[HN Gopher] Genie 2: A large-scale foundation world model
___________________________________________________________________
Genie 2: A large-scale foundation world model
Author : meetpateltech
Score : 709 points
Date : 2024-12-04 14:45 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (deepmind.google)
(TXT) w3m dump (deepmind.google)
| jjice wrote:
| I don't understand this space very well, but this seems
| incredible.
|
| Something I find interesting about generative AI is how it adds a
| huge layer of flexibility, but at the cost of lots of
| computation, while a very narrow set of constraints (a
| traditional program) is comparatively incredibly efficient.
|
| If someone spent a ton of time building out something simple in
| Unity, they could get the same thing running with a small
| fraction of the computation, but this has seemingly infinite
| flexibility based on so little and that's just incredible.
|
| The reason I mention it is because I'm interested in where we end
| up using these. Will traditional programming be used for most
| "production" workloads with gen AI being used to aid in the
| prototyping and development of those traditional programs, or
| will we get to the point where our gen AI is the primary driver
| of software?
|
| I assume that concrete code will always be faster and the best
| way to have deterministic results, but I really have to idea how
| to conceptualize what the future looks like now.
| Retric wrote:
| Longer term computation isn't really the limiting factor for
| generative AI, it's training data. Generative AI is like Google
| search before the web responded to their search engine
| existing. There's a huge quantity of high quality training data
| which nobody had any reason to pollute ready for the scrapping.
|
| But modern search is hampered by people responding to
| algorithmic indexes. Algorithms responding to metadata without
| directly evaluating content enabled a world of SEO and low
| quality websites suddenly being discoverable as long as they
| narrow their focus enough.
|
| So longer term it's going to be an arms race between the output
| of Generative AI and people trying to keep updating their
| models. In 20 years people will get much better at using these
| tools, but the tools themselves may be less useful. I wouldn't
| be surprised if eventually someone sneaks advertising into the
| output of someone else's model etc.
| Miraste wrote:
| This has already happened. Search google for a few random
| terms, and go through the first page of web and image
| results. A decent chunk will be AI-generated.
| golol wrote:
| I disagree. With more computation you can train a bigger
| model on the same size training data and it will be better.
| There is a lot if knowledge on the internet that GPT-4 etc.
| have not yet learned.
| Retric wrote:
| The issue is the training data _isn't_ some constant. Let's
| suppose OpenAI had 10x the computing power but a vastly
| worse dataset, do you expect a better or worse result?
|
| The question is ambiguous without defining how much worse
| the dataset is.
| danans wrote:
| > I assume that concrete code will always be faster and the
| best way to have deterministic results, but I really have to
| idea how to conceptualize what the future looks like now.
|
| It will likely be a mix of both concrete code and live AI
| generated experiences, but even the concrete code will likely
| be partially AI generated and modified. The ratio will depend
| on how reliable vs creative the software needs to be.
|
| For example, no AI generated code running pacemakers or power
| plants. But game world experiences could easily be made more
| dynamic by generative AI.
| singularity2001 wrote:
| Makes me wonder if there's any company which is trying to train
| a model to produce three D worlds within Unity (not as a video
| like oasis).
| sbarre wrote:
| > Will traditional programming be used for most "production"
| workloads with gen AI being used to aid in the prototyping and
| development of those traditional programs
|
| I mean we're already there with Copilot, Cursor and other tools
| that use LLMs to assist in coding tasks.
| me551ah wrote:
| So when I can try this?
| ilaksh wrote:
| It's Google so I assume never. No model release, no product, no
| API, no detailed paper.
|
| There was another quite similar model from a different group
| within the last month or so. I can't remember if they released
| any weights or anything or the name of it. But it was the same
| concept.
| vessenes wrote:
| You'll need to wait until Baidu or AliBaba or Nvidia publish a
| competing model, unfortunately, if history is any guide.
| mhld wrote:
| Probably when Genie 10 will get integrated on a Pixel phone.
| vessenes wrote:
| This is.. super impressive. I'd like to know how large this model
| is. I note that the first thing they have it do is talk to agents
| who can control the world gen; geez - even robots get to play
| video games while we work.
|
| That said; I cannot find any:
|
| - architecture explanation
|
| - code
|
| - technical details
|
| - API access information
|
| Feels very DeepMind / 2015, and that's a bummer. I think the
| point of the "we have no moat" email has been taken to heart at
| Google, and they continue to be on the path of great demos, bleh
| product launches two years later, and no open access in the
| interim.
|
| That said, just _knowing_ this is possible - world navigation
| based on a photo and a text description with up to a minute of
| held context -- is amazing, and I believe will inspire some
| groups out there to put out open versions.
| wongarsu wrote:
| We already knew it's possible from AI minecraft
| (https://oasis.decart.ai). This is just a more impressive
| version of that, trained on a wider range of games and with
| more context frames (Oasis has about a second of context, this
| one a minute). Even the architecture seems to be about the
| same.
|
| Had they released this two months earlier it would have been
| incredibly impressive. Now it's still cool and inspiring, but
| no longer as ground breaking. It's the cooler version that
| doesn't come with a demo or any hope of actually trying it out.
|
| And with the things we know from Oasis's demo, the agent-
| training use case the post tries to sell for Genie 2 is a hard
| sell. Any attempt to train an agent on such a world would
| likely look like an AI Minecraft speedrun: generate enough
| misleading context frames to trick the AI into generating what
| you want
| achierius wrote:
| This is far beyond Oasis. Oasis had approximately 0
| continuity, and the generated world was a blurry mess. This
| on the other hand actually approaches usability.
| summerlight wrote:
| While this is impressive, yet still looks like a very early
| prototype. The overall nuance seems that it doesn't try to be a
| standalone product but a part of broader R&D projects toward
| general agents... I doubt if they even have any productionized
| modeling pipelines for this project yet and pretty sure that we
| won't have an open access anytime soon.
| mclau156 wrote:
| there are lots of 3D modelers spending hours on 3D worlds and
| assets to use in training, this seems to automate a lot of
| that work
| niceice wrote:
| Any estimates of how much one of these cost to generate and
| keep a minute of context?
|
| Secondly, any estimate of how much the price could fall in 5-10
| years?
| wongarsu wrote:
| Oasis (the Minecraft world model) can serve about 5 players
| on 8 H100 in real-time at 20fps in 360p. This is a much more
| capable model with two orders of magnitude more context. They
| pretty much say it can't be played real-time, which I read as
| they generate less than 15fps@240p on 8 GPUs. Probably why
| they talk so much about using it for AI training and
| evaluation rather than human use. There is a distilled
| version that works in real-time, but they don't show anything
| from that version (which is a statement in itself).
|
| For reducing the price, ASICs like etched may be the way
| forwards [1]. The models will get bigger for a time, but
| there may be a lot of room for models that can exploit
| purpose-built hardware.
|
| 1: https://www.etched.com
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| > Probably why they talk so much about using it for AI
| training and evaluation rather than human use.
|
| What would they do / how would they use this output to make
| a better AI?
| latchkey wrote:
| Hey! I'd love to know how this performs on 8xMI300x in
| comparison. Reach out to me?
| llm_trw wrote:
| The price of LLMs has fallen 1,000 times in the last year for
| the same quality tokens.
|
| It's not clear if video models will follow the same
| trajectory.
| lovich wrote:
| I asked this in a similar thread the other day but what is with
| this pattern as well exemplifies with the below quote
|
| > This is.. super impressive. I'd like to know how large this
| model is. I note that the first thing they have it do is talk
| to agents who can control the world gen; geez - even robots get
| to play video games while we work. That said; I cannot find
| any:
|
| > architecture explanation > code > technical details > API
| access information
| whiplash451 wrote:
| This kind of demo is probably great for hiring top talents:
| come work here, we have the best models and you'll have your
| name on the best papers.
| artninja1988 wrote:
| Looking at the list of authors, is this from their open endedness
| team? I found their position paper on it super convincing
| https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.02061
| warkdarrior wrote:
| Did you link the wrong Arxiv paper?
| https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.02061 does not look like a position
| paper nor does it share any authors with this Genie 2 work.
| artninja1988 wrote:
| Yes, I meant this paper https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.04268
| Should have double checked, sorry and thank you for pointing
| it out
| mdrzn wrote:
| Wow.. I can't even imagine where we'll be in 5 or 10 years from
| now.
|
| Seems that it's only "consistent" up to a minute, but if the
| progress keeps the same rate.. just wow.
| netdevphoenix wrote:
| Progress is not linear. For all we know, in 2027 things will
| slow down to a virtual halt for the next 30 years. Look at how
| much big science progressed in the first 20 years of the 19th
| century/20th century and look how little it has progressed in
| the first 20 years of this century. We are on the downlow
| compared to the last centuries and even if you look at crisp or
| deep learning, they are not as impactful NOW as let's say the
| germ theory of disease, evolution, the discovery of the double
| helix structure or general relativity was. Almost a quarter of
| a century gone and we don't have much to show for it.
|
| For reference:
|
| 19th century
|
| evolution by natural selection as science
|
| electromagnetism
|
| germ theory of disease
|
| first law of thermodynamics
|
| --------------------------------------------
|
| 20th century
|
| general relativity
|
| quantum mechanics
|
| dna structure
|
| penicillin
|
| big bang theory
|
| --------------------------------------------
|
| 21st century
|
| crisp
|
| deep learning
| dooglius wrote:
| The things you list for previous centuries aren't limited to
| the first 20 years
| netdevphoenix wrote:
| 19th century: electromagnetism, the voltaic pile, the
| double slit experiment for the light wave theory
|
| 20th century: general/special relativity, radioactive
| decay, discovery of the electron
|
| 21st century: crisp and deep learning
|
| Hard to argue that the big science of the first 20 years of
| the previous century looks way more impact than crisp and
| deep learning put TOGETHER.
| dekhn wrote:
| its called crispr, not crisp.
| samvher wrote:
| 100 years later, sure. What about in December 1924?
