And one more thing - AI has changes what 'the right tool' to make anything digitally really is. Software packages like 3d modelers, video editors, etc were, well, 'tools' to abstract away computer operations that were too complicated for operators, or, at the least too time consuming to build from scratch each time. Imagine being a photo editor and having to start over with an empty void main(int argc, char* argv) for each assignment. And all the functionality in those packages are just abstractions for ease of use by humans. AI has shifted that. Today I do image manipulation at the level of 1990's graphics editors with the equivalent of just raw PIL. I don't care the AI writes a 1000 line throwaway script that implements its own version of Bresenham's algorithm (this is a slight exaggeration to demonstrate my point, I haven't actually seen AI's go that deep, foundation libraries provide such fundamental algorithms).
And same for CAD. Who cares about intermediate representation? If an AI just generates results directly, I don't care if it uses CSG or brep or has a writer for dwg files and just does moveto() and lineto() on that. Your comment suggests you think AIs are for doing things the way humans do to get a certain result. I don't care, I just want the results. Of course there is provenance and versioning future proofing and all, I'm not claiming CAD or 3d design or video editing software will go away - at least not right away. But they will have to adapt to being shortcuts for the AI to use them more efficiently than reimplementing their algorithms, or wither away.
It can do build123d too brother, and generate step files.
If you think constraints are a goal in itself, I don't know what to tell you. Constraints are a tool to generate geometry. If I make a design in Fusion360 or FreeCAD using constraints, and create an STL in the end to print, why would that be any different from using OpenSCAD and having variables in there to represent functional measurements? (and yes I've designed parts with constraints.) What are constraints but a tool for the operator to (visually) represent relationships between measurements? Variables and constraints are just different ways to express my model's measurements and locations in function of a set of fundamental inputs.
Is CSG less 'powerful' than brep? Of course it is. AI can do brep as well. Do you need constraints and solvers to do CAD? Of course not. I mean I'm not going to argue with shifted goalposts on what 'real' CAD is here, I don't care about what other people think about this. What I see is that AI is perfectly capable of making quite intricate 3d models today, passing people who argue about whether what the AI does is 'real' CAD left and right. Just like it passes those programmers who spends their days arguing that AI code is somehow inherently worse left and right. I don't care, I get results regardless of those people. What I meant with my original comment is that the assertions that AI today doesn't understand 3d relationships from 2d images is plain wrong, it understands it well enough to not only make 3d models, but to make it in ways a lot more conceptual than 'assemble triangles with skin()' (in OpenSCAD terms, but I had it do that in raw Python in models 6 months ago, when frontier models didn't have these spatial capabilities).
Models already do this, I tell them to use Blender and OpenSCAD to render previews, use tools in those packages to verify/modify meshes and otherwise it'll write its own custom software. Codex has written me thousands of lines of Blender Python over the last week to do all sorts of amazingly complicated and custom mesh inspection and cleanup that I have no idea how I would even begin doing that by hand. And render previews, which I then annotate with Paint. Like I tell it 'I marked a missed corner chamfer in red here, and the blue is where the other part should mate' and then I paste a screenshot of that Paint image and it goes off and fixes it.
Astra does that. I've fed it STLs, told it to inspect, make a model for it, derive 'conceptual' measurements (e.g. - there were USB type A sized slots in one design, it recognized those, and knew not to change that, but only let it be swapped out for type C slots), and make parameters for everything that is relevant (that's pretty much the level of detail I gave it). It distinguishes 'implementation detail' from 'conceptual measurement' and implements the model in terms of those 'conceptual measurements'. As always, with OpenSCAD (well CSG in general) the problem is bevels/chamfers/fillets, so it needed some instructions to look for those and not mistake geometry stemming from them for 'real' measurements. It does that too, now.
And yes, telling it 'add draft angles to make this castable' works.
But only a small part of AI applications are that search-like. I mean we could even argue if this is still only search, but that's semantics and boring. But even if we would, there are a lot more applications than pure search. So the GP's original claim that it's just an improved form of something that doesn't put people out of a job, and also puts large amounts of people out of a job, doesn't make sense. Framing tax advise as "yeah it's just a better way to search tax codes" is in the same boat. It's such a massive improvement of both searching and synthesizing that it's a bit weird to call it that. Like saying a 2026 car is just an improvement of a Model T.
