I love artificial intelligence. I want AI helping scientists discover medicines, helping doctors identify diseases, making computers easier to use, and solving problems that humans have struggled with for decades. I am not afraid of AI progress, and I certainly don’t want it stopped.
And yet, something Apple revealed about the new iPhone Duo genuinely bothers me. You see, the company’s first foldable iPhone contains an extraordinarily complicated hinge made from more than 100 components. Apple says the hinge supports the center of the display, helps hold it flat when opened, and provides the smooth resistance needed when folding and unfolding the phone.
ALSO READ: Apple iPhone Duo looks incredible, but $1,999 is hard to swallow
That is exactly the kind of engineering I would normally geek out over. But during Apple’s presentation, chief hardware officer Johny Srouji explained that AI has become part of making that hinge work so precisely. According to Srouji, Apple uses AI algorithms during manufacturing to match each individual hinge with the housing that best fits it. A confocal laser then scans each unit, and Apple can 3D print microscopic layers of material to correct remaining variations.
To be clear, Apple did not say an AI system simply dreamed up the entire hinge. Human engineers obviously remain deeply involved in designing the iPhone Duo, and using algorithms to optimize manufacturing is hardly the same thing as asking a chatbot to build a phone.
Still, hearing that explanation left me unexpectedly sad. For most of my life, incredible technology has also been a celebration of human ingenuity. I could look at a beautifully engineered mechanism, a processor containing billions of transistors, or an insanely complicated machine and think about the people who figured out how to make it work. There was something inspiring about that.
The iPhone Duo hinge represents precisely the sort of thing that would once make me imagine teams of obsessive engineers measuring microscopic tolerances, testing countless combinations, failing repeatedly, and eventually finding the solution. There are undoubtedly still plenty of humans doing exactly that at Apple. But now AI sits somewhere in that process too, making decisions that humans might previously have made themselves.
And this is only the beginning, folks. AI will get better. Generative design systems will explore thousands or millions of possible configurations faster than any engineering team could. AI will find shapes, materials, manufacturing techniques, and solutions that humans might never have considered. Eventually, we may encounter products whose most impressive engineering decisions cannot honestly be attributed to any individual person.
That could produce better products. I actually hope it does. But I wonder what we lose along the way.
When I look at a beautiful bridge, an incredible automobile engine, or an intricately designed mechanical watch, part of my appreciation comes from knowing human beings figured it out. The object becomes evidence of what our species can accomplish through intelligence, creativity, patience, and craftsmanship.
What happens when the answer to “How did they figure that out?” increasingly becomes “AI optimized it”?
Maybe nothing. Perhaps this is simply another tool, no different philosophically from computer-aided design, simulation software, calculators, or countless other technologies engineers have adopted over the years. Nobody looks at a modern skyscraper and dismisses its engineers because they used computers instead of slide rules.
I understand that argument, and logically, I mostly agree with it. Emotionally, I’m not there yet.
There is something different about machines participating in the intellectual part of creation. A calculator executes arithmetic that a person already understands. AI can increasingly search through possibilities, recognize patterns, and arrive at solutions that would be difficult or impossible for a person to discover independently.
As those capabilities improve, the line between a tool that helps an engineer and a system that actually performs engineering could become very blurry.
The irony is that I want this technology to advance. If AI can help design a better artificial heart, discover a cancer treatment, make airplanes safer, or develop stronger materials, then please use it. Refusing those benefits because we are sentimental about human achievement would be ridiculous.
Even something as comparatively unimportant as a smartphone hinge should benefit from AI if it makes the product more durable. But I can support that future while admitting that part of it makes me sad.
For generations, technology has given us machines that demonstrate just how clever human beings can be. We may now be approaching an era where the most impressive machine in the room isn’t merely the thing we built. It is also the thing that helped us figure out how to build it.
Maybe human engineering isn’t dying. Maybe its definition is simply changing. I just hope we don’t reach a point where looking at an astonishing piece of technology no longer makes us amazed by the humans who created it.
Support independent tech journalism
NERDS.xyz is independently owned and operated. If you enjoy my coverage of Linux, AI, hardware, cybersecurity, and tech culture, consider supporting the site on Ko-fi.
Support NERDS.xyz