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| >Look how little it has progressed in the first 20 years of
| this century
|
| This is naivete on the scale of "Cars were much safer 70
| years ago".
| w10-1 wrote:
| crispr variants have not particularly improved treatments.
|
| But DNA sequencing and biologics have revolutionized medicine
| and changed lives.
|
| Also, the computer as phone took it from 100M's mostly
| business users buying optical disks to 3+B everyday people
| getting regular system updates and apps on demand accessing
| real-time information. That change alone far outweighs the
| impact of anything produced by advanced physics.
|
| As a result we, as developers, now have the power to deliver
| both messages and experiences to the entire world.
|
| Ideas are cheap, and progress is virtually guaranteed in
| intellectual history. But execution is exquisitely easy to
| get wrong. Genie 2 is just Google's first bite at this apple,
| and milestones and feedback are key to getting something as
| general as AI right. Fingers crossed!
| lionkor wrote:
| > deepmind.google uses cookies from Google to deliver and enhance
| the quality of its services and to analyze traffic. Learn more.
|
| Yippee finally google posts a non confirming cookie popup with no
| way to reject the ad cookies!
| wildermuthn wrote:
| The technology is incredible, but the path to AGI isn't single-
| player. Qualia is the missing dataset required for AGI. See
| attention-schema theory for how social pressures lead to qualia-
| driven minds capable of true intelligence.
| simonw wrote:
| Related recent project you can try out yourself (Chrome only)
| which hallucinates new frames of a Minecraft style game:
| https://oasis.decart.ai/
|
| That one would reimagine the world any time you look at the sky
| or ground. Sounds like Genie2 solves that: "Genie 2 is capable of
| remembering parts of the world that are no longer in view and
| then rendering them accurately when they become observable
| again."
| echelon wrote:
| This blows Decart's Oasis (which raised $25 million at $500
| million valuation) and World Labs (which raised $230 million in
| complete stealth) out of the water.
|
| Google is firing warning shots to kill off interest in funding
| competing startups in this space.
|
| I suspect that in 6 months it won't matter as we'll have
| completely open source Chinese world models. They're already
| starting to kill video foundation model companies' entire value
| prop by releasing open models and weights. Hunyuan blows Runway
| and OpenAI's Sora completely out of the water, and it's 100%
| open source. How do companies like Pika compete with free?
|
| Meta and Chinese companies are not the leaders in the space, so
| they're salting the earth with insanely powerful SOTA open
| models to prevent anyone from becoming a runaway success. Meta
| is still playing its cards close to its chest so they can keep
| the best pieces private, but these Chinese companies are
| dropping innovation left and right like there's no tomorrow.
|
| The game theory here is that if you're a foundation model
| "company", you're dead - big tech will kill you. You don't have
| a product, and you're paying a lot to do research that isn't
| necessarily tied to customer demand. If you're a leading AI
| research+product company, everyone else will release their
| code/research to create a thousand competitors to you.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| I strongly suspect that like open ai and O1, for profit
| companies are going to start locking down whatever advances
| they find.
|
| There is still an enormous amount of long hanging fruit that
| anyone can harvest right now, but eventually big advances are
| going to require big budgets and I can only imagine how
| technically tight lipped they will be with those.
| senko wrote:
| > The game theory here is that if you're a foundation model
| "company", you're dead - big tech will kill you. You don't
| have a product, and you're paying a lot to do research that
| isn't necessarily tied to customer demand.
|
| Basically, the foundation model companies are outsourced R&D
| labs for big tech. They can be kept at arms length (like
| OpenAI with Microsoft and Anthropic with Amazon) or be bought
| outright (like Inflection, although that was a weird one).
|
| Both OpenAI and Anthropic are trying to move away from being
| pure model companies.
|
| > If you're a leading AI research+product company, everyone
| else will release their code/research to create a thousand
| competitors to you.
|
| Trillion dollar question - is there a competitive edge / moat
| in vertical integration in AI? Apple proved there was in
| hardware + os (which were unbundled in wintel times). For AI,
| right now, I can't see one, but I'm just a random internet
| comentator, who knows.
| refulgentis wrote:
| I think not, it feels more like a utility to me until
| someone pulls their API.
| mrandish wrote:
| > Chinese companies are not the leaders in the space, so
| they're salting the earth with insanely powerful SOTA open
| models to prevent anyone from becoming a runaway success.
|
| While it would be interesting if Chinese companies were
| releasing their best full models as an intentional strategy
| to reduce VC funding availability for western AI startups, it
| would be downright _fascinating_ if the Chinese government
| was supporting this as a broader geopolitical strategy to
| slow down the West.
|
| It does make sense but would require a remarkable level of
| insight, coordination and commitment to a costly yet
| uncertain strategy.
| whiplash451 wrote:
| I don't think it requires a remarkable level of insight.
|
| The overall cost for the Chinese government is probably
| very small in the grand scheme of things. And it makes a
| lot of sense from a geopolitical strategy.
| whiplash451 wrote:
| The game has indeed become brutal for foundational model
| companies.
|
| I am less worried for AI research+product companies: they
| have likely secured revenue streams with real customers and
| built domain knowledge in the meantime.
| ilaksh wrote:
| There is another recent project that is more general game
| generation very similar to Genie 2. I can't remember the name.
|
| GameGen-X came out last month.
| https://arxiv.org/html/2411.00769v1
| psb217 wrote:
| RE: "Genie 2 is capable of remembering parts of the world that
| are no longer in view and then rendering them accurately when
| they become observable again." -- This claim is almost
| certainly wildly misleading. This claim is technically true if
| there's any scenario where their agent, eg, briefly looked down
| at the ground and then back up at the sky and at least one of
| the clouds in the sky was the same as before looking down.
| However, I expect most people will interpret the claim far more
| broadly than the model can support. It's classic weasel
| wording.
| pfortuny wrote:
| "remember parts of the world..." not even "some"... That is a
| tell-tale.
| isotypic wrote:
| Looking at how no samples other than the 3 samples in the
| "Long horizon memory" section have any camera movement which
| puts something offscreen and then back onscreen, it certainly
| seems that they are stretching the capabilities as far as
| they can in writing.
| drusepth wrote:
| Yeah, my best guess is they're probably including the
| previous N frames as context into generating the next model.
| This works to preserve continuity over a short amount of time
| (as you say, briefly looking at the ground and then back up),
| but only a short period of time.
|
| For these kinds of models to be "playable" by humans (and,
| I'd argue, most fledgling AI agents), the world state needs
| to be encoded in the context, not just a visual
| representation of what the player most recently saw.
| wongarsu wrote:
| However the architecture they describe really sounds like it
| should still have that issue. I doubt they really solved it.
|
| Which is a big problem for the agent-training use case they
| keep reiterating on the website. Agents are like speedrunners:
| if there is a stupid exploit, the agent will probably find and
| use it. And for Oasis the speedrunning meta for getting to the
| nether is to find anything red, make it fill the screen, and
| repeat until the world-generating AI thinks you look at lava
| and must be in the nether
| bix6 wrote:
| Genuine question: What is the point of telling us about this if
| we can't use it? Is it just to flex on everyone?
| mhld wrote:
| Some kind of marketing strategy that actually nobody
| understands
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| It's not that opaque, it's recruitment. Basically same
| marketing as a univeristy. "We do state of the art research
| here. If you are a talented researcher who wants to advance
| the field, you'll want to work here"
|
| Now, how Google plans to make money with all this bleeding
| edge research, _that 's_ the mystery.
| tootie wrote:
| It's PR but it's also meant to entice. Let the world know
| Google is #1 for Gen AI, convince researchers to join Google,
| convince investors to boost the stock price, make Elon Musk
| grit his teeth. That kind of thing. In the short term, it may
| provide a bump in interest for existing AI products from
| Google.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| The best minds of a generation went from thinking about how to
| make people click ads to how to generate 3d video game worlds.
| adventured wrote:
| The best minds were never working on getting people to click
| on ads. That was an internal industry narrative so people
| could feel better about themselves.
| fragmede wrote:
| seems more like an external narrative so people can feel
| worse about the world
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| The best minds of the generation are on wall street trying to
| figure out how to quickly spot inefficiently priced options
| 1% more often.
|
| Seriously, I wish more than anything I was kidding.
| mupuff1234 wrote:
| An artifact for their promotion packet.
| echelon wrote:
| To stop competing startups from getting funding.
|
| Decart (Oasis) raised $25 million at $500 million valuation.
|
| World Labs raised $230 million.
| justlikereddit wrote:
| [flagged]
| xnx wrote:
| Often to establish that the authors were first in the space for
| when competitors announce their tech.
| ilaksh wrote:
| They were not though, this is very similar to the one that
| came out last month. https://arxiv.org/html/2411.00769v1
| spencerchubb wrote:
| Researchers want to publish
|
| Recruiting
| rvz wrote:
| Hmmm.... But we were told on HN that "Google is dying" remember?
| in reality, is it isn't.
|
| We'll see which so-called AI-companies are really "dying" when
| either a correction, market crash or a new AI winter arrives.
