Perhaps the main obstacle to making simple things is not that it is hard to create simplicity (which it is). I think the main obstacle is that simple things are vulnerable. Simple things are easy to grasp and can be readily seen. In the same way, they can be easily criticized.

Whereas a vast, complex work is hard to criticize, even if it’s a mess, because its sheer mass cannot be easily dismissed. ChatGPT aptly calls this defensive complexity.

What’s particularly vulnerable is to aim to replace something complex with something simple. Isn’t it naive to think that it’s posible to replace something complex with something simple? (Never mind that history is filled (or outright made) of such episodes).

I think that the strong force of convention is the fear of being considered as a naive fool (if you propose change towards simplicity) or the fear of being considered as a stubborn fool (if the simpler solutions you stood against end up replacing more complex ones).