Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by zzanz 653 days ago
The quest to run doom on everything continues. Technically speaking, isn't this the greatest possible anti-Doom, the Doom with the highest possible hardware requirement? I just find it funny that on a linear scale of hardware specification, Doom now finds itself on both ends.
5 comments

>Technically speaking, isn't this the greatest possible anti-Doom

When I read this part I thought you were going to say because you're technically not running Doom at all. That is, instead of running Doom without Doom's original hardware/software environment (by porting it), you're running Doom without Doom itself.

It's dreaming Doom.
We made machines dream of Doom. Insane.
Time to make a sheep mod for Doom.
Do Robots Dream of E1M1?
Droom
Pierre Menard, Author of Doom.
I applaud your erudition.
OK, this is the single most perfect comment someone could make on this thread. Diffusion me impressed.
Knee Deep in the Death of the Author.
that took a moment, thank you
> the Doom with the highest possible hardware requirement?

Isn't that possible by setting arbitrarily high goals for ray-cast rendering?

It's the No-Doom.
Undoom?
It’s a mood.
Bliss
> Technically speaking, isn't this the greatest possible anti-Doom, the Doom with the highest possible hardware requirement?

Not really? The greatest anti-Doom would be an infinite nest of these types of models predicting models predicting Doom at the very end of the chain.

The next step of anti-Doom would be a model generating the model, generating the Doom output.

Isn't this technically a model (training step) generating a model (a neural network) generating Doom output?
“…now it can implement Doom!”
to me the closer analogy here is the "running minecraft inside minecraft" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32901461)