| bearjaws wrote:
| > Genie 2 is capable of remembering parts of the world that are
| no longer in view and then rendering them accurately when they
| become observable again.
|
| This is huge, the Minecraft demos we saw recently we're just toys
| because you couldn't actually do anything in them.
| psb217 wrote:
| It's worth keeping in mind that "there exists X such that Y is
| true" is not the same as "Y is true for all X". People love
| using these sorts of statements since they're technically true
| as written, but most people will read them in a way that's
| false. Eg, the statement is true for the Minecraft demos, and
| for any model which doesn't exhibit literally zero persistence
| for (temporarily) non-visible state.
| stoicjumbotron wrote:
| Do people within Google get to try it? If yes, how long is the
| approval process?
| xcodevn wrote:
| On a very similar theme, here is the work from World Lab (founded
| by Fei-Fei Li, ImageNet dataset, et al.) about creating 3D
| worlds:
|
| https://www.worldlabs.ai/blog
| momojo wrote:
| I find this work much more exciting. They're not just teaching
| a model to hallucinate given WASD input. They're generating
| durable, persistent point clouds. It looks so similar to Genie2
| yet they're worlds apart.
| moralestapia wrote:
| Not even a month ago HN was discussing Ben Affleck's take on
| actors and AI, somehow taking a side with him and arguing how the
| tech "it's just not there, etc...".
|
| I'll keep my stance, give it two years and very realistic movies,
| with plot and everything, will be generated on demand.
| tartoran wrote:
| Ai can't generate images without awkward hallucinations yet.
| From that to movies that make sense to movies that people would
| want to watch (comparable to feature films) beyond the initial
| curiosity factor is a long way, if there is one.
| moralestapia wrote:
| ChatGPT (no Sora, no World Generation, etc...) was released
| two years ago almost to the date.
|
| What you're talking about is a minor jump from the SOTA, much
| smaller than what we've already see in these two years.
| Sateeshm wrote:
| I'll take that bet
| binalpatel wrote:
| This is super impressive.
|
| Interesting they're framing this more from the world model/agent
| environment angle, when this seems like the best example so far
| of generative games.
|
| 720p realtime mostly consistent games for a minute is amazing,
| considering stable diffusion was originally released 2ish years
| ago.
| uoaei wrote:
| Pixelspace is an awful place to be generating 3D assets and
| maintaining physical self-consistency.
| jeroenvlek wrote:
| Ultimately even conventional 3d assets are rendered into
| pixelspace. It all comes down to the constraints in the model
| itself.
| psb217 wrote:
| A key strength of conventional 3d assets is that their form
| is independent of the scenes in which they will be
| rendered. Models that work purely in pixel space avoid the
| constraints imposed by representing assets in a fixed
| format, but they have to do substantial extra work to even
| approximate the consistency and recomposability of
| conventional 3d assets. It's unclear whether current
| approaches to building and training purely pixel-based
| models will be able to achieve a practically useful balance
| between their greater flexibility and higher costs. World
| Labs, for example, seems to be betting that an intermediate
| point of generating worlds in a flexible but structured
| format (NERFs, gauss splats, etc) may produce practical
| value more quickly than going straight for full freedom and
| working in pixel space.
| 42lux wrote:
| I don't know I get the excitement but as soon as you turn around
| and there is something completely different behind you it breaks
| the immersion.
| jdlyga wrote:
| It's very cool, but we've gotten too many of these big bold
| announcements with no payoff. All it takes is a very limited demo
| and we'd be much happier.
| rishabhparikh wrote:
| I'm guessing it would be far too expensive to make a free demo
| sergiotapia wrote:
| Will the GPU go the way of the soundcard, and we will all
| purchase an "LPU"? Language Processing Unit for AIs to run fast?
|
| I remember there was a brief window where some gamers bought a
| Physx card for high fidelity physics in games. Ultimately they
| rolled that tech in to the CPUs themselves right?
| 0x1ceb00da wrote:
| The graphics stuff in modern gpus is just a software layer on
| top of a generic processing unit. The name is a misnomer.
| jsheard wrote:
| Partially true, a significant chunk of modern GPUs are really
| just very wide general purpose processors, but they _do_
| still have fixed-function silicon specifically for graphics
| and probably will for the foreseeable future. Intel tried to
| lean into doing as much as possible in general purpose
| compute with their Larrabee GPU project but even that still
| had fixed-function texture units... and the concept was
| ultimately a failure which hasn 't been revisited.
| k2xl wrote:
| This is impressive, but why are they all looking still like a
| video game? Could they have this render movie scenes with
| realistic looking humans? I wonder if it is due to the training
| set they use being mostly video games?
| xnx wrote:
| > This is impressive, but why are they all looking still like a
| video game?
|
| Many of the current AI models have their roots in games: Chess,
| Go, etc.
| nonameiguess wrote:
| I highly doubt it. While there is no ceiling in principle on
| how good rendering can get, even with perfect knowledge of the
| physics of optics, the cost to compute that physics is too high
| not to cut some corners. Nature gives you this for free. Every
| photon is deflected at exactly the right angle and frequency
| without anything needing to be computed. All you need is a
| camera to record it. At least for now, this is why every deep
| fake, digital de-aging, AI upscaling, grafting Carrie Fisher's
| face onto a different actor, and CGI in general inevitably
| occupies the uncanny valley.
| corysama wrote:
| For quite a while now David Holz of Midjourney has mused that
| videogames will be AI generated. Like a theoretical PlayStation 7
| with an AI processor replacing the GPU.
|
| But, I didn't expect this much progress towards that quite this
| fast...
| kypro wrote:
| Agreed. All I'd say is that these demos look quite limited in
| their creativity and depth. Good video games are far more than
| some graphics with a movable character and action states.
|
| A good video game is far more the world building, the story,
| the creativity or "uniqueness" of the experience, etc.
|
| Currently this seems to generate fairly generic looking and
| shallow experiences. Not hating though. It's early days
| obviously.
| doctorpangloss wrote:
| If only it were that simple. Google spent $10b developing
| Stadia, where was the big hit game from that?
|
| These DeepMind guys play Factorio, they don't play Atari games
| or shooters, so why aren't they thinking about that? Or maybe
| they are, and because they know a lot about Factorio, they see
| how hard it is to make?
|
| There's a lot of "musing" as you say.
| gcr wrote:
| I've had the idea for a Backrooms-style hallucinatory
| generative videogame for a while. Imagine being able to wander
| through infinitely generated surreal indoor buildingscapes that
| were rendered in close-to-realtime.
|
| It would play to the medium's strengths -- any "glitches" the
| player experiences could be seen as diagetic corruptions of
| reality.
|
| The moment we get parameterized NeRF models running in close-
| to-realtime, I want to go for it.
| devonsolomon wrote:
| Yesterday I laughed with my brother about how harsh people on the
| internet were about World Labs launch ("you can only walk three
| steps, this demo sucks!"). I was thinking, "this was unthinkable
| a few years ago, this is incredible".
|
| People of the internet, you were right. Now, this is incredible.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| World Labs was kind of laughable. But at least you laughed.
|
| Now?
|
| I mean, I don't know man?
|
| With this Genie 2 sneak peak, it all just makes World Labs'
| efforts look sad. Did they really think better funded
| independents and majors would all _not_ be interested in
| generating 3D worlds?
|
| This is a GUBA moment. If you're old enough to know, then you
| know.
| maxglute wrote:
| 2000s graphics vibes.
| YeGoblynQueenne wrote:
| Hey, DeepMind folks, are you listening? Listen. We believe you:
| you can conquer any virtual world you put your mind to.
| Minecraft, Starcraft, Warcraft (?), Atari, anything. You can do
| it! With the power of RL and Neural Nets. Well done.
|
| What you haven't been able to do so far, after many years of
| trying, is to go from the virtual, to the real. Go from Arcanoid
| to a robot that can play, I dunno, squash, without dying. A robot
| that can navigate an arbitrary physical location without
| drowning, or falling off a cliff, or getting run over by a bus.
| Or build any Lego kit from instructions. Where's all that?
|
| You've conquered games. Bravo! Now where's the real world
| autonomy?
| sdenton4 wrote:
| https://sites.research.google/palm-saycan
| aspenmayer wrote:
| Does Waymo count?
| aithrowawaycomm wrote:
| It is jaw-dropping and dismaying how for-profit AI companies use
| long-standing terms like "world model" and "physics" when they
| mean "video game model" and "video game physics." Or, as you can
| plainly see, "models gravity" when they mean "models Red Dead
| Redemption 2's gravity function, along with its cinematic
| lighting effects and Rockstar's distinctively weighty
| animations." Which is to say Google is not modeling gravity at
| all.
|
| I will add the totally inconsistent backgrounds in the
| "prototyping" example suggests the AI is simply cribbing from
| four different games with a flying avatar, which makes it kind of
| useless unless you're prototyping cynical AI slop. And what are
| we even doing here by calling this a "world model" if the details
| of the world can change on a whim? In my world model I can
| imagine a small dragon flying through my friend's living room
| without needing to turn her electric lights into sconces and
| fireplaces.
|
| To state the obvious: if you train your model on thousands of
| hours of video games, you're also gonna get a bunch of stuff like
| "leaves are flat and don't bend" or "sometimes humans look like
| plastic" or "sometimes dragons clip through the scenery," which
| wouldn't fly in an actual world model. Just call it "video game
| world model!" Google is _intentionally_ misusing a term which
| (although mysterious) has real meaning in cognitive science.
