Re:Oasis: A Universe in a Transformer
by blixt on Friday November 01, 2024 @10:02AM
(#42016992)
I guess it comes down to your definition of state. I'm not saying there's enough state for this to be playable, but there is clearly state and I think it's important to point out how impressive the amount of temporal consistence and coherence this model is capable of, considering not long ago the state of the art here rapidly decohered into completely noisy pixels.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Oasis: A Universe in a Transformer
by FeepingCreature on Friday November 01, 2024 @01:25PM
(#42019345)
In other words: there's enough state now that the lack of state stands out. It works well enough for its failures to be notable.
Re:Oasis: A Universe in a Transformer
by bongodongobob on Friday November 01, 2024 @02:15PM
(#42019926)
I guess if you consider knowing what color the pixels were in the last frame "state". That's not a definition anyone would use though. Spinning around and have the world continuously regenerate or looking at the sky and back down regenerating randomly is the opposite of state. It's complete incoherence.
Re:Oasis: A Universe in a Transformer
by bubblyworld on Sunday November 03, 2024 @01:19AM
(#42031442)
Just a thought - complete incoherence is a noise function, no? Successive frames here are far more correlated than that, which is pretty remarkable.
My definition of state is something like reified bits of information, for which previous frames and such certainly count (knowing the current frame tells you a lot of information about the next frame vs not knowing the current frame).