|
|
|
|
|
by petsfed
772 days ago
|
|
Well, the tricky bit here is that the route setter, a human, is the one actually solving the problem. So the problem as set is (and must be) a human creation first. This is especially true in outdoor climbing, where the first ascent process might involve the installation of anchor fixtures, or the removal of poorly-secured features for safety. You'd need some pretty wild sensor suites to correctly differentiate between a really good hold, and a dangerous flake that will peel off the wall if the slightest force is applied to it. The AI just generates potential solutions to the problem once the holds are found/placed. Certainly, there's some interesting conversations about how satisfying it is to solve a rubick's cube using somebody's algorithm vs. just figuring it out, but its not like the computer is inventing a rubick's cube. Embedded in your comment is the idea that AI might create boulder problems or routes in climbing gyms, and the human (or eventually robot) just follows that plan in bolting the holds to the wall. I expect that for a long time, AI generated climbing routes would rarely be good, but would consistently be physiologically impossible, feature uninteresting movement, or be too easy. Its easy enough to shotgun holds up onto the wall based on some imagined sequence, the real skill of route setting is to (as the GP pointed out) figure out what's physically possible and also fun and challenging. |
|
This would follow the exact path image GenAI evolved through.
Step 1: Teach a model to recognize objects from noisy data.
Step 2: Reverse-feed that model random noise and force it to hallucinate that noise back into likely objects.
As there's probably physics simulation at some point in this particular scenario, there'd probably also be step 3 of simulating a climb through the generated path to validate feasibility / specific qualities.
It doesn't sound impossible.