4 ms·

A physics bug would be a consistent problem you can fix. There's no such guarantee about an ML model. This would likely only be ok in the context of a game sp

by hobs 2y ago

A physics bug would be a consistent problem you can fix. There's no such guarantee about an ML model. This would likely only be ok in the context of a game specifically made to be janky.

kqr 2y ago
This obsession people have with determinism! I'd much rather take a low rate of weird bugs than common consistent ones. I don't believe reproducibility of bugs makes for better gameplay generally.
- paulryanrogers 2y ago
  Reproducibility does make bugs more likely to be fixed, or at least fixable. Also, games introduce randomness in a controlled way so users don't get frustrated by it appearing in unexpected places. I don't want characters to randomly appear and disappear. It's fine if bullet trajectory varies more randomly as they get further away.
  - skydhash 2y ago
    Also most engines have been worked on for years. So more often than not, core elements like audio, physics, input,... are very stable and the remaining bugs are either "can't fix" or "won't fix".
- NotMichaelBay 2y ago
  It might be fine for casual players, but it would prevent serious and pro players from getting into the game. In Counter-Strike, for example, pro players (and other serious players) practice specific grenade throws so they can use them reliably in matches.
  - kqr 2y ago
    I'm not saying one can make specifically Counter-Strike on a non-deterministic engine -- that seems like strawmanning my argument. People play and enjoy many games with varying levels of randomness as a fundamental component, some even professionally (poker, stock market). This could be made such a game.
    - monsieurbanana 2y ago
      Either the physics engine matter, in which case you want a deterministic engine as you said, or it doesn't like in a poker game and you don't want to spend much resources (manpower, computer cycles) into it. Which also means an off-the-shelf deterministic engine.
- mrob 2y ago
  The whole hobby of speedrunning relies heavily on exploiting deterministic game bugs.
- hobs 2y ago
  Make a fun game with this as a premise and I will try it, but it sounds just an annoying concept.
  - FridgeSeal 2y ago
    Gosh can you imagine how frustrating a game would be when you can _barely_ do anything reliably? Wanted to jump on the platform? Wow too bad, model had a little day-dream and now you’re floating somewhere. Wanted to peak a corner? Oops too bad, model had a moment and now the wall curves differently. Trying to pick a shot-well you’d definitely hit the other player if the model wasn’t making physics go out the window. Inconsistently.
- dartos 2y ago
  You don’t play a lot of games, huh? Consistent bugs you can anticipate and play/work around, random ones you can’t. Just look at pretty much any speed running community for games before 1995. Say goodbye to any real competitive scene with random unfixable potentially one off bugs.
- siev 2y ago
  [dead]
fullstackwife 2y ago
This is one of the fallacies of current AI research space: they don't focus on the end-user too much. In this case the end-user would be the gamer, and while playing games you expect a valid gameplay, so those kind of hallucinations are not acceptable, while I'm pretty sure they give the AI research authors a strong dopamine trigger. We have a hammer and now we are looking for a nail, while you should ask a question first: what is the problem we are trying to solve here? Real world usage will be probably different, and maybe even unexpected by the authors of this research.
- jsheard 2y ago
  > This is one of the fallacies of current AI research space: they don't focus on the end-user too much. In this case the end-user would be the gamer Or from another angle the end-user is a game developer trying to actually work with this kind of technology, which is just a nightmarish prospect. Nobody in the industry is asking for a game engine that runs entirely on vibes and dream logic, gamedev is already chaotic enough when everything is laid out in explicit code and data.
- badpun 2y ago
  The whole purpose of academia is literally to nerd out on cool, impractical things, which will ocasionally turn out to have some real-life relevance years or decades later. This (hallucinated CS) is still more relevant to real world than 99% of what happens in academic research.
  - dartos 2y ago
    Yes to the first part, no to the random “99% useless” number you made up. I’m no fan of academia, but it undeniably produces useful and meaningful knowledge regularly.
    - badpun 2y ago
      You made up the "99% useless" straw man, I never used the word useless in my post. I merely said that the AI research is more relevant than 99% of research, which includes things like gender studies, studies of Rennaisance German theatre, discussions of which exact villages were pillaged and in what order during the march of some army 300 years ago etc. etc.

