{
  "@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@type": "ItemList",
  "name": "LinkedIn Content Library",
  "description": "Articles and posts ready for publication on LinkedIn",
  "itemListElement": [
    {
      "@type": "Article",
      "id": "article-001",
      "headline": "Will AI Replace Engineers?",
      "description": "Perspective on AI's role in engineering: assistance vs replacement. Based on real daily experience reviewing technical documentation.",
      "platform": "linkedin",
      "status": "ready",
      "dateCreated": "2026-03-07",
      "datePublished": null,
      "keywords": ["AI", "engineering", "technical documentation", "judgement", "wind energy"],
      "targetAudience": "Engineering professionals, recruiters, LinkedIn network",
      "suggestedPostingTime": "Tuesday or Wednesday, 8:00-9:00 CET",
      "image": {
        "path": "data/media/article-001-ai-engineering.png",
        "alt": "Engineer with hard hat and safety vest reviewing technical plans at desk, offshore wind turbines and oil platform in background, AI brain hologram with data dashboards overlay",
        "status": "saved"
      },
      "articleBody": "Many people ask the same question lately:\n\nWill AI replace engineers?\n\nFrom what I see in real engineering work, the answer is quite clear: no.\n\nIn my daily work as an engineer, a significant part of the job still involves reviewing large amounts of technical documentation: specifications, reports, design notes, and feedback from multiple stakeholders.\n\nAI is very good at processing large volumes of information. It can read documents, summarize reports, and organize technical discussions much faster than any human.\n\nAnd in engineering projects, that can actually be useful.\n\nAI tools can help structure information, identify recurring topics, and produce a first overview of complex documentation.\n\nBut that is only the beginning of the work.\n\nEngineering is not just about reading documents.\nIt is about judgement, context, and consequences.\n\nWhen reviewing a technical issue, the real questions are:\n\n\u2013 Is the concern technically valid?\n\u2013 Does it apply to this specific design?\n\u2013 Could it indicate a deeper structural problem?\n\u2013 What are the safety implications?\n\nThese decisions cannot be delegated to an AI system.\n\nThe most realistic role of AI in engineering is therefore not replacement, but assistance.\n\nAI can help organize information.\nBut engineering judgement remains human.\n\nIn the coming years, AI will probably reduce the time engineers spend navigating complex documentation.\n\nBut the core of the profession will remain the same:\n\nunderstanding complex systems, evaluating risk, and making responsible decisions.\n\nAI may read the documents.\n\nBut engineers still need to decide what truly matters."
    },
    {
      "@type": "Article",
      "id": "article-002",
      "headline": "Subsea cables: what have we done wrong?",
      "description": "Analysis of why subsea cables have become one of the biggest technical risks in offshore wind despite mature technology from Oil & Gas industry.",
      "platform": "linkedin",
      "status": "published",
      "dateCreated": "2026-01-08",
      "datePublished": "2026-01-08",
      "keywords": ["offshore wind", "subsea cables", "reliability", "LCOE", "insurance", "technical risk", "engineering"],
      "targetAudience": "Offshore wind professionals, engineers, insurers, technical due diligence experts",
      "articleBody": "⚡ \"Subsea cables: what have we done wrong?\"\n\nWe've been laying subsea cables for decades.\nSo why are they now one of the biggest technical risks in offshore wind?\n\nAt first glance, it doesn't make sense.\nThe offshore Oil & Gas industry has installed subsea cables for years.\nThe technology is mature. The materials are known. Methods are proven.\n\nYet in offshore wind, subsea cables account for ~80% of insurance losses — despite being a small fraction of CAPEX.\nThat paradox is why this topic is under-rated.\n\n💡 First, the role of the cable.\nIn offshore wind, the cable is the system. One fault on an export cable can instantly shut down 100% of a wind farm — hundreds of megawatts gone overnight. No workaround.\n\n💡 Second, scale and density.\nModern farms deploy:\n• hundreds of km of inter-array cables\n• very high continuous currents\n• tight thermal margins\n• dozens of interfaces per circuit\n\nFrom a reliability standpoint, this is very different from sparse, low-power O&G networks.\n\n⚠️ Main failure modes:\n• Insulation breakdown / partial discharge\n• Thermal overload / overheating\n• Mechanical damage during installation\n• Fatigue & dynamic bending\n• Connector/joint failure\n• Abrasion / seabed interaction\n• External interference (pipelines, cables, trawling)\n\nMost are technically avoidable but still frequent (DNV, ORE Catapult, OffshoreWIND.biz).\n\n🛠️ Design pressure.\nLCOE optimization leaves little tolerance for:\n• installation damage\n• seabed variability\n• imperfect as-built conditions\n• cumulative thermal effects\n\nEven sound designs become fragile if execution deviates.\n\n🛠️ Repair reality.\nOne fault means:\n• 40–60 days of offshore operations\n• limited vessel availability\n• weather windows\n• tens of millions in economic loss\n\n💰 Only part is insured; the rest hits availability, cash flow, IRR, and future insurability.\n\n💡 Key insight:\nWe didn't forget how to install cables. We changed their role, scale, and economic constraints — and underestimated the engineering consequences.\n\nOffshore wind performance increasingly depends on the reliability of the systems we never see once energized.\n\n🔥 Curious: do you agree we may have focused too much on what's above water — turbines, foundations, vessels — and not enough on what lies on and under the seabed?"
    }
  ]
}