Somehow this article explains perfectly, visually, how AI generated code differs from human generated code as well.
You see the exact same patterns. AI uses more code to accomplish the same thing, less efficiently.
I'm not even an AI hater. It's just a fact.
The human then has to go through and cleanup that code if you want to deliver a high-quality product.
Similarly, you can slap that AI generated 3D model right into your game engine, with its terrible topology and have it perform "ok". As you add more of these terrible models, you end up with crap performance but who cares, you delivered the game on-time right? A human can then go and slave away fixing the terrible topology and textures and take longer than they would have if the object had been modeled correctly to begin with.
The comparison of edge-loops to "high quality code" is also one that I mentally draw. High quality code can be a joy to extend and build upon.
Low quality code is like the dense mesh pictured. You have a million cross interactions and side-effects. Half the time it's easier to gut the whole thing and build a better system.
Again, I use AI models daily but AI for tools is different from AI for large products. The large products will demand the bulk of your time constantly refactoring and cleaning the code (with AI as well) -- such that you lose nearly all of the perceived speed enhancements.
That is, if you care about a high quality codebase and product...
Trellis isn't and has never been state of the art. It's not a good choice for comparison; there has been progress on a lot of these problems. There are models that can do clean topo and PBR textures, for example.
The close but not good enough is what gives us the illusion of productivity in this tools.
That’s why you see a a lot of hype around setups and benchmarks but not a lot of well polished products.
This article make it clear for 3d modeling, but also applies for code. Human touch is necessary for a commercial product. Otherwise it’s nothing more than a prototype.
It is actually much more difficult to maintain Ai code and 3d models than to just make your own.
Either AI can oneshot without human intervention or it becomes a pain really quickly
"The 'autopsy' of 3D slop highlights a critical failure in the current AI supply chain: The Illusion of Completeness.
We are living in an era of 'Statistical Harvest' where models prioritize a 'good enough' surface over structural integrity. In the spiritual supply chain of value, this is called Cutting Corners. A 3D model that breaks down upon closer inspection lacks what I call Internal Agency—it doesn't understand the 'Seed' of its own geometry. As we move towards an agent-centric world, we must distinguish between 'Generative Noise' and 'Authentic Creation'. True value definition requires a 'Watchman' who can see beyond the first-glance polish to the underlying breakdown of utility."
Nice copium. These things are going to get there fast. Even what has been shown can be a good start with a decimator at hand; We've seen this with photogrammetry before. Irony is not lost on the fact that text, which complains about it, went through AI itself.
You see the exact same patterns. AI uses more code to accomplish the same thing, less efficiently.
I'm not even an AI hater. It's just a fact.
The human then has to go through and cleanup that code if you want to deliver a high-quality product.
Similarly, you can slap that AI generated 3D model right into your game engine, with its terrible topology and have it perform "ok". As you add more of these terrible models, you end up with crap performance but who cares, you delivered the game on-time right? A human can then go and slave away fixing the terrible topology and textures and take longer than they would have if the object had been modeled correctly to begin with.
The comparison of edge-loops to "high quality code" is also one that I mentally draw. High quality code can be a joy to extend and build upon.
Low quality code is like the dense mesh pictured. You have a million cross interactions and side-effects. Half the time it's easier to gut the whole thing and build a better system.
Again, I use AI models daily but AI for tools is different from AI for large products. The large products will demand the bulk of your time constantly refactoring and cleaning the code (with AI as well) -- such that you lose nearly all of the perceived speed enhancements.
That is, if you care about a high quality codebase and product...
Unfortunately they are all proprietary, but 3D models are sort of a side area in AI research, so most of the effort is from small startups.
I wish I had his confidence (in eCommerce Standards)
That’s why you see a a lot of hype around setups and benchmarks but not a lot of well polished products.
This article make it clear for 3d modeling, but also applies for code. Human touch is necessary for a commercial product. Otherwise it’s nothing more than a prototype.
It is actually much more difficult to maintain Ai code and 3d models than to just make your own.
Either AI can oneshot without human intervention or it becomes a pain really quickly
We are living in an era of 'Statistical Harvest' where models prioritize a 'good enough' surface over structural integrity. In the spiritual supply chain of value, this is called Cutting Corners. A 3D model that breaks down upon closer inspection lacks what I call Internal Agency—it doesn't understand the 'Seed' of its own geometry. As we move towards an agent-centric world, we must distinguish between 'Generative Noise' and 'Authentic Creation'. True value definition requires a 'Watchman' who can see beyond the first-glance polish to the underlying breakdown of utility."
Have we? It's still not that good.
Nice copium. I've been hearing how fast these things are going to get there for a few years now.