I'm a mechanical engineer who has written similar tools for work and hobbies. Producing pretty pictures does not mean that the model is physically accurate. Unfortunately, such tools seem be evaluated much more on flashiness and not on more reliable and objective criteria like physical accuracy based on verification and validation test suites. I'm seeing that in the comments here. I don't think LLMs make what I do irrelevant, but I have thought that I'm going to have to improve how flashy my simulations look to compete better with non-experts who use LLMs.
I don't think LLMs make what I do irrelevant, but I have thought that I'm going to have to improve how flashy my simulations look to compete better with non-experts who use LLMs.
This scares me more than "LLMs replace humans". You're going to have to take away time from doing the actual work to replace it with doing bullshit work to impress an ever more detached "decision" layer.
I don't even think the posted page qualifies as a "simulation". It's at best an animation with a calculator/model side-by-side.
Comments
I'm a mechanical engineer who has written similar tools for work and hobbies. Producing pretty pictures does not mean that the model is physically accurate. Unfortunately, such tools seem be evaluated much more on flashiness and not on more reliable and objective criteria like physical accuracy based on verification and validation test suites. I'm seeing that in the comments here. I don't think LLMs make what I do irrelevant, but I have thought that I'm going to have to improve how flashy my simulations look to compete better with non-experts who use LLMs.
This scares me more than "LLMs replace humans". You're going to have to take away time from doing the actual work to replace it with doing bullshit work to impress an ever more detached "decision" layer.
I don't even think the posted page qualifies as a "simulation". It's at best an animation with a calculator/model side-by-side.