|
| I am sure Genie 2 took an awful lot of work and technical
| expertise. But this advertisement isn't just unscientific, it's
| an assault on language itself.
| empath75 wrote:
| > It is jaw-dropping and dismaying how for-profit AI companies
| use long-standing terms like "world model" and "physics" when
| they mean "video game model" and "video game physics." Or, as
| you can plainly see, "models gravity" when they mean "models
| Red Dead Redemption 2's gravity function, along with its
| cinematic lighting effects and Rockstar's distinctively weighty
| animations." Which is to say Google is not modeling gravity at
| all.
|
| That's because it's using video game data for training footage
| because it's cheap and easy to generate. It would not be
| simulating video game gravity if it was training on real world
| video inputs.
| ricardobeat wrote:
| Remembering off-screen objects, generating spatially consistent
| features, modeling physical interactions and lights,
| understanding what "up the stairs" means, all seem to warrant
| talking about a _world model_ , because that's exactly what's
| required to do these things compared to simply hallucinating
| video sequences.
| brap wrote:
| I agree, but
|
| >if you train your model on thousands of hours of video games
|
| What if you train the same model on thousands of hours of
| sensor data from real, physical robots?
| brink wrote:
| What is actually of value here? There's no actual game, it's
| incredibly expensive to compute, the behavior is erratic.. It's
| cool because it's new - but that will quickly wear off, and once
| that's gone, what's left? There's insane amounts of money being
| spent on this, and for what?
| adverbly wrote:
| > What is actually of value here?
|
| Noone knows yet. AI technology like this is closer to
| scientific research than it is to product development. AI is
| basically new magic, and people are in a "discovery" phase
| where we are still trying to figure out what is possible.
| Nothing of value was immediately created when they discovered
| DNA. Productization came much later when it was combined with
| other technologies to fit a particular use case.
| Menu_Overview wrote:
| Well, what's next? Beyond prototyping, I imagine this is an
| early step towards more practical agents building their own
| world model. Better problem solving.
|
| Prompt: Here's a blueprint of my new house and a photo of my
| existing furniture. Show me some interior design options.
| ilaksh wrote:
| It's an obviously amazing research development.
|
| You just don't like AI.
|
| It can be used for training agents, prototyping, video
| generation, and is quite possibly a glimpse of a whole new type
| of entertainment or a new way to create video games.
|
| What's the point of the massive amount of money spent on video
| games in general? Or all of the energy spent moving people back
| and forth to an office? Or expensive meals at restaurants? Or
| trillions in weaponry? Or television shows or movies?
| nightski wrote:
| Video games bring billions of real people joy. This is
| sitting in some lab at Google inaccessible to anyone.
| lassenordahl wrote:
| Is your argument that them sharing research progress and
| demos doesn't benefit anybody purely because we can't
| immediately play around with them?
|
| I feel like sharing early closed-source blog-posts is part
| of the research process. I'm sure someone in this thread
| has thought of a use case that the Google team missed.
| Open/closed source arguments here feel premature IMO.
| nightski wrote:
| It's not part of the research process. Being part of the
| search process would involve a publication and sharing
| code/data/results/methods. It's not research unless it
| can be verified by peers.
|
| This is just a marketing fluff piece that does not
| benefit anyone and is ego stroking at best.
| lassenordahl wrote:
| Hm yeah - I think you and I just have differing opinions
| on the research process. I'd be a bit more vague, and
| define the publication process as something similar to
| you.
|
| I still think things like this are important, and at
| least give folks a bit of time to ideate on what will be
| possible in a few years. Of course having the model or
| architecture on hand would be nice, but I'm not holding
| that against Google here.
| ThouYS wrote:
| same q here. what can I do with this "world model" that I can't
| do with a game like minecraft or counter strike?
|
| asked the same thing a while back, and the answers boiled down
| to "somehow helps RL agents train". but how exactly? no clue
| ogogmad wrote:
| Making a computer game is very expensive and time-consuming.
| This technology might allow a 12 year old to produce a fully
| working AAA-quality game on their own for almost nothing. But
| _sigh_ it 's an early demo that needs some improving.
|
| [edited out some barbs I wrote because I find some comments
| on this website REALLY annoying]
| ThouYS wrote:
| lol
| awfulneutral wrote:
| Well, in the future you could imagine that instead of
| programming a game, you can just generate each individual frame
| on the fly at 60fps. You could be playing 2D Mario and then the
| game could have him morph into 3D and take off into space or
| something. You could also generate any software or OS frontend
| on the fly really, if you can make it so the AI can keep track
| of your data and make it consistent enough to be usable. Does
| this have positive or negative value? I don't know.
| golol wrote:
| Do you want household androids? Because this kind of stuff is
| on the level of research a bery large step towards that. Think
| as it as ab example where we can make a model understand a lot
| of physical common sense stuff, which is the goal for robotics
| right now.
| suddenlybananas wrote:
| This is really not the avenue for house-hold robots.
| Interacting with the actual physical world is very different
| from _creating_ a video game.
| sangnoir wrote:
| > Interacting with the actual physical world is very
| different from creating a video game
|
| The major difference being the former scales very poorly
| for generating training data compared to the latter. Genie
| 2 is not even a video game and has worse fidelity that
| video games, the upside is it probably scales even better
| than video games for generating training scenarios. If you
| want androids in teal life, Genie 2 (or similar systems) is
| how you bootstrap the agent AI. The training pipeline will
| be: raw video -> Genie 2 -> game engine with rules ->
| physical robot
| youoy wrote:
| > The training pipeline will be: raw video -> Genie 2 ->
| game engine with rules -> physical robot
|
| One of those arrows is not like the others
| sangnoir wrote:
| The final step is an oversimplification: purpose-built
| simulator -> deconstructed robot on a lab workbench ->
| controlled space -> "real world" with constraints -> real
| world
|
| Any model would have to succeed in one stage before it
| can proceed to the next one.
| adverbly wrote:
| At the risk of sounding repetitive, one of those arrows
| is not like the others.
| sangnoir wrote:
| ...and?
| mosdl wrote:
| How does turning an image into a game help with robots?
| Robots don't need to guess what they can't see, they
| would have sensors to tell them exactly what is there
| (like a self driving car).
| Chilko wrote:
| I have no expertise in this area, but my assumption is
| that this could help for a broader sort of object/world
| permanence for robots - e.g. if something is no longer
| visible to the robot's sensors (e.g. behind an obstacle,
| smoke, etc) then it could use a model based on this type
| of tech to maintain a short-term estimate of its
| surroundings even when operating blind.
| sangnoir wrote:
| > Robots don't need to guess what they can't see, they
| would have sensors to tell them exactly what is there
| (like a self driving car).
|
| Self driving vars have cameras as part of their sensor
| suite, and have models to make sense of sensor data.
| Video will help with perception and classification
| (understanding the world) with no agency needed. Game-
| playing will help with planning, execution, and
| evaluation. Both functions are necessary, and those that
| come after rely on earlier capabilities
| JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B wrote:
| I don't understand how that is relevant. I certainly would
| not want household androids unless I'm completely disabled.
| theshackleford wrote:
| > I certainly would not want household androids unless I'm
| completely disabled.
|
| That's nice. I'm not completely disabled, but I am
| disabled, and I very much would appreciate them, as my
| capability to do things over the longer term is very much
| not going to go in the direction of improving. As it is,
| there are a lot of things I now rely on people for, that at
| one time, I did not.
|
| Whilst I recognise its probably not going to happen in a
| time span that is useful to me, I do wish it could, so that
| I could be less of a burden on those around me, and
| maintain a relative level of independence.
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| I'm not an expert in this space but I can see the value. It
| allows an endless loop of generating novel scenarios and
| evaluating an AI agent's performance within that scenario (for
| example, "go up the stairs"). A world with one minute of
| coherence is about enough to evaluate whether the AI's actions
| were in the right direction or not. When you then want to run
| an agent on a real task in the real world, with video-input
| data, you can run the same policy that it learned in dream-
| world simulation. The real world has coherence, so the AI
| agent's actions just need to string together well enough
| minute-by-minute to work toward achieving a goal.
|
| You could use real video games to do this but I guess there'd
| be a risk of over-fitting; maybe it would learn too precisely
| what a staircase looks like in Minecraft, but fail to
| generalize that to the staircase in your home. If they can
| simulate dream worlds (as well as, presumably, worlds from real
| photos), then they can train their agents this way.
|
| This would only be training high-level decision policies (ie,
| WASD inputs). For something like a robot, lower level motor
| control loops would still be needed to execute those commands.
|
| Of course you could just do your training in the real world
| directly, because it already has coherence and plenty of
| environmental variety. But the learning process involves lots
| of learning from failure, and that would probably be even more
| expensive than this expensive simulator.
|
| Despite the claims I don't think it does much to help with AI
| safety. It can help avoid hilarious disasters of an AI-in-
| training crashing a speedboat onto the riverbank, but I don't
| think there's much here that helps with the deeper problems of
| value-alignment. This also seems like an effective way to train
| robo-killbots who perceive the world as a dreamlike first-
| person shooter.
| modeless wrote:
| > It's cool because it's new - but that will quickly wear off,
| and once that's gone, what's left?
|
| To have this perspective you must believe that this will never
| get better than it currently is, its limitations will never be
| fixed, and it will never lead to any other applications. I
| don't know how people can continue to look at these things with
| such a lack of imagination given the pace of progress in the
| field.
| zamadatix wrote:
| I think the problem is less to do with imagination and more
| to do with being willing to fail a metric shit ton to find
| out how, every once in a while, you didn't fail due to some
| really important and surprising reason you wouldn't have
| found nearly as quickly only ever going after what you were
| already certain of.
