3 ms·
It is jaw-dropping and dismaying how for-profit AI companies use long-standing terms like "world model" and "physics" when they mean "video game model" and "vid
by aithrowawaycomm 2y ago
It is jaw-dropping and dismaying how for-profit AI companies use long-standing terms like "world model" and "physics" when they mean "video game model" and "video game physics." Or, as you can plainly see, "models gravity" when they mean "models Red Dead Redemption 2's gravity function, along with its cinematic lighting effects and Rockstar's distinctively weighty animations." Which is to say Google is not modeling gravity at all.
I will add the totally inconsistent backgrounds in the "prototyping" example suggests the AI is simply cribbing from four different games with a flying avatar, which makes it kind of useless unless you're prototyping cynical AI slop. And what are we even doing here by calling this a "world model" if the details of the world can change on a whim? In my world model I can imagine a small dragon flying through my friend's living room without needing to turn her electric lights into sconces and fireplaces.
To state the obvious: if you train your model on thousands of hours of video games, you're also gonna get a bunch of stuff like "leaves are flat and don't bend" or "sometimes humans look like plastic" or "sometimes dragons clip through the scenery," which wouldn't fly in an actual world model. Just call it "video game world model!" Google is intentionally misusing a term which (although mysterious) has real meaning in cognitive science.
I am sure Genie 2 took an awful lot of work and technical expertise. But this advertisement isn't just unscientific, it's an assault on language itself.
- empath75 2y ago> It is jaw-dropping and dismaying how for-profit AI companies use long-standing terms like "world model" and "physics" when they mean "video game model" and "video game physics." Or, as you can plainly see, "models gravity" when they mean "models Red Dead Redemption 2's gravity function, along with its cinematic lighting effects and Rockstar's distinctively weighty animations." Which is to say Google is not modeling gravity at all. That's because it's using video game data for training footage because it's cheap and easy to generate. It would not be simulating video game gravity if it was training on real world video inputs.
- ricardobeat 2y agoRemembering off-screen objects, generating spatially consistent features, modeling physical interactions and lights, understanding what "up the stairs" means, all seem to warrant talking about a world model, because that's exactly what's required to do these things compared to simply hallucinating video sequences.
- brap 2y agoI agree, but >if you train your model on thousands of hours of video games What if you train the same model on thousands of hours of sensor data from real, physical robots?
- spyder 2y agoA simulated world is also a world, and I can easily imagine if it would have been trained on real world data than it would have learner some of the real world's physics the same way, as the big video gen models already showing some of that. But all these models still seem very sample inefficient, they need lot of data to learn some basic rules of the world(s), and even then they are far from and human-like model that's includes math and logic for model the world more accurately...
- seydor 2y agoModels are phenomenological descriptions of reality, and so are video games