3 ms·

It's always fun reading the dead comments on a post like this. People love to point how how pointless this is. Some of ya'll need to learn how to make things

It's always fun reading the dead comments on a post like this. People love to point how how pointless this is. Some of ya'll need to learn how to make things for the fun of making things. Is this useful? No, not really. Is it interesting? Absolutely. Not everything has to be made for profit. Not everything has to be made to make the world a better place. Sometimes, people create things just for the learning experience, the challenge, or they're curious to see if something is possible. Time spent enjoying yourself is never time wasted. Some of ya'll are going to be on your death beds wishing you had allowed yourself to have more fun.

Gooblebrai 2y ago
So true. The hustle culture is an spreading disease that has replaced the fun maker culture from the 80s/90s. It's unavoidable though. Cost of living being increasingly expensive and romantization of entrepreneurs like they are rock stars leads towards this hustle mindset.
ninetyninenine 2y ago
I don’t think this is not useful. This is a stepping stone for generating entire novel games.
- Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
  > This is a stepping stone for generating entire novel games. I don't see how. This game "engine" is purely mapping [pixels, input] -> new pixels. It has no notion of game state (so you can kill an enemy, turn your back, then turn around again, and the enemy could be alive again), not to mention that it requires the game to already exist in order to train it. I suppose, in theory, you could train the network to include game state in the input and output, or potentially even handle game state outside the network entirely and just make it one of the inputs, but the output would be incredibly noisy and nigh unplayable. And like I said, all of it requires the game to already exist in order to train the network.
  - airstrike 2y ago
    > (so you can kill an enemy, turn your back, then turn around again, and the enemy could be alive again) Sounds like a great game. > not to mention that it requires the game to already exist in order to train it Diffusion models create new images that did not previously exist all of the time, so I'm not sure how that follows. It's not hard to extrapolate from TFA to a model that generically creates games based on some input
  - ninetyninenine 2y ago
    >It has no notion of game state (so you can kill an enemy, turn your back, then turn around again) Well you see a wall you turn around then turn back the wall is still there. With enough training data the model will be able to pick up the state of the enemy because it has ALREADY learned the state of the wall due to much more numerous data on the wall. It's probably impractical to do this, but this is only a stepping stone like said. > not to mention that it requires the game to already exist in order to train it. Is this a problem? Do games not exist? Not only due we have tons of games, but we also have in theory unlimited amounts of training data for each game.
    - Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
      > Well you see a wall you turn around then turn back the wall is still there. With enough training data the model will be able to pick up the state of the enemy because it has ALREADY learned the state of the wall due to much more numerous data on the wall. It's really important to understand that ALL THE MODEL KNOWS is a mapping of [pixels, input] -> new pixels. It has zero knowledge of game state. The wall is still there after spinning 360 degrees simply because it knows that the image of a view facing away from the wall while holding the key to turn right eventually becomes an image of a view of the wall. The only "state" that is known is the last few frames of the game screen. Because of this, it's simply not possible for the game model to know if an enemy should be shown as dead or alive once it has been off-screen for longer than those few frames. It also means that if you keeping turning away and towards an enemy, it could teleport around. Once it's off the screen for those few frames, the model will have forgotten about it. > Is this a problem? Do games not exist? If you're trying to make a new game, then you need new frames to train the model on.
msk-lywenn 2y ago
I’d like to now to carbon footprint of that fun.
ploxiln 2y ago
The skepticism and criticism in this thread is against the hype of AI, it's implied by people saying "this is so amazing" that they think that in some near future you can create any video game experience you can imagine by just replacing all the software with some AI models, rendering the whole game. When in reality this is the least efficient and reliable form of Doom yet created, using literally millions of times the computation used by the first x86 PCs that were able to render and play doom in real-time. But it's a funny party trick, sure.
- joegibbs 2y ago
  Yes it's less efficient and reliable than regular Doom, but it's not just limited to Doom. You could have it simulate a very graphically advanced game that barely runs on current hardware and it would run at the exact same speed as Doom.
  - swivelmaster 2y ago
    Technically this is correct, but in order for this to work you have to 1: Build the entire game first 2: Record agents playing hundreds/thousands/millions of hours of it 3: Be able to run the simulation at far higher resolution than what's in the demo videos here for it to even matter that the hypothetical game is 'very graphically advanced' This is the most impractical way yet invented to 'play' a game.
nuancebydefault 2y ago
Today this exercise feels pointless. However. I remember the days when there were articles written about the possibility for "internet radio". In stead of good old broadcasting waves through the ether and simply thousands of radios tuning in, some server would send a massive amount of packets over a massive kilometers of copper to thousands of endpoints. Ad absurdum the endpoints would even send ack packages upstream to the poor server to keep connections alive. It seemed like a huge waste of computing power, wire and energy. And here we are, binging netflix movies over such copper wires. I'm not saying games will be replaced by diffusion models dreaming up next images based on user input, but a variation of that might end up in a form of interactive art creation or a new form of entertainment.

