5 ms·
This is far beyond Oasis. Oasis had approximately 0 continuity, and the generated world was a blurry mess. This on the other hand actually approaches usability.
by achierius 2y ago
This is far beyond Oasis. Oasis had approximately 0 continuity, and the generated world was a blurry mess. This on the other hand actually approaches usability.
- beeflet 2y agoI don't know what the pipeline looks for these, but I assume that's due to the costs associated with training and running. Oasis had a context of only a couple of frames, while this genie model apparently runs for a couple of minutes. I guess they have a couple tricks up their sleeve to optimize this though.
- n2d4 2y agoAnd it works on a wide variety of games, instead of just a single one with a relatively consistent art style. On the other hand, Oasis was realtime, while this one is offline; IMO getting the inference speed down was their most impressive feat, as even most decent video gen models are slower than that.
- dnnssl2 2y agoOasis is playable so therefore: 1. Non-cherrypicked in its consistency (if you look at the demonstrations in the Oasis blog post you can find specific cases of consistency which is an anomaly rather than the norm) 2. Is live-inferenced at 20fps. If you use Runway v3 which is a comparably larger and higher quality model (resolution and consistency) it might take a minute or two generate 10 seconds of video. 3. Is served (relatively) reliably at consumer scale (with queues of 5-10k concurrent players) which means that in order to save on GPU cost, you increase batch size and decrease model size to “fit” more players in 1 GPU.