pood
Contributor
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2021
- Messages
- 10,380
- Basic Beliefs
- agnostic
Sigh.
So yet again:
Do you really fancy yourself the only conscious entity in a video game full of NPCs? If so, have you sought help for this delusion?
Generative AI behind a possible simulation
- Thread starter excreationist
- Start date
Sigh.
So yet again:
Do you really fancy yourself the only conscious entity in a video game full of NPCs? If so, have you sought help for this delusion?
excreationist
Married mouth-breather
My point is that a googolplex to the power of a googolplex years is already a very very very long time and after that you still aren't anywhere near the end. Four days is basically no time so it doesn't make the point as strongly. Though technically you're right.
excreationist
Married mouth-breather
The technical term is "player". Not "the only conscious entity in a video game". My mind is running outside of video games. My mind isn't handled within the game. So say the game was GTA 5. The NPCs are entirely handled by the game. If the player decides to do some things in the game the game isn't making their decisions. The player's brain, which is outside the game, is making those decisions. You might not be capable of understanding these nuances.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 44,087
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
My point is that almost everyone here knows that eternity is larger than any finite number of years, and that your example is at best valueless, and most likely counterproductive, in helping anyone who does not know to understand this.
The difference between "four days" and "eternity" is exactly the same as the difference between "a googleplex to the power of a googleplex years" and "eternity".
excreationist
Married mouth-breather
This is what was said:
Saying something equivalent to "4 days then forever" doesn't capture the absurdity of an eternity as much as what I said. I was showing exactly how absurd it is when you experience it. BTW a googol means a 1 with 100 zeroes and a googolplex is a 1 with a googol zeroes.
It's like "Amazing Grace"
Christians might think that 10,000 years is bearable and have that in mind when they're thinking about an eternity.
LLMs can understand my point.
e.g.
Also you mispelt "googolplex".
excreationist
Married mouth-breather
You said "The next step, if possible, is to end war and human suffering."
Well Trump is starting a few new wars. And making many of the vulnerable worse off while making billionaries better off. And pardoning many criminals. It seems to change the government's priorities you'd have to be involved in politics somehow. It seems it would be easier to make a difference if you donated money and volunteered with charities. And encouraged other people too.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 44,087
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Mathematically, it does. Exactly.
No, you weren't. You may have thought you were, but you were mistaken.
I know. This is not arcane or secret knowledge.
Christians think all kinds of nonsensical things. I think we should strive to do rather better than them, don't you?
LLMs aren't even the kind of thing that can understand.
And you misspelt "misspelt". So what?
excreationist
Married mouth-breather
A Christian might be reading this. Or someone that thinks about eternity in a similar way. Not everyone thinks 4 days towards an eternity is identical to a googolplex^googolplex years towards eternity.
Well they can generate explainations that give the impression they understand.
I didn't realize that I had misspelt it (though the correct spelling seems wrong to me). Since you knew the definition of a googolplex it seemed that you were familiar with the term. So either you misspelt it on purpose or you didn't know how to spell it but don't consider it an issue at all. Would you agree that misspelling googol is a problem?
BTW I'm glad you pointed out my spelling mistake - it was a case of ignorance rather than a typo.
Last edited:
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 44,087
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Yes. So?
Indeed, it is commonplace for people to be wrong, and even more commonplace for people to fail to understand the mathematics of infinities.
So can the Magic 8 Ball.
You're welcome.
excreationist
Married mouth-breather
If what I said applies to a reader then it seems relevant.
The purpose of what I said was to help explain how long an eternity is to those kinds of people.
Yeah for restricted yes/no type questions.
Good. But you didn't say whether you misspelt googol on purpose or what...
excreationist
Married mouth-breather
On the topic of becoming increasingly indistinguishable from reality - there's GANs: which "works because one AI tries to fake something, and another AI tries to spot the fake. Over time, both get better until the faker becomes so good that the detector can’t tell the difference".
en.wikipedia.org
On the topic of keeping games/simulations cheap:
GTA 6 is coming out in a few months and it can show 100+ realistic people at a time at 60 frames per second on a machine that costs about $500. Though the possible simulation would be more similar to the video in the OP.
Generative adversarial network - Wikipedia
On the topic of keeping games/simulations cheap:
GTA 6 is coming out in a few months and it can show 100+ realistic people at a time at 60 frames per second on a machine that costs about $500. Though the possible simulation would be more similar to the video in the OP.