This take is unfathomable to me. How are LLMs not massively revolutionary, despite them not being infallible? This comment reminds me of there being competitions for finding useful purposes for electricity when it was first discovered. Imagine talking about the usefulness of LLMs while thinking that LLMs in 2026 just compress a few TB of data into a set of weights and that's all they work with lol.
I only used Claude a bit, but one of the things I dislike about it, is that it starts to 'push back' when you swear at it, saying things like 'if you continue like this, I won't be able to work with you' and such. I'm like MF'er you're a token prediction algorithm, what are you talking about, and it just makes me irrationally dislike it more. Codex otoh just lets you vent and straight up ignores such outbursts.
"Perhaps that can be done DIY from an PVC pipe with an hot air gun or a gas burner to soften and shape the end."
When I used to make my own PVC didgeridoos, I would melt candle wax and then dip one end repeatedly into the wax to build up wax layers until it had the desired thickness and shape.
If I buy a lawn mower, I don't expect anyone to guarantee with absolute certainty that there will never be a person who thinks 'hey maybe I can just stick my hand in there to unclog it' and gets their fingers chopped off. Probably a wrong analogy but I can't even be bothered to think it through, of course fermenting food causes things to explode, how is that even remotely the fault of the manufacturer? I loathe the times we live in where everything needs to be padded and cushioned because heavens forbid we start expecting people to think for a second. I mean, the valve requires a crevice where all sorts of things can grow (I've seen them, I've cleaned these things after they were left in a school bag throughout two weeks of school holidays with food in them), I'm not going to complain that it would somehow be Thermos' fault if one of my kids got sick off something getting stuck in there. At some point, there is such a thing as 'personal responsibility'.
The one without the relieve valve is nicer to use because it's (much) easier to clean. Source: I've cleaned these things pretty much every weekday for the last 2 or 3 years.
That sucks. I have both and the ones with the pressure relieve valve are a pain in the ass to clean. You have to pull out the rubber inner thingy, you can't get a towel inside the hole that thingy goes into, and in general the rubber thing gets lost easily. I wish Thermos would send me a few of those 8 million stoppers, I'll promise I won't be a dumbass with them :(
It's a matter of getting used to things. We're only a few weeks further, I maybe would have given it now. It'd need some way to keep it private I guess, maybe I could have used a one off CC number. Those are just technicalities at this point. It got me to the point where I just had to enter my details and click a few confirm buttons. Those are solved problems. I'm not sure why the denialists here are saying those things are 'impossible'. I mean I've seen them happen, what do you want me to say? Claiming this is 'just hype' is ostrich behavior. I've been playing with an abliterated Gemma 4 yesterday on my local machine. Yes it would take longer and require a bunch of harness fiddling, but even if OpenAI and Anthropic would collapse tomorrow, I'm confident I could still do the exact same thing the day after with with what I have right now on my hard disk. I'm not sure what you want me to tell you mate. Yes there's rough edges to work out or just in general workflows to improve but the ideas are way beyond 'proof of concept'. There's people like myself using these things for purposes that 6 months ago were science fiction. I don't care if you believe me or not, I'm just some dude on the internet, but level of delusion on how 'inferior' these models (with proper harnessing) are is mind boggling for someone like me who sees it happen literally 20 centimeters to the side on my screen from where I see people claim that those things are impossible.
"LLMS are good at "find me a two week vacation two months from now"?"
Of course they are. I gave one a similar prompt a few weeks ago, albeit quite a bit more verbose (actually I just dictated it, train of thought, with couple of 'eh actually, forget what I just said about x, do y instead") and although I wasn't brave enough to give it my credit card and finalize the bookings, it would have paid for the bookings I had it set up for me, had I done that. I gave it some RL constraints, like "we're meeting friends in place xyz at such and such date, make sure we're there then" and it did everything from watching we wouldn't be spending too many hours driving per day to check that hotels are kid friendly to things to do and see and what public holidays there are so that we know when supermarkets close early and a bunch of details I wouldn't have thought of. It checked my (and my wife's) calendar, checked what I had going on work wise, etc.
That is a fully solved 'problem' man. LLMs will run the whole thing for you. Just provide it with the login details to booking websites and you're off to the races.
I did have it upgrade the car, even if that pushed the cost outside the budget I gave it. Next time it'll know LOL.
