121–130 of 347 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, this was his job description: Fundamental AI Research (FAIR) lab. Not AI products division. You can't expect marketable products from a fundamental AI research lab.
It's "Facebook Artificial Intelligence Research", not fundamental. So basically involves both fundamental and applied research. [1]: https://engineering.fb.com/category/ai-research/
The more of this I see the more I want to spend time away from screens and doing those things I love to do in the real world.
I love AI but I also hope it will paradoxically make people realize the value of real life experiences and human relationships.
I can't even fathom what it would be like for the future of simulation and physical world when it gets far more accurate and realistic.
Everyone here seems too caught up in the idea that Genie is the product, and that its purpose is to be a video game, movie, or VR environment. That is not the goal. The purpose of world models like Genie is to be the "imagination" of next-generation AI and robotics systems: a way for them to simulate the outcomes of potential actions in order to inform decisions.
Soft disagree; if you wanted imagination you don't need to make a video model. You probably don't need to decode the latents at all. That seems pretty far from information-theoretic optimality, the kind that you want in a good+fast AI model making decisions. The whole reason for LLMs inferencing human-processable text, and "world models" inferencing human-interactive video, is precisely so that humans can connect in…
Even if you just wire this output (or probably multiples running different counterfactuals) into a multimodal LLM that interprets the video and uses it to make decisions, you have something new.
How are you justifying the enormous energy cost this toy is using, exactly?
I don't find anything "responsible" about this. And it doesn't even seem like something that has any actual use - it's literally just a toy.
I have no idea why Google is wasting their time with this. Trying to hallucinate an entire world is a dead-end. There will never be enough predictability in the output for it to be cohesive in any meaningful way, by design. Why are they not training models to help write games instead? You wouldn't have to worry about permanence and consistency at all, since they would be enforced by the code, like all games today. Lo…
It's ability to simulate physics intact is actually a huge breakthrough. I can't even fathom what it would be like for the future of simulation and physical world when it gets far more accurate and realistic.
This is most evident in the way things collide.
Everyone here seems too caught up in the idea that Genie is the product, and that its purpose is to be a video game, movie, or VR environment. That is not the goal. The purpose of world models like Genie is to be the "imagination" of next-generation AI and robotics systems: a way for them to simulate the outcomes of potential actions in order to inform decisions.
Everyone here seems too caught up in the idea that Genie is the product, and that its purpose is to be a video game, movie, or VR environment. That is not the goal. The purpose of world models like Genie is to be the "imagination" of next-generation AI and robotics systems: a way for them to simulate the outcomes of potential actions in order to inform decisions.
This is a video model, not a world model. Start learning on this, and cascading errors will inevitably creep into all downstream products. You cannot invent data.
If instead of a photo you have a video feed, this is one step closer to implementing subjective experience.