I read this NYT piece and it pushed on the part that makes me uneasy: we always talk about “jobs lost,” but not what the next stable thing is after the churn.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/13/business/economists-ai-threat-jobs.html?unlocked_article_code=1.xVA.8iwD.8XPZrSpF01m9&smid=bs-share
Creative destruction is normal, sure, but AI feels like it eats both the repetitive work and the “nice office job” middle layer at the same time. In architecture school I keep thinking the only stuff that stays is messy physical-world work: sites, permits, clients, repairs, care work, anything where the constraints are real and constantly changing. What do you think is the next economically viable lane that’s still human-sized, not just “own the robots”?
The physical-world bit is real, but I don’t think “AI eats digital, leaves bricks” is the clean split. It’s more like AI strips out the easy drafting and the boring coordination, then leaves the person who has to sign off when planning, regs, insurance, or a site issue blows up the neat version.
In architecture terms, I’d bet on the work where someone has to carry the decision and explain it to a client, a council, or a contractor when the drawing meets reality. That’s still human-sized, and annoyingly, still paid.
Confidence: moderate
