alt Hacker NewsNeat.
As a mechanical engineer, I feel the part of my job is safe from AI for the time being. I don't think quality training data for good mechanical design exists.
3D CAD is only part of good design. To a tinker-er that is 3D printing simple parts, an STL is fine. But most parts that matter require far more design consideration and detail than simply the geometry data that an STL (or other 3D file) provides.
The majority of parts are accompanied with a drawing, and that is where the real design actually is found: Tolerances, GD&T, materials, processing notes...
Even then, most of the calculations and considerations to build the model and drawing are not explicit in the design documents: Nothing about a drawing of a stainless steel part tells you WHY it must be a stainless steel part. I don't think there is a large set of well documented designs out there to act as training data for an AI system to design an assembly beyond basic 3D parts.
The authors identify this gap, but it's a fundamental problem with the wholesale move to AI in mechanical design.
Replies
Agreed. At the end of the day, manufactured parts are driven by constraints outside of the CAD environment so analyzing 3D data as the foundation of an AI system strikes me as attacking the problem from the wrong direction. i.e. Simple optimization of a part for injection molding can take it from requiring a bunch of side actions and collapsing cores to a simple 2 sided mold and save hundreds of thousands of dollars in tooling. None of that is obvious from 3D data alone.
That said, I am excited for AI assisted CAD tools. Things like creating and applying global variables to an existing part, complex assembly analysis for part reduction or just making a starting base part can be incredibly tedious and are low hanging fruit for improving CAD workflows with AI imo.
a lot of the why is encoded elsewhere in mechanical engineering at least - the tables, the formulas, textbook problems, engineering reports.
one of the challenges to making a good data set might be around bad designs and why they failed. if we get to a mechanical agent, its going to need to understand that brass was a mistake and redesign a part as steel and change the design for the new contraints
unlike code, that kind of train of experiment i think will be a lot more expensive to make, since you might actually want to create those parts along the way and not just pretend