baigy

Yea of course. Wasn't meant to be a realistic example. More like a starting point.

So one can say, what's missing from this mental model is localized intelligence that is able to update said code on runtime.

One protip is this site is fundamentally different from reddit. You'll find a greater concentration of intellectuals here. Fewer "drive by shooters" if you know what I mean. And it's much more tightly policed. Stay on topic and enjoy!

My belief is it'll get better over time with organic shapes as LLMs improve their ability to synthesize higher order differentials. I also believe the future may not be coded 3D everywhere, but a mix of code and dumb 3D. But I'm not a huge fan of inverse code recovery; I found that to be extremely lossy.

Do you want to connect over discord or linkedin or something, to cross-pollinate ideas?

Agreed. I think you'll be interested in seeing this: https://app.nova3d.xyz/showcase

Whoa super cool, you guys got the patent too. I hope there's no cease and desist in my future lol (kidding..... not kidding).

This is super interesting. Especially the high-level language > STEP/BRep lowering. Tt feels very complementary to the mesh path we're exploring and potentially the right backend when exact solids matter. I feel your SDF conclusion is useful too. It's tempting to treat it as a universal intermediate, then discover you've lost the structure you need later.

I'll dig into the repos and would compare notes afterwards.

The current output is polygon meshes + the source code. So technically "surfaces", rather than CAD/B-rep solids. Many parts are closed volumes, but we don't claim manufacturing-grade solid geometry. This paper is focused on the Blender/mesh path. A CAD-solid backend would be a different target.

Would love to compare notes. It's compiler-shaped rn. The generated code is the source and Blender is the current build target. Python directs Blender's native geometry operations only. I also already generate UVs from the coded model before GLB export, while its part structure is still available, which helps avoid recovering everything from one fused spiderweb mesh. Visual checks aren’t the only option either. Having the code gives us direct structural checks too. Btw curious to see your SDF approach.

Thanks, here's a showcase you may like: https://app.nova3d.xyz/showcase

The parts are originally defined in code, not stored as point clouds. That code builds the geometry using primitives, curves, custom mesh operations and sometimes CSG/booleans. When executed in Blender, the final exported GLB contains meshes.

Thanks for that feedback. rn I've been chasing editability over runtime. the ~50 parts are basically the source code representation, not necessarily what should ship. since you get the code as well as the glb, my thinking is you should be able to say "keep the wheels and doors separate, merge everything else, optimize for mobile" or change those rules directly in code, then rebuild a leaner glb. The same source could compile differently for web, mobile or desktop. But honestly I haven't built or properly benchmarked that optimization pass yet. I still need to test mesh fusion, atlasing, LODs, collision proxies and material/PSO limits in a properly populated scene, not just on a single object. your comment is making me think this should be an explicit part of generation/export, not cleanup we leave to the gamedev afterwards. appreciate you raising it.

There’s overlap in spirit, but we’re not trying to replace the precision of Fusion/SolidWorks. the idea is that an agent writes an editable 3D program from your prompt/reference, including geometry, parts and eventually behavior. Blender/GLB is our current target, so it looks game-oriented rn, but games aren’t the whole idea. for a mechanical CAD use case we’d want the same experience backed by a real CAD tool/kernel rather than pretending mesh geometry is engineering-grade. I think of CAD, Blender and game engines as different possible build targets for the same broader idea.

Try the blender plugin. It's got full BYOK: https://github.com/RareSense/Nova3D/releases/tag/blender-plu...

Sorry I got more traction on Blender and haven't integrated BYOK on the app.

P.s. the max I can do is BYOK. I can't hand out free gens. I'm paying out of my own pocket.

I see what you're doing. If you use the blender plugin, you'll get BYOK: https://github.com/RareSense/Nova3D/releases/tag/blender-plu...

With the app, I haven't added BYOK yet. I guess I should have before I posted on HN!

I agree. AI does not solve "product market fit". It mostly solves engineering. Currently AI is great as a tool, but not really a co-creator with taste.

Hang on right there!

GameCube-era game (with full synchronous multiplayer play): 1-2 quarters. Early "self-generating" Metaverse: ~ 3-6 quarters. The Matrix: ~5-7 years

IMO, it's like asking: do you feel comfortable admitting you used a calculator instead of doing mental math?

The marginal payoff from incremental innovation produces lesser and lesser endorphins as we age. They increasingly become a smaller part of our experiences.

And btw, by and large, this happens to every feeling, not just excitement from technological innovation.

I co-authored this paper. It's a new technique to generate 3D graphics as source code instead of a point cloud.

Under the hood, it generates 3D objects with separate, sophisticated internal assembly, producing an editable "kit of parts" (instead of monolithic blobs).

E.g. imagine you generated a 3D washing machine via this approach. It's not merely going to be just "geometry" that looks like a washing machine. We actually know that there is a `Door`, `Drum`, `Control_panel` etc. Which things belong to which assemblies. What moves and where its pivot is. And eventually what those components are supposed to do.

Most current 3D GenAI cannot do this since it generates "monolithic blobs" that look good, but are unusable in downstream workflows (e.g. game engines). I.e. if you generate a 3D bicycle using traditional approaches, it's basically a blob. When you need the wheels to turn, a human (or another AI) must spend time cutting the blob into parts, naming them, placing pivots and rigging joints. I.e. you need post-generation segmentation workflows of some sort.

The paper breaks down the whole technique, and there's a showcase (+ github repo) you can play around with: https://nova3d.xyz/

It could, by bringing better customer service. However, the decentralization aspect of the real thing is very intriguing for me. I wonder if there's a way to standardize this service offering while keeping decentralization in its core architecture. That'll be the best of both worlds really. Could probably revitalize this industry too.

> I like turtles

ROFL

It's almost like a decentralized door dash. Unfortunate that it's going away.

Have you tried Big 5 too?

The bond market is about to get introduced to Bitcoin Bonds in Q3 of this year. I.e. bonds with yield denominated in btc.

The 'tokenmaxxing' trend is probably the more inane ideas emanating out of this whole AI wave. It goes in the opposite direction of efficiency and productivity maximization. Yet, it has wide acceptance.

And he's been getting through too. SMH

This will drop further with increase in intelligence density.

Good points.

I feel where it all loses its legs is the fact that most coding work is intermediate complexity. You won't need super intelligence to code/maintain your CRM or what have you. Specialized firms may pay the premiums Anthropic/OpenAI expect, the vast majority of enterprises won't need to, for the vast majority of their use-cases.