Earlier quoted context omitted.
Were you there or just an attentive outsider?
Attentive outsider and acquaintance of a couple people who are or were employed there. Nothing I'm saying is particularly inside baseball, though, it's pretty well covered by all the blogs and podcasts.
Project Genie: Experimenting with infinite, interactive worlds
41–50 of 347 posts
Re: Project Genie: Experimenting with infinite, interactive worlds
#42Re: Project Genie: Experimenting with infinite, interactive worlds
#43Re: Project Genie: Experimenting with infinite, interactive worlds
#44Re: Project Genie: Experimenting with infinite, interactive worlds
#45The actual breakthrough with Genie is being able to turn around and look back, and seeing the same scene that was there before. A few other labs have similar world simulators, but they all struggle badly with keeping coherence of things not in view. Hence why they always walk forwards and never look around.
Re: Project Genie: Experimenting with infinite, interactive worlds
#46Re: Project Genie: Experimenting with infinite, interactive worlds
#47The actual breakthrough with Genie is being able to turn around and look back, and seeing the same scene that was there before. A few other labs have similar world simulators, but they all struggle badly with keeping coherence of things not in view. Hence why they always walk forwards and never look around.
And what if I go somewhere then go back there a week later?
Re: Project Genie: Experimenting with infinite, interactive worlds
#48I 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…
Re: Project Genie: Experimenting with infinite, interactive worlds
#49We will probably see Ready Player One in a few decades. Hoping to stay alive till then.
I mean, yes, the probability of having that level of tech in decades is quite high.
But the technology is moving very fast right now. It sounds crazy, but I think that there is a 50% chance of having ready player one level technology before 2030.
It's absolutely possible it will take more time to become economical.
Re: Project Genie: Experimenting with infinite, interactive worlds
#50I 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…