Could this thread finally be making a constructive turn?
Like many, I found the OP really started things off rough (and kept going!?) Can we now discuss and show GD on our terms? GD doesn’t have to be implemented the way he suggested (spit out iterations, recombine, refine). I mean, architects aren’t even using it that way, are they? Why should we?
Sure, someday our immense computing power will give us Matrix-like environments and virtual people evaluating products and interacting with each other etc. It will take (at the very least) that much context for meaningful self-guidance of such a system. Fun to imagine I guess.
Anyway, let’s come back. What are people doing? Architects are saving huge time and money getting GD help with things like all the connections in China’s Bird’s Nest. I get that. If I ever design a large piece of organic shaped furniture, I’d consider it. Looking at Grasshopper Photos - Grasshopper right now. Nice. GD seems to be the thing for visual biomimicry. It could be huge when CNC and rapid proto gets cheaper.
GD will co-evolve with the designers who use them. I found the man vs machine challenge idea hilarious. What was supposed to happen after that apocalyptic showdown? “…And the next day, all the designers in the world had lobotomies to face the reality they were no longer needed… Now software engineers proudly held the keys to the future in their hands… unaware that a similar fate would soon befall them.” Oops.
I doubt anyone here has a moral objection to GD if it’s on their own terms. Too bad we were all dragged into an adversarial discussion triggered by possibly the worst sales pitch on the planet. Despite being 5 years behind (whatever), I was looking forward to seeing some uploads from ID-ers. Wish I had some to share. I could symbol-spray something in Illustrator and have it laser-cut. Does that count?