ahhh come on man, is a lesson in contradiction 101?
Now for the contest. The purpose of this test is not to imitate, compete against or test against the steps involved in the medieval processes. The end results need to be compared, not by designers, but by those whom it is intended for - consumers. This way we can avoid the prejudices of designers (including the search for pencil marks) and asses if it is capable of producing similar end results.
You want to reach an end result so the target user can compare and pick which one is best. Fair enough a good test.
In order to reach an end result to do that you need to under go a ‘process’ .
As each end result is a derivitive of their individual process ( the rather rudely termed “medieval” and the generative) you are also comparing indirectly each process as to which one was more effective. (This is how processes evolve)
The test would be good idea, but what brief? I cant see (for arguments sake) generative design at it’s current state of evolution solving an open brief of how to reduce cases of tinnitus among 16-35 year olds. I would assume it would have to be (based on the rather generic MP3 and spoons) a styling job. How about pitching a new concept phone for Nokia, taking their brand DNA for an emerging market …lets say India (as an example), with a time frame of a 1-2 weeks.
Also back to your point of generating 100 designs for consumers, which seems to be one of the strengths of generative design… what is the point? It is not possible, especially for a consumer, to evaluate so many. On average from my experience of user feedback sessions at our firm most people can hold their concentration for just over 25-30 minutes in an evaluative environment, thats after spending the first 5-10 minutes breaking the ice :p. stick 100 designs infront of them and they wouldn’t know where to begin.
I think the underlying response to this whole thread is the following. We have agreed the merits of generative design, as a tool. CG and Brook suggested some great examples with regarding to internal part structures, ribbing bosses etc… I am amazed the thread has gone any further. The issue with this “heated” discussion I think is your repetitve advocation of our “medieval” methods being able to be replaced by punching in a set of parameters and sitting back and watching 1000’s of designs generated.
With regards to Yo’s question still being unaswered you can find some answers by searching on Linkden as I did, it would be nice to hear from SK though, but seeing as it has been repeatedly ignored I would say it is safe to assume no. This would be a good case study for the feedback and context post :p.
I dont think anyone hear is worried about generative design… we only need to be worried when generative design develops into skynet.