r/Simulated • u/djbebs • 17h ago
Blender A soft jelly squeezing through a tube narrower than itself
It’s a little physics sim I made, the jelly is calculated live so he squishes differently every time. Softer or smaller and he fits, firm and he jams at the rim.
If you want to push him through yourself: https://wobble-lab.com/experiments/plump-and-squishy/
135
u/try_an0ther 16h ago
Thanks Claude ☺️ (or you really really like to document your code with comments)
-88
u/streetberries 13h ago
If you think Claude is making this without any human input then I have a brain cell to sell you
62
u/CrossScarMC 12h ago
The human input: "Make a simulation of a jelly blob going through a tube".
-48
u/streetberries 12h ago
Wow man you are way behind the curve.
Guess i shouldn’t expect more from a bot with their post history hidden
25
u/fwompfwomp 12h ago
I mean, they're not that far off. a couple refinements after like "I want a slider for position, softness and size", "add a reset button to reinitialize his positioning", "provide me a few UI themes to choose from to implement", etc. without seeing the repo, I could see this not from one prompt, but you could do it with pretty much no technical knowledge and a couple iterations.
im a software dev at a company with heavy Codex usage btw.
-17
u/streetberries 11h ago
This is a much better take, and I don’t disagree with anything you said. In fact since you know these things I feel you probably think along the same lines.
If I tell AI to create an app, that takes me weeks of back and forth, does that not make me still the creator of the app? Should claude or whatever other tools I used be credited and compensated for those efforts? That’s what I don’t understand on Reddit, where are people drawing the line between “I made this” and “the tools I used made this”.
Humans are super important. Like the MOST important. And we should be doing what we’re best at. Not things that computers are better than us at. History shows technology doesn’t wait, but humans are incredibly skilled at adaptation
27
u/fwompfwomp 11h ago edited 8h ago
so here's a really long essay that I'm sure few people will read, but I'm procrastinating work and want to get all my thoughts down. ill preface this by saying there's a reason we feel strongly about this topic and conversations rarely boil past single lines. it requires a lot of thought and discussion and context to even talk about this, which is not fair to expect out of every yay or nay AI squabble.
if you're a manager and you tell your devs to create an app -- did the manager create the app? I mean, sort of? the devs did all the work under the manager's direction. and a lot of times, in spite of the manager's direction, by having to translate the non-technical requirements and push back when it just won't work. kind of like wrestling with an AI -- you're the manager. so you could say "we as a team made this app", right? ultimately, from an authorship standpoint, I think it's a bit disengenious to say "I made this" in the same way if Bill Gates walked up to your windows laptop and said "I made this".
I think we also sometimes conflate comparable scenarios because of the "tool" label. even if AI is just a bunch of complex word associations that you might think of as ultimately like a calculator is used as a tool, it functionally accomplishes a thinking process that can take abstract concepts and apply them in novel situations. this is unprecedented. so before we start just saying "AI is a tool, I made this just like a mechanic fixed my car and not the wrench", it's kind of taking the piss that assumes AI is on the same playing field as a wrench.
if we want a bit less hyperbolic of an example: it can be easy to think of AI as just another tool, since computers being able to perform calculations far faster than a human (which is all AI really is) and computers are a tool, then AI should be, right? well when we talk about Deep Blue beating the chess world champion in '97, do we say "Feng-hsiung Hsu" beat Kasparov? or do we say Deep Blue beat Kasparov? (spoiler: it's the latter). I used to work in neuro research -- AI is not new in a lot of ways. we were doing neural networking and machine learning long before OpenAI. and every time we never said I identified 98% of cancerous cells in a culture. we said the model did.
what you're getting upset about is a semantic and philosophical problem shaken together because of two truths: we already have tools to shortcut thinking (e.g., physical calculators, statisical programs, computers in general). so semantically, it's a tool in the way that it's literally a tool like any other technology. but none has taken unstructured inputs and functionally applies abstracts ideas, and solutions it to the end.
