3 ms·

I am sorry you feel that way but I feel professionally strongly insulted by your statement. Specifically the implication high LLM affinity implies low professi

by fsloth 7mo ago

I am sorry you feel that way but I feel professionally strongly insulted by your statement. Specifically the implication high LLM affinity implies low professional competence. "My experience is that people who weren't very good at writing software are the ones now "most excited" to "create" with a LLM." Strong disagree. I've earned my wings. 5 years realtime rendering in world class teams. 13 years in AEC CAD developing software to build the world around us. In the past two years I designed and architected a complex modeling component, plus led the initial productization and rendering efforts, to my employers map offering. Now I've managed to build in my freetime the easy-to-use consumer/hobbyist CAD application I always wanted - in two years[0]. The hard parts, that are novel and value adding are specific, complex and hand written. But the amount on ungodly boilerplate needed to implement the vision would have taken either a) team and funding or b) 10 years. It's still raw and alpha and it's coming together. Would have been totally impossible without Claude, Codex and Cursor. I do agree I'm not an expert in several of the non-core technologies used - webview2 for .net for example, or xaml. But I don't have to be. They are commodity components, architected to their specific slot, replaceable and rewritable as needed. As an example of component I _had_ professional competence 15 years ago - OpenGL - I don't need to re-learn. I can just spec quickly the renderpasses, stencil states, shader techniques etc etc and have the LLM generate most of that code in place. If you select old, decades old technlogies and techniques and know what you want the output is very usable most of the time (20 year old realtime rendering is practically already timeless and good enough for many, many things). [0] https://www.adashape.com/ https://www.adashape.com/

dccoolgai 7mo ago
Why would I need this tool if I can just say "Claude, make me a CAD drawing of XYZ"? Not trying to be rude, just generating some empathy for the OP's situation, which I think was missed: Like them, there is something you are passionate about that there is no longer really a point to. You could argue "but people will need to use my tool to generate really _good_ CAD drawings" but how much marginal value does that create over getting a "good enough" one in 2 minutes from Claude? I feel sorry for bringing this up, but I think you might have missed how the thing that makes this possible makes it unnecessary.
- fsloth 7mo ago
  No need to be sorry - you raise an excellent point! Note my critique was labeling all of us LLM enthusiasts by association ”incompetents” which I believe is an incorrect assumption. The point raised that more people can now code I think was a correct one though. I think that’s a net benefit. Let me be brief. There are two topics here - CAD & AI and AI & society which I think the underlying point we are discussing. I appreciate you made a domain specific example, but like _all_ AI workflows - it does not really hold up unless one is extremely specific what the workflow is. First of all if someone is making a CAD tool for drawings that’s really not a segment. All 3D design tools target a specific content workflow, with specific domain model. Drawings are one possible output from this domain model - just like the on-screen 3D presentation or a 3MF file you get for export. What ever LLM competency level is it does not come with it’s own domain model. Real people want to configure the models they create. This means there needs to be a domain model you hook up to the LLM to have stable model with specific editable components. So if you are prompting a model, you are still better off if you prompt the domain model in a real cad package. So I don’t think CAD packages will die. Second - I’m mainly trying to serve _my_ need (which I believe is shared by others). My need is that I want to design 3D models with minimum effort, in an enviroment that has perfect undo, perfect boolean, versioning, snaphshotting and intuitive parametricity. This package did not exist in the market before. Will it have traction? I would expect there are lot of human users that want to create models themselves. Computer chess did not kill chess etc. To be super specific, there is a clear wedge in the market between Tinkercad and Fusion360 for an affordable desktop offering with the above features. I do realize my market thesis is just a hypothesis at this point. Which is fine - it’s a passion project. I hope it will be usefull for others, but if not, at least I will have the tool I want. I’m mainly excited about the possibility of being able to ship to test my market hypothesis. Without LLM tools I would not be able to ship. Regarding society: I believe we are discussing a normal destructive phaze of innovation cycle. Machine looms, weavers, luddites, new forms of labour etc. Regarding living standards the main worry is - can ”normal” people exist above poverty? I guess the markets will want to have consumers in the future so either there will be new jobs or some form of basic income. It’s possible I’m wrong as well. I have no idea if democracies will survive.

by fsloth 7mo ago

dccoolgai 7mo ago

Why would I need this tool if I can just say "Claude, make me a CAD drawing of XYZ"? Not trying to be rude, just generating some empathy for the OP's situation, which I think was missed: Like them, there is something you are passionate about that there is no longer really a point to. You could argue "but people will need to use my tool to generate really _good_ CAD drawings" but how much marginal value does that create over getting a "good enough" one in 2 minutes from Claude? I feel sorry for bringing this up, but I think you might have missed how the thing that makes this possible makes it unnecessary.

fsloth 7mo ago
No need to be sorry - you raise an excellent point! Note my critique was labeling all of us LLM enthusiasts by association ”incompetents” which I believe is an incorrect assumption. The point raised that more people can now code I think was a correct one though. I think that’s a net benefit. Let me be brief. There are two topics here - CAD & AI and AI & society which I think the underlying point we are discussing. I appreciate you made a domain specific example, but like _all_ AI workflows - it does not really hold up unless one is extremely specific what the workflow is. First of all if someone is making a CAD tool for drawings that’s really not a segment. All 3D design tools target a specific content workflow, with specific domain model. Drawings are one possible output from this domain model - just like the on-screen 3D presentation or a 3MF file you get for export. What ever LLM competency level is it does not come with it’s own domain model. Real people want to configure the models they create. This means there needs to be a domain model you hook up to the LLM to have stable model with specific editable components. So if you are prompting a model, you are still better off if you prompt the domain model in a real cad package. So I don’t think CAD packages will die. Second - I’m mainly trying to serve _my_ need (which I believe is shared by others). My need is that I want to design 3D models with minimum effort, in an enviroment that has perfect undo, perfect boolean, versioning, snaphshotting and intuitive parametricity. This package did not exist in the market before. Will it have traction? I would expect there are lot of human users that want to create models themselves. Computer chess did not kill chess etc. To be super specific, there is a clear wedge in the market between Tinkercad and Fusion360 for an affordable desktop offering with the above features. I do realize my market thesis is just a hypothesis at this point. Which is fine - it’s a passion project. I hope it will be usefull for others, but if not, at least I will have the tool I want. I’m mainly excited about the possibility of being able to ship to test my market hypothesis. Without LLM tools I would not be able to ship. Regarding society: I believe we are discussing a normal destructive phaze of innovation cycle. Machine looms, weavers, luddites, new forms of labour etc. Regarding living standards the main worry is - can ”normal” people exist above poverty? I guess the markets will want to have consumers in the future so either there will be new jobs or some form of basic income. It’s possible I’m wrong as well. I have no idea if democracies will survive.