So You Don't Understand How Your Car Actually Works?

Written by Lloyd Lewis

There is a comment under a Guardian opinion piece from a couple of days ago that says more, by accident, than the entire article it sits beneath.

The article is the usual thing: a columnist crossing themselves against AI as if it carries a dark sorcery, confessing she "rebukes" search results as though declining to read is a form of intellectual hygiene. Fine. The genre is well established now, the newspaper runs one of these on a predictable loop, and we’ll come to why it runs them. But beneath it, in the comments, two readers had a brief exchange that is worth more than the eight hundred words above it.

One noted that the general population possesses incredibly poor tech skills. Another pushed back: most of us use computers every day, and not being able to change the fan belt doesn't mean you can't drive a car.

That’s the line. That’s the whole argument, laid out perfectly by someone defending the wrong side of it.

The commenter is imagining a leisurely Sunday drive on a paved highway where a breakdown means a minor inconvenience and a call to roadside assistance. But that is not the economy we are entering. We are entering a rally stage.

In world-class rallying, the driver and co-driver do not have the luxury of a mechanic waiting at every corner. When a suspension arm snaps or a belt shreds mid-stage, they have to pull over, get their hands into the machinery, and fix it themselves using whatever tools are strapped to the chassis. The time it takes to diagnose and repair the failure is added directly to their overall stage time.

If you are a competitor, you do not get to claim that mechanical ignorance is "someone else's job." If you do not know the inner workings of the machine under your seat, you don't just lose time, you are out of the race altogether.

Because here is the cold fact that the comment, the column, and the people cheering both refuse to sit with: A person who cannot change the fan belt is not a driver. They are a passenger who has been allowed to steer.

The difference between those two states is about to decide who stays on the track and who is left in the ditch.

The Receipt I've Been Holding Since 2009

Let me offer a piece of personal forecasting, simply to establish that this is not hindsight.

In the early iPhone adverts around 2009, right after the App Store opened up the ecosystem, one of the showcase applications held up as a marvel was a bill-splitter. It calculated everyone’s share of a restaurant total, added the tip, and finalised the maths. I watched the marketing sell this as a minor wonder. I argued at the time to anyone who would listen that this was not a convenience; it was the opening move in a long divestment. It was the moment a generation began outsourcing basic arithmetic previously held in its own head.

A tip calculator is harmless. It is also the thin end of a wedge that ends with adults who cannot estimate, cannot sanity-check a number, and cannot tell when a figure on a screen is obviously wrong because they have lost the internal mental model required to flag the error.

Look where that trajectory went. The phone became the calculator, then the map, the memory, the diary, the photographer, and ultimately the curator of what you think about all day. Each handover was sold as a convenience; each was a small amputation. None of them, individually, felt like a disaster. That is precisely the mechanism. You do not notice the muscle wasting until the day you reach for it and find it gone.

AI is the same wedge, just thicker, and driven in faster.

What the Data Actually Says

Here is where we stop talking about what I think and start looking at what is measured. Feelings are cheap, but data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is concrete.

The PIAAC survey—the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies—is the most comprehensive international study of adult skills in existence. It tests literacy, numeracy, and adaptive problem-solving across the working-age population. When the latest ten-year cycle reported in December 2024 across thirty-one countries, the findings were not a moral panic. They were a cold measurement [1].

Across the surveyed nations, roughly one in five adults (approximately 20%) cannot perform above the most basic level (Level 1) in literacy or numeracy. These are adults who, when given a short block of text and a simple data table, cannot reliably extract the answer the table plainly contains.

The trajectory worsens in the direction nobody wants to look. Over the last decade, adult literacy has stagnated or fallen in the majority of countries surveyed. Only two nations, Finland and Denmark, showed significant improvement.

Furthermore, the decline is concentrated almost entirely at the bottom. In most nations, the lowest-performing 10% worsened, while the top 10% improved. The gap didn't hold; it widened.

This reveals the central paradox of the modern technological state, epitomised by Singapore and the United States. In the 2024 data, these two nations displayed the absolute largest internal skills inequality gaps in literacy and numeracy [1]. They are places that talk endlessly about bleeding-edge technology, yet a massive slice of their own population is falling further behind on the foundational basics required to use it.

Yet, look at the nations sitting at the absolute top of the global average for all domains: Finland, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden. On numeracy proficiency, Finland and Singapore recorded the largest net gains [1]. Singapore represents a hyper-accelerated elite pulling the average upward, whereas the Nordic nations demonstrate what happens when foundational competence is treated as a collective public asset and defended at the baseline.

Note who is missing from that podium. The UK sits comfortably in the complacent middle, exactly where a population convinced it is tech-literate because it can scroll would expect to stall out.