the second truth is why I keep saying functionally; an AI model does not understand what it's saying. there is an innate philosophical difference that we are butting heads across the world right now on this difference. I used to be heavily interested in computer-information models of brain "consciousness". this sort of person would say, hey, if we replicated every neuronal behavior in a computer simulation to recreate a person's personality, that replication IS essentially that person. but is it? we don't know what fundamentally forms our conscious personhood, at least not fully. the Chinese Room is a great way of thinking about this. so if it functionally does the thinking, but doesn't innately understand it like we do, where does it lie?
when you cross those two truths against each other, you have a completely novel situation. so calling it just a tool for the purposes of applying the same logic we previously applied to regarding authorship and their tools, is fundamentally not applicable. it's technically a tool if we want to argue semantics? but again, we never had to worry about the philosophical side with a wrench.
it can both be true that it takes effort to create an app through AI, as well as that you didn't necessarily fully create it. the major difference is that you don't have the AI piping up about how it deserves a founder credit lol.
/rant
/start second rant a bit less academic and more critical of your specific perception
and to your final point: im sort of sick of the attempt at humanizing ("humanity-washing"?) the proliferation of AI. all the tech company ads always prancing about the human spirit in useless fluffy words. AI is fundamentally anti-human. you say humans are super important -- then why are we prioritizing this technology knowing it's being used to develop more efficient ways to kill people? to surveil our streets constantly with realtime data? to build out tech that the creators have explicitly said will destroy our world?
you need to take a very sobering look at what this technology means to the "super important" humans on this earth. we certainly don't need to waste time manually sorting excel spreadsheets. killing and government surveillance aside, do you know what the industry has done to having "humans doing what humans do best" (and this is true for any industrial revolution/automation)? we never end up prioritizing humans with it. what history has shown beyond adaptation, is that we expect productivity to increase ten-fold, without any of the purported benefits or life quality improvements in our work lives.
I think you chose me as a bad example of someone who would agree with your sentiment -- software engineers are getting pummeled across the industry with insane requests. job market is harsh and work life balance has crashed for many. yeah, I don't spend as much time sitting around manually typing code. but for every hour saved, product side expects two hours of output. we just had a large release that looks like shit because they wanted to churn a year long project into 3 months. and when we got it out in 3 months, they all get to applaud themselves, go on LinkedIn and talk about "let's focus on humans doing what humans do best. super important humans!" when the codebase was so rushed it's basically vaporware that would've been laughed out the door a few years ago.
you can say that's a management problem and not an AI problem. and who knows, maybe a correction will happen. but I'll tell you what from history: the post-industrial upset correction is always skewed to those who profit the most.
14
u/Secure_Fusion_9500 9h ago
This is a great response, thanks for this.
I think it's frustrating that AI fanatics want to eat their cake and have it too, they simultaneously want to say AI is just a tool no different from a wrench but also that it's superintelligence with human capabilities of imagination and creativity. And they'll use whichever interpretation they want against anti-AI criticism.
6
u/fwompfwomp 8h ago
thank my hemorrhoid and porcelain workstation, because that's 90% of where my essay long comments come from. wish the world's problems were easier to sum up in two sentence sound bites, but here we are.
-2
u/streetberries 8h ago
I read your response because I value input from all sides, since this is a very important philosophical discussion. I don’t have the time now for a longer response but I will keep this in mind. I love philosophy, new ideas, and change, so to me this is a new world that needs benevolent people to shape it.
It does however seem like you’re contradicting yourself a bit. Hyperbole aside (bill gates example or wrench), those historical examples for “who made what” are not exactly applicable and you already know that. The Chinese room is a good counter example to the arguments being made that AI is replacing humans. I have never humanized AI like some marketing teams, in fact the opposite. AI has shown how humans have spent time in the wrong places historically. Maybe it’s too optimistic for the cynics here.
Lastly I’m surprised that you are struggling as a SWE because statistically in USA jobs in your industry have increased a lot, and salaries increased as well. Last year that would hold water but things Havnt panned out as badly as we were told, and I hope that trend continues.
