37 points

twitter comment:

they made something that actually does not run doom, which is a first at least

permalink
report
reply
22 points
*

But the researchers then dive head-first into wild claims:

GameNGen answers one of the important questions on the road towards a new paradigm for game engines, one where games are automatically generated, similarly to how images and videos are generated by neural models in recent years.

To which the obvious reply is: no it doesn’t, where did you get any of this? You’ve generated three seconds of fake gameplay video where your player shoots something and it shoots back. None of the mechanics of the game work. Nothing other than what’s on-screen can be known to the engine.

Yeah, this was apparent immediately.

Diffusion models are just matrices of positional and temporal probabilities. It is absolutely incompatible with even the simplest demands of a game, since any player will reject a game if it lacks reliable and input-deterministic outcomes. The only way to get that reliability is to create a huge amount of training data, and spend exorbitant resources training on it to the point of harshly over-fitting the model to the data, all of which requires that the team first make the game they’re emulating before they start training. It’s nonsense.

If someone is going to use AI to make a game, they would get exponentially higher ROI using AI to generate code that writes once the relationship between the data, versus inferring the raw data of every individual pixel.

The demo was always effectively a clickbait novelty for likes.

permalink
report
reply
6 points

they would get exponentially higher ROI

They’d get infinitely higher ROI by not using genAI in the first place.

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points
*

Stephanie Sterling of the Jimquisition outlines the thinking involved here. Well, she swears at everyone involved for twenty minutes. So, Steph.

She seems to think the AI generates .WAD files.

I guess they fell victim to one of the classic blunders: never assume that it can’t be that stupid, and someone must be explaining it wrong.

permalink
report
reply
17 points

The Doom community has had random level generators for over a decade without any modern AI garbage involved.

permalink
report
reply
14 points
*

This is conceptually different, it just generates a few seconds of doomlike video that you can slightly influence by sending inputs, and pretends that In The Future™ entire games could be generated from scratch and playable on Sufficiently Advanced™ autocomplete machines.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

Can “ai” make a good game, or just a thing that generates video and mostly accepts inputs (and it isnt even hardly doing that)?

permalink
report
reply
9 points

Carmack quaking (ahaha) in his boots

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

The second, and yes, only barely.

permalink
report
parent
reply

TechTakes

!techtakes@awful.systems

Create post

Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here’s the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.

This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community

Community stats

  • 1.6K

    Monthly active users

  • 502

    Posts

  • 11K

    Comments

Community moderators