Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

t6jesse t1_j8mpkpx wrote

Reply to comment by dCLCp in NASA's "evolved structures" radically reduce weight – and waiting by Maxcactus

I think the AI is using the same software tools as humans are to analyze each iteration's strength - it's not thinking in some alien language. Also it's reacting to prompts and parameters set by humans. The only difference is it has the patience to brute-force every possible solution, whereas human engineers usually think in terms of what they've seen before.

I think all the issues you've laid out are issues that any large and sophisticated project would face, not specifically an Ai-powered one.

10

dCLCp t1_j8mqus4 wrote

That's fine but the main thrust of my point (hence why I lead with it) is there ARE downsides. And they didn't discuss those which makes this article less good because I'd already heard about them doing this stuff. I knew it was being used, and while this article did elaborate more than some random scimag article I read 7 years ago that was talking in theoretical terms, it should have also elaborated more on the downsides because this type of writing is almost sensationalistic when that is the exact opposite that I want from science journalism. I want to know the whole truth.

0

____Theo____ t1_j8nzeli wrote

I think your confusing this tool as some panacea where engineering input is no longer needed. It’s not automating the whole design process. It’s just a tool for one part of it, all the additional concerns you have mentioned are part of the engineering process. If you have AI start dictating the requirements, inputs, and validation then yea that gets scary. This is just a design tool

6

dCLCp t1_j8obwc2 wrote

I think you are missing my point entirely which is merely that we deserve to know more.

That's it. Everything else is just me speculating as an example and your own assumptions about ME based on those speculations while ignoring the only thing I cared about.

0

____Theo____ t1_j8opcx2 wrote

I hear what your saying. I should mention that I am a mechanical engineer. And to directly address your original post. Your concerned that it’s not clear that the part is designed to appropriately handle the loads or that conditions may change and it may no longer work properly.

The part design can only be robust enough to handle the conditions it is designed for. Getting the right requirements is the first step of the design process. If the requirements change the part would need to be totally re evaluated. This would be true wether it’s designed traditionally or not.

Both methods evaluate the part in the same way. The same simulation of the part would be done (fea). I don’t see any point where the engineer would not be sure if the part can withstand load conditions given. There’s no hidden magic.

TL/DR Wether it’s an organic shape or traditional design. They are evaluated for suitability/ strength the same way. And in both cases the design is only as good as the requirements given. If requirements change, designs always need to be re-evaluated no matter the method the geometry was formed.

1