We rendered and embedded one million CAD files

Amusingly, I tried. Your job is safe. ;-) I'm a scientist. I tried using a couple of free 3d modeling tools that are programmable in Python, using Claude within VS Code to design a part according to my prompts. It was a simple plate with some holes for electrical connectors, switches, etc. Of course it let me make some noobie design mistakes, such as making the hole exactly the same diameter as the thing that went into it, plus or minus of course. And I would have had to really scrutinize the Python code to notice that I got one of the diameters wrong altogether.

Just judging from this experience, the effort would rise exponentially with the complexity of the part, not to mention assemblies. The designers earn their keep. I get really bad eyestrain with any task that requires staring at the screen while doing fine mouse work, so I just can't use CAD. On the other hand, I can code all day because I'm not closely focused on the screen when I'm typing.

Several searches I tried produced terrible results with no objects matching the description on the first page:

  M8x30 SHCS
  Lathe chuck
  19" rack mount blank plate

The thumbnail descriptions are dominated by boilerplate, such as "The depicted object consists of a wall-mounted shelf unit featuring a rectangular back"

The long descriptions are full of irrelevant fluff and don't answer basic questions like what size it is. For example, on a screw:

> The model features a hexagonal socket head cap screw, characterized by its cylindrical shaft and a larger, flared hexagonal head. The head's interior is designed to accommodate a hex key, allowing for easy installation and removal. The shaft tapers slightly towards the tip, providing an elongated profile. The smooth surface indicates precision engineering, suitable for applications requiring a strong and secure fastening. The overall design emphasizes functionality while ensuring compatibility with various tools and mechanical setups.

A broad search "vise" returns a long list of identical, very eccentric, vises the likes of which I've never seen before.

I spend a lot of time in eplan, 3d cad programs, and cam programs (when working on machines, furniture, and cnc of furniture or machines respectively :P)

However, the vast majority of time what i'm searching grabcad or friends it's for specific part numbers or parts.

I cannot remember the last time i wanted to try to find some object by generic description. Even as a tool to find possible parts that might fit my task, i don't see how it would make sense, because the stuff that matters is mostly not visual.

IE let's say i'm trying to find ballscrew nuts that might be a replacement for one i can't get anymore.

I'd want to search for ballscrew nuts that have a specific dimension, which maybe it can do (doesn't look like it so far), but the parts that matter are things like "is it preloaded", etc, which wouldn't be part of the description it generates (because it's often not even visualized in the cad model).

This is for mechanical stuff that might be interchangeable. Lots of cad models are of electronics and such that are very much not.

Even when i'm doing 3d printing, most of the time i'd search for the part i'm looking for, not a generic description of what might look like - ie i'm searching for dividers for sidiocrate crates. Giving me thousands of possible things that might be a divider would be pretty useless.

To the degree i search for generic descriptions, people already provide them, and it's not obvious this is a meaningful friction point for them (IE that being able to generate the labels automatically is really valuable)

So while i think this is overall cool, i struggle to think of a truly practical use.

When I search for "chair" I get 48 results, about 3 of which are actually chair-like.

- Some are clearly miscategorized - ABC-00131096 is a coffee table but has a very detailed description of its chair attributes.

- Many others are weird nonsense geometry, like ABC-00991744, ABC-00807798, ABC-00349255 or ABC-00822766.

- Some have a partially accurate description (if you pretend it's a chair), like ABC-00685912 has a blocky geometric structure with a horizontal piece off a vertical piece, but then it starts talking about an armrest on one side that doesn't exist at all.

- ABC-00388826 is a silhouette of a cat, which the description misses completely, and I don't see how you would sit on this "unique chair design characterized by its fluid and sculptural form."

Overall the descriptions are pretty useless and ascribe a lot of chairness to things that are not chairs.

Is a dataset with this much junk in it good for something?

Searching for “alternator” produces 40 results, all of which are shock absorbers, and 38 of which are the same exact shock absorber. Meanwhile, searching for “shock absorber” produces 40 results, all of which are bolts and screws (but at least they ain't many copies of the same bolt/screw this time!).

Searching for “cup” produces another 40 results, all of which are flat rectangular panels. Searching for “flat rectangular panel” at least returns flat rectangular panels, though, so it's got that going for it.