I disagree.

A compromise: How about near-real time, would that pass under your BS-threshold?

Not sure what you mean by my BS-threshold, but yes I would describe this tool as "near real time". It has too much latency to be used as a professional tool for artists, though perhaps that is not the intended audience.

Re BS: It's me. It is my way of referring to reflecting doubt upon business claims, as I have a callous regard for aspirational character's when money is an issue. Since money and human labor (+ often suffering) becomes cleverly undervalued through such claims.

Our users are already using our tool professionally—even though latency is >5s at times.

I have to disagree with you.

Of course, people will use it in a weird way—which is exciting.

Blender takes > 2-3 seconds to apply all transformations to wireframe view and see final result. This is faster than that. Creatives would be happy with this.

Blender offers much more precise controls tho... You can't make here what you can make in Blender, and probably never will

Well you are comparing a child (current tech) to an adult (blender) to use Newton's words. Also those precise controls come at a price of more workflow to deal with.

So by your logic Blender will be always ahead of this because it's always more mature?

Anyway it's not about maturity but control over process, you can compare this to AR 3D drawing tools, also very new but already used to make actual art.

Depends on acceleration of each tech and inherent ease, algo progress.

Exactly! And I think there is a long room for optimizations.

...yes? If you're marketing a tool as being "real time" I'd expect it to not have this much latency (e.g. when the blue is added to the mushroom). Imagine if Photoshop made you wait a second between each brush stroke.

That’s how it started!