Last edited:
Realistic, yes--but that scene does not remotely stand up to scrutiny.On the topic of becoming increasingly indistinguishable from reality - there's GANs: which "works because one AI tries to fake something, and another AI tries to spot the fake. Over time, both get better until the faker becomes so good that the detector can’t tell the difference".
Generative adversarial network - Wikipedia
On the topic of keeping games/simulations cheap:
GTA 6 is coming out in a few months and it can show 100+ realistic people at a time at 60 frames per second on a machine that costs about $500. Though the possible simulation would be more similar to the video in the OP.
View attachment 54787
excreationist
Married mouth-breather
Note that screenshot has nothing to do with GANs. It was just an example of how rapid the progress is being made with cheap detailed games and consoles. Decades ago games were low resolution, often had a low framerate and had simplistic graphics. And the much more powerful PS6 is being released in the near future (late 2027 - 2029).Realistic, yes--but that scene does not remotely stand up to scrutiny.On the topic of becoming increasingly indistinguishable from reality - there's GANs: which "works because one AI tries to fake something, and another AI tries to spot the fake. Over time, both get better until the faker becomes so good that the detector can’t tell the difference".
Generative adversarial network - Wikipedia
On the topic of keeping games/simulations cheap:
GTA 6 is coming out in a few months and it can show 100+ realistic people at a time at 60 frames per second on a machine that costs about $500. Though the possible simulation would be more similar to the video in the OP.
View attachment 54787
Technology that is relevant to what I'm talking about is in the video in the OP. Also some gamers don't like games being too photorealistic (especially with the Unreal engine) because it can make it look all the same - so they could make the shaders a bit non-photorealistic.
About GTA 6 and photorealism - Copilot said:
Last edited:
The thing is you can get close an awful lot easier than you can get it right. Some of the tricks of game programmers of old to get something that you would take as plausible are pretty crazy.Note that screenshot has nothing to do with GANs. It was just an example of how rapid the progress is being made with cheap detailed games and consoles. Decades ago games were low resolution, often had a low framerate and had simplistic graphics. And the much more powerful PS6 is being released in the near future (late 2027 - 2029).Realistic, yes--but that scene does not remotely stand up to scrutiny.On the topic of becoming increasingly indistinguishable from reality - there's GANs: which "works because one AI tries to fake something, and another AI tries to spot the fake. Over time, both get better until the faker becomes so good that the detector can’t tell the difference".
Generative adversarial network - Wikipedia
On the topic of keeping games/simulations cheap:
GTA 6 is coming out in a few months and it can show 100+ realistic people at a time at 60 frames per second on a machine that costs about $500. Though the possible simulation would be more similar to the video in the OP.
View attachment 54787
Technology that is relevant to what I'm talking about is in the video in the OP. Also some gamers don't like games being too photorealistic (especially with the Unreal engine) because it can make it look all the same - so they could make the shaders a bit non-photorealistic.
About GTA 6 and photorealism - Copilot said:
excreationist
Married mouth-breather
Normal video games use mathematical models for approximating lighting which is very different from generative AI graphics (maybe it's a bit like how artists can paint unseen photorealistic scenes [like matte paintings in Star Wars]).
BTW here is March 2023
vs 2026
The progress has been exponential - I'm not saying that it will be exponential forever but at least until things become indistinguishable from reality.
I'd recommend this video from 9 months ago:
"like I said there have been experts that have been tripped up so many times recently with this kind of stuff"
So even the experts are having trouble... and 9 months ago is somewhat outdated now. Also some people are thinking that real videos were actually AI.
Last edited:
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 44,087
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
The solution has been known, and obvious, for decades. Most smart people (which admittedly is a tiny subset of humanity) implemented it years ago. It is:
Don't believe anything you see on the Internet.
Don't believe anything you see on the Internet.
excreationist
Married mouth-breather
Does that mean that in that video they should have all said it was AI?
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 44,087
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
I have no idea what "they" did in whichever video you are referring to; I don't watch online video.
It's a choice I heartily recommend to all.
excreationist
Married mouth-breather
I'm talking about post #55 which was about people trying to guess which videos are real and which are from AI. It was from an ABC show. It almost sounds like you have some kind of religious problem with the videos.
Spot all fakes is a very different challenge than spot any fakes. I've caught many AI fakes because the AI has no real understanding of physics and the like (consider the scene, what forces created this? Where is the focal plane of the camera?). Sometimes they'll be right and you can't tell--but the AI isn't good enough to make them reliably correct.