> 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.