Anyway I appreciate the write up and will read it again later in case I missed something
8
u/fwompfwomp 7h ago edited 6h ago
the Chinese Room thought experiment has nothing to do with replacing humans with AI? I think you're misinterpreting what I'm arguing by mentioning it.
the point of the Chinese Room mention was that this is not a resolved argument. it's because this topic of authorship has a philosophical axis that isn't really solveable that you cannot simply leave AI defined as a "tool" and use the same historical comparisons. the Chinese Room thought experiment has counterarguments, and what it suggests is not law, while at the same time has its own merits to how it applies here.
in other words, there is no real empirical answer to AI and authorship, ergo you cannot say the user of AI has
somesole authorship. that also means you cannot say AI solely made something and you did nothing. it's not about one of those options being right, it's that no one can fully prove either. this is basically a sort of null hypothesis testing.I'll be honest, this is why I don't think you are understanding why I'm pointing out the historical examples. they still apply not because there is an answer to these hypotheticals, it's to showcase that depending on what framework you tackle them you can get different answers. these are intentionally thoughtful questions: did Deep Blue beat Kasparov? or did the creator of Deep Blue? the point is that semantically most people would automatically say Deep Blue. but because of the less empirically solvable side of authorship (the philosophical axis i referred to) this isn't really a solveable question. personhood of AI is one thing, but this goes beyond that. that's just a complicating factor. you posit AI is a tool, therefore the authorship belongs to the user of AI. this is pretty easy to poke holes into because of... well all of the above. I'm not saying I have an answer, in fact I'm suggesting there's not really an answer, which in itself is enough to question authorship with vibe coded apps.
lastly, regarding the field: there was a massive wave of layoffs with some of the first frontier models. I'm guessing if you're looking at metrics based on job listings and salaries and seeing improvements, there are several drivers of this I can think of: one, companies are realizing they can't layoff all their engineers. AI is not good enough for production level software without enough human oversight with technical knowledge. Microsoft is a good example of this, after a recent hard pivot to hiring a bunch of junior devs, the entry level position that suffered the most.
there's also a very unfortunate trend of ghost job listings going up. SWEs lost a lot of leverage and companies are able to open listings and just leave them to collect applications until they actually need them. there's talk of even training on applicant data as a reason for having them, though I havent looked into that personally.
and as for salaries, it's pretty easy to point to the loss of junior devs to why median salaries rise. SWE at senior and higher obviously make more than juniors. when the population shifts up the experience tree, of course salaries will also go up. this also means the experience level requirements have also inflated -- leading to a much harsher job market when looking.
there's definitely a correction, but this is exactly my last points in my last comment -- the correction will always leave those hoping for it in a worse state than we began. it will always favor the companies who have the most to gain.
edit: also, have to point out again, the quality of life in this field has suffered drastically, which won't be reflected in just job listings or salary.
7
u/EnderScout_77 8h ago
bro big mad he can't dive into the users profile to find something to shame them with
15
u/wizard_mitch 8h ago
Is this a joke? 1 prompt and done
-12
u/streetberries 8h ago
So there was a human involved? My point is that AI is dumb, and needs someone to tell it what to do. Like you just did to prove my point.
Looks nice
2
u/not-a_lizard 2h ago
Well claude didn't post this reddit post so I don't understand what you're trying to get at
94
u/Redstones563 14h ago
“I made” is a strong word
26
u/djbebs 11h ago
Fair point. I rebuilt it from scratch by hand to learn how it actually works, here’s the process (sped up): https://www.reddit.com/r/blender/s/TkTnUHVf3J Still a beginner, so tips welcome!
20
-47
u/streetberries 13h ago edited 44m ago
Did it exist before OP? No? Then he made it using whatever tools he had at his disposal.
Edit: if AI “made” it, but AI was built on scraping information from humans, then it’s really the collective whole who owns it.
