why wouldnt AI replace engineering?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AI doesn't even understand physics. See this
https://www.thealgorithmicbridge.com/p/harvard-and-mit-study-ai-models-are

It gets the physics completely wrong but gets the orbits right -- but people did that too in the distant past before they figured out Newtonian mechanics (epicycles). AI (or at least the current version of deep networks) optimize for prediction and matching, not concept abstraction. I keep on top of this research for my work, and AI is too far away from this. The situation is far worse in biology.

And before someone jumps in to say that it's only a matter of time, hardly anyone (in academic research or at companies) is optimizing for this. AI firms have bet on AGI, but most of those designs are just beefed up transformers -- which are powerful but have serious limitations.

It's only a matter of time before someone decides you're too expensive and decides to focus the AI on your job. It doesn't need to understand the full physics—you have all types of computer programs that don't "understand" the physics but are fantastic tools for design work. AI will piece them together and make them more useful. And it learns. So what it doesn't get today, will be "understood" in 6-12 months.

Did you guys read the article? This is elementary mechanics -- if it fails miserably on this, I don't want it designing bridges (or ICs for that matter). The current computer programs that aid engineering, design etc. are all built with the underlying physics that embody decades of theory and modeling. AI can't even run a proper web query -- I am not that hopeful that it will abstract design specs into appropriate physics (or control theory or systems modeling) and "ask" the right questions of the "dumb" programs.

All the tall claims about AI weather modeling, physics inspired neural networks work well up to a point but fail miserably on edge and not-so-edge cases because of lack of abstraction. Most of the stuff at NeurIPS and other conferences is not quite there and it's not for lack of trying. The frameworks just aren't appropriate. AI/ML performance in biology is even more miserable. The designer proteins don't fold properly, don't express in cells etc etc. We are pretty far from the promised AI utopia.

If you can insert physics into CAD design, you can teach AI. And AI's capacity for learning is increasing extremely quickly. You're talking about current limitations—it's improved past those limitations already. You're cooked.

I'm not an engineer. I fund AI (and other things) for a living and follow these developments pretty closely. I'd like for AI to work but the current paradigms aren't all that great. Plus the power limitations are catching up.

power limitations are the only things that will really keep people from losing their jobs, but eventually that will be solved with a greater transition to renewables.

[Anonymous]

Everything involving manipulation of information using technology is going to be losing massive job numbers. It's terrifying

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:there's a steady drumbeat of "AI will replace coders" and "AI will replace lawyers"

and yet everyone is still pushing their kids into engineering. I dont get it. engineering seems as/more vulnerable to me.

Nah....kids that get into engineering are just smarter than everyone else. I'm sure they will adapt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:there's a steady drumbeat of "AI will replace coders" and "AI will replace lawyers"

and yet everyone is still pushing their kids into engineering. I dont get it. engineering seems as/more vulnerable to me.

Engineers have to take into account human behavior as well as physics. AI just doesn’t understand human behavior.

You do not understand what is being done with AI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:there's a steady drumbeat of "AI will replace coders" and "AI will replace lawyers"

and yet everyone is still pushing their kids into engineering. I dont get it. engineering seems as/more vulnerable to me.

Engineers have to take into account human behavior as well as physics. AI just doesn’t understand human behavior.

You do not understand what is being done with AI.

Apparently you don't either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:there's a steady drumbeat of "AI will replace coders" and "AI will replace lawyers"

and yet everyone is still pushing their kids into engineering. I dont get it. engineering seems as/more vulnerable to me.

Nah....kids that get into engineering are just smarter than everyone else. I'm sure they will adapt.

ahha

funny dude

[Anonymous]

AI will not replace lawyers. Politicians are lawyers, they will not replace themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m an engineer. AI can’t do what I do, i.e., creative thought.

Yeah, you can stay for the creative thought—for now—and it can do the rest. You might keep your job, but all the entry level people won't. Same with architecture, but even that is going to go when you can eventually tell an AI, design me a classic new england saltbox for this plot of land—it will visualize it and then do the schematics in a few seconds.

You’ve been reading too much science fiction. Where’s my flying car?

Other way around—this isn't made-up. Stop sticking your head in the sand.

I'm still waiting for Global Warming.

[Anonymous]

It’s worrisome that many of these engineering students are using AI to complete their coursework. It’s possible that an engineer can be better than AI, but using AI to do your learning isn’t going to get you there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:there's a steady drumbeat of "AI will replace coders" and "AI will replace lawyers"

and yet everyone is still pushing their kids into engineering. I dont get it. engineering seems as/more vulnerable to me.

Nah....kids that get into engineering are just smarter than everyone else. I'm sure they will adapt.

Kids in the high humanities and basic sciences are smarter. Math, Physics, Philosophy, etc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:there's a steady drumbeat of "AI will replace coders" and "AI will replace lawyers"

and yet everyone is still pushing their kids into engineering. I dont get it. engineering seems as/more vulnerable to me.

Nah....kids that get into engineering are just smarter than everyone else. I'm sure they will adapt.

Kids in the high humanities and basic sciences are smarter. Math, Physics, Philosophy, etc

lol. Good thing engineers don't have to take advanced courses in those subject areas. Please tell me that was a parody post?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:there's a steady drumbeat of "AI will replace coders" and "AI will replace lawyers"

and yet everyone is still pushing their kids into engineering. I dont get it. engineering seems as/more vulnerable to me.

Nah....kids that get into engineering are just smarter than everyone else. I'm sure they will adapt.

Kids in the high humanities and basic sciences are smarter. Math, Physics, Philosophy, etc

lol. Good thing engineers don't have to take advanced courses in those subject areas. Please tell me that was a parody post?

Yep. If you are going to design and aid in the manufacturing of planes for companies and rockets for NASA why would you have to be advanced at Math in Physics? Silly notion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m an engineer. AI can’t do what I do, i.e., creative thought.

Yeah, you can stay for the creative thought—for now—and it can do the rest. You might keep your job, but all the entry level people won't. Same with architecture, but even that is going to go when you can eventually tell an AI, design me a classic new england saltbox for this plot of land—it will visualize it and then do the schematics in a few seconds.

You’ve been reading too much science fiction. Where’s my flying car?

Other way around—this isn't made-up. Stop sticking your head in the sand.

I'm still waiting for Global Warming.

BTW I was kidding about this. GW is obviously a real thing. I'm just not the sky is falling tomorrow with every bit of new news that comes out kind of person.

[Anonymous]

AI is a great tool and will remain as such… there was lot of hoopla about 3D printing in the past . Came up short.

To replace existing mode, new mode has to be decisively superior or it is never adopted. Even a 99% duplication isn’t sufficient.

So with all hoopla, we await a reckoning of sort in the financial market. Soon!

[Anonymous]

Flying cars exist but are not the cheapest and most efficient solution. If you have enough money to buy a small airplane, you can buy one.

Like AI, they are likely to have huge environmental externalities and the infrastructure is lacking for ramp-up. For example, air traffic control, landing places, and pilot training/licensing

I worked on investigating the economics of a related industry.

One of the biggest issues nobody could place a value on was never having clear skies anywhere anymore. The ultimate version of flying cars would make users like heliskiers. You would have access to lots of places and flying cars could be present in high volume in the entire visible sky in most places. I personally think that would suck and we need to solve our earthbound transport and congestion issues, not move them to the sky.