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

211–220 of 347 posts

Re: Project Genie: Experimenting with infinite, interactive worlds

#211

Post by qingcharles »

MillionOClock wrote: post #57
krunck wrote: post #46

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.

It won't. This is digital heroin of the purest kind. The reason we've never heard from any alien species is that they invented this technology and then the entire population disappeared into their goonspheres and never emerged.

Quite how they stopped a line forming three decks long outside every holodeck on the Enterprise is a mystery to me.

Re: Project Genie: Experimenting with infinite, interactive worlds

#212

Post by jlhawn »

kingstoned wrote: post #205
tracerbulletx wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is pretty well established as far as neurologists are concerned and explains a lot of things. Like dreaming for instance.. just something like the model running without sensory input constraining it.

Could you please give some sources - books or articles or videos on that topic? It's really fascinating

the book I mentioned (_The Experience Machine_ by Andy Clark) talks about this.

Re: Project Genie: Experimenting with infinite, interactive worlds

#213

Post by tracerbulletx »

kingstoned wrote: post #205
tracerbulletx wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is pretty well established as far as neurologists are concerned and explains a lot of things. Like dreaming for instance.. just something like the model running without sensory input constraining it.

Could you please give some sources - books or articles or videos on that topic? It's really fascinating

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/phib.12268?u...

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23663408/

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rstb/article/371/1708/201...

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20068583/

Re: Project Genie: Experimenting with infinite, interactive worlds

#215

Post by dryarzeg »

ceejayoz wrote: post #180
oceanplexian wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah and the goal of Instagram was to share quirky pictures you took with your friends. Now it’s a platform for influencers and brainrot; arguably it has done more damage than drugs to younger generations. As soon as this thing is hooked up to VR and reaches a tipping point with the general public we all know exactly what is going to happen. The creation of the most profitable, addictive and ultimately dystopian tech…

The good news is we’ll finally have an answer for the Fermi Paradox.

Your positive mindset impresses me, honestly. In a good way.

Re: Project Genie: Experimenting with infinite, interactive worlds

#216

Post by CamperBob2 »

phailhaus wrote: post #176
whalee wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was a common argument against LLMs, that the space of possible next tokens is so vast that eventually a long enough sequence will necessarily decay into nonsense, or at least that compounding error will have the same effect. Problem is, that's not what we've observed to happen as these models get better. In reality there is some metaphysical coarse-grained substrate of physics/semantics/whatever[1] which these m…

> Problem is, that's not what we've observed to happen as these models get better Eh? Context rot is extremely well known. The longer you let the context grow, the worse LLMs perform. Many coding agents will pre-emptively compact the context or force you to start a new session altogether because of this. For Genie to create a consistent world, it needs to maintain context of everything , forever . No matter how good…

The models, not the context. When it comes to weights, "quantity has a quality all its own" doesn't even begin to describe what happens.

Once you hit a billion or so parameters, rocks suddenly start to think.

Re: Project Genie: Experimenting with infinite, interactive worlds

#217

Post by Morromist »

gambiting wrote: post #126

>>How we’re building responsibly 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 think everyone has forgotten who google is here. Google makes cool things and then destroys them. Like Stadia, as someone else mentioned. This thing is already just hovering over the trash bin.

Of course, maybe its a bridge to something else, but all I see is an image generator that's working really fast, so nothing novel.

Re: Project Genie: Experimenting with infinite, interactive worlds

#218

Post by [deleted] »

benlivengood wrote: post #94
in-silico wrote: post #52

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.

Agreed; everyone complained that LLMs have no world model, so here we go. Next logical step is to backfill the weights with encoded video from the real world at some reasonable frame rate to ground the imagination and then branch the inference on possible interventions (actions) in the near future of the simulation, throw the results into a goal evaluator and then send the winning action-predictions to motors. Gettin…

[deleted]

Re: Project Genie: Experimenting with infinite, interactive worlds

#220

Post by Morromist »

jsheard wrote: post #112
falcor84 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why wouldn't it just hook it into something like physx?

Google has made it clear that Genie doesn't maintain an explicit 3D scene representation, so I don't think hooking in "assists" like that is on the table. Even if it were, the AI layer would still have to infer things like object weight, density, friction and linkages correctly. Garbage in, garbage out.

Google could build try to build an actual 3d scene with ai using meshes or metaballs or something. That would allow for more persistance, but I expect makes the ai more brittle and limited, and, because it doesn't really understand the rules for the 3d meshes it created, it doesn't know how to interact with them. It can only be fluffy-mushy dream images.
Post reply on HN