"China and the East" — Let Me Be Precise

People frequently reach for "China and the East" here. The instinct is directionally correct, but the phrasing requires precision; a sloppy version of this argument is easily dismantled by the first pedant who knows that mainland China does not participate wholesale in adult PIAAC testing.

Instead, look at the pipeline feeding the next two decades of the workforce: the OECD’s PISA tests for fifteen-year-olds. In mathematics, Singapore and the reporting East Asian educational systems consistently rank at the absolute top of the world by margins that are not close [2]. The adult data from Singapore then confirms this trajectory in the subsequent PIAAC cycles.

This regional dominance is not the product of a cultural mystique. It is the result of a deliberate, unsentimental policy decision that mathematical and technical fluency is a non-negotiable infrastructure asset. They enforced it, while the West spent a generation teaching children that the device in their pocket would do the thinking for them.

That is the actual chasm. Not a gap of wealth, but a gap of competence. And competence compounds. A nation that can architect, build, and maintain complex systems operates in an entirely different tier of the global economy than a nation that merely consumes them. It is a position of structural ownership, the way a manufacturer owns a market that a retailer merely visits.

The Thing You've Been Told to be Scared of is the Wrong Thing

This is where I part company entirely with the traditional op-ed column, its comment section, and the very critics I might otherwise align with on issues of economic fairness.

You have been trained, quite profitably, to focus your anxiety on billionaires' capital, the data centres, the market valuations, the Silicon Valley executive class. That economic inequality is real, and I have written about its dangers elsewhere with genuine anger. But concentrated capital is merely the downstream symptom. It is not the moat.

The moat is knowledge.

The mechanism protecting the people at the top is not the size of their bank balance; it is that 99.9% of the population cannot do what their engineers do. They cannot design the silicon chip, they cannot architect the large model, and they cannot write the underlying systems. Instead, the public reduces these technologies to a magic box that they either blindly worship or nobly "rebuke."

You can levy taxes on a fortune. You cannot tax your way into an understanding of a transformer architecture. The wealth of the future is guarded by a competence gap, and that gap is the one variable the tech elite is perfectly happy for you to ignore while you rage at their net worth.

Every think-piece declaring a refusal to touch the machine, every comment thread celebrating an omission of use, and every proud declaration of an intentional opt-out is simply the population voluntarily widening the exact chasm that keeps it powerless. This is not resistance. It is a retreat masquerading as a principle.

Why the Guardian Keeps Running This Exact Piece

So why the regular hit-piece? Why does legacy media return to this well on such a predictable cycle?

The cold answer is that it sells, and it flatters. Comfort is a media product. An article that tells a frightened, falling-behind readership that their anxiety is actually a virtue, that opting out constitutes integrity and that their alienation is proof of moral superiority, will always financially outperform an article that tells them the truth.

The truth is that their discomfort is the raw sensation of a skills gap they have failed to close and are actively being encouraged to ignore. The former is a warm bath; the latter is a cold shower. People pay for the bath.

It is the same diversionary tactic I wrote about recently in another context: the calculated creation of a cultural divide to distract from structural weakness. Tell the reader the enemy is the machine, or the executive who owns it, and they will never ask the only question that genuinely threatens the status quo: Do I understand how this works? If not, why not, and what am I going to do about it before the window closes?

There's No Excuse, and I Mean That as Encouragement

Here is the perspective that should land as hope, not contempt. I do not write this from an ivory tower.

The technical knowledge is entirely out there. The core architecture of these systems, the mathematics underpinning them, the fundamental engineering principles, the open-source courses, and the documentation, none of it is hidden. It has never in human history been more freely available to anyone who decides to drive instead of being driven. You do not require an elite university admission to grasp it; the barrier is not access, but the willingness to look at the mechanics. That decision is precisely the one a whole industry of comfortable opt-out journalism is gently, profitably talking you out of making.

I have had to retrain more times than I care to count, I'm still doing it (building our own LLM model architecture) navigating structural economic shifts that made old skills obsolete, and adapting through physical disability that claimed much of the rest. I know exactly what it costs in energy and friction to pull over mid-stage and fix the engine when the machine keeps changing beneath you. It is brutal. But mechanical fluency is the only thing that keeps you in the race.

Learn the fan belt. Not because anyone owes you a livelihood for knowing it, nobody owes anyone that, and I will maintain that position indefinitely, but because the person who can fix the car under pressure is the only one who ever decides where it goes. Everyone else is just steering on a road someone else paved, toward a destination someone else selected, applauding the convenience of the journey while the vehicle carries them away.

References

• [1] OECD (2024), Building Skills for the Future: Lessons from the Second Survey of Adult Skills, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris.
• [2] OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris.

Awen Null: books, biography, latest update

Follow Awen Null and explore their bibliography from Amazon’s Awen Null Author Page.

Amazon.co.ukRead full bio