I read Aaron Read’s letter to the editor “We Don’t Need AI for This,” responding to my commentary “The Predictive Engineer.” I am glad it sparked some response, it’s great that people have opinions about it and are engaging with the topic.
Aaron makes a great point. Redundancy is still the foundation of keeping a radio station on the air. Backup systems, failovers and solid design are things every engineer depends on. No argument there.
Where I see things a bit differently is in how newer tools can fit into that picture. The goal is not to replace traditional systems or engineering judgment. It is to support them.
Most of the systems we use today react after something has already gone wrong. What they do not do well is help us spot patterns before a failure happens. In a setup with multiple transmitters, IP links, and remote sites, those early warning signs are often buried in logs and alarms.
That is where smarter monitoring tools can help in a practical way. Things like recurring link issues, gradual signal problems or repeated faults under certain conditions can sometimes be easier to catch earlier when you have something helping you make sense of large amounts of data quickly.
On the cost side, I understand the concern. But the value is not just in preventing downtime. It can also come from saving time during troubleshooting and reducing repeated problems.
Also, we are at a point where this technology is still growing and finding its place. Much like how computers and the internet became part of every tool and device we use today, AI is heading in the same direction. It is not a question of if, but when. Every new era of technology starts with skepticism, and this one is no different.
This is not about choosing between new tools and redundancy. Redundancy keeps us on the air. Better tools can help us avoid getting close to failure in the first place.
At the end of the day, it is just another tool. One that needs to be used carefully and only where it actually makes sense.
