Download model, done.

Not attempting to be sassy, sorry, but maybe I can explain my point a bit better. If you are making something complex enough to warrant you yourself designing it (something unique, custom, new), then CAD on its own is the best tool (right now!). I have models with thousands of parametric features linked to hundreds of other parts in an assembly. I would need to write a novel to achieve those same features with an LLM.

If what you want to make is simple enough that an LLM would be able to nearly one-shot it, then that model either: 1. Already exists somewhere (like the gear above) or 2. Is simple enough that a couple hours of training videos will give you all the skills you need to make it yourself

Injecting a natural language layer into the workflow is just not optimal. CAD itself is not a difficult tool to learn and use effectively. There are essentially no layers of abstraction that an LLM can assist in cutting through, and no obfuscated rules or languages to learn.

I think of it this way. If there was someone sitting at my computer, and I had to do all of my CAD design by explaining what I wanted them to do verbally, I'd rip out my hair.

LLMs are doing for programmers what virtual CAD did to the drafter 35+ years ago, optimizing the effort expanded to create the thing already in your brain

Interesting. I wonder what sorts of threats China could make to back up this demand, or if this is more of a warning for future acquisitions in the space.

>Coleman died homeless and destitute in 2006. It was unlikely he was aware of the impact he had made on music. Neither he [band leader Spencer] nor Coleman received royalties for the break.

Never knew!

And once you have the pipeline and computation power to enable inside out tracking all on device, adding an OS is essentially free.

Take the example of the differential gearing shown. I doubt there exists any functional differential/mass produced assembly that looks exactly like the example presented. The concept of differential gearing may be able to be broken down into more symbolic representation of forces and motion, but at some point it becomes simplified to the point of impracticality.

Great article. I wish I had the time, money, and dedication to be able to try some of the techniques, even if only for the principle of it. But like the author says, it really is a Sisyphean effort. There is too much convenience, too much money, too much power in your data.

For the guitar amp, ok. Maybe that prompt will give you a set of surfaces you can scale for the exterior shell of the amp. Because you will need to scale it, or know exactly the dimensions of your speakers, internal chambers, electronics, I/O, baffles, and where those will all ve relative go eachother. Also...Do you need buttons? Jacks/connectors/other I/O? How and where will the connections be routed to other components? Do you need an internal structure with an external aesthetic shell? Or are you going to somehow mold the whole thing in one piece? Where should the part be split? What kind of fasteners will join the parts and where should they be joined? What material is the shell? Can it be thinner to save weight? Or need ribs or thickness for strength? Where does it need to be strong?

These are the issues from 30 seconds of thinking about this. AI (as suggested) could maybe save me from surfacing an exterior cosmetic cover, given presice constraints and dimensions, but at that point, I may as well just do it myself.

If you have a common, easy, already solved an mechanical design problem (hinge e.g.), then you buy an off the shelf component. For everything else, it is bespoke, and every detail matters. Every problem is a "wine glass full to the brim"