This is an incredibly ignorant thing to say. I've already gone into this with Curl earlier in the thread so won't go in depth again here but there are tons of useful applications of the technology, including in extremely important areas like the medical field. 

I have to agree. There were plenty of people against industrial revolution and computing revolution, as well. Some of people are afraid of change. There's no way to progress if the humanity won't experiment and try new things. That's natural part of growth IMO.

Anyway, returning to the topic. DLSS 5 in current form is no longer an upscaling tech, but something like the re-renderer. Even I, a great supporter of GeForce brand dislike the way how Nvidia promotes this tech. They should rename neural rendering tech a new thing like Reflex is, which is a part of tech stack of RTX brand.

Not all advances are beneficial; we as a society would have been better off if they'd been more pushback to the adoption of stuff like asbestos, lead, cigarettes, DDT, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Agent Orange, or in terms of gaming microtransactions and pay-to-win.

Essentially confirms it basically is generative AI filtering over a 2D image based on questions given to an Nvidia rep. It basically treats the frame as a 2D image and then uses vector data which tells it which direction things are moving and then creates a "new" generative image from that. This is why the character from Starfield I believe clearly has hair added to an area of their head when there was no hair in the original model. It is ... basically an AI filter that reinterprets the original image and changes it. 

Now it feels like Nvidia knew there was going to be blow back to this and tried really hard to sell this as "just a lighting change" (lol), when it's overall image manipulation because they likely are weary of terms like "AI slop" and potential blow back from artists working on these games. 

But that does beg the question, if it's just image manipulation ... could they do something like photoreal image manipulation instead of trying to mimic existing video game graphics. And that opens up an entire pandora's box.

I also have doubts this will work great on sub 5090 hardware ... not because of the graphics complexity itself really but because it needs to time to essentially create the "new" AI frame and still be playable, which is probably why people mentioned it looked like the games were running at 30 fps. It has nothing to do with the game engine itself, it's just taking the image as a 2D input and reinterpreting that. But that also means if you're an artist on these games, essentially people are not seeing your work (your 3D model, textures, etc.), they're seeing basically a manipulated version of that image done by generative AI that is arbitrarily making artistic choices in effect. 

My comment was more about technology than certain types of advances in our society. In my point of view, we will limit progress by limiting number of actions and experiments we can make as species. The biggest challenge when it comes to AI and robotics, is to put certain circuit breakers to be able to turn those things off if they decide to lie and act against our wishes, in my opinion. Without this technology, on the other hand, I don't see humanity to be able to colonize other planets that are very far away based on what I've read about this part of the universe.

It would be tons of text if we were to argue about micro transactions too. For me, I can enjoy those free to play games that rely on microtransactions to make money, so certainly they have their use cases. The same for pay to win. Imagine trying to progress way faster to realize that the game is a waste of time 🤣 And in turn coming up with some other productive ideas and projects.

The same applies to technology though, it can be harmful and dangerous if we embrace it without carefully weighing the consequences. 

Microtransactions for instance may seem innocuous on paper, cos hey, nobody's forcing you to buy them, right? The problem is though that publishers then design their games to psychologically pressure you into spending money in order to progress effectively or have a good experience, or put them in games that are already full price, so even something that's technically optional can still ruin the experience.

Agreed.  Advances in cancer research will take leaps and bounds because of AI.  AI will advance multiple areas of science and there will be massive benefits.  I am using it quite a lot now.  

I struggle with this comment.  I dont like MTX but also dont have a problem with it.  I own over 200 games and have been gaming for 40 years.  I have bought 0 MTX.  MTX is super easy to avoid.  

Games with microtransactions are very often specifically designed to pressure and annoy the player into spending money, so even if you don't spend you have have to put up with friction that's designed to hassle you. Publishers have invested a lot of time, research, and money over the years into the optimal way to push people to pay up, it's well documented, and they have no ethical qualms about it. 

Heck, this is how bad it was even back in 2016:

I've been gaming for many years across hundreds of games and never once bought a microtransaction too, but I have very often noticed the game trying to manipulate me into spending, and while spending may be optional, the pressure is not.

Saying somebody is ignorant if they disagree with you is uncalled for and not helpful.