| xandrius wrote:
| Nothing is of value until it is.
| 3abiton wrote:
| This is an incredible start. The potential is immense, yes
| there arekinks, but in 10 years?
| KaoruAoiShiho wrote:
| This is where the GPU limits on China really hurts, Chinese
| companies have been dropping great proof of concepts but because
| they have been so compute bottlenecked they can't ever really
| make something actually competitive or transformative.
| tigerlily wrote:
| I can.. see this being used to solve crime, even solving unsolved
| mysteries and cold cases, among other alternative applications.
| phtrivier wrote:
| I don't understand your line of reasoning here. Are you
| picturing a situation where you would take a photo of a crime
| scene, and "jump" into a virtual model created from the photo,
| to help generate intuitions about where to go look for clues ?
| Kinda like the CSI "enhance quality" meme, but on steroids ?
|
| That would be fun to use, but ultimately pointless. An AI model
| will generate things that are _statistically plausible_ ;
| solving crimes usually requires finding out the _truth_.
| tigerlily wrote:
| You nailed it, and yes I was being lamely ironic. I am
| however terrified of a future where this type of thing
| happens, _and people just go along with it_ instead of
| stating the obvious facts the way you just did.
| mosdl wrote:
| Remake Blade Runner but with the twist that the snake scale
| was never actually there.
| rndmize wrote:
| These clips feels like watching someone dream in real time.
| Particularly the door ones, where the environment changes in wild
| fashion, or the middle NPC one, where you see a character walk
| into shadow and mostly disappear and a different character walks
| out.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| " Generating unlimited diverse training environments for future
| general agents" it may seem unlimited but up to a limited point
| there will be a pattern. I don't buy that an AI can use a static
| model and train itself with data generated from it
| diimdeep wrote:
| what for world models be equivalent of ChatGPT for LLM to really
| blow up in utility?
| singularity2001 wrote:
| text to roblox maybe?
| rationalfaith wrote:
| As impressive as this might seem let's think about fundamentals.
|
| Statistical models will output a compressed mishmash of what they
| were trained on.
|
| No matter how hard they try to cover that inherent basic reality,
| it is still there.
|
| Not to mention the upkeep of training on new "creative" material
| on a regular basis and the never ending bugs due to non-
| determinism. Aside from contrived cases for looking up and
| synthesizing information (Search Engine 2.0).
|
| The Tech Industry is over investing in this area exposing an
| inherent bias towards output rather than solving actual problems
| for humanity.
| notsylver wrote:
| I doubt it, but it would be interesting if they recorded Stadia
| sessions and trained on that data (... somehow removing the
| hud?), seems like it would be the easiest way for them to get the
| data for this.
| blixt wrote:
| Seems somewhat likely to me. They probably even trained a model
| to do both frame generation and upscaling to allow the hardware
| to work more efficiently while being able to predict the future
| based on user input (to reduce perceived latency). Seems like
| Genie is just that but extrapolated much further.
| worldmerge wrote:
| This looks really cool. How can I use it? Like can I mix it with
| Unity/Unreal?
| cptroot wrote:
| For all that this is lauded as a "prototyping tool", it's
| frustrating to see Genie2 discarding entire portions of the
| concept art demo. The original images drawn by Max Cant have
| these beautiful alien creatures. Large ones floating, and small
| ones being herded(?). Genie2 just ignores these beautiful details
| entirely:
|
| > That large alien? That's a tree. > That other large alien? It's
| a bush. > That herd of small creatures? Fugghedaboutit > The
| lightning storm? I can do one lightning pole. > Those towering
| baobob/acacia hybrids? Actually only two stories tall.
|
| It feels so insulting to the concept artist to show those two
| videos off.
| Kiro wrote:
| That's an odd thing to complain about. Focusing on such a minor
| issue feels overly critical at this stage, like anything less
| than a pixel perfect 3D world representation of the source
| image is unacceptable. Insulting? Come on... Max Cant works at
| DeepMind so I'm sure he's fine.
| wongarsu wrote:
| Yeah, those two demos fell flat for me. The model performing
| badly on inputs far outside the training data is fine, but
| those two videos belong in the outtakes section or maybe a
| limitations section, not next to text lauding the "out-of-
| distribution generalization capabilities". The videos show the
| opposite of what's claimed.
| zja wrote:
| I love the outtakes section in the bottom. It made me laugh but
| it also feels more transparent than a lot of GenAI stuff that's
| being announced.
| tsunamifury wrote:
| I'm guessing from the demo sophisticated indoor architectures do
| not work yet.
| CaptainFever wrote:
| As a game developer, I'm impressed and thinking of ideas of what
| to do with this kind of tech. The sailboat example was my
| favourite.
|
| Depending on how controllable the tech ends up being, I suppose.
| Could be anywhere from a gimmick (which is still nice) to a game
| engine replacement.
| echelon wrote:
| You could compress down a game to run on cheap hardware
| acceleration. No more Unreal Engine with crazy requirements.
| Once the hallucinations are fixed, you even get better
| lighting.
|
| This is the Unreal Engine killer. Give it five years.
| noch wrote:
| > This is the Unreal Engine killer. Give it five years.
|
| We need to calm down with the clickbait-addled thinking that
| _" this new thing kills this established powerful tested
| useful thing."_ :-)
|
| Game developers have been discussing these tools at length,
| after all, they are the group of software developers who are
| most motivated to improve their workflow. No other group of
| software developers comes close to gamedevs' efficiency
| requirements.
|
| The 1 thing required for serious developers is control. As
| such, game engines like Unreal and in-house engines won't
| die.
|
| Generative tools will instead open up a whole new, but quite
| different, way of creating interactive media and games. Those
| who need maximum control over every frame and every
| millisecond and CPU cyle will still use engines. The rest who
| don't will be productive with generative tools.
| echelon wrote:
| > gamedevs' efficiency requirements
|
| These models won't need you to retopo meshes, write custom
| shaders, or optimize Nanite or Lumen gameplay. They'll
| generate the final frames, sans traditional graphics
| processing pipeline.
|
| > The 1 thing required for serious developers is control
|
| Same with video and image models, and there's tremendous
| work being done there as we speak.
|
| These models will eventually be trained to learn all of
| human posture and animation. And all other kinds of physics
| as well. Just give it time.
|
| > Those who need maximum control over every frame and every
| millisecond and CPU cyle will still use engines.
|
| Why do you think that's true? These techniques can already
| mimic the physics of optics better than 80 years of doing
| it with math. And they're doing anatomy, fluid dynamics,
| and much more. With far better accuracy than game engines.
|
| These will get faster and they will get controllable.
| noch wrote:
| > Why do you think that's true? > These will get faster
| and they will get controllable.
|
| Brother, you're preaching to the choir. I've been
| shilling generative tools for gamedev far harder than you
| are in your reply. :-)
|
| But I'm just relaying to you what actual gamedevs working
| and writing code right now need and for the foreseeable
| future for which projects have been started or planned.
| As Mike Acton says, "the problem is the problem".
|
| > These techniques can already mimic the physics of
| optics better than 80 years of doing it with math.
|
| I encourage you to talk to actual gamedevs. When
| designing a game, you aren't trying to mimic physics:
| you're trying to make a simulation of physics that
| _feels_ a certain way that you want it to play. This
| applies to fluid dynamics, lighting /optics, everything.
|
| For example, if I'm making a saling simulator, I need to
| be able to script the water at points where it matters
| for _gameplay_ and _game-feel_ , not simulate real
| physics. I'm willing to break the rules of physics so
| that my water doesn't act or look like real water but
| feels good to play.
|
| Movement may be motion captured, but animation is tweaked
| so that the characters control and play in a way that the
| game designer feels is correct for his game.
|
| If you haven't designed a game, I encourage you to try to
| make a simple space invaders clone over the weekend, then
| think about the physics in it and try to make it _feel_
| good or work in an interesting way. Even in something
| that rudimentary, you 'll notice that your simulation is
| something you test and tweak until you arrive at
| parameters that you're happy with but that aren't real
| physics.
| Const-me wrote:
| The scrolling doesn't work in my MS Edge so I opened the page in
| Firefox. Firefox has "Open Video in New Tab" context menu
| command. When viewed that way, the videos are not that
| impressive. Horrible visual quality, Egyptian pyramids of random
| shapes which cast round shadows, etc.
|
| I have a feeling many AI researchers are trying to fix things
| which are not broken.
|
| Game engines are not broken, no reasonable amount of AI TFlops
| going to approach a professional with UE5. DAWs are not broken,
| no reasonable amount of AI TFlops going to approach a
| professional with Steinberg Cubase and Apple Logic.
|
| I wonder why so many AI researchers are trying to generate the
| complete output with their models, as opposed to training model
| to generate some intermediate representation and/or realtime
| commands for industry-standard software?
| rougka wrote:
| Waiting for OpenAI to take this concept and make it into a
| product
| qwertox wrote:
| This is... something different. It will be interesting to see how
| we will integrate our current 3D tooling into that prompt-based
| world. Sometimes a "place a button next to the the door" isn't
| the same as selecting a button and then clicking on the place
| next to the door, as it is today, or to sculpt a terrain with a
| brush, all heavily 3D oriented operations, involving
| transformation matrix calculations, while that promt-based world
| is build through words.
|
| The current tooling we have is just way too good to just discard
| it, think of Maya, Blender and the like. How will these
| interfaces, with the tools they already provide, enable sculpting
| these word-based worlds?
