[throwgfgfd25]

But the thing is, those users are unlikely to have thought of anything novel simply because they are not designers: if the tool is going to be successful then what they want is likely to be in the training set and easily googleable.

This whole idea seems contingent on imagining a situation where a non-CAD user has an idea for a truly novel physical object, has extensive geometry skills, and can describe that object in some magical level of detail that doesn't involve any terms of art from the CAD domain.

It's not a very likely scenario. And the energy put into tools to support this scenario would be better spent improving searchability of the data that is going to go into the training set, and simple tools to allow objects in the training set to be combined (such as those offered by TinkerCad or Microsoft's 3D builder).

It's also prone to the risk that the LLM gets something wrong: makes a part that is prone to failure, or will actually destroy a CNC, or be unprintable by a 3D printer, etc.

[godelski]

  > It's also prone to the risk that the LLM gets something wrong: makes a part that is prone to failure, or will actually destroy a CNC, or be unprintable by a 3D printer, etc.

You can destroy 3d printers too... especially if you get the bright idea of generating gcode... and one might reasonably get this idea since so many factors matter like the settings (but can easily result in things like ASA poisoning...)

It's a real "too clever by a quarter" thinking