Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Making Physical Objects with Generative AI and Robotic Assembly: Considering Fabrication Constraints, Sustainability, Time, Functionality, and Accessibility

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Voxelizing AI-generated 3D meshes into modular blocks lets a robot turn spoken prompts into physical objects in minutes.

desk verdict Five-aspect framework is a useful lens, but the 'handles variability' claim lacks a denominator and is only an existence proof. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.19131 v3 pith:Y2HXRDG2 submitted 2025-04-27 cs.RO cs.HC

Alexander Htet Kyaw , Se Hwan Jeon , Miana Smith , Neil Gershenfeld This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.HC
keywords generativeAItext-to-3Ddiscreteroboticassemblyvoxelizationdigitalfabricationsustainabilityaccessibilitymodularcomponents
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to show that the gap between fast text-to-3D generative models and slow physical fabrication can be closed by choosing a fabrication method that matches the generator's speed and variability: discrete robotic assembly. The authors voxelize an AI-generated mesh into cuboidal components that a six-axis robot can grab, and they add three geometric checks—overhang detection, connectivity search, and arm reachability—so the assembled object actually forms. With 40 modular, magnetically connected parts they build seven distinct objects from spoken prompts, most in under five minutes, using GPT-4 to verify visual resemblance. The same component set is disassembled and reused, which the authors argue makes the process more sustainable than one-off 3D printing. The paper's wider contribution is a five-aspect framework—fabrication constraints, time, sustainability, functionality, accessibility—for judging whether a making process fits generative AI.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the discretization pipeline from mesh to assembly instructions. A voxelization algorithm slices the AI-generated mesh into cuboidal components sized to the modular part; then three checks filter the result: overhang detection removes or flags parts that would be unsupported, connectivity search ensures the remaining voxels form one connected object, and robotic-arm reachability analysis confirms the six-axis UR10 can physically place each component. The components themselves are lattice-based cuboidal blocks with magnets on every face, giving secure but reversible connections that let the same 40 parts be rebuilt into different objects.

What would settle it

Take a fixed set of modular components and run the pipeline on a benchmark of dozens of text-to-3D prompts spanning thin, tall, overhanging, branching, and enclosed geometries; record the fraction that assemble successfully. If common shapes (say, a mug with a closed handle or a spindly chair) fail despite passing the three checks, the claim that the checks handle generative variability is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that discretizing AI-generated meshes into component-level representations can absorb the variability of text-to-3D outputs and make them assemblable by a robot. Plain voxelization alone is not enough: the authors report that most attempts failed until they added overhang detection, connectivity analysis, and reachability assessment. With those checks, objects at an average volume of about 7500 cm³ were assembled in under five minutes, and seven distinct objects—shelf, table, chair, stool, letter T, a tall dog, and another shown in the figure—were built from a single set of 40 components. The result is presented less as a finished product than as a demonstration that prompt-to-physical can operate at AI speed and with reusable material; it also exposes where the approach falls short, since the chair and stool could not support sitting even though a shelf and table worked.

Load-bearing premise

The pipeline assumes that voxelizing an AI-generated mesh and then checking overhangs, connectivity, and arm reachability is sufficient to make a broad class of text-to-3D outputs assemblable, yet the evidence is a handful of objects with no reported failure rates.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A user could iterate with the machine: prompt, see an object in minutes, revise the prompt, and rebuild, a design loop that 3D printing's hours-long cycle discourages.
  • Physical inventory becomes software: one set of modular components realizes many digital designs, so exploring AI variations does not consume new material each time.
  • Any future voxel-based robotic assembly of generative meshes will need the three geometric checks (overhang, connectivity, reachability); they are what convert an unfabricable mesh into an assemblable plan.
  • The approach is limited by functionality and cost: some objects only resemble their prompt, and the $40,000–50,000 industrial arm keeps the system out of typical homes until lower-cost arms are validated.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The seven shown objects cannot establish how broad the 'variability' coverage really is; a natural next step would be to run the pipeline on a stratified benchmark of dozens of prompts and report success rate per geometry class.
  • The 40-parts-7-objects reuse could be turned into a formal design metric—number of assemblable designs per component set—and optimized by choosing component geometry and lattice resolution, which the paper does not do.
  • Because the voxelization step is resolution-limited, the same pipeline should scale to room-scale objects only if component size or lattice topology changes; the blocky approximation also implies functional fidelity will degrade for objects with thin or curved load-bearing regions.
  • GPT-4's role as the resemblance checker suggests an automated quality gate for human-AI co-design, but its reliability compared to human judges is untested and would itself need calibration.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper argues for a broader perspective on fabricating 3D generative AI outputs, moving beyond 3D printing, and proposes five key aspects (fabrication constraints, time, sustainability, functionality, accessibility) for evaluating physical making processes. As a case study, it presents a prompt-to-production system that converts text (and, per the title, speech) into physical objects by generating a mesh with Meshy.AI, voxelizing it into modular components, applying overhang detection, connectivity search, and reachability analysis, and assembling the components with a UR10 robot. The reported results include seven distinct objects assembled from a fixed set of 40 reusable components in under five minutes each, GPT-4-based visual verification of prompt-object correspondence, functional testing of shelf/table versus chair/stool, and a cost analysis of the robotic arm. The paper concludes that discretizing AI-generated meshes into component-level representations can accommodate the variability of generative AI outputs and enable fast, sustainable physical making, while acknowledging lingering functionality and accessibility limitations.

