"Do you want to use a machine, or do you want the machine to use you?"
I've found that this question aptly describes the problem you had. This really isn't an isolated issue either, it's everywhere. Modern design is not user-oriented; it's developer-oriented.
It goes deeper even. Machines don't work like humans, so as we increase the reliance on machines it's not that machines necessarily become more like us, it's that we adopt to the machines we use.
This was already happening 100 years ago when workers were 'deskilled' to operate manufacturing machines efficiently, i.e. turning the worker into a 'trained gorilla' under so called scientific management.
It happens today when you talk to Google in a way that the search engine understands, not the way humans understand things, and it happens every time we use a technical device to get a task done. And the conflict here is not between developer and user, because developers are affected by this as well. A software developer adopts the limits of the compiler and the language she uses, the compiler does not adopt to the person. So tech workers are really just a rung up on the same ladder.
People in the software world were not entirely oblivious to this. Systems like Smalltalk were designed with the idea of turning human machine interaction into something more organic. Sadly, this idea seems to have been abandoned.
Top comment poster here. You distilled the point I was unwittingly getting at: technology is rules-based and as we wrap ourselves in tech we wrap ourselves in rules.
"...the larger issue that we wrestle with all the time around AI [is] part of what makes us human are the kinks. They’re the mutations, the outliers, the flaws that create art or the new invention, right? We have to assume that if a system is perfect, then it’s static. And part of what makes us who we are, and part of what makes us alive, is that we’re dynamic and we’re surprised. One of the challenges that we’ll have to think about is, where and when is it appropriate for us to have things work exactly the way they’re supposed to, without surprises?"
I'm reminded of the quote about how writing everything down is going to ruin the minds of young people for memorization.
In general, I'd argue that this is not so much 'de-skilling' as 'learning how to use tools'
I mean, I'm sure that before shovels, people were way better at digging with their hands. Before bows, I'm sure we were way better at chasing down animals through strength and endurance.
Sometimes there are knock-on effects that aren't so good; cars may be making us less fit, (I personally think this is largely a problem preferences; most people prefer a density level that makes public transit not so practical, and are willing to pay a huge price for this in terms of lost time, traffic deaths, obesity, increased housing costs, etc...)
But the point is that these new tools usually make us better at the thing we're trying to do.
When I started working on cars in the late '90s, all I had were the manuals and exploded parts diagrams. It is difficult to overstate how much easier a repair becomes now that I can type a few words in and get a video of someone performing the exact repair I need on the exact same model of car. As a shadetree mechanic who isn't an expert with the exploded parts diagrams, this is a huge game changer.
I've even used the youtube to fix a laptop, something you'd expect me to be good at. (I'm no longer a professional hardware tech, but I was never a professional mechanic; go back far enough and I did fix laptops and other computer hardware for money) a friend had one of those fancy, thin Sony laptops; they tried to replace a keyboard and it wouldn't boot. they then took it to a repair place, who couldn't figure it out.
The exploded parts diagram was impossible. But I looked up on youtube, and found a detailed teardown and assembly. I followed along with the heavily accented voice, and the laptop booted up like new.
You could argue that in a bygone era, I would be more incented to figure out how to go from those line drawings to actual parts, to learn how to read those exploded parts diagrams. And you are right, of course; but I didn't, and because of modern tools, I'm better at fixing things than I would have been.
Really I think it has basically always been like that if you care about performance. Sledgehammers aren't light even though that would make them easier to carry and swing - they need to be heavy to work and the wielders need to build their strength accordingly. Crafts, even hunting are adapting to the world even if you are reshaping it.
It used to be that the hammer was as heavy as the user desires. Then, with the introduction of mass manufacturing, hammers become available only in discrete weights and the user was forced to make due with a hammer that is either slightly too heavy or slightly too light, because nobody manufactures the precise weight of hammer the user desires and the local industry to have a custom hammer created for yourself no longer exists.
My meaning was that the fundamentals for the task cannot be avoided. Nature doesn't shape itself for our convenience unbidden. You can change your approach and the ergonomics but there is no helping that digging a trench is going to involve moving a lot of heavy dirt.
I've found that this question aptly describes the problem you had. This really isn't an isolated issue either, it's everywhere. Modern design is not user-oriented; it's developer-oriented.