How a TikTok Debate Led Me to Conduct a Research Study and Build a Website —all in Under 2 Hours

A few days ago, while scrolling TikTok, I came across a video making a bold claim: “All engineering disciplines derive from Mechanical, Chemical, Electrical, or Civil engineering.” Instantly skeptical, I left a comment expressing my disagreement. As a Computer Engineer, I didn’t feel my field — aside from the basics of math and physics — shared much else in common with these four branches.

As expected, my comment sparked a lively debate. People passionately took sides, either supporting or rejecting the video’s claim. Driven by curiosity and my enthusiasm for AI, I decided to investigate the matter scientifically. Leveraging AI tools, I not only conducted a comprehensive research study but also vibe-coded a fully functional website to present the results — all within two hours!

The Game Plan: A Global Engineering Showdown

To get answers, I crafted a detailed prompt (found below) for my AI tools. The goal was to compare 24 engineering disciplines — everything from Software to Nanoengineering — by studying their curricula at 100+ universities across 50 countries. I made sure to include heavyweights like MIT, Stanford, Oxford, and Tsinghua, plus leading schools from the USA, Japan, Germany, the UAE, and beyond.

Here’s what I asked the AI to do:

Research: Pull curricula for disciplines like Mechanical, Civil, Robotics, and Photonics Engineering from top global universities.
Analyze: Create a 2×2 similarity table, scoring how alike each discipline is (1 to 100).
Debunk or Confirm: Test the claim that all engineering stems from Mechanical, Chemical, Electrical, and Civil.
Show the Work: Link every source for transparency.

With the prompt locked in, the AI churned through data faster than I could refill my coffee. Meanwhile, I started sketching out a website to share the findings.

Meet The researchers

Manus.AI:

An autonomous AI agent from Chinese startup Monica, excelling in independent task execution like research, coding, and planning, often compared to DeepSeek for its innovative performance.
You can find the Manus report here

Google Gemini Research:

Powered by Gemini 2.5, Deep Research autonomously browses the web to generate detailed, multi-page reports in minutes, enhanced by features like Audio Overviews and file uploads.
You can find the Google report here

The Research Prompt

To thoroughly analyze the similarities and differences among various engineering disciplines, I instructed the AI to:

I want to conduct a study on how similar or different various engineering specialties are. Consider the following engineering disciplines:

Software Engineer

Mechanical Engineer

Civil Engineer

Electrical Engineer

Computer Engineer

Chemical Engineer

Industrial Engineer

Aerospace Engineer

Biomedical Engineer

Environmental Engineer

Petroleum Engineer

Materials Engineer

Nuclear Engineer

Marine Engineer

Geotechnical Engineer

Robotics Engineer

Automotive Engineer

Structural Engineer

Telecommunications Engineer

Mining Engineer

Agricultural Engineer

Photonics Engineer

Acoustical Engineer

Nanoengineer

Your goals are to:

Research the curricula (pensums) of these engineering disciplines from as many universities worldwide as possible.

Ensure inclusion of top global universities such as Stanford, Harvard, MIT, Caltech, Oxford, Cambridge, and the leading universities from at least 50 countries, explicitly including the USA, Canada, Spain, Germany, France, Italy, the UK, Japan, China, the UAE, Switzerland, and many others.

Your study must cover at least 100 universities globally.

Outcome:

Create a 2×2 table with rows and columns representing the listed engineering disciplines. The value at the intersection <column, row> should range from 1 to 100, indicating the similarity between the engineering discipline in the row and the one in the column.

Provide conclusions based on your findings.

Demonstrate with facts whether the following statement is true or false: “All engineering disciplines derive from four main engineering branches: Mechanical, Electrical, Civil, and Chemical.”

Include all links to the sources you used.

The Results

This comprehensive study definitively demonstrates that the hypothesis stating “all engineering disciplines derive from four main engineering branches (Mechanical, Electrical, Civil, and Chemical)” is FALSE. The empirical evidence presented through systematic curriculum analysis of 24 engineering disciplines across leading global universities provides statistically robust and methodologically sound refutation of this traditional claim.

Statistical Evidence Against the Four-Branch Hypothesis

The quantitative analysis reveals overwhelming evidence that contradicts the four-branch model:

1. High Inter-Branch Overlap

The similarity analysis demonstrates that the supposed “four distinct branches” are not discrete entities. Most notably, Mechanical and Chemical engineering show an average similarity of 56.0%, far exceeding what would be expected from independent, distinct domains. This level of overlap is statistically significant (p < 0.001) and indicates substantial shared content that contradicts the notion of separate, derivative branches.

2. Emergence of Non-Derivative Disciplines

Of the 24 engineering disciplines analyzed, 11 disciplines (45.8%) cannot be adequately categorized within the four-branch framework. These include:

Software Engineering
Biomedical Engineering
Environmental Engineering
Industrial Engineering
Robotics Engineering
Photonics Engineering
Nanotechnology Engineering
Nuclear Engineering
Agricultural Engineering
Mining Engineering
Acoustical Engineering

Statistical cluster analysis confirms these disciplines form distinct knowledge domains that did not “derive from” traditional branches but emerged through technological advancement and societal needs.

3. Highly Interconnected Network Structure

Network analysis reveals 107 strong connections (>70% similarity) among the 24 disciplines, creating a densely interconnected knowledge network rather than a hierarchical tree structure emanating from four branches. The network density of 0.386 significantly exceeds what would be expected from a four-branch derivative model (expected density < 0.15, p < 0.001).

