> If gen3D is going to be a thing then they need to listen to the people actually doing 3D work, not just chasing benchmarks invented by other gen3D researchers

> If gen3D is going to be a thing then they need to listen to the people actually doing 3D work, not just chasing benchmarks invented by other gen3D researchers. This has been an issue for much longer than generative AI. In graphics, Siggraph papers have been publishing fully automated methods claiming “high quality” for decades that produce lower quality than human created assets or human-in-the-loop tools. Same is true of lots of other things in computer science, academics is just prone to over-automating because it’s fun and clever and because we can. This is probably the natural course of events. People publishing papers and projects are going for maximum wow, not for maximum quality. Often this is smart grad students in school, and they have no access to 3d professionals, and need to get something published asap to meet funding/graduation goals. We shouldn’t necessarily complain about it or get tired, but instead work on tech transfer. Borrow these ideas and bring them to 3d tooling. It takes time, and we have to vette them and figure out which will actually help people. Sometimes the ones that get lots of attention turn out to have no staying power.