Architects, take up fishing.

[DesignTheatre]

Do you think architecture and related design professions can be replaced by software self-help programs?
Reportedly, for the past 10 years, we (mankind) has seen progress that otherwise has taken 100 years in the past.
There are now ways of defining smells like how colors use pantone shades. Sounds have always been coded as notes. Tactile senses are soon to be mathematically defined as combination of form, suface texture structure etc. Now, it is going to be difficult to define the feeling created by a frame of visual composition. But we cannot rule out the possibilities and we can look forward to someone to format and define visual interpretation with math tools.
Given this scenario, do you think architecture as a profession may be dying, and will be replaced by a self-help program?

[P.C.]

Not at all!!

It will be new wonders with new architecture, production and dramatic drop in cost , that create skilled designers, wonderfull designs and a mountain of money.

[usarender]

Mathematical codes and artificial intelligence cannot replicate the creative process and the work of an architect, which involves hundreds of decisions that must be made by a rational being that is able to use the LINGUISTICS of architecture, the power of human intelligence, reasoning, creativity and knowledge that cannot be expressed in mathematical formulas or simply programmed into a system of artificial intelligence.

In essence, there will always be a need for creative architects to produce the new wonders of the future.

Welcome to the journey !

Project Liquid Universe
The Art & Science of the Greatest Minds Working Together

[JingYao]

I think this is one of these big questions, definetely debatable.

What we have seen recently and in the near future is how AI can help us design rather than replacing us. One thing for sure, i think the human mind is also not very creative, it tend to like routine, reactional thought, and organisation.

Mechanical creation of patterns and design may not make sense to machine or aware of what it has creating, but combined with human recognition and desire, i can see we can develop software helping us design much faster and much more accurate.

[usarender]

This is debatable surely. Just because the majority of individuals are stuck in a routine, not very creative, reactional in thinking and tend towards accepted patterns of organization does not mean there are not incredibly creative individuals in the world. The work of many architects could be replaced by a computer, but the work of many others would not. Computers only do what we tell them to do. There needs to be intelligence behind the programming in the first place. An architect who is creative can create his own creative LANGUAGE of architecture, which a computer cannot do in the same sense. It will only spit out what is programmed into it in the first place. The ability to create is inherent to humans. Machines and artificial intelligence can replicate many human processes but will be limited by the creativity of the programmers. One can argue it cannot create in the same sense that the LANGUAGE of the human mind can.

[JingYao]

Yes, upto now we have only seen computer doing what human commanded it to do, since it does not have an intension as biological based life form. This i think is strickly our view of seeing how computer evolution, at this point, because simple we have not seen the code for life.

If computer are seeing as codes and life form as also seeing as codes, what is the difference? Could it be just the human beings is just an advance type of code than computer code at the moment, or simply it evolved for much longer?

[usarender]

I don't aspire to prove humans are an evolved form of computer code. This reaches into the mind, the ephemeral areas, the spiritual, the soul areas of the mind. Depending on one's philosophical and religious view, there can never be agreement on this. It would only lead to a heated intellectualized debate that would go on for pages and pages, with those on each camp who wish to defend a position. I personally believe and defend that the creative created form requires an intelligent spiritual being to produce the LANGUAGE of creation. There is much to defend this position, depending on our spiritual capacity to understand the LINGUISTICS involved.

[monio27]

usarender i think that the creative processes can involve mathematical, software and any oher kind of "helpers", the creative process is to know how to use them in form to solve youre problems. but ur right, computers will never be as creatives as men, but togheter? maybe.... dont u agree?
cheers!

[usarender]

Hello Monio,

Thanks for the comment about the creative process. This is correct these are only tools to help us resolve our architectural problems. They are not in themselves the creative process, nor can the substitute the creative process.

Now, about computers being as creative as men - what do you imply by "together" being as creative as men ? I am not sure I understood your comment.

Thanks,

Mr. Nelson

[monio27]

hey! usarender and jing yao
what i mean is that everything has a mathematical explanation, even if we dont try it or know it so, in that case computers help a lot, not in the creative process but in the representation and even in the undersanding.
So if we "combine" mental (creativity) and software (mathematics) we can achieve a lot more than just imaginative concepts or proyects, we can justify what we are thinking in a construcive way. But computers will never have any "judgement" (criteria) from their own actions and thats why they will never surpass men creativity.

jing yao: Human creativity is illimited, what is happening is that funionallity allways come first and that is why we are limiting ourselves and thats Le Corbusier`s fault, he killed architectural creativity by killing the "humanity" on them and but yes he was a genious dont take me wrong.