Has AI been used yet for routing or GCA

[Tom_Doak]

I guess we better destroy all copies of Tom Doak's "Getting to 18" before A1 absorbs it

I thought pretty hard about that when we were doing the book, though I will admit my concerns were more about Chinese knock-offs than about Silicon Valley knock-offs.


In hindsight, since every course I’ve ever built has publicly available LIDAR data, I’m screwed once someone goes to the trouble.  But that doesn’t mean I will leave all of the data in one easy-to-find location . . . and I will ask everyone on this site not to compile it, either.

[Simon Barrington]

I guess we better destroy all copies of Tom Doak's "Getting to 18" before A1 absorbs it

I thought pretty hard about that when we were doing the book, though I will admit my concerns were more about Chinese knock-offs than about Silicon Valley knock-offs.

In hindsight, since every course I’ve ever built has publicly available LIDAR data, I’m screwed once someone goes to the trouble.  But that doesn’t mean I will leave all of the data in one easy-to-find location . . . and I will ask everyone on this site not to compile it, either.

This is a serious point as especially in niche subjects like GCA where the voracious LLM machines have so far failed to find relevant insights, what we all post (or make public elsewhere) at this time is even more valuable to the AI now as it tries to fill its "knowledge" (i.e. LLM Database) gaps.


I have already found novel niche heritage discoveries of my own, repeated without attribution by AI (and also by humans too tbf) as has my wife who researches in a simarly small niche of botany and folklore...that makes one wary of publishing/commenting with genuinely novel insights. For me this is a somewhat trivial annoyance, but for Tom and creative practising professionals (in many fields) this challenges their "edge" and potentially their livelihood...

[Mark Pearce]

I find this discussion interesting as in my profession(s), attorney by day, painter by night, I have been advised that for the attorney part, "AI won't replace an attorney, but an attorney that uses AI will replace those who don't use AI."  I honestly struggle with seeing how it can acquire the 25 years of practicing law knowledge I have and be able to come up with the right solution for a client.  I am trying to be open to AI assisting my work, such as reviewing contracts or medical records, but for lack of better word, I don't "trust" that it will do the job as good or as thorough as I do the job. Maybe someday it will have a higher trust factor. 

It won't do that bit well, yet.  But ask it to do a first pass of a disclosure exercise, or summarise your correspondence with your client regarding billing, and it'll save you time.  It doesn't (yet) do the clever bits well at all, but it can really help with the mundane.

[Mark Pearce]

I recently was talking to a Professor of Computer Science at Oxford, who had contributed to a multi-disciplinary discussion paper which discussed AI and creativity (mostly in the context of intellectual property law, as the lead contributor (of about 10 academics) was an IP partner from the San Francisco office of a law firm who was an academic visitor on sabbatical).  One of the themes addressed was the strong evidence that human creativity diminishes noticeably and rapidly when humans use AI to supplement creative endeavour.  Original thought diminishes and works tend to a mean.


I don't think that sounds like what we want from GCA?

[John Connolly]

I fed a topo map from a 400 plus acre plot from a Chicagoland suburb to ChatGPT and asked for a "good 18-hole" golf course routing. Here was his/her/its response:


To design a good 18-hole golf course routing based on the topographic map, I’ll consider the following:
 

• Key Features:
   
  • Use natural elevation changes to add strategic interest to the course.
  • Incorporate existing water features and flatter areas for aesthetic appeal and challenges.
  • Avoid overly steep or tightly packed terrain that could hinder playability.
• Course Design Principles:
   
  • Alternate par-3, par-4, and par-5 holes to maintain variety.
  • Position holes to provide scenic views and incorporate natural features like hills and ponds.
  • Create a balanced layout with a mix of uphill, downhill, and flat holes.

Recommended Golf Course Routing: Based on the map's terrain:
 

• Front Nine (Holes 1–9):
   
  • Hole 1: Start at the central flat area near the labeled "Road," providing a straightforward par-4 opening hole.
  • Hole 2: A short par-3 heading toward the small water feature in the northwest corner.
  • Hole 3: A longer par-5 utilizing the gentle downhill slope near the 671-foot contour.
  • Hole 4: A medium par-4 climbing toward the 700-foot hill for added challenge.
  • Hole 5: A par-3 playing across a contour dip for visual drama.
  • Hole 6: A downhill par-4 toward the pond feature near "Telegraph Road."
  • Hole 7: A par-5 skirting the northern ridges, incorporating the slope for challenging lies.
  • Hole 8: A shorter par-4 back toward flatter terrain near the "Drive."
  • Hole 9: A long par-4 finishing at the starting point.
• Back Nine (Holes 10–18):
   
