it's the same shit AI bros do every time - they have to dumb down the meaning of the thing they're trying to imitate poorly, because they have to shift the goal posts to pretend that what they do has any legitimacy

this is in no way a game engine, and trying to pretend it is requires abstracting and dumbing down entire fields of study these nerds have never even dipped their toes into

[–] FunkyStuff@hexbear.net 35 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I think they're aware of how absurd their claims are, but they think that the most important thing is the "potential" for this technology to generalize and eventually come to achieve what they're promising now. The issue is they'd essentially need AGI to take it from this to a real game engine, and that's obviously not happening.

[–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 29 points 2 weeks ago

The issue is they'd essentially need AGI to take it from this to a real game engine, and that's obviously not happening.

They can market it as "one step away from AGI" basically forever, especially with bullshit claims already established like "world simulation."

[–] DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 2 weeks ago

Yep. Like any good grift, it isn't about what it can actually do, but what it could hypothetically do if enough people "invest" in it.