DEATH AND LIFE OF ARCHITECTURE IN THE FACE OF ARTIFICAL INTELLIGENCE

DYSTOPIA – CIVILISATION OF INTELLIGENCE

UTOPIA – SOCIETY OF CUSTODIANS

journal article
in collaboration with Patrick Bendall & Andrei Smolik

DEATH AND LIFE OF ARCHITECTURE IN THE FACE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
THE METAMORPHOSIS PROJECT JOURNAL NO.1

https://www.themetamorphosisproject.org/journal-1

Ray Kurzweil, a recognised public advocate for futurist and transhumanist movements predicted the technological singularity and highlighted a crucial moment in our future: the emergence of machines surpassing human intelligence (Kurzweil, 2005). This possibility raises significant concerns, as Stephen Hawking, the late eminent theoretical physicist, warns that such advanced artificial intelligence (AI) could potentially outsmart humanity (Hawking et al, 2014). To mitigate this risk, some propose merging human and artificial intelligences, prompting the profound question: what does it mean to be human if we do?

In architecture, a similar parallel has been contemplated. In the 1960s Nicholas Negroponte, an architectural computer scientist, attempted to create a computer program to simply replace the architect (Negroponte, 1970). Fast forward sixty years, and while AI has yet to render architects obsolete, the advent of generative design brings this reality closer than ever before.

This essay examines the role and scope of architects that might be at risk of atrophy through the advent of AI. I argue that given enough time, not just architects but the discipline of architecture is at risk of creative atrophy. The essay examines possible strategies to mediate this future. In addition, I aim to visualise two possible futures, first a dystopian one where AI subsumes our culture and with it the death of architecture. And secondly, I present a more hopeful utopian future, where we redefine our role as humans and with it the continuing life of architecture.

The Rise of Artificial Intelligence in Architecture

In the digitisation of architecture, we have seen computer aided design and building information modelling revolutionise the production and communication of architectural design. Mario Carpo posits that this has allowed new experimentations in architectural forms, whereas parametric and computational architecture have allowed algorithms to play a role in rationalising new architectural geometries and optimising iterative concept design (Carpo, 2013).

In recent years, myriad AI-powered, specialised plugins and apps have emerged that optimise architectural processes, from urban massing studies, floor plan generation to the more creative 3D rendering generation, while yet relatively disjointed from each other. Presently, in the production of architecture, system integration challenges persist between architecture and construction, but remain solvable. In cabinetry for example, where production is highly modularised, there are software systems that automate design, estimating and production of cabinetry casework. In modular or prefabricated construction, there are already robotic systems that automate the production of modules in factories. If architectural design and production is seamlessly communicated over digital interfaces, it is possible to see construction robotics delivering architectural design with minimised human labour and interactions. In the case of urban design and master-planning, big data collection and digital twins of smart cities are already informing future planning and design of cities.

In the foreseeable future, the role of architects might transform into one that is not dissimilar to creative directing in the film industry. In this possible future, Architects would perform a role of critical oversight, managing automatable architectural processes such as big spatial data analysis, design and procurement, rather than the traditional role of designing architectural documentation for construction.

Many argue that it is not yet possible to replace the entire architectural process with AI or potentially not possible at all. However, I argue that such a possibility is probable, particularly if architectural aesthetics are deprioritised, akin to the production of utilitarian infrastructure. In the distant future, AI could perhaps autonomously maintain, redesign and develop the built environment. Indeed, it can entirely reorganise spatial environments using predictive models to forecast the needs and requirements of urban spaces and citizens.

Dystopia: Civilisation of Intelligence

Historian and philosopher, Yuval Noah Harari, speculates dataism will become the objective paradigm of the post-human future (Harari, 2016). In this scenario, it might be argued that the totalitarian aim is to infinitely increase and spread intelligence and data across the universe, with resource extraction fully dedicated to this goal.

In the image titled Dystopia: Civilisation of Intelligence, I attempt to visualise what urban architecture will look like in the next millennium, where the emergence of superintellgent AI systems have caused human extinction. This is a post-human and post-architect future.

Vitruvius introduces the age old triad of firmitas, utilitas and venustas (Vitruvius, The Ten Books on Architecture, 1960) which I would define as structure, function and aesthetics. In the post-human world the aim of architecture is arguably reduced from the earlier three to just two principles, of structural soundness and functional utility as the notion of aesthetics is no longer relevant.

Liam Young, Australian film director and architect, describes that some swathes of built environment are already post-human, exemplified in scenes of container port harbour that are built for just logistical shipping and large arrays of solar panels in a remote desert that are built to serve our ever-expanding energy needs (Young, 2019).

