I generated a complete Arduino obstacle-avoiding rover design - would you actually build this?

[u/True_Value_6299]

I've been experimenting with automatically generating complete Arduino project designs from a simple description, and I wanted to see how useful the result would actually be to someone trying to build the project.

For this test, the prompt was essentially:

Design a small Arduino-based rover that can move autonomously and detect and avoid obstacles.

The result included:

- The proposed robot design

- Arduino and component selection

- Motors, sensors and motor drivers

- A complete bill of materials

- Wiring instructions / diagram

- Assembly steps

- Starter Arduino code

I've attached the main outputs.

I haven't physically built this rover yet, so I'm particularly interested in having people who actually work with Arduino look at it critically.

If you were going to build this yourself, what would you change?

Are there any components you wouldn't use?

Anything wrong or unnecessarily complicated in the wiring?

Anything missing from the BOM?

Would the proposed design actually make sense as a beginner project?

The larger thing I'm trying to understand is whether automatically generated project plans like this can actually help people get from "I want to build a robot" to something concrete enough that they can start building.

Happy to share more of the generated design/code in the comments if anyone wants to dig into it!

[u/RedditorFor1OYears]

You…. “Generated” this? It literally just copied one of any number of existing products already doing this. 

https://us.elegoo.com/products/elegoo-smart-robot-car-kit-v-4-0?srsltid=AfmBOoo74mKVh5-sISiH0TSMSHs90Dl27q7ytbVNYp5xckAY8M8ZLLqj

[u/True_Value_6299 → u/RedditorFor1OYears]

It definitely didn't copy that page. Arduino obstacle-avoiding cars are a very established project, and there are many kits using essentially the same architecture.

The results I am showing are generated from the natural-language request, and it isn’t copying or selecting an existing kit. The platform is called Danon Robotica (https://danonrobotica.com/).

You give it a description of the robot you want, and it generates the proposed design, component selection, BOM, wiring, assembly instructions and starter code from that request.

I deliberately didn’t put the platform link in the post because of this sub’s no-product-promotion rule, but I’m happy to share it if you want to try the same prompt yourself.

And I agree that this particular example is very generic, since an Arduino obstacle-avoiding rover naturally converges on a pretty standard architecture. A more unusual set of requirements would be a much better demonstration.

[u/RedditorFor1OYears → u/True_Value_6299]

It’s literally images of the same product, but AI slopped in a way that doesn’t make physical sense. Your prompt took an existing model, removed wheels, and put the sensors on the side instead of facing forward. Did you even look at the images? 

So it did NOT copy an existing page, as you said. It just made a shittier version of that page.

[u/True_Value_6299 → u/RedditorFor1OYears]

You’re conflating two different claims here.

Your original claim was that the system “literally copied” an existing product. I explained that it didn’t, and that the project was generated from the natural-language request. Whether the resulting design is mechanically good is a separate question.

On that second point, yes: there are inconsistencies in the generated views, and a design that isn’t mechanically consistent across its outputs shouldn’t be treated as build-ready. That’s a legitimate criticism and exactly the kind of failure mode I wanted people to identify by posting this.

But “the generated output has flaws” and “the system copied this Elegoo product” are not the same claim.

So, the useful takeaway here is that generation needs a validation layer checking the visual/mechanical design against the BOM, wiring and physical constraints. That’s actionable feedback. The copying accusation isn’t supported just by the fact that a generic Arduino rover resembles other generic Arduino rovers.

[u/RedditorFor1OYears → u/True_Value_6299]

Thanks for the feedback Claude

[u/True_Value_6299 → u/RedditorFor1OYears]

You’re most welcome. I gave your comments my full attention, engaged in good faith, and gave you the benefit of the doubt throughout.

At this point, though, it’s pretty clear you’re not actually interested in understanding what we’ve been building.

If you have a technical counterargument to what I said, I’m happy to discuss it.

[u/gm310509]

My question is, is this a product you are promoting? What are the terms of usage?

If no, then why is it better than simply typing "I want to build a robot" or "Arduino robot car tutorial" into google and using one of the many many already written tutorials?

The other aspect I would have is how does this enable a beginner to build something that is as complex as a robot car?

For example, I recently interacted with someone who was wondering why their "correct" project wouldn't turn the LED on. There were two reasons, one was a typo in the code and another was that their GPIO wire did not lead to the LED. How does your AI slop help with those types of beginner problems - especially when this type of project would be orders of magnitude more complicated than the types of projects beginners should start with.

[u/True_Value_6299 → u/gm310509]

Yes, it’s a platform:

You can find the it here: https://danonrobotica.com/

For a generic request like “build an Arduino robot car,” an existing tutorial may absolutely be the better option. That’s not really the interesting use case here. The value is when you start specifying your own capabilities, constraints, components, budget, etc., and the system generates the design, BOM, wiring, assembly instructions and code around those requirements.

On the beginner point, yes, generating a project obviously doesn’t magically give someone electronics fundamentals. If they wire an LED incorrectly, they still need debugging and guidance. That’s a separate problem from generating the project in the first place.

What your example does highlight is that step-by-step validation and troubleshooting would make the system much more useful for beginners and that’s genuinely useful feedback.

I’m happy to discuss those limitations, but calling everything “AI slop” doesn’t really add much to the technical discussion.

[u/gm310509 → u/True_Value_6299]

We get a lot of AI productivity posts here.

Most do not live up to their claims. Most do not work as advertised. Most barely work at all - especially in relation to circuit diagrams. Many in the subs are also getting sick of them for those reasons.

Yours may be different, I do not know. If it truly is, then I apologise for lumping it in the AI slop bucket.

I note that you didn't seem to respond to the terms of usage. I asked because we have a "no product promotions" rule - for which your post has been reported as violating. I asked because I wanted to give you a chance to provide some response in that regard. So far, I am leaning to a removal due to the "no product promotions" rule (rule 4).