Something I always found important is inspiring the next generation. I have a very fortunate position, in that 3D is really my hobby (though it has helped me tremendously as an engineer, being able to do Solidworks and such with relative ease).
I always find the history of design very important. I still even now look at so many things from the great designers, particularly automotive, and I come away in the knowledge that someone really cared, for example, about the Ferraris of the past.
Moving to my more known subject, I absolutely love looking at the work of John Eaves, Andrew Probert, et al. I love the learning process and understanding how these peopleās minds work, as I consider it important.
I think much of this AI does look qualitatively good for a few seconds. But I also feel it is a soulless meta-analytical result, which merely aggregates everyone elseās designs. Modern AI render systems seem to work much better, but itās not for me.
Itās going to come down to personal taste, and I know I will get left behind. I just want to see images where it is self-evident that someone really cared about the outcome. I really want to see peopleās work, and I even want to feel envy. I love the back stories and the process, the thought that went into the design. I recently saw a digital book (sadly removed!) by David Blass for Star Trek: Picard, and I got the feeling I always do thatā¦ āI wish I could even get closeā.
AI never gives me any of that, because ultimately, I just am not convinced that theā¦ designerā¦ had any particular care whatsoever for the result. I donāt see why I would want to dedicate my mind to caring for a design that was basically aggregated by webscraped OpenAI data, and a bunch of RTX A6000s on a server.
Its too polished and has color. A true napkin sketch would be a leaking ball point pen on a used coffee shop napkin with the coffee stain. Crudely drawn .
Iām here onto both the graphical AND the non-graphical design aspect here (with the graphical aspect added as part of, or an add-on, to the intended functionality of design)
The essence of design is actually a big question out there which not many has thought through.
As I see it the first aspect of design is the Intent. Why? For what, how specific, how loosely should the end result meet the original intent (in the mind of the designer). This is an aspect that is shared between the āfunctionalā and āgraphicalā designer.
Relating this to AI, you prompt your INTENT. But, what you get back is heavily based on similarities of what others has already designed. At least in the graphical aspect. But what about the functionality, can AI discern the HIDDEN aspects of functionality and performance parameters, and reflect that in a mechanical design? Well, to some extent, but how far? (Example: The amphibious vehicle with typical boat-shape, propellers for flight and wheels for a ground vehicle). But other than that? What ground inclination can the vehicle master? How deep pot holes, at what speed, can it absorb while maintainingā¦ what parameters? And so on. The invisible performance parameters.
Now we are into more intricate aspects of design which is more and more distant from itās āvisual shape or formā, while weāre still talking intent. The designās intended performance parameters.
Which gets us to a different aspect of what a designer will be confronted with:
Compromises between āLooksā, Functionality, Manufacturability, final Cost etc. So far we have mentioned:
Intent
Looks (Graphical design)
Functionality
Manufacturability
Cost
Only one of these parameters are directly āvisibleā, although to some extent derivable from textual specifications, but - how far can an AI produce a realistic connection between specifications and such specifications? (apart from part solutions or guiding directions etc)
But back to Design. Look at the (short) list 1 to 5. Which part is āpure Designā (intent) and what is other kinds of expertise in engineering, production methods (where your intent doesnāt really matter, where only available methods and techniques are your constraints, and hereās where the long list ācompromisesā (limitations) will affect the overall design.
In my perception, the core concept of Design is the intent-part, and then subsequent steps in realizing a design is a ping-pong activity between staying true to the original intent (design) while in the ping-pong process try to adapt the shape, form, technique, mechanical solutions, material selections ā¦ (the list goes on and on) to achieve the original intent (design).
Design is intent. And intent is foreknowledge (of usefulness, desired performance, visual impression, payback as in profitability etc., etc.)
Foreknowledge (inherent in intent) is the āsecret wordā I most of all wanted bring up in relation to Design.
The second most important aspects are the numerous other activities and skills it takes to realize/implement and intended design (engineering, adaptation to available methods, materials aso, aso) which isnāt actually the ācore essence of designā although definitely causing a number of subsequent activities related to implementing any form of design, mechanical or graphical.
Sorry if Iām wearing you outā¦
But if I understood it right, āUn-f*cking designā is just that - fixing all the subsequent aspects of an original intent/design which requires so many additional fields of knowledge and experience than only the intent (grahical or not).
With āForeknowledgeā I explicitly mean āthat which you imagine in your mind before it exists in the material worldā.
The concept of foreknowledge applies to the arts, graphical, mechanical design, speech, or whatever.
I also realize that the skills required in graphical design entails so many aspects other than just stacking different shapes and forms and colors together. It has itās own ārulesā like proportions, and that a (graphical) design must also give some impression of being ābelievableā (as in, ācapable of indicated functionā, reasonable structural integrity, or even to some extent whether it would be possible to manufacture aso).
