It is almost certainly because of the way the simulation was performed:
It turns out these fancy kiosks are in general worse for wait times compared to the traditional good ol' up and down buttons. There are certainly edge cases when the kiosks can win out (extremely tall buildings with 8+ cars per elevator bank) but for the majority of cases, simple up down buttons reign supreme.
This counterintuitive result is all thanks to the rebalancing step where every 5 seconds, the system re-optimizes each elevator's path. The kiosk enforces rigidity, you must get in the assigned elevator.
There should be no way that only having more information results in a worse outcome. At minimum, you could ignore the extra information, and achieve the same results as using up and down buttons.
Seems like the real reason it performed worse in this simulation is that when they implemented destination dispatch, they assigned an elevator at time of request, and had no system for reviewing and updated that assignment.
> Seems like the real reason it performed worse in this simulation is that when they implemented destination dispatch, they assigned an elevator at time of request, and had no system for reviewing and updated that assignment.
I don't think it's possible to have destination dispatch AND update assignment together, in the real world.
- If the user clicks floor 26 and you tell them to wait at elevator G, you can't really tell them to move to F if it's taking too long.
- But if you don't tell them an elevator to wait at, then you'd need them to run around what is possibly like 5-8 elevators to find which one is going to their floor? That's obviously not realistic.
So then you're going to just have them get in the first one that opens? But then that's just the same as an up/down button.
That explanation is entirely inconsistent with sambellll's statement that when the user clicks a floor, the display tells them what elevator to take, and that elevator is then locked into going to that floor.
Also, I don't think that destination dispatch would work if the elevator didn't commit to going to the users's floor at the point the user got onboard. It may also stop at additional floors that weren't committed to when the user entered, and it may drop floors it was thinking of going to before it picked up the user (if the user onboard isn't going to those floors), but once the user gets onboard, that floor is a hard commitment.
It is also possible that the enlightenment only happened because of protestant reformation, which only happened because of the power and abuses of the Catholic Church. So in a way, we have the Catholic Church to thank for modern society.
The reformation was highly religious of course, but it was also about reading original sources, devolving power from a central authority, and allowing individuals to discover the truth.
Sometimes I think that the catholic church is like Leto II in Dune - ruling people so that they will rebel in a way that there can never again be a central power structure.
I just ask it for what I’m looking for (doing very simple “spare part” level at home 3d printing, nothing fancy or elaborate) and it gives me a starting point. Then I sometimes just edit the scad code by hand, and some times I ask the AI to revise, sometimes a mix (many iterations).
For very simple geometries it works great, but it very quickly becomes apparent that there’s a bit of a disconnect between “LLM views image” and “LLM emits scad that looks like that image” when it comes to anything non-trivial.
Still gives me a starting point I can mess with, which is great since I have zero CAD training or experience.
Tbh that sounds harder than just learning CAD, which is really not that difficult if you use a proper parametric editor - I would recommend SOLIDWORKS first. It's got the easiest UX so is ideal for learning. They actually have a vaguely reasonably priced subscription now, but IMO it's still way too much for occasional hobby use so I'd recommend just pirating it (which is easy).
Once you have learnt a bit then the only FOSS options that are worth a damn are a) SolveSpace which is quite good and light, has a slightly quirky UI (but not in a bad way) but unfortunately has some critical missing features at the moment - notably bevels/chamfers. Although I did see someone made a sloppy PR to add them so we'll see where that goes.
Or b) FreeCAD which is actually good now and fairly close to SOLIDWORKS (at least for the basic stuff you're likely to use) and has a reasonably good UX. Some rough edges still but overall it's very usable. Good enough that I reach for it instead of pirating SOLIDWORKS these days.
The basic workflow is pretty simple:
1. Make some planes, referenced from existing geometry.
2. Make sketches on the planes.
3. Extrude/revolve them (either adding or subtracting from the existing geometry).
4. Repeat until you have the right shape.
5. Add a load of chamfers to make it pretty.
So, steps 1-5 can be done by clicking (tools you recommend), or writing lines of script (OpenSCAD). Once you grok those steps by just doing it yourself, you quickly get to a point where an LLM is quicker at editing the text file that represents the steps to generate the model. Things like "Make the extruded face I labelled blahblah do xyz", and it's quite good. Even better: "Parameterize curve abc and generate this spread" or something. You get it.
For LLM-assisted bespoke model generation it's still fine if you specify a process to follow, and can "speak the language" (knowing 1-5).
This is no different than purevibe vs LLM-assistance, IMHO. What TFA refers to is a more end-to-end, no iterative process, with no single touchpoint script like OpenSCAD offers, so it's very much _not_ a collaboration and requires no knowledge of how CAD models are made.
But this thread is moreso about iterating on an OpenSCAD specification using LLMs.
From my experience people who heavily rely on LLMs are allergic to learning anything new (with the exception of learning new and improved ways to generate slop). They just 'want to get stuff done', even if it means staying in a local maximum forever.
Not OP but I just ask Claude Code to make me an openscad file. If I need changes I ask for them in plain english. If you are specific, it's not the quickest loop but it works. I usually ask it to parameterize the model enough so that I can quickly print small prototypes in my 3d printer. Once I am happy with the mini version I print the full-size model.
Unlike conventional cars that require expensive safety systems such as air bags and seat belts, the mover3000's top speed of one mile per hour makes it intrinsically safe.
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Authorization for Use of Military Force’’.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL.—That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
I love the visual of humans desperately trying to preserve what they consider the natural world, and when they turn their backs evolution does it's thing.
It's very true that we only approximate truth with our maps. All abstractions are leaky, but that fact does not imply "catastrophic relativism" (as the grandfather post phrased it). It just implies that we need better, more accurate, maps.
Or, to return the topic of the post, it just means that our translations need to try a little harder, not that human quality translation is impossible to do via machine.
I think it's very important to remember that objective truth exists, because some large percentage of society has a political interest in denying that, and we're slipping ever closer into Sagan's "Demon Haunted World."
It turns out these fancy kiosks are in general worse for wait times compared to the traditional good ol' up and down buttons. There are certainly edge cases when the kiosks can win out (extremely tall buildings with 8+ cars per elevator bank) but for the majority of cases, simple up down buttons reign supreme.
This counterintuitive result is all thanks to the rebalancing step where every 5 seconds, the system re-optimizes each elevator's path. The kiosk enforces rigidity, you must get in the assigned elevator.
There should be no way that only having more information results in a worse outcome. At minimum, you could ignore the extra information, and achieve the same results as using up and down buttons.
Seems like the real reason it performed worse in this simulation is that when they implemented destination dispatch, they assigned an elevator at time of request, and had no system for reviewing and updated that assignment.