3 ms·
Exactly. People act like if an LLM can't get it 100% perfect right away then it's a useless tool. Maybe they're be able to do that one day. But in the meantime
by fennecfoxy 1y ago
Exactly. People act like if an LLM can't get it 100% perfect right away then it's a useless tool. Maybe they're be able to do that one day.
But in the meantime I think it's brilliant if it can rough something out, then a human can go and tweak it to the correct dimensions, fix issues or simplify needlessly complex features.
Same thing for artists as well - many will come to realise that sure it generates slop, but that slop is still useful as a skeleton to overlay a human creative vision onto.
- 0_____0 1y agoI can't tell you how many times I've had to redo my feature tree because I built a feature on a part out of order. Tweaking dimensions that you didn't expect to have to tweak very often also breaks your feature tree. If you don't know what a feature tree is, it's really worth investigating how parametric CAD is actually done before insisting that LLMs must have a business case for MCAD users! For hobby widgets and gewgaws you can absolutely make an "approximate object" in Blender, spit out an STL and bounce it to your 3D printer and probably maybe have it work. That workflow is not really used in industry.
- fennecfoxy 1y agoI _know_ what a feature tree is, I use fusion every couple weeks. CAD is not some magical hard thing to do, except perhaps for more complex parts where it's a software problem (like mirroring the features of a surface to the other side but being unable to flip them...thus text is mirrored, thanks Fusion). Constraints are indeed a pain in the ass but that's literally their purpose. And my opinion is still that an LLM could rough out a simple model just fine. It won't be designing engine parts any time soon but simple parts I still reckon it could rough 'em out.