The Threat of a Lifetime

"Architecture as an artistic practice is the only one that will survive and it will be developed by a tiny elite. We're talking five per cent, one per cent of architects max. The rest, they're done, they're doomed, they're gone. Finito. This is the end. Muerte."

With the imminent invasion of AI and machine learning into most sectors of society, every professional should consider the opportunities and risks of this. On that I agree with the alarmist designer Sebastian Errazuriz in this Dezeen article.

However, where he fundamentally misses the target in my opinion is by neglecting the fact that architects design buildings for people, not for machines. Ultimately, it is human taste and preferences which dictate whether a certain layout is successful or not. On many levels it would be beneficial if compliance with building regulations can be standardised and taken over by machine learning techniques, that would mean a huge burden taken off the architect’s shoulders. I don’t believe Mr Errazuriz is a serious expert in this field and rather is merely looking for attention, looking at his previous stunts on other topics.

What really interests and fascinates me on the other hand is where as we as architects are trying to standardise and automate more and more functions to compete with other professionals in other disciplines in our field (read: engineers), we need to remember that at our core we need to innovate and break molds, not form them. This is a paradox and a dilemma all architects fight with today. If we can end up victorious in this question of identity, I think we have the secret weapon against AI and other machines “stealing our jobs”: creativity and non-roboticness.