Live data from Hacker News

Project Genie: Experimenting with infinite, interactive worlds

blog.google

321–330 of 347 posts

Re: Project Genie: Experimenting with infinite, interactive worlds

#321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We're talking about context here though. The first couple seconds of Genie are great, but over time it degrades. It will always degrade, because it's hallucinating a world and needs to keep track of too many things.

That has traditionally been the problem with these types of models, but Genie is supposed to maintain coherence up to 60 seconds.

I've tried using it a couple of times, but can't get in. It is either down or hopelessly underprovisioned by Google. Do you have any links to videos showing that the quality degrades after only a few seconds?

Edit: no, it just doesn't work in Firefox. It works incredibly well, at least in Chrome, and it does not lose coherence to any great extent. The controls are terrible, though.

Re: Project Genie: Experimenting with infinite, interactive worlds

#322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have a source for that? I think you are anthropomorphising the AI too much. Imagination is inspired by reality, which AI does not have. Introducing a reality which the AI fully controls (looking beyond issues of vision and physics simulation) would only induce psychosis in the AI itself since false assumptions would only be amplified.

> psychosis in the AI itself I think you're anthropomorphising the AI too much: what does it mean for an LLM to have psychosis? This implies that LLMs have a soul, or a consciousness, or a psyche. But... do they? Speaking of reality, one can easily become philosophical and say that we humans don't exactly "have" a reality either. All we have are sensor readings. LLMs' sensors are texts and images they get as input. T…

Psychosis is obviously being used in this context to reference the very well documented "hallucinations" that LLMs experience.

Re: Project Genie: Experimenting with infinite, interactive worlds

#323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This isn't a rebuttal. I don't really think it's possible to convince you. Basically everyone I talk to is using LLMs for work, and in some cases- like mine- I know for a fact that they do produce enormous amounts of value- to the point that I would pay quite some money to keep using them if my company stopped paying for them. Yes LLMs have well known limitations, but at they're still a brand new technology in its…

You know what this reminds me of? Language X comes out (e.g., Lisp or Haskell), and people try it, and it's this wonderful, magical experience, and something just "clicks", and they tell everyone how wonderful it is. And other people try it - really sincerely try it - and they don't "get it". It doesn't work for them. And those who "get it" tell those who don't that they just need to really try it, and keep trying it…

> You know what this reminds me of? Language X comes out (e.g., Lisp or Haskell), and people try it, and it's this wonderful, magical experience, and something just "clicks", and they tell everyone how wonderful it is.

I can relate to this. And I can understand that, depending on how and what you code, LLMs might have different value, or even none. Totally understand.

At the same time.. well, let's put it this way. I've been fascinated with programming and computers for decades, and "intelligence", whatever it is, for me has always been the holy grail of what computers can do. I've spent a stupid amount of time thinking about how intelligence works, how a computer program could unpack language, solve its ambiguities, understand the context and nuance, notice patterns that nobody told it were there, etc. Until ten years ago these problems were all essentially unsolved, despite more than half a century of attempts, large human curated efforts, funny chatbots that produced word salads with vague hints of meaning and infuriating ones that could pass for stupid teenagers for a couple of minutes provided they selected sufficiently vague answers from a small database... I've seen them all. In 1968's A Space Odyssey there's a computer that talks (even if "experts prefer to say that it mimics human intelligence") and in 2013's Her there's another one. In between, in terms of actual results, there's nothing. "Her" is as much science fiction as it is "2001", with the aggravating factor that in Her the AI is presented as a novel consumer product: absurd. As if anything like that were possible without a complete societal disruption.

All this to say: I can't for the life of me understand people who act blasé when they can just talk to a machine and the machine appears to understand what they mean, doesn't fall for trivial language ambiguities but will actually even make some meta-fun about it if you test them with some well known example; a machine that can read a never-seen-before comic strip, see what happens in it, read the shaky lettering and finally explain correctly where the humour lies. You can repeat to yourself a billion times "transformers something-something" but that doesn't change the fact that what you are seeing is intelligence, that's exactly what we always called intelligence- the ability to make sense of messy inputs, see patterns, see the meanings behind the surface, and communicate back in clear language. Ah, and this technology is only a few years old- little more than three if we count from ChatGPT. These are the first baby steps.

