[JKCalhoun]

We (I) need that.

"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.

[mossTechnician]

I disagree that anyone should need LLMs for Blender, for example, because Blender is designed by people to be understood and used by people, even if it requires a learning curve. It sounds a bit dangerous to build new things we don't understand, or worse, reduce our understanding of what we currently use because (only after studying our use of the same technology) an LLM apears able to replicate it, mostly.

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.

[prox]

It also sounds like people with little ability can use this argument as a way to say “look how difficult this is for humans”

While it’s just a “you” problem. Some folks have better skills, knowledge and comfort with difficult subjects. And that’s fine.

[csoups14]

Surely there's a middle ground where improved APIs can be leveraged by both people and LLMs alike while keeping those APIs approachable? Why is it necessary that changing the python APIs would lead to "need[ing] LLMs for Blender"? I'm nowhere close to an AI maximalist but this criticism seems grounded in execution concerns. I'm definitely not saying that they won't mess this up and make the APIs overly complex, I just don't think that's necessarily going to be the case.

[JKCalhoun]

I propose that, for some software, the learning curve is becoming harder to surmount.

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.)

[mossTechnician]

Regarding whether AI can/could overcome the hurdle of human understanding: I'm not sure if that's really a hurdle. Let's say in theory, a system was crafted by AI to be interacted with exclusively by AI. Broadly, I assume the outcome of the system would be for people, and it would have some purpose or value. Now my question is: how do we verify it functions? If it is a black box that nobody understands, then we can't verify it at all, and we can't debug it if there's something wrong with it. We circle back to the human understanding issue.

(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.)

[bergheim]

Why do we need that?

Art should demand more of the creator than the person experiencing it.

The alternative is 9 billion who cares slop things.

[post-it]

Not everything is abstract art. Sometimes I want my subsurf modifier to only target certain vertex groups, and if I can use AI to make that happen in a few seconds, that's a huge win for me.

[JKCalhoun]

Blender (and CAD programs as well) get in the way of creativity.

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.)

[1] https://github.com/EngineersNeedArt/Space-Tug_3DModel

[tayo42]

It would take you as long or longer to draw with a pen too. Art is hard in general.