[burgerone]

What's the use case for putting AI into everything? Pretty much every AI product so far has been and still is subject to hallucinations and inaccuracies and on top of that it's hugely computing intensive. Sure, it's the best we have right now and it allows us to do things that were previously next to impossible with manual programming work, but it's far from being something that's actually viable. And what would be the use case for turning a picture into an approximated 3d mesh that is only really complete from one angle? LIDAR does a stunningly accurate job at that already, reproducibly (although granted that this cannot retroactively be applied to existing photos).

[graypegg]

So I agree with you, but to be fair it is neat, and I think academia should be allowed to try things with little to no *immediate* commercial value. Being "neat" is enough IMO if there's enough resources to go around.

In the long run, yeah this *exact* application is sort of pointless. I expected to see the lens parameters factored into the process. It's not. This would mean that everything is not only dimensionally inaccurate since there's no reference measurement, but also proportionally inaccurate to other things in the scene. You can actually see the effect of that on the "flower car" example. (the entire shape of the car is warped) Let alone the fact that the entire scene that can't be seen in the original photo is made up.

Maybe someone would use this to make game assets? But you'd need to fix them up a ton before using them. Other sibling comments make the point that there's no wireframes... so we can assume the polygon count here is insane.

Either way... it's just neat.

[AlexeyBelov]

> What's the use case for putting AI into everything?

Money.