51–60 of 87 posts
This is great. Can I use it with existing scan of my room to fill the gaps? Not a random world Update - yes you can. To be tested.
Update - it is a paid feature
I like that they distinguish between the collider mesh (lower poly) and the detailed mesh (higher poly). As a game developer I'm looking for: • Export low-poly triangle mesh (ideally OBJ or FBX format — something fairly generic, nothing too fancy) • Export texture map • Export normals • Bonus: export the scene as "de-structured" objects (e.g. instead of a giant world mesh with everything baked into it, separate expor…
Aren't the gausian splats the output here? Or are these worlds fully meshed and textured assets? From my understanding, admittedly quite a shallow look so far, the model generates gaussian splats then from that could implement the collider. I guess from the splat and the colliders you could generate actual assets that could be interactable/animated/have physics etc. Unsure, exciting space though! I just don't know ho…
However, to my eye, the triangular meshes shown look pretty low quality compared to the splat: compare the triangulated books on the shelves, and the wooden chair by the door, as well as weird hole-like defects in the blanket by the fireplace.
It's also not clear if it's generating one mesh for the entire world, it looks like it is - that would make interactability and optimisation more difficult (no frustrum culling etc, though you could feasibly chop the mesh up into smaller pieces I suppose).
seems anything to do with asteroids (or explosions I imagine) are blocked.
As someone with barebones understanding of "world models," how does this differ from sophisticated game engines that generate three-dimensional worlds? Is it simply the adaptation of transformer architecture in generating the 3-D world v/s using a static/predictable script as in game engines (learned dynamics vs deterministic simulation mimicking 'generation')? Would love an explanation from SMEs.
This is going to take movie making to another level because now we can: 1. Generate a full scene 2. Generate a character with specific movements. Combine these 2, and we can have moving cameras as needed (long takes). This is going to make storytelling very expressive. Incredible times! Here's a bet: We'll have a AI superstar (A-list level) in the next 12 months.
An a-list level actor superstar within 12 months? I’m willing to take that bet. Name any amount you’re willing to lose. Before you agree: movies take more than 1 year to make and get published, and it takes more than 1 movie to make somebody an a-lister
Same terms - gentlemen's agreement. The loser owes the winner a meal whenever they meet :). For a HN visitor to blore, I'll happy to host a meal anyway :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An a-list level actor superstar within 12 months? I’m willing to take that bet. Name any amount you’re willing to lose. Before you agree: movies take more than 1 year to make and get published, and it takes more than 1 movie to make somebody an a-lister
Fair warning, when I last put up a bet in AI video arena, I won! https://www.linkedin.com/posts/anilgulecha_kitsune-activity-... Same terms - gentlemen's agreement. The loser owes the winner a meal whenever they meet :). For a HN visitor to blore, I'll happy to host a meal anyway :)
Is Marble's definition of a "world model" the same as Yann LeCun's definition of a world model? And is that the same as Genie's definition of a world model?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s irrelevant - it has nothing analogous to mental imagery. It’s pseudoscience. Edit - of course you have no idea, you have no grasp of the oscillatory-dynamic origins of consciousness, nor does it seem anyone in AI.
histrionic and meretricious
The idea that words and space are being conflated as a formula for spatial intelligence is fundamentally absurd as our relationships to space have no resolution, both within any one language and worse, between them, as language is arbitrary. Language and thought are entirely separate forms. Aphasia has proved this since 2016.
AI developers have to face the music, these impoverished gimmicks aren't even magic, they are bunk. And debunkable once compared to the sciences of the brain.
This is going to take movie making to another level because now we can: 1. Generate a full scene 2. Generate a character with specific movements. Combine these 2, and we can have moving cameras as needed (long takes). This is going to make storytelling very expressive. Incredible times! Here's a bet: We'll have a AI superstar (A-list level) in the next 12 months.
finally! we should come up for a term for this new tech... maybe computer generated imagery?