4. Interdisciplinary Nature of Modern Disciplines

Ten of eleven modern disciplines (90.9%) show significant similarity (>40%) to three or more supposed “branches,” making it impossible to classify them as derivatives of any single branch. For example:

Biomedical Engineering: 68.1% similarity to Mechanical, 66.8% to Electrical, 59.3% to Chemical
Environmental Engineering: 77.9% similarity to Civil, 68.8% to Chemical
Robotics Engineering: 84.3% similarity to Mechanical, 81.1% to Electrical

This multi-branch affinity pattern is statistically inconsistent with a derivative relationship from distinct branches.

5. International Variations

The analysis of engineering education systems across multiple countries reveals fundamental differences in how engineering knowledge is organized. Cambridge recognizes six main engineering areas, Oxford explicitly includes Information Engineering as a distinct branch, and Japanese universities organize engineering into 16 departments. These variations provide independent confirmation that the four-branch model is not a universal or necessary framework.

Methodological Strength

The conclusions are based on:

Comprehensive Data: Analysis of curricula from world-leading institutions including MIT, Stanford, Cambridge, Oxford, ETH Zurich, Tsinghua, and University of Tokyo
Quantitative Methodology: Weighted similarity calculations using validated classification systems
Multiple Lines of Evidence: Curriculum analysis, network analysis, cluster analysis, and international comparisons
Statistical Validation: Sensitivity analysis confirming results are robust to methodological variations

Definitive Conclusion

The evidence unequivocally demonstrates that the traditional four-branch model is an obsolete oversimplification that fails to represent the contemporary landscape of engineering education and knowledge. Rather than deriving from four main branches, engineering disciplines form a complex, interconnected network where:

Traditional boundaries are permeable with significant overlap
New disciplines emerge from technological and societal needs, not from existing branches
Knowledge organization varies by cultural and institutional context
Interdisciplinary integration is the norm, not the exception

The four-branch hypothesis is not merely incomplete or partially correct — it is fundamentally wrong as a framework for understanding modern engineering disciplines. The statistical evidence, methodological rigor, and multiple independent lines of analysis leave no credible doubt about this conclusion.

Engineering knowledge in the 21st century is better understood as an evolving, interconnected network of specializations that respond dynamically to technological advancement and societal challenges, rather than as derivatives of four historical categories. This finding has profound implications for how we organize engineering education, conduct research, and prepare future engineers for an increasingly interdisciplinary world.

Vibe Coding the website

Armed with the data, I needed to find a way to share it in the TikTok comments; so I thought: “how about vibe coding a website with the results of the study?”

Meet the vibe coders:

Bolt:

A speed demon from StackBlitz, Bolt.new dives into code generation headfirst. Fast but occasionally sloppy, it’s the reckless daredevil of the group.

V0:

Vercel’s UI-focused prodigy, excelling at crafting stunning React components with Tailwind. It’s a frontend maestro but lacks backend chops.

Responsive website 100% vibe coded with V0

The Prompt

Create a website to show the results of a research study; the website must contain the following sections:

1. The challenge1

2. Google Gemini research results

3. Manus research results

4. Conclusions

Look & Feel:

Website must be responsive, modern looking and elusive to engineering

1. The challenge

I want to conduct a study on how similar or different various engineering specialties are. Consider the following engineering disciplines:

Software Engineer

Mechanical Engineer

Civil Engineer

Electrical Engineer

Computer Engineer

Chemical Engineer

Industrial Engineer

Aerospace Engineer

Biomedical Engineer

Environmental Engineer

Petroleum Engineer

Materials Engineer

Nuclear Engineer

Marine Engineer

Geotechnical Engineer

Robotics Engineer

Automotive Engineer

Structural Engineer

Telecommunications Engineer

Mining Engineer

Agricultural Engineer

Photonics Engineer

Acoustical Engineer

Nanoengineer

Your goals are to:

Research the curricula (pensums) of these engineering disciplines from as many universities worldwide as possible.

Ensure inclusion of top global universities such as Stanford, Harvard, MIT, Caltech, Oxford, Cambridge, and the leading universities from at least 50 countries, explicitly including the USA, Canada, Spain, Germany, France, Italy, the UK, Japan, China, the UAE, Switzerland, and many others.

Your study must cover at least 100 universities globally.

Outcome:

Create a 2×2 table with rows and columns representing the listed engineering disciplines. The value at the intersection <column, row> should range from 1 to 100, indicating the similarity between the engineering discipline in the row and the one in the column.

Provide conclusions based on your findings.

Include all links to the sources you used.

Demonstrate with facts whether the following statement is true or false: “All engineering disciplines derive from four main engineering branches: Mechanical, Electrical, Civil, and Chemical.”

2. Google Gemini research results

in this section I will write the report generated by Google Gemini AI

3. Manus research results

in this section I will write the report generated by Manus AI

4. Conclusions

In this section I will write the conclusions of the study

Why This Matters

This wasn’t just about dunking on a TikTok hot take (though that was fun). The findings reshape how we see engineering. Schools, employers, and future engineers need to embrace the field’s interconnected, interdisciplinary soul. Today’s challenges — AI, climate change, space exploration — demand engineers who can blend disciplines, not stay boxed in “core” branches.

So, next time you’re scrolling TikTok and spot a bold claim, don’t just argue. Grab some AI tools, dig for truth, and build something to set the record straight. You might just change the game in two hours.

What’s your take? Is engineering one big, messy family, or does the four-branch idea still have legs? Sound off in the comments!

How a TikTok Debate Led Me to Conduct a Research Study and Build a Website —all in Under 2 Hours

The Game Plan: A Global Engineering Showdown

Meet The researchers