Significance. The central contribution is a working proof-of-concept system connecting text-to-3D generation with discrete robotic assembly, an underexplored fabrication route. The five-aspect framework is a useful organizing lens for comparing fabrication methods in the generative-AI era, and the emphasis on reusability and sustainability is timely. The system is physically demonstrated, the reuse result (40 components producing 7 distinct objects) is concrete, and the authors explicitly disclose limitations such as the non-load-bearing chair/stool and the untested low-cost robotic arms. If the empirical claims are strengthened with quantitative success-rate data, the system would constitute a meaningful step toward on-demand, sustainable, and accessible physical making.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Results] The central claim that discretizing AI-generated meshes into component-level representations "can handle the variability in generative AI outputs" is supported only by the seven objects in Fig. 3; the paper never reports the total number of prompts attempted, how many meshes were rejected or manually modified, or the end-to-end success rate with the algorithmic checks. The sentence "most attempts failed without overhang detection, connectivity analysis, and robotic arm reachability assessment" is too vague to quantify the failure mode. Because the abstract and conclusion generalize this claim to the entire distribution of generative AI outputs, please provide a denominator (e.g., prompt set size, rejection rate, per-object assembly success) or explicitly reframe the contribution as an existence proof on curated examples.
  2. [Section 3, Functionality] The claim that "all assembled objects resemble the user prompt" rests solely on GPT-4's vision-language evaluation, with no human ground truth, no inter-rater agreement, and no quantitative similarity metric. This is the only evidence presented for shape fidelity. Please add a validation step, such as human raters on a Likert scale or an objective metric against the target mesh, and report per-object results; alternatively, explicitly label the GPT-4 assessment as anecdotal and soften the corresponding conclusions.
  3. [Section 3, Time] The timing result ("nearly all of them being assembled in under five minutes," average volume around 7500 cm3) is reported as a summary statistic with no variance, no per-object times, and no breakdown of pipeline stages (e.g., text-to-3D generation, voxelization, motion planning, physical assembly). Given the paper's emphasis on fast prompt-to-physical workflows as an enabler of iterative design, please report the actual measured times, ideally with a stage-by-stage breakdown, so that the "under five minutes" claim is verifiable.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption reads "Figure 1. Figure 1."; the duplicate label should be removed.
  2. [Section 1, second paragraph] The word "algin" is a typo and should be "align."
  3. [Section 2, Method] The system is described as converting "speech" into physical objects, but no speech recognition or speech-to-text component is described and the pipeline in Fig. 2 appears to start from a text prompt; please clarify how speech is handled or revise the wording.
  4. [Section 2, opening] "Each paragraph investigates 3D generative AI-based discrete robotic assembly through five key aspects" is awkward; consider rewording to something like "The following subsections examine the system through five key aspects."
  5. [Section 4, Conclusion] "user of augmented reality" should be "use of augmented reality," and "human-machine collaborating" should be "human-machine collaboration."
  6. [Section 3, Time] The unit "cm3" should be typeset as "cm³" or "cm^3" for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the paper reports direct experimental observations of a working pipeline, with no fitted input masquerading as prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical observations of a working pipeline: seven objects are assembled from text prompts, assembly times are measured from user request to completion, and reuse is counted from a fixed set of 40 components. None of these quantities is derived from an input that already contains the result. The voxelization, overhang detection, connectivity search, and reachability checks are algorithmic preprocessing steps, and the paper explicitly reports that 'most attempts failed without' these checks, which is a falsifiable observation rather than a tautology. The only self-citations are to prior work on discrete cellular structures and to the authors' own earlier 'Speech to Reality' system; these are background references for the hardware platform and do not supply the paper's empirical conclusions. The use of GPT-4 to judge visual resemblance is an external measurement method, not a restatement of the system's own outputs. The absence of a quantified end-to-end success rate is a correctness or generalizability concern, not circularity, because the paper does not claim to have fitted a parameter and then predicted the same parameter. Accordingly, there is no load-bearing step in which a prediction reduces by construction to its inputs, and the derivation chain is self-contained as reported.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is a demonstration, not a derivation, so the axiom ledger contains no fitted numbers. Its claims rest on representativeness of the chosen generative model, sufficiency of the three geometric checks, validity of GPT-4 as an evaluator, and the structural capability of magnetic lattice parts, all of which are plausible but not independently verified.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Text-to-3D models such as Meshy.AI output meshes that are geometrically faithful enough to be voxelized into assemblable components without user correction.
    Assumed in Section 2 (Fabrication Constraints); no quantitative fidelity analysis against ground truth is provided.
  • domain assumption Three algorithmic checks (overhang detection, connectivity search, robotic arm reachability) are sufficient to convert a voxelized mesh into an assembly plan.
    Section 2 states these checks are used; Section 3 reports failure without them, but no success-rate data or coverage of geometry classes is given.
  • domain assumption GPT-4's vision-language judgment is a valid proxy for shape fidelity and object usability.
    Section 3 uses GPT-4 to verify resemblance; the model is not validated against human raters or physical measurements.
  • domain assumption Magnetically coupled lattice components can form structures with enough structural integrity for light functional use.
    Section 2 (Functionality) relies on prior work [11]; the paper's own chair/stool results show this holds only for some geometries.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Making Physical Objects with Generative AI and Robotic Assembly: Considering Fabrication Constraints, Sustainability, Time, Functionality, and Accessibility." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y2HXRDG2

