The problem is what it takes to implement that. I've seen companies currently trying to do exactly that, and their demos go like this "ok, give me a prompt for the environment" and if they're lucky, they can cherry pick some stuff the crowd says and if they're not, they sheepishly ask for a prompt that would visit indicate one of 5 environment types they've worked on and include several of the dozen premade textured meshes they've made, and in reality you've got a really really expensive procedural map with asset placement that's worse than if it was done using traditional semi-pre-baked approaches. A deceptive amount of work goes into the nitty gritty of making environments, and even with all of the incredible tooling that's around now, we are not even close to automating that.

Automating the tools so a smaller workforce can make more worlds and more possibilities? We're already there— but it's a very large leap to remove the human creative and technical intermediaries.

What are the actual claims and/or arguments?

To automatically generate a freeform 3D sandbox environment based on a prompt? Do you have a specific criticism or counterpoint?

How does this relate to the parent comment? Is there some counterargument why X is unlikely due to Y reasons?

"Sandbox games are probably where they will shine. Imagine being able to play Minecraft, and tell a prompt to generate a world that resembles Tatooine, or a vampire-themed mansion."

"The problem is what it takes to implement that. I've seen companies currently trying to do exactly that, and their demos go like this "ok, give me a prompt for the environment" and if they're lucky, they can cherry pick some stuff the crowd says and if they're not, they sheepishly ask for a prompt that would visit indicate one of 5 environment types they've worked on and include several of the dozen premade textured meshes they've made[...]"

I was clearly directly addressing what they said. Unless you have a specific, substantive, on-topic question or statement, I'm going to assume that you're just fishing for things to argue about.

You can assume whatever you want, but your assumptions can never outweigh the assumptions of anyone else on HN… so the last sentence doesn’t make sense?

Plus listing past examples doesn’t indicate future possibilities must conform to that… unless there is a specific argument on why that should be the case on the balance of probabilities… so are you sure you understood my previous questions?

confirmed.

> confirmed.

Huh? Is this an AI response?