Slashdot Mirror
Matrix-Like VR Coming in the Near Future?
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."
But how are we going to fit a full VR.8 onto an 8" floppy?
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
I had a couple of hundred television channels, and canceled my satellite service because there was never anything worth watching on.
Having a realistic world doesn't impress me. I'm holding off to see what they do with it before getting excited.
...I prefer 2D games.
Circumcision is child abuse.
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.
Gimme an 'O', gimme an 'R', and gimme an 'N'!
It won't have to fool me into believing it's the real thing; I WANT to believe. I'm quite willing to ignore some gaping holes in any VR representation (but not others, nudge & wink).
(In fact my "Top Ten" List would contain more than a couple of anime characters)
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
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?
I have a lot of karma to burn* so why the fuck not...
The poster sounds like a pup to use the phrase "Matrix-Like". Back when the Wachowski brothers were in high school, Gibson had already formulated the term "cyberspace" in Burning Chrome, which was a "Matrix-Like" VR before there was even a Matrix. Give credit where credit is due!
* I find people who post something along the lines of "I have a lot of karma to burn" before posting a rant end up getting modded plus points. Let's see what happens!
This is something that has always made me wonder. When computer graphics reach the point where you cannot readily tell if the image you are seeing is real or synthetic, how will this affect video game violence?
Can you imaging Grant Theft Auto X with full realistic imaging? How would that affect someone when they go beat a whore to death with a baseball bat and the mind cannot as easily dismiss the disturbing imagery as virtual.
When I played DOOM, I found myself trying to look around the corner of the inside of the computer screen.
It was immersive enough to fool me...
---
I type this every time.
Oh yeah, it was back in the early 90s. Yup, way back then.
-- Boycott Shell
about the matrix. I want to learn how to master kung-fu in a day, and fly a helicopter in a few seconds.
That's real power. Imagine if everybody could know every thing. that means everyone would push new boundaries and the wheel wouldn't ahve to keep getting invented.
The second kick ass thing was the ships.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
A researcher at Brookhaven National Lab reckons it could be just a few years before computers can pass through the uncanny valley.
We can use it for the heads-up display for our flying cars (just a few years away) powered by practical fusion (just a few years away) while travling to the clinic for our immortality tratements (just a few years away).
Thank god all the best things humanity will ever invent are going to be practical at the same time (just a few years away).
I remember when I first heard of VR around 1989-90. I'm talking about the big headset with two screens one for each eye drawing a slightly different angle, with it also having head tracking and then draw the screens appropriately.
I thought, what an amazing idea! This seemed like the closest thing you could have to a holodeck (kind of like a holodeck in reverse). Anyway, some games came out in the arcades. One company in particular was virtuality. They had this game called Dactyl Nightmare that I tried a couple of times. It was like a fps where you and a friend were pitted in an arena against each other with a gun. There was also this pterodactyl flying around that would randomly try and grab one of you. Anyway, neat simple idea to showcase VR. Problem was, it was certainly not ready for prime time.
The screens were extremely low res. I mean it seemed lower than 320x240 per screen. But what really ruined the immersion factor was the frame rate. It felt like it was in the teens at best. Most of the time it felt like a slideshow.
Anyway, they had a couple other games at the time, and they were pretty much the same experience.
I still think it's a great idea, just way ahead of it's time. The problem was they were trying to do 3d (on two screens no less) in a 2d world. At that time, I think virtua racing/fighter just hit the scene. Almost all games were 2d still, and most certainly with the consoles/home computers.
I checked their wiki entry just now and there was a sequel to dactyl nightmare which came out about 3 years later that ran on a 486, so I could just imagine what the first ran on.
Anyway, the idea seemed to flop, but I always thought it was an idea ahead of it's time. Certainly we could do two screens at say 640 480 at 60 fps. It's been 16-17 years since I tried this and thought by now the idea would resurface.
The whole Matrix simulacrum spiel is such a load of shite I find it utterly bizarre that people are still entertaining it.
I'm *sure* that the computer will fool some people into thinking what it makes is real, because THOSE PEOPLE ARE STUPID. It's not that the machines will become intelligent, it's that we're bending the curve on what we think is intelligence to something really stupid - we'll just lower the bar, or collectively enter our idiocracy and think "Hey - fooled me!"
"Gee Johnny, why don't you stop drooling on yourself for a minute and tell me: is the machine intelligent?"
"Id da macheen telligent? Duhh YEAH Boss! Id be willy telligent! Can I have cookie now?"
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Realistic lighting effects ... immersive virtual reality.
Does anyone else feel like maybe there's a step or two missing there?
sic transit gloria mundi
I'd rather have Tron-like VR. Screw your stylish coats and sunglasses, I want a lightcycle and gridbugs.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
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.
And it will be ready just in time for Duke Nukem Forever.
Bemopolis
"I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
So the it will be as realistic as a 2d i*j array? I don't get it.
*text* games, you insensitive clod!
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
But as for still frames and modelling, we're getting there:
Sexy Girl - http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=121&t=532817
Tattoo Guy - http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=121&t=550192
The Artist - http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=121&t=472843
As for realtime photorealistic animation though, we're a long, long way from there. Lighting is one hurdle, the bigger hurdle is content. Models, textures, rigs... forget rendering, all of this takes a lot of time to BUILD for a photoreal environment.
Its one thing to come up with a realistic model and scene for a photo-realistic still frame. Its another, to rig all of those models so that they can interact with each other in a pre-determined way. Its something altogether entirely different to do this in real time without predetermined paths and choreographed actions, and modelling all viewable elements based upon the degree of movement that a user has within the space.
This is very much highlighted in the differences between high-poly count models (for detailed stills) and low-poly models (used for 3D games). The "art" for immersive environments like simulated 3D gaming (fps, racing sims etc) is to come up with a convincing representation of a real world object with the lowest poly count possible.
Currently the difference between these polycounts is massive.
The really funny thing is watching all you people talk about this as if it is the future.
You have no way of knowing whether you are in a convincing artificial reality right now.
In fact, Hegel - back in the 1830s - already taught that all "reality" is virtual. It is *essentially* appearance. It is all a show, folks. It is meaningless to discuss "real reality versus artifical reality", because there is no absolute distinction between them. They are just "more real" and "less real" in relation to each other.
We philosophers knew all about the problems of virutal reality and knowledge of the world back in the 1600s and 1700s and 1800s - long before computers were invented.
Computers just help the people with no imagination to get the problem a few centuries late.
There. Was that trollish enough?
I am anarch of all I survey.
Not even close.
It works for plasticky scenes with lots of mirrors and refractive glass balls but not much else.
No sig today...
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?
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.
I think I speak for everyone here when I say: you need to get laid. You need to get laid more than *I* need to get laid. Go get laid!
which is totally what she said