@misc{pith2026250419131,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Making Physical Objects with Generative AI and Robotic Assembly: Considering Fabrication Constraints, Sustainability, Time, Functionality, and Accessibility},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y2HXRDG2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.19131}
}
read the original abstract

3D generative AI enables rapid and accessible creation of 3D models from text or image inputs. However, translating these outputs into physical objects remains a challenge due to the constraints in the physical world. Recent studies have focused on improving the capabilities of 3D generative AI to produce fabricable outputs, with 3D printing as the main fabrication method. However, this workshop paper calls for a broader perspective by considering how fabrication methods align with the capabilities of 3D generative AI. As a case study, we present a novel system using discrete robotic assembly and 3D generative AI to make physical objects. Through this work, we identified five key aspects to consider in a physical making process based on the capabilities of 3D generative AI. 1) Fabrication Constraints: Current text-to-3D models can generate a wide range of 3D designs, requiring fabrication methods that can adapt to the variability of generative AI outputs. 2) Time: While generative AI can generate 3D models in seconds, fabricating physical objects can take hours or even days. Faster production could enable a closer iterative design loop between humans and AI in the making process. 3) Sustainability: Although text-to-3D models can generate thousands of models in the digital world, extending this capability to the real world would be resource-intensive, unsustainable and irresponsible. 4) Functionality: Unlike digital outputs from 3D generative AI models, the fabrication method plays a crucial role in the usability of physical objects. 5) Accessibility: While generative AI simplifies 3D model creation, the need for fabrication equipment can limit participation, making AI-assisted creation less inclusive. These five key aspects provide a framework for assessing how well a physical making process aligns with the capabilities of 3D generative AI and values in the world.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.19131 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1. Demonstration of 3D Generative AI to Robotic Assembly from a User Prompt. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A variety of objects created from user prompts using 3D generative AI and discrete robotic assembly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Reconfigurable Structural Robotic Assembly: Interlocking 3D Aggregations with Self-Aligning Compound Nested Lattice Modules

    cs.RO 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A compound nested lattice module made of cuboctahedral and octahedral parts lets robots assemble, disassemble, and reassemble load-bearing 3D structures.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [15]

    Alexander Htet Kyaw, Se Jeon, Miana Smith, and Neil Gershenfeld. 2024. Speech to Reality: On-Demand Production using Natural Language, 3D Generative AI, and Discrete Robotic Assembly . doi:10.48550/arXiv.2409.18390

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.18390 2024

  2. [1]

    Rafael Ballagas, Jishang Wei, Mithra Vankipuram, Zhiyuan Li, Keanu Spies, and Hiroshi Horii. 2019. Exploring Pervasive Making Using Generative Modeling and Speech Input. IEEE Pervasive Computing 18, 4 (Oct. 2019), 20–28. doi:10.1109/MPRV.2019.2929130 Conference Name: IEEE Pervasive Computing

    arXiv 2019

  3. [2]

