4 ms·
I always wonder why they’re not chasing more pragmatic and lower-hanging fruit first. There’s absolutely no reason that a game needs to be generated frame-by-f
by teamonkey 1y ago
I always wonder why they’re not chasing more pragmatic and lower-hanging fruit first.
There’s absolutely no reason that a game needs to be generated frame-by-frame like this. It seems like a deeply unserious approach to making games.
(My feeling is that it must be easier to train this way.)
- seydor 1y agowell actually image output is fixed and there s lots of training data. Neural networks can learn anything in their latent space so there is no need to impose 3D rendering constraints, and it s not evident that it's less efficient (for the model). 3D model rendering would be useful however for interfacing with robots.
- teamonkey 1y agoYou often view 3D games on a 2D screen. That doesn’t mean that a game is natively 2D and the 3D world is an inconvenient step that can be bypassed. Actually the opposite, the 2D representation on screen is just a projection. In VR, for example, the same 3D scene will be rendered twice, once for each eye, from two viewpoints 10-15cm apart. If you don’t have an internal 3D representation of the world, the AI would need to generate exactly the same scene from a very slightly different perspective for each eye, without any discrepancies or artefacts. And that’s not even discussing physics, collisions or any form of consistent world logic that happens off-screen. Or multiplayer!