Pedro Vezza

@pedro.vza.net

Tech, urbanism, politics, metal machining geek on my spare time. He/they.

Disagree. Being an expert definitely helps on speed but you can get very far with critical thinking skills to read the output and ask the expert right in front of you “Why did you do this?” “Explain again” “What if…” “What other experts have to say about this?”

Daniel Loxton 🇨🇦@danielloxton.bsky.social · last wk.

“One rule of thumb for chatbots is that they can only provide useful information to experts who have the discernment to ignore the defective output that LLMs always emit. That means that the dream of chatbots as replacements for teachers is a nightmare.”

Has anyone written A Beginner's Guide to Philosophy for AI Practitioners? I would really love to have a single document to reference for terms like qualia, moral patienthood, etc

Speaking of GD&T, if you give GPT 5.6 Sol a CAD model and ask to generate an engineering drawing, then perform adversarial review where a separate instance inspects it as a machinist, the back and forth will overengineer the heck out of it. Some other drawings are quite nice though.

Engineering drawing MHA-004 Rev A, "arbor-pedestal," from a hobby-machinist project to build Albert Michelson's harmonic analyzer. Scale 2:1, millimeters, ASTM A48 Class 30 gray cast iron, SSPC-SP3 prep with two coats black japan varnish, 25–50 µm DFT. Front view: a tombstone-shaped upright with straight flanks flaring to a 24.00 x 5.00 foot, 54.00 up to the bore centre, topped by a Ø20.00 crown carrying a Ø9.525 +0.055/+0.025 bore thru, position Ø0.10 to A and B, Ra 1.6. Top view shows a Ø3.25 hole thru the strap, position Ø0.20 to A, B, D. Profile 0.10 controls the crown, both flanks, foot top and right side, plus strap faces at basic 6.00 and 16.00. Datum A is the foot seat, B the left foot side, D the end face. Isometric at right shows the pedestal with bore and foot hole in phantom lines. Notes: machine from continuous-cast stock, keep flank-to-crown junctions sharp, no tangency.Engineering drawing MHA-058 Rev A, "pinion-handle," from a hobby-machinist project to build Albert Michelson's harmonic analyzer. Scale 2:1, millimeters, AISI 1018 cold-finished steel. Front and side views show a small T-handle: a Ø23.00 disc grip on a Ø10.50 hub, 85.00 overall length, 14.00 cylinder length, with a Ø8.00 bore reamed to 8.010–8.025 and 10.00 deep, Ra 1.6. An isometric at top right shows the finished part — a mushroom-shaped body with a rod pressed through it. A 2:1 detail at bottom right covers the cross rod: Ø6.02 nominal, rod 6.015–6.020, body hole reamed 6.000–6.010 thru, at basic 19.00 with position Ø0.05 to A and B. Datum A is the final reamed bore axis, B the flat hub end. Notes call for turning grip, wall and hub in one setup, a spherical crown SR34.06 on the opposite grip face, and rod placement 42.00 from A.Engineering drawing MHA-089 Rev A, "rocker-arm-support," from a hobby-machinist project to build Albert Michelson's harmonic analyzer. Scale 1:2, millimeters, gray cast iron in green enamel with mounting face and threads masked. Front view: a 177.80 square frame around a 165.10 rounded-square window, 127.00 inner opening, R12.7 corners, 1.27 x 45° chamfer all round. Side view: a wedge profile 177.80 tall tapering from a 63.50 base to 16.93 at the top, flatness 0.10 on the base (datum A). Bottom view shows the mounting foot with four holes tagged A1–A4, position Ø0.40 to A, B, C. A table gives their basic locations — X 27.31 and 147.95, Y 13.02 and 47.94 — all Ø12.30 thru, tapped 9/16-12 UNC-2B thru. Isometric at top right: the part stands like a picture frame on a flanged base. Notes: as-cast surfaces ±0.8, window and cavity centred, central web 6.35 thick.

I'm learning geometric dimensioning and tolerancing, aka GD&T. Seems like a very useful tool that engineers and machinists would like to use to avoid confusion. Machinists disagree:

Excerpt from Machine Shop Trade Secrets by James A. Harvey. There are some benefits of GDT, some of which have been thoughtfully adopted and put into use.
One aspect I especially like about GDT is the way that any feature can be labeled and then controlled in a variety of ways with respect to some other feature on the drawing. That aspect of the system is both useful and easy to understand.
The problem with the system in my opinion is that it can sometimes be difficult to decipher, especially when the draftsperson didn’t make the right callout in the first place. This business of varying tolerances based on material condition (MMC or LMC) can get complicated quickly, especially on things like bolt patterns and related features.
To be effective, machinists have to make chips. They can’t afford to spend time trying to decipher complex and erroneous GDT callouts.
Proponents argue that GDT provides more room for error than coordinate tolerancing. Therefore, it has the potential to save parts that would have been otherwise destined for the scrap heap. That is a valid argument. In practical terms, though, I think it’s hard to beat the simplicity of standard coordinate tolerancing.
Systems, regardless of what they are, get adopted — not shoved — down people’s throats. People eventually end up adopting systems, parts of systems, or practices that are easy to use and produce results.
Fortunately, some of the more user friendly and useful features of GDT have been generally adopted and put into use.

 
Years ago I took a course in GDT. At the end of the course, the class was asked to take a proficiency test on the subject. About half the people in that class failed the test and that was when the subject matter was fresh in their minds. I can only imagine what percentage of people would have passed that test a year later.Excerpt from Metalworking Sink or Swim by Tom Lipton: As a subject, geometric tolerancing, otherwise
known as ANSI Y14.5, is a whole can of worms on
its own. Entire books and endless dead dog beating
discussions have been devoted to the subject of
ANSI Y14.5 tolerancing. I agree with the overall
idea and philosophy, but the execution has been less
than perfect. Hundreds of drawings cross my desk
every year and I see every misuse of this system in
the book. Interpretation and confusion caused by a
system that was designed to help eliminate these
same issues has wasted countless millions of man
hours. It literally has turned into the Swiss army
knife of tolerancing systems. Use it carefully and
with deliberate thought and purpose. It’s kind of
like a loaded gun in a crowded elevator; you really
want to be careful where you point that thing.

The more interesting question is: how does its index compare with Google's? With the wave of anti-AI blocks I noticed that it is getting handicapped as several domains outright blocked it instead of differentiating OAI-SearchBot vs OAI-AdsBot vs GPTBot vs ChatGPT-User. I am paying for Firecrawl now.

Laura K. Nelson@lauraknelson.bsky.social · 3w ago

I'm once again begging everyone to update their priors. "ChatGPT is not a search engine." Yes, yes it is. It actively searches the web based on your prompt, and returns active links relevant to your search/prompt. It's a search engine. It is. (Obvs don't use it that way if that's not your thing)