World Economic Forum. (2023). The Future of Jobs Report 2023.
-
Susskind, R., & Susskind, D. (2015). The Future of the Professions. Oxford University Press.
-
Arendt, H. (1958). The Human Condition. University of Chicago Press.
-
Polanyi, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension. University of Chicago Press.
