AI disruption is real, but people still bring the judgment and connection technology cannot replicate.
Let me get this out of the way right at the top: yes, this is another article about artificial intelligence, and yes, I apologize for tossing another log on the fire. To say that the discourse about AI is omnipresent is an understatement at this point. It hovers like a digital specter over seemingly every aspect of society:
- The economy: Are we in a bubble? Can the hyper-scalers maintain this pace of capital expenditure? What do the answers mean for the stock market?
- Education: Is cheating rampant? Are children capable of learning and thinking for themselves anymore? Do they even need to?
- Politics: To regulate or not to regulate?
- Society: Is the technology making us lonelier? Can we trust anything we see in the news? Will there be any water left for drinking in a few years?
- (And most ominously) The labor market: Is AI going to steal every white-collar job on the planet?
This last question is the monster under the bed for all professional service employees, and architects and engineers are no exception. In March of this year, Anthropic (the maker of Claude AI) published a report titled “Labor Market Impacts of AI: A New Measure and Early Evidence” that included a chart showing the “theoretical capability and observed exposure by occupational category” for various professions. This chart predicts that AI could eventually cover approximately 85% of the job roles for the architecture and engineering profession:
Figure 1. From “Labor market impacts of AI: A new measure and early evidence”, by Maxim Massenkoff and Peter McCrory, 2026.
Yeah, not great! But maybe this is also reason #374 that we’re glad we’re not lawyers? It’s a lot to process, but let’s also keep in mind that the report is light on timelines and details. And let’s also remember that AI companies still raising funds from venture capital firms are financially incentivized to hype up the capabilities of the tools they’re developing. That’s not to say that the report is wrong, or that negative outcomes won’t come to pass; it‘s just a suggestion to consider the source of the information and what interests and biases might be at play. Remember, Anthropic also made waves on April 7 of this year when it informed the world that it was not going to release its latest model (Mythos Preview) to the world because it was just too powerful and, in the wrong hands, could upend life as we know it. They then filed paperwork with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 1 to initiate the Initial Public Offering process to become a publicly traded company. Coincidence?
To be clear, I’m far from an AI hater or skeptic. I’ve been playing with the various tools for a few years now and am very interested in finding ways that AI can help me in my job overseeing operations and business development for my company. The “deep research” function of ChatGPT has been incredibly valuable (and impressive), as has its ability to digest large amounts of information and create summaries that are easy to digest and share with others. If you’re interested in learning more about how AI might be of use, my friend Kristin Kautz is an awesome resource. She likes to remind her audience that the current version of these AI tools is the worst they will ever be! The functionality and capabilities are only going to improve from here, and there are many aspects of architecture and engineering that could benefit from automation (code compliance checks, cross-discipline coordination, comparing submittals to specifications).
However, the true value of the professional service we provide has never been the drawings and specs. There is a consultative foundation to the work we do that relies on capabilities that are fundamentally human. Even as the AI tools evolve and gain the ability to automate more parts of the design process, the practices of architecture and engineering will still rely on humans for:
- Discernment: Is the output correct? Does it make sense within the context of the project details? In the early years of AI chatbot usage, there have been many instances of models just making up answers to questions, even going so far as to cite completely fictitious precedent cases in AI generated legal filings (maybe the human lawyers are safe after all!). Even when the AI models achieve the ability to perform advanced calculations or system layouts, a human will need to review the output for appropriateness and accuracy, and to verify that it meets the client’s wants and needs. There is also an ethical obligation inherent to our licensure as architects and engineers that we take responsible oversight of the work product.
- Strategic thinking: AI can be an incredible “thinking partner” for all sorts of broad topics and questions. I noted above the benefits of deep research and summarization, which can provide tremendous aid to an executive team sorting out the pros and cons of various strategic options and planning for future scenarios. But the AI does not understand the nuance of your firm’s mission and core values. You can feed the words into the model, but it won’t have years of lived experience embodying those core values in everyday actions and decisions. Only the humans involved truly understand which choices are in alignment with the firm’s ethos, and ultimately, only the humans can actually make the final call.
- Leadership: Gallup has long conducted the most recognizable survey on employee engagement, and for years, their data has reported that only around one-third of U.S. employees can be classified as “engaged”. For those of us who genuinely care about creating a great place to work for our teams, that is a heartbreaking statistic. But within their research, “Gallup finds that 70% of engagement is related to management. Managers create the conditions that promote the behaviors of engaged employees (or just the opposite) with the relationships they establish.” In other words, people are the key to employee engagement. Leaders who can connect with their teams, understand their needs, and support their growth forge the bonds that allow people to thrive, and AI just is not capable of that type of connection.
- Empathy: Similar to managers creating personal connections with their team members, we as architects and engineers generate similar bonds with our customers. Our clients have a hopeful vision for the spaces they want us to create for them, and it’s our responsibility to turn that vision into reality. We have to genuinely listen to their concerns and let it inform our designs. The value of what we produce was never limited to the drawings and specifications; the value is in showing our clients that we understand them and care about their experience of the end result.
I know that we are on the cusp of major disruption. As AI advances, it will radically alter the world as we know it, but that doesn’t mean the change will be entirely negative, and it doesn’t mean that it will destroy all of our jobs (honestly, if all of our jobs get displaced, who would be able to afford the AI subscription costs?). Rather than succumbing to the catastrophic narratives, I choose to be hopeful about the future and believe that the power of human connection will only become more valuable. The relationships I have with my colleagues and customers are vital to my wellbeing, and I’m confident I’m not alone.
Note: This article was written in June of 2026. By the time you’re reading this, it’s possible the author has been replaced by an AI.
 |
Morgan Stinson is chief operating officer at EEA Consulting Engineers. Contact him at morganstinson@eeace.com. |
