cmarschner

Not comparable - drivers and space in a city is inherently limited, while there is no limit on GPU manufacturers, datacenter probividers, or LLM companies

Since hundreds of people were involved the most likely explanation is incompetence

For me it‘s the opposite. I do have a good feeling what I want to achieve, but translating this into and testing program code has always been causing me outright physical pain (and in case of C++ I really hate it). I‘ve been programming since age 10. Almost 40 years. And it feels like liberation.

It brings the “what to build“ question front and center while “how to build it“ has become much, much easier and more productive

Completely failed for me running the code it changed in a docker container i keep running. Claude did it flawlessly. It absolutely rocks at code reviews but ir‘s terrible in comparison generating code

$$$$$

In this case it’s the model. There’s an insane amount of computation that should happen in milliseconds but given today’s hardware might run 10 times too slow. Mind you these models take in lots of sensor data and spit out trajectories in a tight feedback loop.

Your reasoning follows the exact playbook that is repeated by architecture professionals around the world. It is exactly these kind of statements that lead me to comment in the first place.

No, architecture is not high art. It is the most public of arts and hence needs to serve the people. And people know very well which environments they like and which ones they don‘t. Where they find emotional well-being. That is not a political question at all. The studies are consistent.

We also don‘t need a theory. Architecture is a bunch of patterns and insights into human nature that has been known for thousands of years.

Academia here is highly dysfunctional.

For one, you don‘t need academics to build houses.

It‘s an idea of the 20th century that you would.

Previously architecture schools were part of the art departments. A bit of engineering, maybe, but that‘s it.

Now that you have academics, they need to be innovative.

The old doesn‘t count. Architecture becomes like fashion. Students are scolded if they want to produce anything traditional.

This is true for 99% of architecture schools worldwide. Notre Dame is a noticeable exception, as are several summer schools in Europe (by INTbau for example).

There is zero reason for neglecting or denying traditional architecture. The Romans have already known how to live well. Without artificial air condition. Perfectly climate adapted. Natural materials.

Second, architecture schools are not about education, it‘s about becoming part of a cult. It‘s about telling a story, about winning competitions, and about convincing investors. Not so much pleasing the users of a building.

Not true, there are many places with traditional courtyard blocks and 3-5 stories that reach the population density of Manhattan

It‘s not under-explored at all. Millions of people work in architecture and city planning. Every city has several departments that deal with planning and construction.

It‘s just completely dysfunctional. Architecture professors have focused on “innovation” for 100 years and have achieved little. We still flock to the old, 19th century (or older) city centers and love it. We spend thousands to spend a week or two there on holidays.

Very few modern places exist where this is the case.

In survey after survey, 80% of the people prefer traditional over modern(ist) designs.

So the whole profession has failed, since about the introduction of the Bauhaus.

Well just that it’s none of these things, as expressed by countless people, online and offline. It was voted as world’s ugliest building more than once etc. etc…