this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2026
686 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

85168 readers
3952 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

This first bill allows the state of California to regulate and oversee all 3D prints in the name of public safety.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I bet they end up using a fucking llm

[–] theoretiker@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yes that's probably how you would do this. Get a bunch of data of gcode of 3d printed gun parts and not-gun parts, for different slicers and printers. Then train some transformer as a classifier. Based on how good object recognition is, i would say its possible that you would get reasonably good accuracy and precision. And because you are scanning for code the architecture will likely be similar to an llm.

[–] isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Then five minutes later, someone figures out how to make a 3d printable gun that bypasses the gun detector on the 3d printer. It's not like you're printing a whole gun; you're printing parts, most of which look nothing like a gun. How hard would it be to design an algorithm that takes a gun part cad file and then adds a bunch of extraneous pieces to it that can be easily removed? Just keep adding extra crap until the system no longer detects it as a gun part.

[–] theoretiker@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Yes that would probably work. There could be some essential features of weapon parts that an algorithm might still be able to learn, and a printer could also keep track of previously printed parts for the classification. I think its unlikely that there are essential features of gun parts that are specific to gun parts so there would probably be a lot of false positives.

Yeah I'm thinking of an automated version of greebling. Except you design the extraneous bits so that they're only attached to the intended print like print supports - something in a non-critical location, easily torn away.

[–] KelvarCherry@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

just rotate the piece at different angles on the plate, which would change the positions of vertexes and generate an unrecognizable set of printer head instructions. No extra pieces necessary; and even if there were, there's no need for them to be printed attached to the main part.

[–] theoretiker@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Isleepinahammocks idea would probably work. But rotation and translation would not. Thats something you can easily take care of in your training data, by reusing the same training data in multiple random positions and random angles.

[–] KelvarCherry@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 points 13 hours ago

are you familiar with 3d printing? The print head's instructions will be completely different if you rotate the model. Unrecognizably different.