Ultimately the thing could not exist without the person
16
u/TheEjoty 13h ago
If I ask an artist to draw something that didn't exist before, what did i make? Instruction and prompt isn't making
-10
u/streetberries 13h ago
Did you read your comment? Whatever you commissioned wouldn’t have existed if you hadn’t used the tools available to get it done (hiring someone)
Ideas and creativity are now what separates the makers from machines.
It seems the people most upset are people who don’t have the creativity to make things, and instead have always relied on others to tell them what to do
18
u/turbotank183 13h ago
Commissioning something is not the same as making it. Wild that that even has to be said.
You deciding why people don't like things doesn't make it true. To say you made something when you didn't speaks for itself.
-1
u/streetberries 13h ago
where do you draw the line then? Did Canon make the photo? The photographer just clicked a button… Canon technology is who built the photo. Or Adobe made it? The photographer used camera raw to change the colors, but adobe’s engine did the processing.
Ultimately the person who dictates what the tools should do is the creative “maker”. It’s the IDEA from the person who clicks the button that creates something new.
Wild that has to even be said
4
u/HeIIfireSwarm 11h ago
There's a reason people are more readily able to recall who painted the Sistine Chapel and not who commissioned it. A reason more people remember who painted the Mona Lisa and not who the subject is. A reason you more often see digital art captioned as [credit to username] instead of [credit to software/poster]. It's the artist doing the work. Not the subject, manager, commissioner, so on. The credit goes to whoever is actually doing the work.
In the case of creating something with AI you are no longer the one wielding the tools, you become the pope telling Michaelangelo what you want where while the machine puts everything together to your specifications. You're the person reading off entries on the menu while the AI is the chefs in the kitchen.
0
u/streetberries 11h ago
This is a well thought out answer (rare), so thank you. I agree with most of what you said.
It’s funny because I was just researching the Sistine chapel as an example. I visited myself a few years ago. I learned that Michelangelo did NOT paint it entirely alone. The official website lists many artists. Even the work he did he had assistants doing the heavy lifting.
Without the pope - who everyone knows commissioned it - the work wouldn’t have been made. That doesn’t mean that the artist didn’t make jt. But it does mean that the person who commissioned it was instrumental in the making of the art. Because without them, it wouldn’t have been made. Without their finances, it wouldn’t have been made.
Like in life, most things are joint effort. It’s not “clause made this” or “I made this”, it’s “I made this with the help of Claude”. To keep it simple. We all learn from others , and use others knowledge to build upon. That’s how the human race advanced. We need to move forward, not quibble over mechanics
3
u/turbotank183 7h ago
These arguments are so tired by now.
Did the pope enable the painting of Sistine chapel? Yes. Did he help make it? No, and no one in academia would argue that. He didn't help to make it because he signed off on it.
When you go to a coffee shop and ask for a coffee, you order a coffee and ask them to put extra sugar in it. Do you think because you asked for it to be made, and had a small input that you therefore helped to make it?
Like anything it's a grey area. Did you have a full idea, put a lot of code into Claude and said hey can you fix bugs, polish this. Or did you have an idea and say Claude make this idea for me. Massive difference.
1
u/DeadCringeFrog 11h ago
the fact that its hard to define doesnt mean it has to be boiled to "if it didnt exist before then you made it". Did company that created calude create this simulations as well? what if the simulation turns out to be racist? whose fault is this? everyones?
17
u/hurricane_news 13h ago
"Did a product exist before a manager barking commands at their dev team did it? No? Therefore it is the manager that made it, not the developers under them"
What you sound like. Spitting out commands and reviewing output at an LLM makes one a glorified project manager at best
-11
u/streetberries 13h ago
But that’s how the world works… in art, or business. Someone has to lead the execution of an idea.
