Nvidia CEO Says He's 'Empathetic' To DLSS 5 Concerns
- Reference: 0181088990
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/26/03/23/2214245/nvidia-ceo-says-hes-empathetic-to-dlss-5-concerns
- Source link:
> Although Huang is striking a more conciliatory tone, much of his response is similar to what we heard at GTC [where Huang said gamers were " [4]completely wrong ."] The artist determines the geometry, we are completely truthful to the geometry... so every single frame, it enhances, but it doesn't change anything." There was some confusion about how DLSS 5 worked when it was first announced, and although the inner workings of it still aren't clear on a technical level, Huang has said that it isn't a general-purpose generative AI model. He describes it as "content-controlled generative AI." On the other end of the spectrum, Huang also said that it isn't a post-processing filter. The technical details of DLSS 5 live somewhere between that space, and we likely won't know them until later this year when the feature is set to release.
>
> "The question about enhancing, DLSS 5... in the future, you could even prompt it. You know, I want it to be a toon shader. I want it to look like this, kind of. You could even give it an example and it would generate in the style of that, all consistent with the artistry, the style, the intent of the artist," Huang continued. "All of that is done for the artist so they can create something that is more beautiful but still in the style that they want." Although the talking points about DLSS 5 remain unchanged, it seems that Huang has at least heard the criticism. "I think that they got the impression that the games are going to come out the way the games are... and then we're going to post-process it. That's not what DLSS is intended to do."
>
> Huang also made assertions that DLSS is "integrated" with the artist, and suggested that it would put the power of generative AI in the hands of artists working in game development [...]. Although DLSS 5 looks like it's doing a lot, Huang said that it's just another tool, not an essential feature. "The gamers might also appreciate that, in the last couple of years, we introduced skin shaders to game developers, and many of those games have skin shaders that include sub-surface scattering that makes skin look more skin-like... [DLSS 5] is just one more tool. They can decide what to use," Huang ended the conversation about DLSS 5. Immediately after, without missing a beat, he said 1993's Doom was the most influential video game ever made.
[1] https://tech.slashdot.org/story/26/03/17/2058245/gamers-react-with-overwhelming-disgust-to-dlss-5s-generative-ai-glow-ups
[2] https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/gpus/nvidia-ceo-says-hes-empathic-to-dlss-5-concerns-jensen-huang-doubles-down-on-defense-while-decrying-ai-slop
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vif8NQcjVf0
[4] https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/gpus/jensen-huang-says-gamers-are-completely-wrong-about-dlss-5-nvidia-ceo-responds-to-dlss-5-backlash
Empathy??? (Score:1)
How delusional do you have to be to essentially belittle your customers like this.
Your GPUs should not be making artistic decisions, they should just render sht the actually creative people made and designed. Nobody needs this LLM-slop, that is bringing the worst qualities of analog reproduction into the digital age: altering the original content with some super special sauce seasoning.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
GPUs have been making artistic decisions for well over a decade at this point. Nvidia and AMD have a different render path that results in a different image for the same frame.
This before the fact that artistic decisions have been utterly ignored in the name of optimization for much longer than that. Those wonderfully crafted textures? Guess what happens when GPU only has so much memory for them? That's right. Artist gets told to get over his delusions of grandeur and get back on the grind, while optimizati
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. When optimization algorithms compress the hell out of geometry, textures, etc, the aim is to ... PRESERVE ... the original content and details, as closely as possible. If you think that artistic decisions are ignored, you're deluded and you have no idea how any of this works. Programmers make tools so that artists can express themselves most effectively and efficiently.
Re: (Score:2)
How interesting. Is stable diffusion not a tool written by programmers?
It's not like this is going to appear in a game without the developers of said game putting it there, so how in the 9 fucking hells could it possible not be true to their intent?
Re: (Score:2)
I was talking about the games industry. You know, the place that would use DLSS for their product. Well let's see if it gets adopted I suppose. And by whom.
Re: (Score:2)
> I was talking about the games industry.
You don't think stable diffusion is used in games? That's silly- it's all over in them.
> You know, the place that would use DLSS for their product. Well let's see if it gets adopted I suppose. And by whom.
Precisely. Either it will- or it won't.
It'll be a hit, or it will bomb. But either way, what it will not be, is contrary to the intent of those that put it in their game.
Re: (Score:2)
Stable Diffusion is only 3.5 years old. Maybe you are an LLM?
Re: (Score:2)
Shit- you're right! Games haven't been made in 3.5 years! It's like Children of Men up in this bitch.
Diffusion-generated art is all over gaming.
Or perhaps you were arguing that, "since games were made before its advent, they can be made without it!" To which... well, no shit. What is your point?
Re: (Score:2)
How, precisely, do you imagine a bunch of vectors are applied to a series of text to create an image? Do you imagine that a little hermunculous within the machine rubs the vectors all over the text until an image grows forth from them like fungus?
Diffusion generated art is a process. The model is merely the weights used for that process.
It takes software to feed the noise and embeddings to the model in order to produce the image.
I swear to fuck you get dumber every time you try.
Re: (Score:2)
What you did wasn't mockery- it was outright fucking buffoonery.
The argument you're implying is that models have self-execution abilities, and are in fact not calculated by programs.
> By the way, any system that takes sequences of stochastic data is a markov system. Mathematically speaking. Please feel free to explain to me condescendingly that maths is secondary to computer science as if they're somehow in disagreement.
That is entirely incorrect, and I explained that to your stalker ass last time.
A Markov system must satisfy the Markov Property.
[1]Feel free to educate yourself. [wikipedia.org]
Maths and computer science aren't in disagreement at all, only reality and your ignorance.
