Problematizing AI Omnipresence in Landscape Architecture

Overview

• This position paper examines the growing use of AI in the landscape architecture profession.
• The authors propose five different mental "archetypes" or perspectives that landscape architects might have when thinking about AI.
• These archetypes exist on a spectrum and allow landscape architects to switch between them based on the context.
• The paper uses a causal loop diagram to model the relationships between the archetypes and their contributions to AI advancement.
• The authors argue that more nuanced approaches to AI could open up new modes of practice in the digital economy.

Plain English Explanation

The paper looks at how AI is being used more and more in landscape architecture. The authors suggest there are five different ways landscape architects might think about AI. These "archetypes" range from enthusiastic to skeptical, and landscape architects can move between them depending on the situation.

The paper uses a diagram to show how these different ways of thinking about AI are connected and how they influence the development of AI technology. The main idea is that having a more balanced, contextual view of AI could lead to new and valuable ways for landscape architects to work in the digital world.

Technical Explanation

The paper proposes five archetypes or mental models that landscape architects (LAs) may use when considering AI:

1. Accelerationist - Sees AI as a tool to rapidly advance the field
2. Embodied - Focuses on the physical, sensory aspects of design and AI's role in capturing that
3. Auxiliary - Views AI as a supportive technology to augment human designers
4. Skeptic - Expresses concerns about AI's potential negative impacts
5. Synergistic - Sees AI and humans working together in a mutually beneficial way

The paper uses a causal loop diagram to model the relationships between these archetypes and their contributions to AI advancement. This shows how the different perspectives can reinforce or counteract each other.

Critical Analysis

The paper acknowledges that the proposed archetypes are somewhat idealized and that landscape architects may exhibit a mix of these perspectives. It also notes that the relationships between the archetypes are complex and context-dependent.

One potential limitation is that the paper focuses primarily on the internal perspectives of landscape architects, without extensively examining how external factors like client demands, regulatory environments, or societal attitudes might shape their approaches to AI.

Additionally, the paper does not delve deeply into specific AI applications in landscape architecture or provide a comprehensive review of the existing research in this area. Further empirical studies examining real-world case studies could help validate and refine the conceptual model presented.

Conclusion

This position paper offers a thoughtful framework for understanding the diverse ways landscape architects might engage with AI technology. By highlighting the nuanced and relational nature of these perspectives, the authors argue that a more balanced approach could unlock new modes of practice and contribute to the responsible development of AI in the landscape architecture field.