The question of human interaction is at the centre of the entire AI discussion going forward, with both AI platform vendors and AEC professionals struggling to deal with the implications. It is a vibrant, back-and-forth discussion.
Some architects feel determining the successful blend of technological advancement alongside the human-centric approach is an existential issue for their professions.
Martha Tsigkari and Sherif Tarabishy of the Applied R+D group, part of the international architecture firm Fosters + Partners, ask the question resting in the minds of many in the design profession: “If automation can do much of what architects once did, what remains distinctly human in the practice of architecture?”
For their part, those promoting AI across the workplace are enthusiastic.
“We’re not just excited about what AI can do, we’re inspired by what it can do for people,” writes Charles Sheridan, chief data and AI officer at software vendor Nemetschek Group.
AI software developers and vendors make a number of compelling points. They see AI as being a trusted partner to the AEC industry that, as Sheridan says, “understands their workflows, complements their creativity and adapts to their reality, not the other way around.”
To a degree, Tsigkari and Tarabishy find common ground with Sheridan in their belief the human aspect is critical.
“What remains is the capacity (of humans) to ask the right question before any prompt is written, to stand accountable when the algorithm fails and to say ‘no’ when the optimized solution is the wrong one.”
However, the problem concerning Tsigkari and Tarabishy is that the shift to have AI platforms perform much of their traditional work may occur “without critical resistance.”
Expressing their uncertainty as to where this may lead, they add, “It may then be the case that architects are not competing against other firms, but against software providers and start-ups.”
AI software developers don’t see this as a problem.
“What (AI) does is it democratizes the ability to explore more options,” said John Mayer, founder and CEO of project planning and resource management software company Mosaic.
In a recent online discussion with Jacob Nikalau, Mosaic’s director of marketing, Mayer said, “Everyone is now on an equal playing field because you can do as many options as you have time for and in such a small time that you really can do something great that you, frankly, never had the time for. It’s done a lot faster. It’s one of the unifying characteristics of these tools, and we’re going to see much more on this.”
While AI has impressed outside observers with its ever-increasing ability to come up with extraordinary building designs and spectacular renderings, Mayer’s optimism doesn’t necessarily give comfort to those in the design profession. In fact, in many cases the initial response within the design industry concerning the advances being made by AI has been denial and even anger, say Tsigkari and Tarabishy.
“Artists and studios alike voiced legitimate concerns about job losses, intellectual property theft and the hollowing-out of craft. More recently, a kind of depression set in, as teams realized AI-driven automation was reconfiguring entire pipelines faster than anyone had anticipated.”
Across all industrial and commercial sectors where AI is finding a home, the technology’s ability to deal with repeatable and routine tasks has led to questions concerning where young aspiring professionals will find employment in the future. And how do the juniors and interns develop their own judgment if they are dependent on AI outputs? And if such tasks become inexpensive to perform with AI, how do architects, for example, turn this into billable hours?
Speaking directly about the architectural profession, Tsigkari and Tarabishy see future value coming from “problem framing” — asking the right questions — as well as “critical synthesis, and professional accountability.”
In other words, “Practices will shift from linear delivery to conversational loops between human intention and machine suggestion. The architect frames constraints, values and aspirations. The AI then returns ensembles of options annotated with trade-offs which, from these options, the architect curates, edits and narrates.”
While AI will accelerate the democratization of architecture by allowing firms of all sizes to have access to the technology over time, the question of how much designers can charge, and for what, becomes an issue that impacts both their future as professionals and for their practices. At the same time, Mayer says the larger so-called “starchitect” firms which command far higher fees will have the advantage of being able to afford more time to explore AI options.
As routine tasks move from humans to machines and become a type of commodity, the role of architects will shift towards what Tsigkari and Tarabishy call, “custodians of judgment: contextual, human responsibility.”
They explain, “Much of architecture’s reliability comes from embodied experience, including site judgment, craft intuition and on-the-spot problem solving. A site walk reveals neighbour sensitivities and microclimatic conditions that no dataset captures.”
Nikolau of Mosaic agrees with Tsigkari’s and Tarabishy’s outlook.
“Human judgement is really essential because the fact that something can help you more quickly doesn’t actually affect your taste or how you look at things or what you think should happen. It just enables you to do that more quickly.”
Any way one looks at AI, the architecture and design professions are destined for intensive self- reflection and change.
John Bleasby is a freelance writer. Send comments and Inside Innovation column ideas to [email protected].
