What works is asking them to implement micro feature that you will specify well enough at first try, not to ask them writing the entire piece of software from top to bottom. The tech is clearly not there yet for the latter.

The main difference between Code and CAD is that code is language you're writing to the machine to execute already, so it's pretty natural to just use a more abstract/natural language to ask it instead of the formal one of code, whereas CAD is a visual, almost physical task, and it's more pleasant to do a task than describe it in depth with words.

There is a really big difference. It's obvious how programming languages can use tokens for an attention mechanism, which gives them excellent ability to have parallelized performance (versus RNNs, the prior way of relating tokens) with much broader ability to maintain coherence.

I don't know the parallel with brep. What are the tokens here? It's a fundamental architectural question.

But unlike four or five years ago for programming, when the attention mechanism was clear with transformers and the answer was, basically, just "scale it up", we don't even really know where to begin here. So assuming some magic is going to happen is optimistic.

It'd be exciting if we could figure it out. Maybe the answer is that we do away with brep and all tree based systems entirely (though I'm a little unclear how we maintain the mathematical precision of brep, especially with curves, which is necessary for machining -- your machinist is going to throw you out if you start giving them meshes, at least for precision work that has anything with a radius).