15
u/hurricane_news 12h ago
You may bring up an idea but it sure as hell doesn't mean you created the final (or intermediate) product lmao
Again, the manager doesn't create shit. They at best direct a team to do it. It's the team that created it
-1
u/streetberries 12h ago
But without the manager, the team wouldn’t have created it. Do you see what I mean? Both are important, but one only happens after the other
25
u/linkinbio2318 13h ago
This is what I like to call a shit take
-17
u/streetberries 12h ago
Instead of fighting the tide, try to create something new to sail away in it. If you care about human ingenuity then the only way forward is having ideas
6
u/linkinbio2318 12h ago
Ai type this? Because it made zero fucking sense my man, if I’m being 100% honest 😭
-6
u/streetberries 12h ago
This response tells me exactly how you think brother. Wish you the best
2
u/linkinbio2318 12h ago
I mean brother I like to think I’m doing okay for myself without the use of ai. I own my home, have plenty of friends and manage to talk to woman successfully. You can keep being performative on Reddit for people you will never meet. If it works for you then that’s all that matters.
-3
u/streetberries 12h ago
Thank you man, I’m also doing great, bought my house at 28 and thriving. Not sure what you mean by performative.
I checked your profile but you hide all your comments and posts. So if anyone between us is being performative on Reddit, it’s you. I’m just out here living.
In this post I’m trying to help people come to terms with how the world is changing, and how they can take advantage of that
9
64
20
27
u/lordaddament 14h ago
Alexa make this jello creature squeeze through a tube. Make it have a generic ui too
2
9
6
u/AdhesiveMadMan 11h ago
This place and r/dataisbeautiful really enjoy "making" things lately.
3
u/photoggled 7h ago
All the home automation subs are the same. I love how being a script kiddy is something to aim for now since the word guesser machine is the one building instead of random Russian hackers.
5
2
1
0
u/HighOnPhotography 6h ago
You did not make this. Claude made this for you. Stop taking credit for the work of AI.
-1
u/Intelligent-Cap-8886 5h ago
Rofl why?
1
u/HighOnPhotography 5h ago
Would you go into a restaurant, order food, get served food, and then claim you cooked a gourmet meal? No. Because if you did, you would be incredibly stupid.
0
u/Intelligent-Cap-8886 5h ago
No, I would give the credit to the food processor the chef used for blending the ingredients, right?
0
u/vladdeh_boiii 5h ago
It's like the whole AI art thing. People who type out the prompt aren't even remotely close to artists, they are clients at best, commissioning art from a plagiarism simulator.
1
u/HighOnPhotography 5h ago
Oh sorry, I didn't know your intelligence level before responding. There are resources out there for you, let me know if you need any help finding programs and support groups that are best suited for you :) DM me for assistance, I'm here for you <3
-1
u/Intelligent-Cap-8886 4h ago
You seem mad that your analogy was turned back toward you?
3
u/HighOnPhotography 4h ago
Not at all! Just a little worried about you, that's all. Maybe you could go into your kitchen and tell a knife to chop up some lettuce for you. Don't touch the knife, though. Just tell it what to do. Record what happens and how well the knife chops the lettuce for you!
Better yet, go into your kitchen and ask for soup! The tools are all there. Just yell out for soup! Record what happens and show me the incredible soup you made.
Don't worry, I can wait. Let me know if you need help finding the camera app on your phone.
1
u/Intelligent-Cap-8886 4h ago
I have a voice activated microwave.
1
u/HighOnPhotography 4h ago
Sorry buddy! I didn't ask about your microwave, but that's super cool. You must really love it if you brought it up unprompted! I'm so happy for you. Maybe you can tell me more about it sometime after you've sent me a video of your knife chopping lettuce for you :) you can DM me the video if you're afraid of continuing to embarrass yourself in a public forum.
1
u/Intelligent-Cap-8886 4h ago
Sigh... why would this be your tone? Genuinely... Why not just chill and discuss it?
→ More replies (0)
-1
368
u/king_noobie 17h ago
I made my jelly too hard while it was going through the cylinder.
It wont soften up, can anyone help me with my cylinder dilemma, preferably without harming/breaking the cylinder.