[blueprint]

> Our results suggest that scaling video generation models is a promising path towards building general purpose simulators of the physical world.

so they're gonna include the never-before-observed-but-predicted Unruh effect, as well? and other quantum theory? cool..

> For example, it does not accurately model the physics of many basic interactions, like glass shattering.

... oh

Isn't all of the training predicated on visible, gathered data - rather than theory? if so, I don't think it's right to call these things simulators of the physical world if they don't include physical theory. DFT at least has some roots in theory.

[FeepingCreature]

The point isn't "physical simulator" like supercomputers, it's "physical simulator" like the human brain.

[blueprint]

yeah, well maybe they should've said that, and they obviously would have if they intended to distinguish between the two of them instead of over inflating their claims in order to raise more money

The simple counter argument is that they're claiming that there is potential for general purpose physical simulation. So please don't play with words. I thought we were supposed to be talking about something concrete instead of whatever you wanted to twist things into to suit your purpose

either that, or they're not qualified to distinguish between the two options you presented, which is obviously not true

right?

the article's bazillion references have nothing to do with physics

nor is there any substance behind the claim of physical simulation

what is actually being simulated is synthesis of any video

it's not that complicated and you and they must know it too

it's double speak easily seen from miles away

scammers have to downvote