5 ms·

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 pl

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.
stale2002 2y ago
> they don't focus on the end-user too much. Of course they don't. Stuff like this is a proof of concept. If they had a product that worked, they wouldn't be in academia. Instead, they would leave the world of research and create a multi billion dollar company. Almost by definition, anything in academia isn't going to be productized, because if it was, then the researchers would just stop researching and make a bunch of money selling the product to consumers. Such research is still useful for society, though, as it means that someone else can spend the millions and millions of dollars making a better version and then selling that.

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.

stale2002 2y ago

> they don't focus on the end-user too much. Of course they don't. Stuff like this is a proof of concept. If they had a product that worked, they wouldn't be in academia. Instead, they would leave the world of research and create a multi billion dollar company. Almost by definition, anything in academia isn't going to be productized, because if it was, then the researchers would just stop researching and make a bunch of money selling the product to consumers. Such research is still useful for society, though, as it means that someone else can spend the millions and millions of dollars making a better version and then selling that.