So it's not working for you right now? Fine. You don't see the step change, the value in general and in perspective? Then we have a problem.

Re: Project Genie: Experimenting with infinite, interactive worlds

#324
post #287

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.

Creating robots for an imaginary universe? Who needs those

Me! Me! I want to drive a tiny robot though the generated world.

Read "Stars don't dream" by Chi Hui (vol1 of "Think weirder") :)

Re: Project Genie: Experimenting with infinite, interactive worlds

#325

Anyone else going to try it and just keep getting a 404 page?

It came up for me and accepted a photo, but it has just been stuck in the "Don't go anywhere, it's almost ready" state for 10+ minutes. No idea how long it is supposed to take. They can pull a 3D world out of thin air but they apparently can't vibe-code a progress bar... Edit: Now it's saying "We'll notify you when it's ready, and you'll have 30 seconds to enter your world. You are 37th in the queue." Go to restroom,…

Edit 2: It works, but not in Firefox. You have to use Chrome, and no, it doesn't tell you this. I don't know what I expected...

Re: Project Genie: Experimenting with infinite, interactive worlds

#326
I'm both scared and excited for this.

I really don't want games to turn into a soulless, AI generated mush. This could also bring a huge amount of slop-generated content flooding the game market.

On the other hand I think this could be very cool from some specific use cases like outdoor scenarios in simulators. I've always wanted a game like Euro Truck Simulator where I can drive a car around a whole 1:1 representation of a country and this might just allow that, obviously I don't care about an accurate representation of every building or tree or hallucinations, just for it to be believable enough.

I wonder if it can be integrated into already existing engines though, because it seems like a big stretch to write actual game logic as an LLM prompt.

Re: Project Genie: Experimenting with infinite, interactive worlds

#327
PSA to Driving Sim vibe coders and their enablers - Your racing game data ≠ real-world driving training data. Training FSD on gaming data = teaching AI that driving is a competitive sport where the worst outcome is hitting "restart". Real roads have pedestrians, weather, unpredictable humans, and actual consequences. Gaming AI would learn all the wrong lessons. Imaginary gameplay telemetry might be valuable, but not for a world of street festivals, farmers markets, and school zones.

Re: Project Genie: Experimenting with infinite, interactive worlds

#328
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…

This is one of my fundamental beliefs about the nature of consciousness. We are never able to interact with the physical world directly, we first perceive it and then interpret those perceptions. More often than not, our interpretation ignores and modifies those perceptions, so we really are just living in a world created by our own mental chatter. This is one of the core tenets of Buddhism, and it's also expounded o…

> We are never able to interact with the physical world directly

What would count as anything or anyone interacting with the physical world directly?

Re: Project Genie: Experimenting with infinite, interactive worlds

#329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like all these models work, by simple interpolation.

But how does it interpolate?

Pixel by pixel, time-slice by time-slice, in a 2D+T convolution. You provide enough examples of videos of changing point-of-view, and the model reproduces what it is given.

Re: Project Genie: Experimenting with infinite, interactive worlds

#330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> psychosis in the AI itself I think you're anthropomorphising the AI too much: what does it mean for an LLM to have psychosis? This implies that LLMs have a soul, or a consciousness, or a psyche. But... do they? Speaking of reality, one can easily become philosophical and say that we humans don't exactly "have" a reality either. All we have are sensor readings. LLMs' sensors are texts and images they get as input. T…

> I think you're anthropomorphising the AI too much I don’t get it. Is that supped to be a gotchya? Have you tried maliciously messing with an LLM? You can get it into a state that resembles psychosis. I mean you give it a context that is removed from reality, yet close enough to reality to act on and it willl give you crazy output.

Sorry, I was just trying to be funny, no gotcha intended. Yeah, I once found some massive prompt that was supposed to transform the LLM into some kind of spiritual advisor or the next Buddha or whatever. Total gibberish, in my opinion, possibly written by a mentally unstable person. Anyway, I wanted to see if DeepSeek could withstand it and tell me that it was in fact gibberish. Nope, it went crazy, going on about some sort of magic numbers, hidden structure of the Universe and so on. So yeah, a state that resembles psychosis, indeed.
Post reply on HN