I wasn't disagreeing that it was correct. My point was that the situation we find ourselves in now is very much analogous to what the original luddites found themselves in. Textile production was no less intellectual and creative than any of the current jobs being outmoded. It's only thought to be so because the labor was devalued with the introduction of industry. 

I really don't believe in the concept of unskilled labor. The automation of physically involved labor and intellectual labor is the same in my opinion. There is a lot of creativity in physical labor just like there is in intellectual labor. And we're starting to discover that it is harder to automate the last few pieces of physical labor which haven't been automated than it is to automate a lot of intellectual labor, because embodied intelligence is lagging behind other fields of AI and automation. 

I think its still an insult to make the comparisons. For one, i don't buy this is some revolution. I think its gonna dominate the cycle, ruin lives and slowly fade away as only the somewhat useful tools continue to exist. Most will die or be some novelty apps about this era in time. I don't buy the hype.

There are only two ways they could do this.

1. They pre-trained the model on generalized image-to-image. This is unlikely for a few reasons. Good general image-to-image models are relatively huge. The open-source ones start at around 13 billion parameters. That is not feasible to inference in real time even on a single data center GPU, let alone gaming ones. An RTX 5090 inferences on these models about 2 images per second, just for context. The datasets used to train them are also huge. Nvidia doesn't have access to any buffer data on these data samples like they do with their regular DLSS training sets. Now Nvidia could train an (or more likely source an already trained) image to image model and use it as a teacher for their specialized gaming specific model. But there are two issues with that. The first is that it would very much skew the codomain so much that you are risking the efficacy of your gaming specific model. The second is that it is a very inefficient method given the target objective is so specific. 

2. They have invested heavily in model interpretation research and pulled off something like Claude's Golden Gate Bridge experiment but for image models rather than LLMs. If that were the case, they'd be able to allow much more control than you are talking about. You really don't need text or image inputs in this case, and can just directly control the model parameter weights. See: https://transformer-circuits.pub/2024/scaling-monosemanticity/index.html

This model is more likely something like what is described in this paper, 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2105.04619

but without using the G-buffer at all (if we take Nvidia's press release at face-value that they only use color and velocity buffers) and probably using a vision transformer instead of a CNN. 

I wonder if what they're doing isn't all that dissimilar from these kinds of videos that are all over Tiktok/Instagram etc.:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DVxSh0ODVec/

Seems like Google/Youtube does not allow or want too many videos like this because they're hard to find on Youtube but all over the place on Insta/Tiktok. 

It's not an ignorant statement cause he disagrees, it's an ignorant statement cause it's completely false. The evidence is so overwhelming of the benefits of the technology that implying that all the investment in it isn't leading to anything useful is flat earth level of ignorance at this point and should get called out.

There is no doubt that Sony will continue to stick with physical media: Looking at the Steam Deck’s modest commercial performance (likely attributable to its lack of promotion/presence at non-Steam retailers), it should not be underestimated just how important it is to any game publisher that they continue to have a presence at in-person retailers.

That said, however, seeing as internet is required to install a disc drive onto your PS5, if Sony does choose the route of releasing exclusively digital revisions of hardware moving forward (though I doubt they will seeing as the PS5 with a disc drive installed continues to be by far the most popular SKU), then that would certainly place a looot of these “physical only” gamers in a bind: Once the servers go down, how are you going to play these physical games? How will they be any different from a GKC besides the need to install your game?

Lol. Switch 2, for third party, would be a boat anchor without DLSS. Ain't nobody playing 540p in 2025 on new releases.

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.

You could give a thousand examples like this and it doesn't change the argument being made here. 

The statement being addressed wasn't "the bad things about AI outweigh the good." The statement was "there are no good applications of AI." 

Statement 1 can be true if statement 2 is false. 

I think its still an insult to make the comparisons. For one, i don't buy this is some revolution. I think its gonna dominate the cycle, ruin lives and slowly fade away as only the somewhat useful tools continue to exist. Most will die or be some novelty apps about this era in time. I don't buy the hype.

Statement 2 is true, because AI will kill patients when used for medicine. It can't be trusted to make art, let alone with people's lives.

Lol okay. Not much I can do here with a response like that.