alt Hacker NewsMust we, every time the limitations of AI are discussed, always imagine some simpleton human to defend it? It's trite and rarely adds anything to the conversation. The point is to judge the model on its merits. If this is a good world model, then it's a good world model. It doesn't matter whether or not a human can recollect every detail about a familiar neighborhood. It's irrelevant
Replies
yreg • today at 9:32 AM
The point is that humans obviously have world models, just imperfect ones.
It matters whether humans can pass the test or not.
Humans also get details wrong when they do stuff like this. So right away, we learn this isn't a limitation of AI. If you want to say that getting that wrong is "proof they don't have a world model", that cuts both ways - it means humans do just fine despite not having one of those either.
But that also lends us insight into fixing the issue on merit! If humans also obviously lack a world model, how do we cope with this? Sometimes we use "live action" and reality forces consistency. Sometimes we use editors and QA. Sometimes it ends up on a website listing every little shot-to-shot inconsistency in every single TV show and movie ever made.
And now you have a few clear ideas on how to train the next generation of image models to do better! And you can probably dramatically improve your own prompting by providing reference images, using consistent descriptions, etc..
So, hardly irrelevant.