    Xuelin Chen, Hao Zhang, Jinjie Lin, Ruizhen Hu, Lin Lu, Qixing Huang, Bedrich Benes, Daniel Cohen-Or, and Baoquan Chen. 2015. Dapper: decompose-and-pack for 3D printing. ACM Trans. Graph. 34, 6 (Nov. 2015), 213:1–213:12. doi:10.1145/2816795.2818087

    arXiv 2015

  4. [3]

    Valdemar Danry and Cenk Güzelis. 2023. Organs without Bodies. Generating physical objects with AI. https://organs.media.mit.edu/

    work page 2023

  5. [4]

    Mustafa Doga Dogan, Patrick Baudisch, Hrvoje Benko, Michael Nebeling, Huaishu Peng, Valkyrie Savage, and Stefanie Mueller. 2022. Fabricate It or Render It? Digital Fabrication vs. Virtual Reality for Creating Objects Instantly. In Extended Abstracts of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’22) . Association for Computing M...

    arXiv 2022

  6. [5]

    Edwards, Brandon Man, and Faez Ahmed

    Kristen M. Edwards, Brandon Man, and Faez Ahmed. 2024. Sketch2Prototype: rapid conceptual design exploration and prototyping with generative AI. Proceedings of the Design Society 4 (May 2024), 1989–1998. doi:10.1017/pds.2024.201

    doi:10.1017/pds.2024.201 2024

  7. [6]

    Faraz Faruqi, Ahmed Katary, Tarik Hasic, Amira Abdel-Rahman, Nayeemur Rahman, Leandra Tejedor, Mackenzie Leake, Megan Hofmann, and Stefanie Mueller. 2023. Style2Fab: Functionality-Aware Segmentation for Fabricating Personalized 3D Models with Generative AI. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST ’23...

    arXiv 2023

  8. [7]

    Faraz Faruqi, Yingtao Tian, Vrushank Phadnis, Varun Jampani, and Stefanie Mueller. 2024. Shaping Realities: Enhancing 3D Generative AI with Fabrication Constraints. In CHI 2024 Workshop on Generative AI and HCI . arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.10142 arXiv:2404.10142 [cs]

    arXiv 2024

Show all 33 references
  1. [8]

    Jun Gao, Tianchang Shen, Zian Wang, Wenzheng Chen, Kangxue Yin, Daiqing Li, Or Litany, Zan Gojcic, and Sanja Fidler. 2022. GET3D: A Generative Model of High Quality 3D Textured Shapes Learned from Images. InProceedings of the 36th International Conference on Neural Information...

    2022

  2. [9]

    Frederic Gmeiner, Humphrey Yang, Lining Yao, Kenneth Holstein, and Nikolas Martelaro. 2023. Exploring Challenges and Opportunities to Support Designers in Learning to Co-create with AI-based Manufacturing Design Tools. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors...

    2023

  3. [10]

    Garrido-Merchán

    Roberto Gozalo-Brizuela and Eduardo C. Garrido-Merchán. 2023. A survey of Generative AI Applications. http://arxiv.org/abs/2306.02781 arXiv:2306.02781 [cs]

    2023 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Benjamin Jenett, Amira Abdel-Rahman, Kenneth Cheung, and Neil Gershenfeld. 2019. Material–Robot System for Assembly of Discrete Cellular Structures. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 4, 4 (Oct. 2019), 4019–4026. doi:10.1109/LRA.2019.2930486 Conference Name: IEEE Robotics an...

    2019

  5. [12]

    Heewoo Jun and Alex Nichol. 2023. Shap-E: Generating Conditional 3D Implicit Functions. http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.02463 arXiv:2305.02463 [cs]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Hudson, and Jennifer Mankoff

    Jeeeun Kim, Anhong Guo, Tom Yeh, Scott E. Hudson, and Jennifer Mankoff. 2017. Understanding Uncertainty in Measurement and Accommodating its Impact in 3D Modeling and Printing. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS ’17) . Association for C...

    2017

  7. [14]

    Stacey Kuznetsov and Eric Paulos. 2010. Rise of the expert amateur: DIY projects, communities, and cultures. In Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries (NordiCHI ’10) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,...

    2010

  8. [16]

    Alexander Htet Kyaw, Lawson Spencer, and Leslie Lok. 2024. Human–machine collaboration using gesture recognition in mixed reality and robotic fabrication. Architectural Intelligence 3, 1 (March 2024), 11. doi:10.1007/s44223-024-00053-4

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    Alexander Htet Kyaw, Lawson Spencer, Sasa Zivkovic, and Leslie Lok. 2024. Gesture Recognition for Feedback Based Mixed Reality and Robotic Fabrication: A Case Study of the UnLog Tower. In Phygital Intelligence, Chao Yan, Hua Chai, Tongyue Sun, and Philip F. Yuan (Eds.). Spring...

