Doesn't really matter I don't think as my point was that the two questions were effectively opposites.

Though I'd say no to 1 and yes to 2.

Anybody else see Tom Cruise when you hear this song? Was an excellent soundtrack.

This is a good reminder to not put two questions in a post - one where the right answer is 'No' and another where the right answer is 'Yes.'

Also a good reminder *for ME* to read the entire post.

I was so confused for a moment.

Edit: In hindsight it may not be obvious that I agree with u/Stock-Freedom but due to the duality of OPs questions I initially took a double take at this response. I thought he was responding to the question in the title, "Is it an issue to keep investing in VTSAX each year?" to which the answer 'Yep.' was confusing.

We're getting closer no matter what we do.

But let's be real, most of what is called AI today existed in some capacity 10 years ago but nobody called it AI yet because it isn't. Just because an algorithm can be run fast enough at a low enough cost to be useful now doesn't make it AI.

Well, were they convinced? lol.

I disagree. We know exactly why they work because they are using Finite Element Analysis to test them, just like we would with any other part.

In fact, the neat part about this process is that they are basically using FEA in reverse to create them. So we're using math that we know works from zillions of different validations on traditional parts - and feeding that into an algorithm that just connects the load point dots in the most efficient way possible given certain constraints.

So I would say it's more reliable than you give it credit for.

But the biggest downside, and the reason you won't probably ever see this style of design used more widely is that manufacturability is a huge pain and/or expensive. Outside of 3D printing technology, these things are very hard to actually construct.

The line between a procedural algorithm and AI is pretty blurry. The term AI is thrown around a LOT to describe things that would have never been described as AI 10 years ago despite being the exact same code.

I think the idea that most parts aren't already bespoke is a misconception. Everything structural on a rocket or space craft is bespoke. Only built for that craft. Maybe only built a handful of times. So that part is nothing new.

Validation for these designs would be no different than anything else. Finite Element Analisys (FEA) would be used first to evaluate the structure and any changes required to meet the specification would be made before prototyping.

However, what's neat about these procedurally generated parts is that it basically is FEA in reverse. Instead of doing design iteration from idea to part - you just tell it the specification and it designs a part that meets that out of the gate.

The only real downside is that you're much more limited on manufacturability. Either it can't be made using traditional methods and requires 3D printing. Or maybe it can be made on a CNC milling machine but it requires a 7+ axis machine center and takes 100x longer to make. Which for some parts might actually be fine, but for others the added cost would never make sense.

Really interesting topic I'd say.

I have no clue but it is thought provoking. Lots of discussion about how it isn't a physical phenomenon. But what I find interesting is that when interfacing with the electromagnetic wave the length of your antenna matters a great deal. When talking about wavelength, it certainly has some correlation with a measurable physical property.

Kind of interesting stuff.

In my head I'm saying Bean instead of Kidney. And I'm giggling every time.