> You only know if it was worthwhile in hindsight.

Yes that's because, so far, we haven't been able to see the future. Which is why we base predictions and assumptions on past performance and on lived experience. Sometimes we will be wrong.

You're also arguing in the abstract here while I am speaking about this specific topic of using LLMs to improve 3D modelling tooling.

Are you arguing that neither LLMs or 3D modelling tools are "worthwhile"?

Are you suggesting that improvements that make these tools more accessible, even incrementally, are a bad thing?

Or are you just challenging my right to make assumptions and speculate? I realize that we may not be even on the same page here.

You're also cherry-picking a limited number of examples where software isn't better, and I agree with all those (and never said that software universally gets better), but those examples are a tiny subset of what software does in today's world.

It's starting to feel like you just want to argue.

My opinion is that, broadly speaking, software advancements have improved the world, and will continue to improve the world, both in big and small ways. There will of course be exceptions.