Tag Archives: engineering

the future of scientific and engineering modeling

Leave a reply

I’ve been using AI to assist me with coding (R, in my case) since shortly after ChatGPT came out. In engineering, we tend to run off-the-shelf models that were of course written in some kind of code. Sometimes these are open access but often they are proprietary. The brutality of market discipline pretty much requires specialized off-the-shelf solutions in industry because customers are not going to be willing to pay for custom coding. The proprietary ones are even often preferred for legal/liability reasons. Anyway, the future of modeling appears to be humans providing a detailed specification to an AI agent which then follows it to do the coding, debug the coding, run the model, process and present the results. The humans have to be able to detect whether the results are BS, of course, at this point in history. One can imagine using a different agent or a more specialized agent to assist the humans in the bullshit-detection stage, that agent getting more independent over time, and so in a cycle. I wonder if we will be using agents to set up, run, and post-process the specialized models, or if things will trend toward just letting the agents write more fundamental code over time. Or maybe the specification will be what future scientists, engineers, and business people focus their efforts on, with translating that into 0s and 1s being basically a commodity done on the fly by AIs. This makes sense to me – the most crystal clear function of AI so far, in my view, is making it easier and easier for humans to communicate with computers in more abstract language, logic, and mathematical symbols.

Anyway, this example used something called Roo Code which included a couple versions of Claude Code along with some other agents, to run a fishery-related model. There is a peer reviewed article, but I also like this blog post and this example of a specification given to the agents.

what is engineering anyway?

Leave a reply

Engineering is both a professional practice and an academic field (but really, an overlapping set of sub-categories within both of these). And none of these categories agree on what it even is. This article suggests it is something like “implementing things that work by following previously successful models”. And I think that is close to how many practicing engineers and the public, and even some academics such as the one quoted here, think of it. To be fair, the person quoted is talking about how historical engineering methods often predated the scientific theories that could explain why they worked.

The article actually suggests that engineering is somewhat disconnected from science. I happen to think this is wrong in the modern context, or at best a small part of what the relationship between modern science and modern engineering is or should be. The definition I prefer is something like “applying science to understand systems, how their component parts determine their behavior, and how they interact with conditions at their boundaries in time and space.”

ASCE 2025 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure

The American Society of Civil Engineers (of which I am a member) has released their every-four-years assessment of U.S. infrastructure. Why every four years? Once per presidential cycle I assume, and maybe they aim for about a year after the election to avoid being overly political? Because the goal here is to influence policy and keep the taps flowing with money for infrastructure projects that engineers will work on. It’s a lobbying group and it’s a big business, but nonetheless they try to be objective and infrastructure investment is needed.

The “letter grades” thing is kind of a gimmick, but an effective one I think for getting headlines and communicating with the media and the political class. Then there is more detailed information that interested people, or hopefully people who might be drafting future legislation, can dig into. What is most interesting to me personally is the references.

Anyway, to summarize, the Biden infrastructure spending is slowly working its way through the system and this has resulted in some improvement. I think this is Biden’s true positive legacy, whether he eventually gets any credit for it or not. But the report comes across as pleading for the country to sustain the slightly increased momentum created by the Biden-era funding bill. In my ideal world, infrastructure wouldn’t be funded by One Big Bill once a generation, but continuously as it is needed. And the way for the federal and state governments to do it, I have always thought, would be in a counter-cyclical manner during recessions. Planning should be regional in nature, with local projects that are consistent with long-term planning goals ready to go as funding becomes available. Some funding should be local, because the local community needs skin in the game. Federal and state governments could then match this local investment at a higher or lower level depending on what is happening in the economy. And there needs to be money for the full life cycle including maintenance/repair/upgrade/replacement, not just for new construction. And that is my personal broken-record infrastructure rant from this one civil engineer, thank you for listening.

the tech revolution and the engineering, architecture and construction industry

This article from Engineering News Record tries to answer the question of what the tech revolution means for the engineering, architecture, and construction industry.

As the world around us becomes more technology-driven and sophisticated, what will that mean for A/E/C? It’s been well-documented that the construction industry productivity gains in the past 40 years have been paltry, and that’s perhaps stating it lightly. So how can we go to IBM’s Watson for legal advice (yup, Watson will put a lot of lawyers out of business), get advanced health screening on our smartphones, obtain a master’s degree on our tablet computer, and then turn around and tolerate 20th century design and construction approaches? How can we allow technology companies to create massively personalized customer experiences, and then deal with a lack of communication and transparency on our construction projects, or dumb models (even worse, 2-D printed drawings!) with meaningless data?

We can’t. Our clients won’t. We need to embrace technology, get comfy with data, and revolutionize the client experience.

I figured the article would elaborate on the three suggestions above, but it doesn’t, really. I think our industry lags behind for a few reasons. First, we design and build things that last a long time, like highways, sewer pipes, buildings, etc. Even if the level of knowledge and technology relating to these things is increasing, they don’t get replaced very often. When individual little pieces of our transportation and water systems break, we replace them with similar or incrementally improved pieces, because it doesn’t seem to make sense to replace the whole system with something radically different all at once, even if that could be the right long-term answer. University curricula, professional groups, labor groups, institutions such as utilities and authorities, licensing and credentialing programs, and their associated lobbyists arise to resist change and perpetuate the status quo. Engineers and architects aren’t really trained in long-term planning or system thinking. There is a planning field that sort of is, but we constantly beat them down and encourage them to conform to short-term thinking so they can remain employed in our industry. In private consulting we talk about serving our clients all day long, but there is really a revolving door between private industry and public clients and not a whole lot of room for new and revolutionary thinking to enter the mix. Truly disruptive technology like self-driving cars leading to drastically reduced demand for private vehicle ownership, and drastically reduced demand for paved surfaces, could eventually push out some of the old thinking. It’s hard to imagine the water or environmental equivalent, but maybe a truly revolutionary toilet that doesn’t require a sewer system at all could be an example. Truly revolutionary building materials like cheap carbon fiber could be another.