Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Matrix-Like VR Coming in the Near Future?

Posted by Zonk on from the can't-see-anything-bad-happening-there. dept.

Anonymongoose writes "A researcher at Brookhaven National Lab reckons it could be just a few years before computers can pass through the uncanny valley. The article refers to this as a 'Graphics Turing Test': 'a computer can be considered intelligent if it can create an artificial world capable of fooling a person into believing it is the real thing.' Michael McGuigan has been performing some interesting experiments using Brookhaven's Blue Gene/L supercomputer and has shown that it can produce realistic lighting effects in real time. McGuigan's original research paper (pdf) is available online."

16 of 249 comments (clear)

  1. Yawn by sexconker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Future Tech Prediction Checklist:

    "Researchers" did or said something: x
    "A few years" before the tech is out: x
    Promises to change the way we think of computers: x
    Shitty PDF "research paper" that was probably written by a half drunk college kid: x

  2. photorealistic != realistic by glyph42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you can't build a large hadron supercollider in the game and get new insights into particle physics, in real time, then it fails the test. This is NOT near future.

    --
    Music speeds up when you yawn, but does not change pitch.
    1. Re:photorealistic != realistic by Mr_Tulip · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You fudge it with a nonsensical but repeatable and predicatable algorithm, like quantum theory

    2. Re:photorealistic != realistic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Oh come on, let's be honest with ourselves shall we?

      As far as the real world is concerned, Newtonian physics does just fine. Even for simulation of a 45nm computer, we don't need the physics that LHC provides us insights with. It's like hitting an ant with a sledge hammer.

    3. Re:photorealistic != realistic by corgan517 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wonder though... particle physics aside, if you were born into the model a la The Matrix, would it matter if it was photorealistic? I have 20/20 vision, but I've heard that people with bad eyes don't really realize how much detail they're missing till they get glasses. If the Matrix had the graphic levels of DOOM or Quake 1, but you never saw what real life looked like, would you buy it?

    4. Re:photorealistic != realistic by emjay88 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd mod you up if I had the points.

      Perspective is a very powerful thing. If you know nothing else, it's near impossible to even wonder about how it could be better.
      For example, remember when the N64 was new and GoldenEye was the best game ever? I back to GoldenEye every now and then and I wonder how I could ever understand the writing or make out the other players from the background. I've just gotten used to "better" graphics.

      Can you imagine a colour that we haven't discovered?

      That said, I wouldn't volunteer my children or myself.

      --
      1178161 is prime...
    5. Re:photorealistic != realistic by Frozen+Void · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I played few MMORPG with horrible pixelizations and i think eye adapts to anything that resembles 3-d.

  3. This is assinine. by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sure, using a Blue Gene/L you can run a radiosity simulation on top of raytracing in approximately real time. Big freaking whoop!

    But will we have the model and shading tools, not to mention the physics engines and such to simulate a realistic environment in 5 years? 10? 20? Curiously the article fails to investigate this.

    Instead they have a nicely shaded clump of colored balls. Maybe they'll do a teapot next!!!

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  4. This isn't the Matrix... by Chmcginn · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This is the Elder Scrolls VI (or maybe VII.) Being able to make a truly photo-realistic real-time rendered image is impressive, true... and it's not that big a step to make it in stereo vision, one for each eye.

    But having a direct neural interface, that can mimic all five senses at once, is another thing altogether.

    (Not to mention being able to do it for hundreds of thousands of people, some of whom might be spaced out all over the world, with no appreciable lag... Oh, and having many separate strong AIs all running on the same hardware...)

    --
    Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
    1. Re:This isn't the Matrix... by boiert · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe they use some sort of distributed processing, like, when you're drunk they're actually using your brains ad-hoc to do calculations, (we're also asleep 8 hrs a day)

    2. Re:This isn't the Matrix... by Arccot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But having a direct neural interface, that can mimic all five senses at once, is another thing altogether. Outside of a direct neural interface:

      Sound: Well, sound is already "good enough." A good pair of headphones with positional audio can pretty much be dead on, and sound can definitely be rendered in real time.

      Sight: A stereoscopic headset has too low refresh, generally, but that will come pretty quickly. We already have good enough rendering to look almost photo realistic in real time.

      Taste: We can already stimulate/simulate salty, sweet, savory, etc with electrical impulses to the tongue. Not exactly pleasant to wear an interface like that. I'm not too concerned with taste, though.

      Smell: Not yet, but it looks possible. I don't really care about this one coming before Touch.

      Touch: This is the big one. There are so many different feelings. Hot, cold, wet, pain, pressure, and wind all feel different. I can't see how we can get fine grained touch without stimulation of the nervous system. It's sad there's not more research advanced in this area, because this is the one everyone wants.
  5. Re:Future of Video Games by kshade · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Probably won't happen. Just because you can make beating up a whore with a baseball bat 100% realistic doesn't mean you have to.

  6. Re:"Matrix-Like" ... sounds like a kid posted by QMalcolm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Cyberspace is a dead idea anyways. Aside from "the goggles problem" (no one likes to wear geeky equipment), we're already in the /real/ cyberspace. William Gibson has suggested things along these lines.

    The barrier between physical and digital is getting smaller all the time. If you go to a party, you can take a picture with your phone and it'll be on facebook in seconds. Cyberspace isn't going to be an "other" place, it's being grafted onto reality.

  7. Ummm... by glwtta · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Realistic lighting effects ... immersive virtual reality.

    Does anyone else feel like maybe there's a step or two missing there?

    --
    sic transit gloria mundi
  8. Fast Computers aren't enough for realistic images by forkazoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If we just need a few years of development to get truly photo-realistic images in real time, then why can't why make those realistic images right now in less than real-time? I mean, sure Hollywood visual effects are great, but they are never perfect. And, that's with a zillion artists working day and night to make frames that often take many hours to render when all is said and done. And, when it comes to people, they aren't even great. Crossing the uncanny valley isn't about FLOPS. It's about creating the content to throw those FLOPS at. It's going to take a long, long time before you have the algorithms in place that can simulate, animate, and render a realistic person. Not that it won't happen. It probably will. I just think we may wind up with hardwrae to run those algorithms before we wind up with those algorithms. So, just pointing at hardware advances and shouting is probably a bit misleading.

  9. War of the Worlds? by martyb · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm not so concerned about the technical issues as I am of the social issues.

    I'm reminded of the problems that arose when "The War of the Worlds" was broadcast on the radio and some people thought it was real. That was audio. Then, IIRC, there was a scene in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" where the moon colony made up a video of a leader announcing something, but it wasn't real (sorry about the lack of details - I read it a LONG time ago - I'm sure someone here can elaborate/clarify).

    Yes, there are still some technological hurdles to overcome in both hardware and software, but at some point I believe it will be possible to generate a scene that is, for all intents, indistinguishable from reality. Then what?

    • * Imagine a video of a government leader caught in a "compromising position". It doesn't have to be ultra-high resolution, either. Just good enough for youtube.
    • * Imagine a video that purports to be from a security camera that shows you breaking into a facility and wreaking havoc. And you were never there. How do you defend yourself?
    • * Imagine the difficulties in a court of law when all audio, photo, and video evidence is suspect.
    • * Imagine a group that is in power (be it government, industry, or whatever), what they'd be willing to do to stay (grow) in power, and what they could do with this.

    The geek in me can't wait for the day for us to have this power. The human in me fears for the day it comes.