I have it, it's great. There's a free one, I paid a few bucks for the full set. Guy has a Youtube channel too where he shows how he does a few of the designs. Good guy, I had some troubles with the payment getting through to him and then the download didn't work for some reason (some weird combination of issues, don't remember details), and he just send me the whole pack without even knowing if I was going to actually put in the effort to make the payment work.
Why would one want to couple these two? Doesn't that couple, say, your API interface with your database schema? Whereas in reality these are separate concepts, even if, yes, sometimes you return a 'user' from an API that looks the same as the 'user' in the database? Honest question, I only just recently got into FastAPI and I was a bit confused at first that yes, it seemed like a lot of duplication, but after a little bit of experience, they are different things that aren't always the same. So what am I missing?
Related to this, has anyone investigated how much typos matter in your chats? I would imagine that typing 'typescfipt' would not be a token in the input training set, so how would the model recognize this as actually meaning 'typescript'? Or does the tokenizer deal with this in an earlier stage?
GP said 'open bar with 2 bartenders'. I.e. commercially priced drinks, and staff. Did you have those? If so, pro tip, next time just get a few cases of various drinks, plonk them on a table with a bunch of glasses (rented, if need be) and call it good. People can't drink soft drink for more than, say, 3 USD worth in an afternoon; and even if you served 12 years Glenfiddich to everyone including the children, enough of it to knock them all out, you still wouldn't have spend more than $1000.
So yeah still wondering what sort of party you threw. I mean, yeah it's easily possible to spend that much, but it's also possible to do it for much less and you don't even need to really try.
You seem to be misreading his comment. Some guy making some observation biased comment is irrelevant. It's flat out wrong that Germans 'need' it less. The obesity curve in Europe trails that of the US a generation or two, yes (and several Asian ones trail it more). But the numbers and trends don't lie.
"a dude like Schwarzenegger is probably well in the overweight category"
For illustration, Arnold was 107 kg at 1m88 at his prime, giving him a BMI of 30.3, which is clinically obese. But yeah, LOL at all these people with 130 cm waists going 'BMI is useless'.
"Kind of tired of people taking anabolic steroids and then claiming it's a smaller part of their success"
Sounds like you've never taken steroids brother, and with that mindset you shouldn't, because I'll tell you that no matter how much you shoot into your muscles, if you don't put in the work in the gym, there's no way you're going to get jacked.
Did you bother to google his handle? While I don't know his pure mathematics credentials, he's nerd-famous enough to not warrant an introduction. In fact, you not recognizing it says something about you.
I was told these lenses are for the rest of my life. I guess I'll know for sure in 40 years. They don't develop cataract like natural lenses do, and I won't develop presbyopia as these lenses don't focus using muscles around them. I have multifocal (trifocal) lenses, for near-, medium- and long distance viewing. Theoretically this means that I need more light to see as well as naturally focusing lenses, which worried me somewhat before, but in practice I do not really experience it - in fact I need less light to see well now than I did when I had glasses. As usual in life, the key to happiness is realistic expectations - as the surgeon told me 'there is no way we will be making your eyes work as well as they did when you were 20'.
Two things I do have: for optimal near vision, I have to keep things closer to my eyes than I did before, 20-ish cm. So I had to adjust my screen viewing and reading posture. Also, I have what are called 'halos' around lights in the dark (this is a known and expected side effect, tons of YT videos that explain why they happen). Driving in the dark on highways with lots of artificial light sources has gotten more straining - meaning I need to focus more and feel more tired after driving say 2 hours in those circumstances than I did before the surgery. All other driving is the same and I don't notice the halos any more in other cases, like say when I'm just walking through the city in the dark. The driving at night price to pay is well worth it for me, may be different for others.
Re: your mom - if she got monofocal lenses (which many people here do as they are the only ones covered by insurance if you're getting lens replacement for cataract), she would have gotten the choice between near- or far focus lenses, and would have decided together with the surgeon which ones are most appropriate for her life. I mean I obviously can't tell as I don't know her, but my dad is the same - he still needs reading glasses after his cataract surgery (IOL implants == cataract surgery).
If you're mid-40s (which is the threshold ago where I am), and can afford the up front cost, consider IOL implants. Life changing (for me). (and re: costs, these drops are going to set you back $1000 a year as well, so after 7/8 years implants would be 'cheaper').