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    Chenghao Li, Chaoning Zhang, Joseph Cho, Atish Waghwase, Lik-Hang Lee, Francois Rameau, Yang Yang, Sung-Ho Bae, and Choong Seon Hong

  11. [19]

    Norton, Edward Gu, Joshua Jacob, Yifei Li, Adriana Schulz, and Wojciech Matusik

    Liane Makatura, Michael Foshey, Bohan Wang, Felix HähnLein, Pingchuan Ma, Bolei Deng, Megan Tjandrasuwita, Andrew Spielberg, Crystal Elaine Owens, Peter Yichen Chen, Allan Zhao, Amy Zhu, Wil J. Norton, Edward Gu, Joshua Jacob, Yifei Li, Adriana Schulz, and Wojciech Matusik. 20...

    2023 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    Ryan McClelland. 2022. Generative design and digital manufacturing: using AI and robots to build lightweight instrument structures. In Current Developments in Lens Design and Optical Engineering XXIII , Vol. 12217. SPIE, 141–148. doi:10.1117/12.2646476

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    Meshy. 2025. Meshy - Free AI 3D Model Generator. https://www.meshy.ai/

    2025

  14. [22]

    OpenAI. 2025. OpenAI Platform. https://platform.openai.com

    2025

  15. [23]

    Barron, and Ben Mildenhall

    Ben Poole, Ajay Jain, Jonathan T. Barron, and Ben Mildenhall. 2022. DreamFusion: Text-to-3D using 2D Diffusion. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) . https://openreview.net/forum?id=FjNys5c7VyY

    2022

  16. [24]

    Prusa. [n. d.]. Original Prusa MK4S 3D Printer | Original Prusa 3D printers directly from Josef Prusa. https://www.prusa3d.com/product/original- prusa-mk4s-3d-printer-5/

  17. [25]

    QVIRO. 2025. UR10e Cobot Reviews, Price, Use-cases, Find your cobot on Qviro.com. https://qviro.com/product/universal-robots/ur10e

    2025

  18. [26]

    Elephant Robotics. 2025. Elephant Robotics myCobot 280 for Arduino 6 DOF Collaborative Robot (for Arduino Version). https://shop.elephantrobotics. com/products/mycobot-280-for-arduino-6-dof-collaborative-robot

    2025

  19. [27]

    Universal Robots. 2025. UR10e Medium-sized, versatile cobot. https://www.universal-robots.com/products/ur10-robot/

    2025

  20. [28]

    Valkyrie Savage, Sarah Homewood, and Irina Shklovski. 2023. Objectify: Better Living Through Anticipatory, Just-for-you 3D Printing!. In Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’23) . Association for Computing Machinery, New ...

    2023

  21. [29]

    Kevin Xie, Jonathan Lorraine, Tianshi Cao, Jun Gao, James Lucas, Antonio Torralba, Sanja Fidler, and Xiaohui Zeng. 2024. LATTE3D: Large-scale Amortized Text-To-Enhanced3D Synthesis. In Computer Vision – ECCV 2024: 18th European Conference, Milan, Italy, September 29–October 4,...

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    Jiale Xu, Weihao Cheng, Yiming Gao, Xintao Wang, Shenghua Gao, and Ying Shan. 2024. InstantMesh: Efficient 3D Mesh Generation from a Single Image with Sparse-view Large Reconstruction Models. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2404.07191 arXiv:2404.07191 [cs]

    2024 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    Nur Yildirim, James McCann, and John Zimmerman. 2020. Digital Fabrication Tools at Work: Probing Professionals’ Current Needs and Desired Futures. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’20) . Association for Computing Machinery, N...

    2020

  24. [32]

    Jiayi Zhou, Renzhong Li, Junxiu Tang, Tan Tang, Haotian Li, Weiwei Cui, and Yingcai Wu. 2024. Understanding Nonlinear Collaboration between Human and AI Agents: A Co-design Framework for Creative Design. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing S...

    2024

  25. [2024]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2305.06131 arXiv:2305.06131 [cs]

    Generative AI meets 3D: A Survey on Text-to-3D in AIGC Era. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2305.06131 arXiv:2305.06131 [cs]. GenAICHI: CHI 2025 Workshop on Generative AI and HCI 5 Making Physical Objects with Generative AI and Robotic Assembly: Considering Fabrication Constraints, Sustain...

    2025 doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.