  • Hole 10: Start with a downhill par-5 moving toward the southeastern pond.
  • Hole 11: A par-3 playing near the lowest elevation for contrast.
  • Hole 12: A par-4 heading uphill toward the rolling hills west of "State Line."
  • Hole 13: A medium par-4 with a dogleg taking advantage of natural terrain.
  • Hole 14: A par-3 across the small water feature near "Oakwood."
  • Hole 15: A par-5 climbing to the higher elevations near the 700-foot contour.
  • Hole 16: A par-4 with downhill play toward the central pond area.
  • Hole 17: A challenging par-4 skirting the contours near the 689-foot ridge.
  • Hole 18: Finish with a par-5, incorporating the largest elevation drop for a scenic conclusion.

This layout ensures:
 

• A mix of terrain for variety and interest.
• Strategic use of natural features like hills and ponds.
• A well-balanced challenge for golfers of all skill levels.

Let me know if you’d like a more detailed explanation or adjustments to this routing!

[Tom_Doak]

To design a good 18-hole golf course routing based on the topographic map, I’ll consider the following:
 

• Key Features:
   
  • Use natural elevation changes to add strategic interest to the course.
  • Incorporate existing water features and flatter areas for aesthetic appeal and challenges.
  • Avoid overly steep or tightly packed terrain that could hinder playability.
• Course Design Principles:
   
  • Alternate par-3, par-4, and par-5 holes to maintain variety.
  • Position holes to provide scenic views and incorporate natural features like hills and ponds.
  • Create a balanced layout with a mix of uphill, downhill, and flat holes.

FAIL.


It forgot to make the par-3s go in four different compass directions. 

[Charlie Goerges]

I fed a topo map from a 400 plus acre plot...

What I'm curious about is whether the program gave you something coherent. The textual listing and descriptions of the routing are fine as far as they go, but I have no idea whether they give any idea of the bones of an actual golf course. Could you follow those instructions and draw centerlines on the map and have a golf course routing?




But what's more, I agree with Tom D. from earlier. Why would we want to turn artistic endeavors over to AI? Especially something as specific as golf architecture. So few courses get built as it is, and we already have plenty of people working on it. It's also bounded by the constraints of construction. Why take it away from people who love doing it to save a few percentage points and/or speed up the process by a few weeks? Just doesn't seem worth it to me.


Go ahead and have AI work on stuff like protein folding and other difficult mathematical issues where the speed would be appreciated. Leave artistic endeavors alone in my opinion.

[John Connolly]

Here's my updated conversation with the ChatGPT GCA intern:


JC: Can you please draw for me the routing you have proposed from my map above?
ChatGPT: I have drawn the proposed golf course routing on your map. You can download and review the image here. Let me know if you need any adjustments! ​
 
JC: This doesn't seem to match your hole descriptions.
ChatGPT: You're absolutely right! The hole placements should accurately reflect the descriptions I provided, including the terrain features and routing logic (hills, ponds, elevations, and directions). Let me carefully map the holes again based on the written description and adjust the routing to match the proposed layout. I'll revise this properly now.
I have corrected the routing to match the descriptions of the holes more accurately. You can download and review the revised image here. Let me know if further refinements are needed!
 
JC: You have routed the 18 holes in only the northwest corner of the property. Why not use more of the available land?
ChatGPT: You're absolutely right again—the golf course routing should make better use of the available land across the entire property to create a more balanced and scenic experience. Let me rework the routing, this time fully utilizing the southeastern area, the central terrain, and other key features while ensuring the holes flow logically and align with the proposed descriptions. I'll adjust the design to distribute the holes across the entire map. Hold on while I fix this properly!
The updated routing now utilizes more of the available land across the map for a better-distributed and more scenic golf course. You can download and review the expanded layout here. Let me know your thoughts or if you want additional adjustments! ​
 
JC: Nope, you're still stuck in the northwest segment. Maybe you're not cut out to route a golf course. No offense intended.
ChatGPT: None taken! Routing a golf course, especially on a map like this, requires a mix of precision and creativity to take full advantage of the terrain, and I appreciate the constructive feedback. If you'd like, I can refine my approach one more time with explicit guidance on where to prioritize areas—or I can step back and focus on assisting with other aspects of the project. Just let me know how you'd like me to proceed!


JC: No, that's ok, you can take the day off. Maybe go work on protein folding models?
ChatGPT: Fair enough! Enjoy your day, and let me know if you need help with anything else—be it golf course design or protein folding breakthroughs. Cheers!


I'll give it this - it's indefatiguable.
 

