> improve foundational features like the Blender Python API, which enables developers and artists alike
So they want claude to be able to talk to blender
So they want claude to be able to talk to blender
I've used Claude to write some blender scripts and it's an excellent use case. I look forward to even better claude/blender interaction based on this annonuncement.
That being said, it's about the same for the code it produces for non purely creative things, but for artistic work, I doubt an LLM in between gives any gain. After all, we do have an interface. A human interface.
Not sure if this one was the one I saw, but Google gave me this one. You could use Claude Code to build things with Blender.
it felt weak at it , like the corpus wasn't strong with blender/python work to look through , but it got going at it fairly fast with some coaxing.
"Some software" is approaching levels of complexity where, perhaps, it gets to a point where a human is barely able to even use it.
At the same time (brave new world) LLM assisted software opens up the possibility of levels of complexity we would not have considered before.
Art should demand more of the creator than the person experiencing it.
The alternative is 9 billion who cares slop things.
I know what I want, no idea how to tool my way there.
I spend two months going through YT tutorials, mucking about in Blender in order to figure out how to put together the model I have in my head [1].
(A year later, a new project idea—and it's back to YouTube because the learning is not only a steep curve but also sometimes so esoteric that it's fleeting.)
I'm reminded of Sam Altman's performative helplessness on Jimmy Kimmel, when he described being unable believe a baby without ChatGPT. That's something I believe humanity has been capable of doing for a good portion of its existence, and not something we should give up to the hands of a yet-unproven, yet-unprofitable technology.
While it’s just a “you” problem. Some folks have better skills, knowledge and comfort with difficult subjects. And that’s fine.
Further, I'm suggesting "designed by people to be understood and used by people" might be a hurdle for some future software we might envision.
(Altman's performance is orthogonal as I'm suggesting a new level of software that has not yet been written/conceived.)
(I'm sorry if my tangent about Altman was taken as a personal affront, as I did not mean it to be that. It just muddied the two interesting topics you brought up.)
MuBlE: MuJoCo and Blender simulation Environment and Benchmark for Task Planning in Robot Manipulation: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.02834
As an amateur this is really exciting - but not sure about folks that are real pros at this stuff.
Would be rad to incorporate some statistical procedurally generated designs based on my own aparatus.
What I do not want to see is this realm of LLMs hijacking decades of hard work and consideration for integration channels to more tailor towards their LLMs, not for the diligent engineer.
If they want to put their tentacles as far as they want while making products more difficult to work with innovation of a different color, they are making enemies out of, at least me.
AI _can_ work with 3D models already, but it's really bad at it. CAD requires an extra level of control and I think this is where I could see AI companies wanting to get a foot in the door.
e.g "Let's build an adapter between 2in BSP Male and 3/4in NPT Female threads with a third Hose Barb outlet with the following properties..."