Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Project Genie: Experimenting with infinite, interactive worlds

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 347 posts

Re: Project Genie: Experimenting with infinite, interactive worlds

#181

Post by moomoo11 »

jplusequalt wrote: post #145
moomoo11 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this would be good for the people living in overcrowded, polluted and dirty cities in the world (let's be honest, they actually exist regardless of how that happened or why). Maybe they can unplug from 500+ AQI pollution and spend time with their loved ones and friends in a simulated clean world? Imagine working for 10-12 hours a day, and you come home to a pod (and a building could house thousands of pods, p…

There are posters in this very thread chain who want this reality to come to pass.

I mean if I'm totally honest, it could be beneficial to me if something like this comes to be. Even in the developed world, we have a bunch of annoying people who complain/cry constantly about dumb things. They do that instead of doing something, whereas I can excuse the people trapped in hellholes overseas because it really isn't their fault they were oppressed and mistreated.

They'd have their own economy and "life" and leave the rest of us alone. It would be completely transactional, so I'd have zero reason to feel bad if they do it voluntarily.

If they can be happy in a simulated world, and others can be happy in the real world, then everyone wins!

Re: Project Genie: Experimenting with infinite, interactive worlds

#182

Post by Havoc »

Are world models from the perspective of an observer in the world or zoomed out?

Or in gaming terms do these models think FPS or RTS?

Text models and pixel grid vision models is easy but struggling to wrap my head around what world model "sees" so to speak.

Re: Project Genie: Experimenting with infinite, interactive worlds

#183

Post by slashdave »

kingstnap wrote: post #170
slashdave wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Related: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.03220 This is a paper that recently got popular ish and discusses the counter to your viewpoint. > Paradox 1: Information cannot be increased by deterministic processes. For both Shannon entropy and Kolmogorov complexity, deterministic transformations cannot meaningfully increase the information content of an object. And yet, we use pseudorandom number generators to produce randomn…

Interesting paper, thanks! But, the authors escape the three paradoxes they present by introducing training limits (compute, factorization, distribution). Kind of a different problem here.

What I object to are the "scaling maximalists" who believe that if enough training data were available, that complicated concepts like a world model will just spontaneously emerge during training. To then pile on synthetic data from a general-purpose generative model as a solution to the lack of training data becomes even more untenable.

Re: Project Genie: Experimenting with infinite, interactive worlds

#185

Post by shagie »

jlhawn wrote: post #167

Now I can't stop thinking about _The Experience Machine_ by Andy Clark. It theorizes that this is how humans navigate and experience the real world: Our brains generate what we think the world around is like and our senses don't so much directly process visual information but instead act like a kind of loss function for our internal simulations. Then we use that error to update our internal model of the world. In thi…

A kurzgesagt on this: Why Your Brain Blinds You For 2 Hours Every Day https://youtu.be/wo_e0EvEZn8 and the sources for that video - https://sites.google.com/view/sources-reality-is-not-real/

Re: Project Genie: Experimenting with infinite, interactive worlds

#187

Post by littlekey »

sebasv_ wrote: post #169

I am stumped. Am I misreading, or are the folks at Google deliberately confounding two interpretations of "world model"? Dont get me wrong, this is really cool, and it will undoubtedly have its use. But what I am seeing is an LLM that can generate textures to be fed into a human-coded 3d engine (the "world model" that is demonstrated), and I fail to see how that brings us closer to AGI. For AGI we need "world models"…

>an LLM that can generate textures to be fed into a human-coded 3d engine

I'm not certain but I think the LLM is also generating the physics itself. It's generating rules based on its training data, e.g. watch a cat walk enough and you can simulate how the cat moves in the generated "world".

Re: Project Genie: Experimenting with infinite, interactive worlds

#189

Post by throw310822 »

ezst wrote: post #61
observationist wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LeCun wasn't producing results. He was obstinate and insistent on his own theories and ideas which weren't, and possibly aren't, going anywhere. He refused to engage with LLMs and compete in the market that exists, and spent all his effort and energy on unproven ideas and research, which split the company's mission and competitiveness. They lost their place as one of the top 4 AI companies, and are now a full generat…

Since a hot take is as good as the next one: LLMs are by the day more and more clearly understood as a "local maximum" with flawed capabilities, limited efficiency, a $trillion + a large chunk of the USA's GDP wasted, nobody even turning a profit from that nor able to build something that can't be reproduced for free within 6 months. When the right move (strategically, economically) is to not compete, the head of the…

You really need to be obstinate in your convictions if you can dismiss LLMs at the time when everyone's job is being turned around by them. Everywhere I look, everyone I talk to, is using LLMs more and more to do their job and dramatically increase their productivity. It's one of the most successful technologies I've ever witnessed arriving on the market, and it's only just started- it's just three years old.
Post reply on HN