by hobs 2y ago

A physics bug would be a consistent problem you can fix. There's no such guarantee about an ML model. This would likely only be ok in the context of a game specifically made to be janky.

kqr 2y ago

This obsession people have with determinism! I'd much rather take a low rate of weird bugs than common consistent ones. I don't believe reproducibility of bugs makes for better gameplay generally.

paulryanrogers 2y ago
Reproducibility does make bugs more likely to be fixed, or at least fixable. Also, games introduce randomness in a controlled way so users don't get frustrated by it appearing in unexpected places. I don't want characters to randomly appear and disappear. It's fine if bullet trajectory varies more randomly as they get further away.
- skydhash 2y ago
  Also most engines have been worked on for years. So more often than not, core elements like audio, physics, input,... are very stable and the remaining bugs are either "can't fix" or "won't fix".
NotMichaelBay 2y ago
It might be fine for casual players, but it would prevent serious and pro players from getting into the game. In Counter-Strike, for example, pro players (and other serious players) practice specific grenade throws so they can use them reliably in matches.
- kqr 2y ago
  I'm not saying one can make specifically Counter-Strike on a non-deterministic engine -- that seems like strawmanning my argument. People play and enjoy many games with varying levels of randomness as a fundamental component, some even professionally (poker, stock market). This could be made such a game.
  - monsieurbanana 2y ago
    Either the physics engine matter, in which case you want a deterministic engine as you said, or it doesn't like in a poker game and you don't want to spend much resources (manpower, computer cycles) into it. Which also means an off-the-shelf deterministic engine.
mrob 2y ago
The whole hobby of speedrunning relies heavily on exploiting deterministic game bugs.
hobs 2y ago
Make a fun game with this as a premise and I will try it, but it sounds just an annoying concept.
- FridgeSeal 2y ago
  Gosh can you imagine how frustrating a game would be when you can _barely_ do anything reliably? Wanted to jump on the platform? Wow too bad, model had a little day-dream and now you’re floating somewhere. Wanted to peak a corner? Oops too bad, model had a moment and now the wall curves differently. Trying to pick a shot-well you’d definitely hit the other player if the model wasn’t making physics go out the window. Inconsistently.
dartos 2y ago
You don’t play a lot of games, huh? Consistent bugs you can anticipate and play/work around, random ones you can’t. Just look at pretty much any speed running community for games before 1995. Say goodbye to any real competitive scene with random unfixable potentially one off bugs.
siev 2y ago
[dead]

fullstackwife 2y ago

This is one of the fallacies of current AI research space: they don't focus on the end-user too much. In this case the end-user would be the gamer, and while playing games you expect a valid gameplay, so those kind of hallucinations are not acceptable, while I'm pretty sure they give the AI research authors a strong dopamine trigger. We have a hammer and now we are looking for a nail, while you should ask a question first: what is the problem we are trying to solve here? Real world usage will be probably different, and maybe even unexpected by the authors of this research.

jsheard 2y ago
> This is one of the fallacies of current AI research space: they don't focus on the end-user too much. In this case the end-user would be the gamer Or from another angle the end-user is a game developer trying to actually work with this kind of technology, which is just a nightmarish prospect. Nobody in the industry is asking for a game engine that runs entirely on vibes and dream logic, gamedev is already chaotic enough when everything is laid out in explicit code and data.
badpun 2y ago
The whole purpose of academia is literally to nerd out on cool, impractical things, which will ocasionally turn out to have some real-life relevance years or decades later. This (hallucinated CS) is still more relevant to real world than 99% of what happens in academic research.
- dartos 2y ago
  Yes to the first part, no to the random “99% useless” number you made up. I’m no fan of academia, but it undeniably produces useful and meaningful knowledge regularly.
  - badpun 2y ago
    You made up the "99% useless" straw man, I never used the word useless in my post. I merely said that the AI research is more relevant than 99% of research, which includes things like gender studies, studies of Rennaisance German theatre, discussions of which exact villages were pillaged and in what order during the march of some army 300 years ago etc. etc.