Gooblebrai 2y ago

So true. The hustle culture is an spreading disease that has replaced the fun maker culture from the 80s/90s. It's unavoidable though. Cost of living being increasingly expensive and romantization of entrepreneurs like they are rock stars leads towards this hustle mindset.

ninetyninenine 2y ago

I don’t think this is not useful. This is a stepping stone for generating entire novel games.

Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
> This is a stepping stone for generating entire novel games. I don't see how. This game "engine" is purely mapping [pixels, input] -> new pixels. It has no notion of game state (so you can kill an enemy, turn your back, then turn around again, and the enemy could be alive again), not to mention that it requires the game to already exist in order to train it. I suppose, in theory, you could train the network to include game state in the input and output, or potentially even handle game state outside the network entirely and just make it one of the inputs, but the output would be incredibly noisy and nigh unplayable. And like I said, all of it requires the game to already exist in order to train the network.
- airstrike 2y ago
  > (so you can kill an enemy, turn your back, then turn around again, and the enemy could be alive again) Sounds like a great game. > not to mention that it requires the game to already exist in order to train it Diffusion models create new images that did not previously exist all of the time, so I'm not sure how that follows. It's not hard to extrapolate from TFA to a model that generically creates games based on some input
- ninetyninenine 2y ago
  >It has no notion of game state (so you can kill an enemy, turn your back, then turn around again) Well you see a wall you turn around then turn back the wall is still there. With enough training data the model will be able to pick up the state of the enemy because it has ALREADY learned the state of the wall due to much more numerous data on the wall. It's probably impractical to do this, but this is only a stepping stone like said. > not to mention that it requires the game to already exist in order to train it. Is this a problem? Do games not exist? Not only due we have tons of games, but we also have in theory unlimited amounts of training data for each game.
  - Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
    > Well you see a wall you turn around then turn back the wall is still there. With enough training data the model will be able to pick up the state of the enemy because it has ALREADY learned the state of the wall due to much more numerous data on the wall. It's really important to understand that ALL THE MODEL KNOWS is a mapping of [pixels, input] -> new pixels. It has zero knowledge of game state. The wall is still there after spinning 360 degrees simply because it knows that the image of a view facing away from the wall while holding the key to turn right eventually becomes an image of a view of the wall. The only "state" that is known is the last few frames of the game screen. Because of this, it's simply not possible for the game model to know if an enemy should be shown as dead or alive once it has been off-screen for longer than those few frames. It also means that if you keeping turning away and towards an enemy, it could teleport around. Once it's off the screen for those few frames, the model will have forgotten about it. > Is this a problem? Do games not exist? If you're trying to make a new game, then you need new frames to train the model on.

msk-lywenn 2y ago

I’d like to now to carbon footprint of that fun.

ploxiln 2y ago

The skepticism and criticism in this thread is against the hype of AI, it's implied by people saying "this is so amazing" that they think that in some near future you can create any video game experience you can imagine by just replacing all the software with some AI models, rendering the whole game. When in reality this is the least efficient and reliable form of Doom yet created, using literally millions of times the computation used by the first x86 PCs that were able to render and play doom in real-time. But it's a funny party trick, sure.

joegibbs 2y ago
Yes it's less efficient and reliable than regular Doom, but it's not just limited to Doom. You could have it simulate a very graphically advanced game that barely runs on current hardware and it would run at the exact same speed as Doom.
- swivelmaster 2y ago
  Technically this is correct, but in order for this to work you have to 1: Build the entire game first 2: Record agents playing hundreds/thousands/millions of hours of it 3: Be able to run the simulation at far higher resolution than what's in the demo videos here for it to even matter that the hypothetical game is 'very graphically advanced' This is the most impractical way yet invented to 'play' a game.

nuancebydefault 2y ago

Today this exercise feels pointless. However. I remember the days when there were articles written about the possibility for "internet radio". In stead of good old broadcasting waves through the ether and simply thousands of radios tuning in, some server would send a massive amount of packets over a massive kilometers of copper to thousands of endpoints. Ad absurdum the endpoints would even send ack packages upstream to the poor server to keep connections alive. It seemed like a huge waste of computing power, wire and energy. And here we are, binging netflix movies over such copper wires. I'm not saying games will be replaced by diffusion models dreaming up next images based on user input, but a variation of that might end up in a form of interactive art creation or a new form of entertainment.