4 ms·
Until these models can figure out physics, it seems to me they will be an interesting toy
by kranke155 2y ago
Until these models can figure out physics, it seems to me they will be an interesting toy
- andybak 2y agoThey can figure out a fair bit of physics. It's not a "no physics" vs "physics" thing. Rather it's a "flawed and unreliable physics" thing. It's similar to the LLM hallucination problem. LLMs produce nonsense and untruths - but they are still useful in many domains.
- Barrin92 2y agoIt's a pretty binary thing in the sense that "bad physics" pretty quickly decoheres into no physics. I saw one of these models doing a Minecraft like simulation and it looked sort of okay but then water started to end up in impossible places and once it was there it kept spreading and you ended up in some lovecraftian horror dimension. Any useful physics simluation at least needs boundary conditions to hold and these models have no boundary conditions because they have no clear categories of anything.
- kylehotchkiss 2y agoBut they don't, they just understand pixel relationships (right?)
- potatoman22 2y agoYou can model a lot of basic physics through observing 1,000,000 videos
- kranke155 2y agoNot consistently though. I think some model of understanding of physics is emergent but it doesn’t seem emergent enough. The model doesn’t understand object permanence either.
- kranke155 2y agoHere’s an idea - what if the fact that we have a body that has weight and consequence helps us understand physics? What if just visual data won’t get there because visual data lacks the sense of self? Could be interesting