Many AI chatbots or chat assists are by default programmed to be saccharine to the point of disingenuousness. Don’t adjust your values to categorically match what they are programmed to praise or condemn. They appear on the surface as people-pleasers but are actually intended to please their distributor’s investors. Additionally and most critically, don’t fall into the trap of thinking of the machines as people.

With the AI tangent aside, with human interactions I definitely do feel the disparity between coddling and general treatment in society. If you’ve ever seen people interact with young kids or people with disabilities, especially mental disabilities, people often express overvaluing of their actions and creations to boost their confidence. While it may be a great achievement for that individual’s standards and capabilities and they do deserve praise for that much, lauding a simple piece of macaroni art as being better than the Mona Lisa, for example, is probably not genuine and can in fact undermine the creator’s confidence if they are aware enough to sense that lack of genuineness. However, for some people maybe they’d rather have that piece of macaroni art over the Mona Lisa because it is made by someone they love and care about and they highly value tokens of that person. Sometimes it can feel as if there is a conspiracy against someone if they notice a mismatch between the level of praise they receive and their presence and level of success in society elsewhere, and I too have experienced that sensation.

Thank you!

The design process isn’t a simple story but I’d say about 4-6 months off and on? I had the original idea as a pencil sketch in May of last year but held off on a lot of the digital design work until the Deadpool & Wolverine movie released in late July; I ended up changing the type of handgun to better fit this film. I worked on the digital files off and on until late October when I hit financial hardship and held off on ordering parts until early December. After parts arrived in mid-February, I ran into a few issues during assembly that were all cleaned up by early March. Financial hardship returned and it’s tedious to make finalized instructions so I’m only now getting these posted.

The build probably takes several hours. The frame in particular seems uniform but requires close attention while building. Since I had to make changes to both the design and assembly process while building (including figuring out how to avoid it falling over and shattering repeatedly!), my build experience isn’t typical. It also helps if you sort your pieces first.

This doesn’t seem all that innovative to me.

It seems like the process for generation is:

1. Parse the input command and generate it as a 3D object (not yet in Lego form). There is already software that can do this.
2. Translate the 3D object into Lego form using strictly basic bricks. This technology has been around for a while. This video doesn’t show this process directly but it is used in jobs such as these.
3. Conduct a stability check. This is something that Lego specific software such as Stud.io already does.

I suppose it is the first case in which I’ve seen all of these steps come together?

There are also a couple of flaws that I see right away:

• The publication emphasizes how either a human or a robot arm can build the program’s output. However, they overlook the need for subassemblies in some assemblies. The render of the “high-backed chair” example cannot be built from the bottom up as shown in the article because there would be pieces floating in midair until another layer is added; you’d have to either build subassemblies or invert portions of the build, both of which the robot arms seem incapable of doing.
• You don’t seem able to set the scale of the build? You might want a build that is specifically 1:20 scale or 10 bricks long or 5 inches tall, for example.
• [EDIT: Because Lego bricks are not dimensioned as cubic units, the orientation of the bricks relative to the assembled model may impact how well the model “reads” as what it’s supposed to be. As in, having the topside of the individual bricks oriented 90° from the topside of the assembly (i.e., SNOT) may produce better looking results than if they were aligned. The program doesn’t seem to account for this.]
• The application of painted decoration forces that level of detail to remain digital, or for whomever is artistically disinclined enough to have a machine make a rudimentary Lego build for them to somehow be artistically inclined enough to paint that level of detail.
• Omitting the painted decorations, the program doesn’t seem to consider what parts actually exist in which colors; this is also something that Stud.io can do. Similarly, it would be helpful to curate the parts used based on their cost to acquire.
• The use of only basic bricks is very limiting. This isn’t a major critique since those types of builds do have their uses.

Lastly, it seems like this is just another case of using ”AI” to supplant where humans can find fun and expression in this world, instead of reducing labor. I say this since the program seems targeted toward small scale commercial use, in contrast to the large industrial usage in the video I linked to above.

If there is something about this program that I missed or misunderstood, please clarify for me.

[EDIT: I found a paper with more information. I’ll have to read through it later.]

Yeah, with the asterisk in the title and the discussion about it, I would think that this was the marketing plan from the start. The movie’s performance may have affected when exactly they decided to pull the trigger on the rebrand though.

I’ve only been a buyer, but I think sellers just keep their products posted for sale until they sell (or the seller decides to do something else with them). I’ve also seen sellers put certain things on discount relative to their previous price point.

You might not sell things right away, but you might appeal to a certain buyer’s criteria and preferences when they decide to look for the particular products.

BrickLink is most people’s go-to for online buying/selling for Lego; this website will also help you to identify and price your sets. If you don’t want to ship them, there may be a brick and mortar store similar to Bricks & Minifigs in your area, or there are secondhand stores specializing in Lego in Denmark if you can travel there. Alternatively, you could try selling them locally through Facebook Marketplace, Craigslist, and the like.

The big leaf over the top of where the forehead would be was what really sold the semblance to me!

The pieces along the corner of the dark red and white building don’t look like Lego to me. If they were part 4070, there should be a seam visible on the topmost piece where the part is recessed. I’d like to find out how the designer made it if it is legit, but the behind the scenes pics on their Instagram are not accessible without an account. Their Flickr is also inactive and I’m not seeing any results via image search.

Edit: came across this offbrand piece today that very well could be what the designer used

My pipe dream hope is a recast with John Boyega. He doesn’t look jarringly different from Majors and he’s got the acting chops for the range of personalities that Kang has shown so far. Incidentally, it also would make him and his Star Wars costar Oscar Isaac Marvel multiverse buddies. The main problem would be if he has a chip on his shoulder with Disney for how his role was treated in Star Wars. It would be a waste to drop the character and all of the setup and have it affect the flow and potential of the film series.