For several of these examples the details change if something goes out of frame and returns. A second castle is added in the dragon one. The people walking away from the camera change in the train platform one. The Hong Kong moped rider doesn't have a helmet and then he has one.

It's very good at maintaining consistency for things that stay in frame, but I don't know that this points to it developing a strong "world simulation" like they claim.

▲

cvoss 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's like its simulation model is confined to the renderable area. At the cost of increased computation, it would not be hard to generalize the technique to rendering a sphere centered around the POV to keep some of those artifacts at bay; however, the fundamental limitation of "object permanence" remains if objects can evolve chaotically as soon as they are blocked from view by another object. For that to be made stable, you really need a whole 3D model of the scene, and the cost increase there might be huge.

> While it can maintain coherent environments over short sessions, visual details and object permanence can still shift or drift over time—especially as a simulation runs longer, after multiple complex prompt edits, or when navigating throughout the scene. Complex physical interactions, real-time audio accuracy, rendering legible text, spatial accuracy, and long-term consistency are active areas of ongoing research.

	▲	recursive 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		If it was actually not hard, they would have made their demo with it. I don't know the technical details, but I expect a product reveal like this to show the thing at its absolute best.
	▲	whatisthiseven 35 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		I am not sure you need something so complex. If objects on scene could be tagged with their location, and the camera movement tracked to identify when it brings the same objects back into scene, then the model can use its positional information to validate if the next rendered scene contains all the objects that should be expected. Though, I am not sure well this retains temporal stability. I am just thinking about how in 3D rendering, objects are tracked as individual things and only culled, but all the data about them still exists. Maybe the models need to reason as a 3D space first, then turn chosen objects into renderings?
	▲	dominotw 6 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		This sounds like bunch of gibberish.
	▲	everforward 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> For that to be made stable, you really need a whole 3D model of the scene, and the cost increase there might be huge. I suspect it is, because the 2D -> 3D models I've seen are terrible, but more importantly the 2D -> 3d models are terrible. Noteworthy because I suspect the number of people who have 3D scans laying around is tiny. What you're describing is vaguely how video games work, to my understanding. There may be interesting parallels if that becomes a technique (like how distant objects are sometimes still rendered, but at a lower resolution/polygon count).
	▲	93po 19 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> fundamental limitation of "object permanence" remains if objects can evolve chaotically as soon as they are blocked from view by another object. they got this working decently well for video over a year ago, maybe closer to two years ago at this point, time goes fast. so i assume it'll translate to progress in Genie too

▲

monk_grilla 33 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> It's very good at maintaining consistency for things that stay in frame

I noticed several inconsistencies in things that stayed in frame. See the wall on the bridge in the Van Gogh example as they walk past it to see the other side.

▲

human305893 36 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And these are the examples they chose. I have to wonder if they add some with mistakes on purpose.

▲

an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

stavros 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It just doesn't have object permanence yet!