I'm similar, honestly. I've spent countless hours trying to become a good drawer and a good 3D modeler, but I lack the ability to see something clearly in my mind's eye, and it feels like it's always held me back.

The thing is, I've actually worked as a 3D artist for a number of years. Some people even tell me I'm good. I suppose if that's true at all, it's because I've learned to use the computer to do the visualizing for me.

For some other artists, their process seems to be that they first picture a 'target' image in their mind, and then take steps towards that target until the target is reached. That seems impossible to me -- supernatural stuff. I almost don't believe they can really do it.

My process is closer to first finding some reference images, then taking a step in a random direction and asking whether I'm closer or further away from those references. I'm not necessarily trying to copy the references exactly, I'm just trying to match their level of quality. Then I take another random step, and check again. If you repeat this process enough times, you'll edge closer and closer to something that looks good. You'll also develop a vague sense of 'taste', around which random movements tend to produce more favourable results, and which random movements tend to produce more ugly results. It's a painful process, but it's doable.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the ability to visualize isn't a prerequisite for 3D modeling.

I can agree with this. If someone has some kind of disability, like aphantasia (I don't know if it really applies here, as you can look at a reference image) then perhaps the tool is useful. The thing is, none of the examples presented in this particular AI tool are stuff that require hard 3D-related skills e.g. knowing human anatomy.

I wish I could see you struggling to model a trash can and see if maybe you didn't have too high requirements for the quality of said trash can. After all it's just taking a cylinder, insetting the top face and extruding it down, and the top you can model in the exact same way. The rest is detail that the AI tool in question is terrible at. https://i.imgur.com/xeFrgpP.gif

I could probably write a book to answer this question :D Blender has gone "everything nodes" route, and in particular it created the Geometry Nodes system. I'm very good in geonodes and pretty much specialize in it, and yet I think the system is severly flawed: the nodes in compositing and shading work very well, but in geonodes they are too low-level, and you don't get the easy learning curve of usual node systems (learning geonodes is very hard), while you get all the annoyances of using a very shoddy programming language and having to manage node positioning and fighting with noodles...

...And here's where AI comes into play, If AI could be contained into steps: - Input node: describe where the starting data comes from and AI automatically loads a file from hard drive or Internet or generates a primitive - Select node: describe a pattern by which to select elements of the geometry - Modify Geometry node: perhaps should be split into multiple nodes as there's so many ways to modify the geometry. - Sample/connect data: create an attribute and describe a relation of it to something else to create an underlying algorithm populating this attribute. - Save node: do you want to output the data through the usual pipeline, or maybe export to a file, or save to a simulation cache?

This way AI could do low-level stuff that I think it excels at, because this low-level stuff is so repeatable AI can be well trained on it. While the high-level decision making would be in control of an artist.

These models could still be useful when rendered. But when animated or in a game probably less so. Maybe as a prototype to get funding and hire an artist.