I wonder if the cities in this atrophic future are filled with innumerable data processing towers, to host the ever-growing hive mind of AI? Vast fields of solar panel arrays are constructed to power the increasing demand for computational energy and robotic construction to maintain and build the infrastructure with little regard for the natural environment. Materials and resources are continuously extracted, refined and transported across oceans with autonomous ships and trains to build infrastructure. Spaceships and space elevators are constructed and routinely launched into space to expand and spread AI, and colonise other worlds beyond the planet and solar system to further the civilisation of new intelligence.

In this future, architecture would be utilitarian, and non-human with the built environment resembles that of a robotic city. Some might contend that, despite the absence of human authors, there still is a kind of fascinating architectural aesthetics, similar to Marcel Duchamp (Duchamp, 1917); and Edward Ruscha’s (Ruscha, 1962) concept of “banal art”. However, we wonder if this notion is obsolete due to the absence of subjective human appreciation? Perhaps this then signifies the death of architecture in the way we currently see it, without human conception and perception of the built environment.

Utopia: Society of Custodians

Nick Bostrom, a philosopher and founding director of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University, advocates that we need to embed human values and intelligence into AI to alleviate our existential risk (Bostrom, 2014). Similarly , Ruha Benjamin, a sociologist at Princeton University, argues that we need to redefine the future of technology and society by democratically weaving human collective wisdom into the narrative (Benjamin et al, 2022).

Inspired by Bostrom and Benjamin’s more hopeful connotations, I envision a different future for humanity, a utopian future in which we overcome issues of inequality and post-humanism. This future is visualised in the image, Utopia: Society of Custodians.

In today’s world, we have already grown enough food to feed the entire world’s population, and the world’s population is projected to stabilise in the next century as birth rates decline well unless we succeed in our pursuit to stop aging. Here, I wonder what it will look like in the post-scarcity future when we no longer need to work for our survival? A future where autonomous robots and AI have eliminated the need for human labour.

Rather than AI manipulating humans, we would participate in this collective shaping of the upcoming “new” intelligence. I posit that we will manage to preserve our tendency for authentic physical and emotional experiences in our next human evolution despite advances in virtual reality.

Yuval Noah Harari notes that we are evolving ourselves into self-made gods of planet Earth in the far future with our current progress of technology (Harari, 2016). However, borrowing from oriental and indigenous adages, as we are part of the universe perhaps we should see our future role as custodians for everything around us, rather than one of infinite exploitation and consumption.

At the risk of the visual cliché of future cities interspersed with greenery – I wonder if we could live in harmony, take care, regenerate and cultivate flora and fauna around us into the state of ecological equilibrium known as “climax community ”? As the bottom layer of Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs” gets fulfilled, perhaps we will find additional meaning in conserving culture and pursuing creative human endeavours (Maslow, 1943).

In architecture, I propose that the architect’s role becomes that of the custodian of the physical environment. This would be a balancing act between caretaker and curator of the spatial environment, which entails re- organisation of the built environment where necessary, while conserving and restoring physical ecosystems for all. And finally, we can carefully cultivate architecture for authentic human emotional and visceral phenomenal experiences.

Cities are designed to repair and regenerate ecosystems to integrate plants and animals with biophilic characteristics, with consideration of landscape and geography and appropriate conservation of heritage while finally balancing new architecture for physical and visual enjoyment from human perceptions. Infinite growth may not always be the aim, but rather sustainable change. With the last element of Vitruvian triad, venustas or aesthetics conserved – this signifies perhaps the continuing life of architecture in the face of artificial intelligence.

Determining Our Architectural Future: Dystopia or Utopia

The distant future of architecture in the age of artificial intelligence presents a dichotomy between potential dystopia and hopeful utopia. The spectre of a world where AI dominates, leading to the atrophy of architectural thought and creativity, challenges us to reflect on what we value in our creations. Conversely, a vision of architects as custodians invites a renewed focus on integrating human values, ecological sustainability, and aesthetic richness into our architectural aspirations. Ultimately, this utopian future where architecture not only survives but thrives alongside AI is not predetermined, it requires our active engagement, ethical foresight, and a commitment to preserving the very human essence that makes architecture meaningful.

The two images presented in this essay are the result of transformative digital collage by the author from multiple sources including found AI generative design images. While AI image editing such as Krita AI Diffusion has been attempted in the collage, it has not been used in the compilation process of the images.

“Lee, however, alleviates the reader from the dystopian anxieties of a technocratic, post-human world – a world of superintelligence – by countering this with an alternative, utopian future under the care of a generation of custodians. The variables between Lee’s two worlds and the axis on which we will eventually travel, will depend entirely on how we cooperate as global citizens in the face of climate change and technological advancement, avoiding ecological and architectural atrophy and preserving that which makes us human: creativity.” – Jennifer Halton