|
| I wonder if some kind of translator will be required, one which
| precisely instructs "User holds a brush pointing 33deg upwards
| and 56deg to the left of the world's x-axis with a brush
| consisting of ... applied with a strength of ...", or how this
| will be translated into embeddings or whatever that will be
| required to communicate with that engine.
|
| This is probably the most exciting time for the CG industry in
| decades, and this means a lot, since we've been seeing incredible
| progress in every area of traditional CG generation. Also a scary
| time for those who learned the skills and will now occasionally
| see some random persons doing incredible visuals with zero
| knowledge of the entire CG pipeline.
| freedryk wrote:
| Forget video games. This is a huge step forward for AGI and
| Robotics. There's a lot of evidence from Neurobiology that we
| must be running something like this in our brains--things like
| optical illusions, the editing out of our visual blind spot, the
| relatively low bandwidth measured in neural signals from our
| senses to our brain, hallucinations, our ability to visualize 3d
| shapes, to dream. This is the start of adding all those abilities
| to our machines. Low bandwidth telepresence rigs. Subatomic VR
| environments synthesized from particle accelerator data. Glasses
| that make the world 20% more pleasant to look at. Schizophrenic
| automobiles. One day a power surge is going to fry your doorbell
| camera and it'll start tripping balls.
| pmayrgundter wrote:
| I can't wait for Schizophrenic automobiles
| sa-code wrote:
| There is a fleshed out realisation of this in Cyberpunk 2077.
| The cab AI is called Delamain
|
| > Delamain was a non-sentient AI created by the company Alte
| Weltordnung. His core was purchased by Delamain Corporation
| of Night City to drive its fleet of taxicabs in response to a
| dramatic increase in accidents caused by human drivers and
| the financial losses from the resulting lawsuits. The AI
| quickly returned Delamain Corp to profitability and assumed
| other responsibilities, such as replacing the company's human
| mechanics with automated repair drones and transforming the
| business into the city's most prestigious and trusted
| transporting service. However, Delamain Corp executives
| underestimated their newest employee's potential for growth
| and independence despite Alte Weltordnung's warnings, and
| Delamain eventually bought out his owners and began operating
| all aspects of the company by himself. Although Delamain
| occupied a legal gray area in Night City due to being an AI,
| his services were so reliable and sought after that Night
| City's authorities were willing to turn a blind eye to his
| status.
|
| https://cyberpunk.fandom.com/wiki/Delamain_(AI)
| dekhn wrote:
| Probably my favorite side quest in the whole game.
| dheera wrote:
| > Glasses that make the world 20% more pleasant to look at.
|
| When AR glasses get good enough to wear all day, I've really
| been wanting to make a real-life ad blocker.
| sorokod wrote:
| hallucinogenics are available right now.
| pelorat wrote:
| This is akin to navigating a lucid dream, nothing more.
| Conscious inputs to a visual stream synthesized from long term
| memory.
| nomel wrote:
| > nothing more.
|
| Consider the use where you seed the first frame from a real
| world picture, with a prompt that gives it a goal. Not only
| can you see what might happen, with different approaches, and
| then pick one, but you can re-seed with real world baselines
| periodically as you're actually executing that action to
| correct for anything that changes. This is a great step for
| real world agency.
|
| As a person _without_ aphantasia, this is how I do anything
| mechanical. I picture what will happen, try a few things
| visually in my head, decide which to do, and then do it for
| real. This "lucid dream" that I call my imagination is all
| based on long term memory that made my world view. I find it
| incredibly valuable. I very much rely on it for my day job,
| and try to exercise it as much as possible, before, say,
| going to a whiteboard.
| smusamashah wrote:
| This looks like my dream worlds already but more colorful and a
| bit more detailed. But the way it hallucinates and becomes
| inconsistent going back and forth the same place is same as
| dreams.
| erulabs wrote:
| It's interesting to me that we continue to see such pressure on
| video and world generation, despite the fact that for years now
| we've gotten games and movies that have beautiful worlds filled
| with lousy, limited, poorly written stories. Star Wars movies
| have looked phenomenal for a decade, full of bland stories we've
| all heard a thousand times.
|
| Are there any game developers working on infinite story games? I
| don't care if it looks like Minecraft, I want a Minecraft that
| tells intriguing stories with infinite quest generation.
| Procedural infinite world gen recharged gaming, where is the
| procedural infinite story generation?
|
| Still, awesome demo. I imagine by the time my kids are in their
| prime video game age (another 5 years or so) we will be in a new
| golden age of interactive story telling.
|
| Hey siri, tell me the epic of Gilgamesh over 40 hours of gameplay
| set 50,000 years in the future where genetic engineering has
| become trivial and Enkidu is a child's creation.
| levkk wrote:
| No Man's Sky is kind of what you're looking for, except you may
| notice its quests (and worlds) become redundant quickly...I say
| quickly, but that became the case for me after like 30 hours of
| game play.
| jsheard wrote:
| That's the kicker, LLM driven stories are likely to fall into
| the same trap that "infinite" procedurally generated games
| usually do - technically having infinite content to explore
| doesn't necessarily mean that content is infinitely engaging.
| You will get bored when you start to notice the same patterns
| coming up over and over again.
|
| Procgen games mainly work when the procedural parts are just
| a foundation for hand-crafted content to sit on, whether
| that's crafted by the players (as in Minecraft) or the
| developers (as in No Mans Sky after they updated it a hundred
| times, or Rougelikes in general).
| est31 wrote:
| Yeah, generative AI can create cool looking pictures and
| video but so far it hasn't managed to create infinitely
| engaging stories. The models aren't there yet.
| jsheard wrote:
| I'd argue that the same principle applies to pictures,
| there are many genres of AI image that are cool the first
| time you see them, but after you've seen the exactly the
| same idea rehashed dozens of times with no substantial
| variety it starts wearing _really_ thin. AI imagery is
| often recognizable as AI not just because of charactistic
| flaws like garbled text but because it 's so hyper-
| cliched.
| lenocinor wrote:
| I wonder if there's some threshold to be crossed where it
| can be surprising for longer. I made a video game name
| generator long ago that just picks a word (or short
| phrase) from each of three columns. (The majority of the
| words / phrases are from me, though many other people
| have contributed.)
|
| I haven't added any words or phrases to it in years, but
| I still use it regularly and somehow it still surprises
| me. Maybe the Spelunky-type approach can be surprising
| for longer; that is, make a bunch of hand-curated bits
| and pick from them randomly:
| https://tinysubversions.com/spelunkyGen/
| wongarsu wrote:
| Dwarf Fortress is the state of the art in procedural
| interactive story generation. Youtube channels like kruggsmash
| show how great it is in that role if you actually read all the
| text.
|
| But that doesn't translate well to websites, trailers or demos.
| It's easier to wow people with graphics.
| foolfoolz wrote:
| we have reliable infinite story generation in PvP multiplayer.
| if the matchup is fair, every game can be different and
| exciting. see chess
| miltonlost wrote:
| is PvP multiplayer considered a "story"? Is a football game a
| "story"? I guess if all you consider for story is "things
| happen", then a PvP match can be a story, but that's
| stretching what I would consider "story" for a game. That is
| the story of the match, but it's not in and of itself a plot
| story.
| programd wrote:
| > is PvP multiplayer considered a "story"?
|
| Consider EVE Online. The stories it generates are
| Shakespearean and I defy anyone to argue that they have no
| plot.
|
| I would go further and predict that stories generated by
| sufficiently advanced AI can explore much more interesting
| story landscapes because they need not be bound by the
| limitations of human experience. Consider what stories can
| be generated by an AI which groks mathematics humans don't
| yet fully understand?
| wholinator2 wrote:
| I agree, the parent would've been much better suited with
| the example of PVE/PVP Roleplaying. People make up stories
| all the time
| miltonlost wrote:
| > I want a Minecraft that tells intriguing stories with
| infinite quest generation. Procedural infinite world gen
| recharged gaming, where is the procedural infinite story
| generation?
|
| You're not gonna get new intriguing stories from AI which only
| regurgitates what it's stolen. You're going to get a themeless
| morass without intention.
|
| I also find it amusing how your example to Siri uses one of the
| oldest pieces of literature when you also tire of stories heard
| a thousand times before.
| 93po wrote:
| if you do basic chatgpt prompts in late 2024 asking for
| dynamic story telling, sure, you'll get what you said. it's
| super dismissive to think that wont get better over time, or
| that even with the tools today, that you can't get dynamic
| and interesting stories out of it if you provide it with the
| proper framework
| krainboltgreene wrote:
| > it's super dismissive to think that wont get better over
| time
|
| When did we start thinking this way? That things HAVE to
| get better and in fact to think otherwise is very negative?
| Is HN under a massive hot hand fallacy delusion?
| miltonlost wrote:
| Lots of people want that AI grift money and need to be
| pollyanna true believers to convince others that models
| that don't know truth are useful decision makers
| visarga wrote:
| Actually, all you need to do is to apply structured
| randomness to get diversity from a LLM. For example in
| TinyStories paper, a precursor of the Phi models:
|
| > We collected a vocabulary consisting of about 1500 basic
| words, which try to mimic the vocabulary of a typical 3-4
| year-old child, separated into nouns, verbs, and adjectives.
| In each generation, 3 words are chosen randomly (one verb,
| one noun, and one adjective). The model is instructed to
| generate a story that somehow combines these random words
| into the story
|
| You can do the same for generating worlds, just prepare good
| ingredients and sample at random.