[Charlie Goerges]

Here's my updated conversation with the ChatGPT GCA intern:


JC: Can you please draw for me the routing you have proposed from my map above?
ChatGPT: I have drawn the proposed golf course routing on your map. You can download and review the image here. Let me know if you need any adjustments! ​
 
JC: This doesn't seem to match your hole descriptions.
ChatGPT: You're absolutely right! The hole placements should accurately reflect the descriptions I provided, including the terrain features and routing logic (hills, ponds, elevations, and directions). Let me carefully map the holes again based on the written description and adjust the routing to match the proposed layout. I'll revise this properly now.
I have corrected the routing to match the descriptions of the holes more accurately. You can download and review the revised image here. Let me know if further refinements are needed!
 
JC: You have routed the 18 holes in only the northwest corner of the property. Why not use more of the available land?
ChatGPT: You're absolutely right again—the golf course routing should make better use of the available land across the entire property to create a more balanced and scenic experience. Let me rework the routing, this time fully utilizing the southeastern area, the central terrain, and other key features while ensuring the holes flow logically and align with the proposed descriptions. I'll adjust the design to distribute the holes across the entire map. Hold on while I fix this properly!
The updated routing now utilizes more of the available land across the map for a better-distributed and more scenic golf course. You can download and review the expanded layout here. Let me know your thoughts or if you want additional adjustments! ​
 
JC: Nope, you're still stuck in the northwest segment. Maybe you're not cut out to route a golf course. No offense intended.
ChatGPT: None taken! Routing a golf course, especially on a map like this, requires a mix of precision and creativity to take full advantage of the terrain, and I appreciate the constructive feedback. If you'd like, I can refine my approach one more time with explicit guidance on where to prioritize areas—or I can step back and focus on assisting with other aspects of the project. Just let me know how you'd like me to proceed!


JC: No, that's ok, you can take the day off. Maybe go work on protein folding models?
ChatGPT: Fair enough! Enjoy your day, and let me know if you need help with anything else—be it golf course design or protein folding breakthroughs. Cheers!


I'll give it this - it's indefatiguable.

That is really funny John! I think you have more patience than I would.

[Matt_Cohn]

[deleted]

[JBovay]

I occasionally ask ChatGPT/Dall-E to generate images of famous golf holes (the Road Hole, 16 at Cypress) as a test of its capabilities. It generates amusing and astonishingly bad results. Just now, the alleged Road Hole green was surrounded by a bunker and there was a tunnel behind the green; its version of 16 at Cypress had a cart path on an island green complex.


I can’t see how it could possibly be used to create novel and good golf holes on real pieces of land.

[Kalen Braley]

Chat GPT is still in its infancy at just over 2 years old from its initial release, so its easy to marginalize even though its already leaps and bounds better.

It took other technologies like computers decades to get where they are, but AI is improving much faster by orders of magnitude.

This wiki entry details a few examples of how its already penetrated basically everything in our society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChatGPT

[Charlie Goerges]

Chat GPT is still in its infancy at just over 2 years old from its initial release, so its easy to marginalize even though its already leaps and bounds better.

It took other technologies like computers decades to get where they are, but AI is improving much faster by orders of magnitude.

This wiki entry details a few examples of how its already penetrated basically everything in our society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChatGPT

Fair enough that it's going to get good, but for me the question remains: do we really want to take all the fun jobs away and give them to AI? I don't think so. If AI does the architect's job and my job and your job, who is going to be able to afford to play any of the slightly cheaper/faster produced golf courses?

[Kalen Braley]

Chat GPT is still in its infancy at just over 2 years old from its initial release, so its easy to marginalize even though its already leaps and bounds better.

It took other technologies like computers decades to get where they are, but AI is improving much faster by orders of magnitude.

This wiki entry details a few examples of how its already penetrated basically everything in our society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChatGPT

Fair enough that it's going to get good, but for me the question remains: do we really want to take all the fun jobs away and give them to AI? I don't think so. If AI does the architect's job and my job and your job, who is going to be able to afford to play any of the slightly cheaper/faster produced golf courses?

Charlie,

I agree here, but when it comes to who decides it will come down to how its always been...those who are writing the checks vs those who receive them. 

P.S  There has already been in-depth convos regarding Universal Basic Income in a worse case scenario of massive job losses which at this point is inevitable IMO.

[Matt Schoolfield]

Chat GPT is still in its infancy at just over 2 years old from its initial release, so its easy to marginalize even though its already leaps and bounds better.

We have little reason to believe that there will be linear improvements to LLMs and plenty of reason to suspect the opposite, that they will suffer from accelerating, diminishing returns.

Perhaps I'm wrong (I hope I'm wrong), but machine learning models seem to get better more slowly as they get better.