The cars vs public transport debate is a separate issue since public transport will also be automated in the future. Self driving vehicles are way safer is my point with that part. Do you think advanced robots are never gonna be a thing? Cause that's a matter of when, not if so they're obviously gonna be utilized in ways like that. People will still be involved since that'll be wanted but once there's enough of them it'll be a massive help in making sure that everyone gets the care they need. Like each patient could eventually have their own robot carer assigned to them that they could call on anytime they want and they'll be ready to immediately assist with something anytime if no people are currently available or if they don't wanna deal with other people.

For the banning part it is that unrealistic, the US and China are trying to be the first country to achieve AGI since that'll be a massive boon to whoever gets there first so neither of those countries are gonna do something that harmful to their national interests. In general the tech is so broad in terms of its applications and is already being used for so much that this is equivalent to the idea of banning the internet a couple decades or so ago. It's just a completely absurd idea so as I've said in past posts if someone doesn't like certain ways it's being used then the answer is pushing for regulation.

And for the last part can you share this research? Cause a big issue with studies about AI is the technology is changing so fast that even ones that are just a year old are already outdated so are worth way less compared to when they came out.

For democracies like ones in the Western world people can vote so if the masses feel like their governments are handling the issue badly they'll vote them out. A significant shift from current capitalistic systems in the next 10-20 years seems pretty likely to me. My biggest concern in the transition period is the phase when there is mass unemployment for white collar work but blue collar work isn't being impacted that much yet. Governments will need to make sure to help support their people through that.

Even with the current version of DLSS 5 they could just mask their characters and have it only apply to environments. Nintendo's internal teams do have some counter-trending positions on graphics (they didn't use AA for the longest time as an example) but I don't think they will opt out of using a feature that is available to them. 

Also neural-rendering is more than just DLSS 5. Neural materials, neural shaders, neural radiance caches, etc. all work on the assets themselves, so there really isn't anything "drawn over." DLSS 5 probably will be old and deprecated by SW3 releases. 

The thing is though, sometimes democracies vote in authoritarianism; its not hard for popularist demagogues to persuade enough of the population to hand them power, as we've seen many times throughout history.

If anything, the last decade in particular has shown us that governments, big tech, and the elites don't give a shit about the wellbeing of the masses and will use every means they can including AI to monopolize power and wealth as the common people's expense.

Can you explain exactly what neural rendering, Neural Materials, Mega Geometry, and Neural Shaders are? How are they different from regular rendering, regular materials, geometry and shaders? Is neural just a fancy way of saying "made by AI?"

Neural rendering is just any sort of feature of graphics rendering that is assisted with a neural network. Technically this would include all DLSS version, really. 

As for the specific features, Nvidia explained them last year. 

Nvidia defines all of the different features here. 

https://developer.nvidia.com/blog/get-started-with-neural-rendering-using-nvidia-rtx-kit/

It's not rendering anything, it's just an AI algorithm trained to be able to write over things like faces, lighting, materials, etc. and to quickly be able to alter the 2D image and "overhaul" the final output image you see on the screen.

It's probably more accurate to call it "image manipulation done at extreme speed" (30 fps+).  

I do wonder if a future version of DLSS5 (I really wish they had given this a unique name) if you'll be able to feed it data on what you want the final result to look like to iron out that problem. 

Like if the the algorithm could understand that you want Donkey Kong to look like this (which is art from your own artists). 

Particularly with the fur, then maybe it can understand and zero in on doing that up from a model that actually has a rendering cost of this:

I just realized a major problem with this from corporate perspective:
Generative AI images aren´t copyrightable, so the game IP owner wouldn´t have ownership over game visuals.
Now there is other related IP (character identity etc) but losing copyright over game visuals seems big deal.
It also opens them up to lawsuits over any other IP that may have been violated via the generative AI.
(i.e. it´s training set etc)

I believe the law is the image has to be fully created by AI. Characters assisted by AI but still done by humans can be copyright. 

So after looking into it, so much of this stuff isn't needed for Nintendo 1st party games. Cartoon looking graphics don't need ray tracing at all. I could see benefits from neural textures but it's one thing to tell an AI model to make a photorealistic stone texture on the fly, and asking it to texture anything organic and complex. Yeah take 1000 pics of a glass or stone or wood object to train AI to make a texture for a material in game. That's a good use of AI. Same goes for saving ram space. Or figuring out how to light a jewel in real time. 

But having it do what it does to RE Requeim or Hogwarts characters is horrible. And for Nintendo, their asset library is massive already. Why use AI to make a hyper realistic brick texture when some artist did it good enough for a cartoon artstyle in 2016 and you still have that asset?