| miltonlost wrote:
| A story is not just words crammed together that sound
| plausible. Is the AI going to know about pacing? About
| character motivations? About interconnecting disparate
| plots? That paper sounds like it has a scientist's
| conception that a story is just words, and not complex
| trade offs between the start of a story and its end and
| middle, complexity and planning that won't come from any
| sort of next-token generation.
|
| These are "stories" in the most vacuous definition
| possible, one that is just "and then this happened" like a
| child's conception of plot
| wewtyflakes wrote:
| > Is the AI going to know about pacing? About character
| motivations? About interconnecting disparate plots?
|
| For LLMs like GPT-4, this all seems reasonable to account
| for and assume the LLM is capable of processing, given
| appropriate guidance/frameworks (of which may be just
| classical programming).
| digging wrote:
| I think that's a bit of a trap. It's not impossible, but by
| default we should expect it to make games _less fun_.
|
| The better you make this infinite narrative generator, the more
| complicated the world gets and the less compelling it gets to
| actually interact with any one story.
|
| Stories thrive by setting their own context. They should feel
| important to the viewer. An open world with infinite stories
| can't make every story feel meaningful to the player. So how
| does it make _any_ story feel meaningful? I suppose the story
| would have to be global, in which case, it crowds out the
| potential for fractal infinite storylines - eventually, all or
| at least most are going to have to tie back to the Big Bad Guy
| in order to feel meaningful.
|
| Local stories would just feel mostly pointless. In Minecraft,
| all (overworld) locales are equally unimportant. Much like on
| Earth, why should you care about the random place you appeared
| in the world? The difference is that on Earth you tend to
| develop community as you grow and builds connections to the
| place you live, which can build loyalty. In addition, you only
| have one shot, and you have real needs that you must fulfill or
| you die forever. So you develop some otherwise arbitrary
| loyalties in order to feel security in your needs.
|
| In Minecraft there's zero pressure to develop loyalty to a
| place except for your own real-life time. And when that becomes
| a driving factor, why wouldn't you pick a game designed to
| respect your time with a self-contained story? (Not that
| infinite games like Minecraft are bad, but they aren't story-
| driven for a good reason).
|
| Now, a game like Dwarf Fortress is different because you build
| the community, the infrastructure, the things that make you
| care about a place. But it already has infinite story
| generation without AI and I'm not sure AI would improve on that
| model.
| raincole wrote:
| > I think that's a bit of a trap. It's not impossible, but by
| default we should expect it to make games less fun.
|
| I'd say AAA games have been on track of "less fun" for at
| least half a decade. So this sounds like a natural next step.
| digging wrote:
| That's... a bad thing
| yesco wrote:
| I think it's all about how you spin it in, imagine:
|
| - SimCity where you can read a newspaper about what's
| happening in your city that actually reflects the events that
| have occurred with interesting perspectives from the
| residents.
|
| - Dwarf Fortress, but carvings, artwork, demons, forbidden
| beasts, etc get illustrations dynamically generated via
| stable diffusion (in the style of crude sketches to imply a
| dwarf made it perhaps?)
|
| - Dwarf Fortress, again, but the elaborate in-game combat
| comes with a "narrative summary" which conveys first hand
| experiences of a unit in the combat log, which while
| detailed, can be otherwise hard to follow.
|
| - Any fantasy RPG, but with a minstrel companion who follows
| you around and writes about what you do in a silly judgy way.
| The core dialogue could be baked in by the developers but the
| stories this minstrel writes could be dynamically generated
| based on the players actions. Example: "He was a whimsical
| one, who decided to take detour from his urgent hostage
| rescue mission to hop up and down several hundred times in
| the woods while trying on various hats he had collected. I
| have no idea what goes through this mans mind..."
|
| I'm not sure if there is a word for it, but the kernel here
| is that everything is indirectly being dictated by the
| players actions and the games existing systems. The LLM/AI
| stuff isn't in charge of coming up with novel stories and
| core content, they are in charge of making the game more
| immersive by helping with the roleplay. I think this is the
| area they can thrive the most.
| shafoshaf wrote:
| I actually find the same issue with prequels, especially for
| the ones that really hit a chord (like the original Star
| Wars). After knowing what is going to happen in those
| stories, I just can't get invested in a character who I know
| either makes it for sure, dies before getting to the "main"
| story, or doesn't matter because they don't have any
| connection to my canon of the plot arc. Same-universe spins-
| offs fit this for me as well.
|
| OTOH, lots of games come with DLC that add new stories with
| the same mechanics. There might be some additions or changes,
| but if you really like the mechanics, you can try it with a
| different plot. Remnant II has sucked a ton of my time
| because of that.
| lxgr wrote:
| > by default we should expect it to make games less fun.
|
| How so?
|
| I could totally see generative AI add a ton more variety to
| crowds, random ambient sentences by NPCs (that are often
| notoriously just a rotation of a handful of canned lines that
| get repetitive soon), terrain etc., while still being guided
| by a human-created high level narrative.
|
| Imagine being able to _actually_ talk your way out of a
| tricky situation in an RPG with a guard, rather than
| selecting one out of a few canned dialogue options. In the
| background, the LLM could still be prompted by "there's
| three routes this interaction can take; see which one is the
| best fit for what the player says and then guide them to it
| and call this function".
|
| Worst case, you get a soulless, poorly written game with very
| eloquent but ultimately uninteresting characters. Some games
| are already that today - minus the realistic dialogue.
| digging wrote:
| > I could totally see generative AI add a ton more variety
| to crowds, random ambient sentences by NPCs (that are often
| notoriously just a rotation of a handful of canned lines
| that get repetitive soon), terrain etc., while still being
| guided by a human-created high level narrative.
|
| Yes, sure, but that's not what I was responding to. AI
| adding detail, not infinite quest lines, is possibly a good
| use case.
|
| > Worst case, you get a soulless, poorly written game with
| very eloquent but ultimately uninteresting characters. Some
| games are already that today - minus the realistic
| dialogue.
|
| Some games, yes... why do we want more of those? Anyway,
| that's not the worst case. Worst case is incomprehensible
| dialogue.
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| Ok - you got me.
|
| That's actually a use case I can understand- and what's more I
| think that humans could generate training data (story
| "prototypes"?) that somehow (?) expand the phase space of
| story-types
|
| Ironic though - we can build AI that could be creative but it's
| humans that have to use science and logic because AI cannot?
| ec109685 wrote:
| Given we have engines that can render complex 3d worlds, can
| maintain consistency far longer than a minute and simulate
| physics accurately, why put all that burden on a GenAI world
| generator like this?
|
| It seems like it'd be more useful to have the model generate
| the raw artifacts, world map, etc. and let the engine do the
| actual rendering.
| empath75 wrote:
| It only looks like a video game because video game footage is
| plentiful and cheap.
|
| Now, imagine training it on thousands of hours of PoV drone
| footage from Ukraine, and then using that to train autonomous
| agents.
| dmarcos wrote:
| If stories (and AAA games in general) are bland in games is due
| in large part to how expensive are to produce. Risk tolerance
| is low.
|
| If game assets are cheap to generate you'll see small teams or
| even solo developers willing to take more creative risks
| griomnib wrote:
| Counter point: you'd see a corresponding exponential increase
| in QA labor, and just like with the web, Steam will be
| absolutely flooded with slop.
|
| So I see the most likely outcome is a lot of dogshit and
| Steam being forced to make draconian moves to protect the
| integrity of the store.
| alphabetting wrote:
| Seems like there's already a lot of slop on steam and I
| really doubt it will be difficult for quality content to be
| highlighted even if the amount of games increases 1000x or
| more
| dmarcos wrote:
| Yeah. Video and Youtube is an example. Filtering is not a
| hard problem. Mega tons of bad stuff doesn't bother me.
| miltonlost wrote:
| Love that Youtube filter that spits out what I should
| consume. Thank you corporate algorithm for telling me
| what is a good thing to watch
| dmarcos wrote:
| You can subscribe to the channels you like and ignore the
| rest.
| jsheard wrote:
| QAing a game built on a framework where fundamental
| mechanics are non-deterministic and context-sensitive
| sounds like a special kind of hell. Not to mention that
| once you find a bug there's no way to fix it directly,
| since the source code is an opaque blob of weights, so you
| just have to RLHF it until it eventually behaves.
| throwup238 wrote:
| That has been the case since art was first industrialized
| with the printing press. Most of them don't survive but a
| significant fraction, if not the vast majority, of books
| printed in the first century were trashy novels about King
| Arthur and other fantasies (we know from publisher records
| and bibliographies that they were very popular but don't
| have detailed sales figures to compare against older
| content like translated Greek classics). Only a small
| fraction of content created since then has been preserved
| because most of it was slop. The good stuff made it into
| the Western canon over centuries but most of the stuff that
| survives from that time period were family bibles and
| archaic translations.
|
| I don't see why AI will be any different. All that's
| changed is ratio of potential creators to the general
| population. Most of it is going to be slop regardless
| because of economic incentives.
| rafaelmn wrote:
| Or you'll see a flood of shit that's impossible to filter.
| dmarcos wrote:
| Thanks to high bandwidth Internet, YouTube and smartphones
| is easier than ever to produce and distribute high quality
| video. So much good stuff coming from it.
|
| Expect something similar if video games, interactive 3D is
| cheap to produce.
|
| Filtering is a much easier problem to solve and abundance a
| preferable scenario.
| wildermuthn wrote:
| I love that almost all the responses to your question are, "No!
| Bad idea!"
|
| It's a great idea. We want more than an open-world. We want an
| open-story.
|
| Open-story games are going to be the next genre that will
| dominate the gaming industry, once someone figures it out.
| throwup238 wrote:
| IMO this will be the differentiating feature for the next
| generation of video game consoles (or the one after that, if
| we're due for an imminent PS6/Xbox2 refresh). They can afford
| to design their own custom TPU-style chip in partnership with
| AMD/Nvidia and put enough memory on it to run the smaller
| models. Games will ship with their own fine tuned models for
| their game world, possibly multiple to handle conversation
| and world building, inflating download sizes even more.
|
| I think fully conversational games (voice to voice) with
| dynamic story lines are only a decade or two away, pending a
| minor breakthrough in model distillation techniques or
| consumer inference hardware. Unlike self driving cars or AGI
| the technology seems to be there, it's just so new no one has
| tried it. It'll be really interesting to see how game
| designers and writers will wrangle this technology without
| compromising fun. They'll probably have to have a full
| agentic pipeline with artificial play testers running 24/7
| just to figure out the new "bugspace".
|
| Can't wait to see what Nintendo does, but that's probably
| going to take a decade.
| spencerflem wrote:
| From 2018 - https://www.erasmatazz.com/library/interactive-
| storytelling/...
|
| "There's no question in my mind that such software could
| generate reasonably good murder mysteries, action thrillers,
| or gothic romances. After all, even the authors of such works
| will tell you that they are formulaic. If there's a formula
| in there, a deep learning AI system will figure it out.
|
| Therein lies the fatal flaw: the output will be formulaic.
| Most important, the output won't have any artistic content at
| all. You will NEVER see anything like literature coming out
| of deep learning AI. You'll see plenty of potboilers pouring
| forth, but you can't make art without an artist.
|
| This stuff will be hailed as the next great revolution in
| entertainment. We'll see lots of prizes awarded, fulsome
| reviews, thick layers of praise heaped on, and nobody will
| see any need to work on the real thing. That will stop us
| dead in our tracks for a few decades."
| hbn wrote:
| Creativity is the one area where LLMs are completely
| unimpressive. They only spit out derivative works of what
| they've been trained on. I've never seen an LLM tell a good
| joke, or an interesting story. It doesn't know how to subvert
| expectations, come up with clever twists, etc. they just pump
| out a refined average of what's typical.
| ddtaylor wrote:
| > It's interesting to me that we continue to see such pressure
| on video and world generation, despite the fact that for years
| now we've gotten games and movies that have beautiful worlds
|
| Those beautiful worlds took a lot of money to make and the
| studios are smart enough to realize consumers are
| apathetic/stupid enough to accept much lower quality assets.
|
| The top end of the AAA market will use this sparingly for the
| junk you don't spend much time on - stuff the intern was doing
| before.
|
| The bottom of the market will use this for virtually everything
| in their movie-to-game pipeline of throwaway games. These are
| the games designed just to sucker parents and kids out of $60
| every month. The games that don't even follow the story of the
| movie and likely makes the story worse.
|
| Strangely enough this is where the industry makes the vast
| majority of it's day-to-day walking around cash.
| Stevvo wrote:
| You can see artifacts common in screen-space reflections in the
| videos. I suspect they are not due to the model rendering
| reflections based on screen-space information, but the model
| being trained on games that render reflections in such a manner.
| xavirodriguez wrote:
| uoou
| enbugger wrote:
| Just like with the images, this will never be at good shape to
| actually use it for real product as it discards details
| completely leaving generic 3rd person controller animation.
|
| What this should say to you instead is that stuff is really bad
| on training data side if you start scraping billions of game
| streams on internet - hard to imagine if there is a bigger chunk
| of training data than this. Stagnation incoming.
| ata_aman wrote:
| We're about to have on-demand video content and games simply
| based on prompts. My prediction is we'll have "prompt
| marketplaces" where you can gen content based on 3rd party
| prompts (or your own). 3-5 years.
| smusamashah wrote:
| Its so much like my lucid dreams where world sometimes stays
| consistent for a while when I take its control. It's a strange
| feeling seeing computer hallucinating a world just like I
| hallucinate a world in dreams.
|
| This also means that my dreams will keep looking like this
| iteration of Genie 2, but computer will scale up and the worlds
| won't look anything like my dreams anymore in next versions (its
| already more colorful anyway).
|
| I remember image generation use to look like dreams too in the
| beginning. Now it doesn't look anything like that.
| MrTrvp wrote:
| Soon enough I imagine we'll have dream state to cohesive
| reality models. Our desires and world events can be dissected
| and analyzed by fine grain and hint authorities to your intent
| before you know what they mean to you /s.
| jckahn wrote:
| At first I was excited to see a new model, but then I saw no
| indication that the model is open source so I closed the page.
| anthonymax wrote:
| Wow, is this artificial intelligence creating this already?
| bbstats wrote:
| who is asking for this?
| ddtaylor wrote:
| This is very impressive technology and I am active in this space.
| Very active. I make an (unreleased) Steam game that helps users
| create their own games from not knowing how to program. I also
| (unknowingly) co-authored tools that K12 and university are using
| to teach game programming.
|
| For the time being I will gloss over the fact this might just be
| a consumer facing product for Google that ends up having nothing
| to do with younger developers.
|
| I'm torn between two ideas:
|
| a. Show kids awesome stuff that motivates them to code
|
| b. Show kids how to code something that might not be as awesome,
| but they actually made it
|
| On the one hand you want to show kids something cool and get them
| motivated. What Google is doing here is certainly capable of
| doing that.
|
| On the other hand I want to show kids what they can actually do
| and empower them. The days of making a game on your own in your
| basement are mostly dead, but I don't think that means the idea
| of being someone who can control a large amount of your vision -
| both technical and non-technical - is important.
|
| Not everyone is the same either. I have met kids that would never
| spend a few hours to learn some Python with pygame to get a few
| rectangles and sprites on screen that might get more interested
| if they saw something this flashy. But experience also tells me
| those kids are extremely less likely to get much value from a
| tool like this beyond entertainment.
|
| I have a 14 year old son myself and I struggle to understand how
| he sees the world in this capacity sometimes. I don't understand
| what he thinks is easy or hard and it warps his expectations
| drastically. I come from a time period where you would grind for
| hours at a terminal pecking in garbage from a magazine to see a
| few seconds of crappy graphics. I don't think there should be
| meaningless labor attached to programming for no reason, but I
| also think that creating a "cost" to some degree may have helped
| us. Given two programs to peck into the terminal, which one do
| you peck? Very few of us had the patience (and lack of sanity) to
| peck them all.
| empiricus wrote:
| Feed it the inputs from the real world and then it will recreate
| in its mind a mirror of the world. Some say this is what we do
| also, we live in a virtual reality created by our minds.
| wg0 wrote:
| Google is not coming slow... This is magic. As a casual gamer and
| someone wanting to make my own game, this is black magic.
|
| Lighting, gravity, character animation and what not internalized
| by the model... from a single image...!
| nopinsight wrote:
| The real goal of this research is developing models that match or
| exceed human understanding of the 3D world -- a key step toward
| AGI.
|
| A key reason why current Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) still
| have inferior visual understanding compared to humans is their
| lack of deep comprehension of the 3D world. Such understanding
| requires movement, interaction, and feedback from the physical
| environment. Models that incorporate these elements will likely
| yield much more capable LMMs.
|
| As a result, we can expect significant improvements in robotics
| and self-driving cars in the near future.
|
| Simulations + Limited robot data from labs + Algorithms
| advancement --> Better spatial intelligence
|
| which will lead to a positive feedback loop:
|
| Better spatial intelligence --> Better robots --> More robot
| deployment --> Better spatial intelligence --> ...
| andelink wrote:
| Is this type of on-the-fly graphics generation more expensive
| than purely text based LLMs? What is the inference energy impact
| of these types of models?
| dartos wrote:
| > Genie 2 can generate consistent worlds for up to a minute, with
| the majority of examples shown lasting 10-20s.
| lacoolj wrote:
| OpenAI launches Sora (quite a while ago now), Google needs to
| fire back with something else groundbreaking.
|
| I love the advancement of the tech but this still looks very
| young and I'd be curious what the underlying output code looks
| like (how well it's formatted, documented, organized, optimized,
| etc.)
|
| Also, this seems oddly related to the recent post from WorldLabs
| https://www.worldlabs.ai/blog. Wonder if this was timed to
| compete directly and overtake the related news cycle.
| whiplash451 wrote:
| I also find the timing vs World Labs demo disturbing.
| alphabetting wrote:
| What's disturbing? In all likelihood the close timing was
| world labs rushing to get their demo out the door knowing
| this was coming because they wouldn't get nearly the hype
| they did if this came before.
| swyx wrote:
| i was wondering when genie 1 was and... it didtn seem to get much
| love? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39509937 @dang was
| there a main thread here?
| brap wrote:
| While this is very (very) cool, what is the upside to having a
| model render everything at runtime, vs. having it render the 3D
| assets during development (or even JIT), and then rendering it as
| just another game? I can think of many reasons why the latter is
| preferable.
| gavmor wrote:
| To me, keeping a world state in sync with rapidly changing
| external state is the most compelling application. Something
| like dockercraft: https://github.com/docker/dockercraft
| aussieguy1234 wrote:
| If it can play video games that simulate the laws of physics,
| could it control a robot in the physical world?
| dangoodmanUT wrote:
| this page loads like shit
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-12-04 23:00 UTC)