LLMs are autoregressive- they consider the entire past history to predict t
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_property
Re: (Score:2)
> Don't flatter yourself
I'm not- you're doing that for me.
> You think I don't see you trying to snipe people out of spite? I'm not fucking stalking you, you self important bufon. I'm making sure you don't come into my spaces to talk bullshit about other stuff you also don't fucking understand because the chip on your shoulder is so damn big...
Ya, you are.
> Thankyou for again explaining that you got the words you're saying here from marketing from a company that stands to make money off you believing them. The fact you're relying on nobody involved understanding the contents of the page you posted was already taken into consideration.
What in the fuck are you talking about?
From the page:
> A stochastic process has the Markov property if the conditional probability distribution of future states of the process (conditional on both past and present values) depends only upon the present state; that is, given the present, the future does not depend on the past.
Emphasis mine.
A Markov system's evolution depends only on the current state.
i.e.,
If the last token was A, the next token's probability stems only from that fact.
If that is not a true statement, then your system is not Markovian.
To demonstrate the difference, a Markovian token predictor would have a next state probability field of V^n, where V is the vocabulary, and n is how large your n-gram is.
A non
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what world you live in but I went from a AMD card to an Nvidia card and the image was basically identical. I'm sure you could pick apart little bits of pixels here and there but you would have to really really be looking.
Mind you I have a pretty old card so maybe if you turn on Ray tracing that's not true. But I've seen comparisons from Ray traced games on the 9000 series now that AMD is caught up to where Nvidia is and they look identical to me.
Back in the day even with my shitty color
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention that the first thing any gamer does when they get a game is turn all that artistic crap off, both to get a better framerate, but also to make the game easier to see. The fewer "artistic effects" on the screen, the easier it is to see what's happening. The idea that gamers care about "artistic intent" is hilarious if you've ever seen any gamer community.
Re: Empathy??? (Score:2)
Amen!
The the to play games is through mateix style displays showing you the math or pixel perfect sprites.
Re: (Score:2)
> How delusional do you have to be to essentially belittle your customers like this.
Imagine thinking gamers still matter to Huang.
Re: (Score:2)
When a lizard-brained psychopath who is physically incapable of empathy uses the word, you know it's some type of lie or manipulation.
Black box not useful for artists (Score:3)
Artists are all about control. If the "inner workings of it still aren't clear on a technical level" this means that you can't predict its behavior. If you can't predict its behavior, how can you use it in any dynamic environment with certainty that it will work well as you intend? He should try to peddle it for improving workflows of VFX artists, I'm sure it will be very popular there too.
Re: (Score:1)
It's true- artists are just all about control. And fleepeds are all about speaking for other people.
Has it occurred to you that perhaps artists aren't a homogeneous group? It should be obvious since the word itself is so fucking vague that no 2 people at random will agree on who it includes.
Re: (Score:2)
So one cannot have an understanding what's going on in a particular industry? I've worked with and talk to people in both games and film industry. My statement is derived from an understanding of artists and of pipelines. Film and game studios - they all enable artists to do their work. For example, Pixar's RenderMan, includes "non-physical" controls, which "are designed to help artists make art-directed imagery by ignoring certain laws of physics we usually simulate." (from the docs). First time I saw thi
Re: (Score:2)
> First time I saw this in a paper. So, yeah, "artists", and you also seem to have no clue.
And you seem to have an elementary grasp of logic.
That an artist may want that proves my point, not yours.
Artists are not a homogeneous group. Some may want to bend the laws of physics. Others will be steadfastly against it.br. There is no amount of mental gymnastics you can execute to make your statement less ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
> Some may want to bend the laws of physics. Others will be steadfastly against it.
And *all* would like their work to appear as *they* intended. It's not hard to grasp. Point me to one artist (who is not a burnt out husk) that would say "sure I don't care about the skin texture I labored to hard to make fucking pores and wrinkles for, just turn DLSS so you can see it better, as NVIDIA knows best". Give it a rest.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. You're trying the mental gymnastics. I tried to gently tell you it was just going to make you look stupid.
You said:
> And *all* would like their work to appear as *they* intended.
Which of course, no one ever denied. This is called a straw man.
> It's not hard to grasp. Point me to one artist (who is not a burnt out husk) that would say "sure I don't care about the skin texture I labored to hard to make fucking pores and wrinkles for, just turn DLSS so you can see it better, as NVIDIA knows best". Give it a rest.
And this is you beating that straw man to a pulp.
All I need to do is point to one artist who judged his work by what the output of the model was, no differently than a complex filter in photoshop, which they also have no fucking clue what its technical details are, but a pretty fine grasp of what its non-technical deta
Hating it all the way to the bank (Score:2)
"I don't love AI slop myself" says the biggest contributor to the generation of AI slop.
Re: (Score:2)
Blaming the calculator.... that's how desperate you guys are, now?
I think you should blame TSMC, next. If that isn't enough to sate your rage, you can go after Gaia for giving us sand.
Re: (Score:1)
> The efficiency of generative AI slop or not is the point. And we've had this discussion about web design in general and how the pigeonhole effect that frameworks have on style choices, style lost. Still .net made microsoft untouchable, to give an example. Back to generative AI, I have a suspicion that the unattractive "slop" is due to constraints in choices put on the agent, like a web framework no doubt.
I'm not a web developer but most art is simply recycled from other projects just the same? in a generative framework?
Re: (Score:2)
What a user does on a computer on a platform tends to be about, replication and not artistic output. The art of it is telling the replicator well, what to replicate. People are using AI agents to demand relevant, wide scoped, project defining output with vague generalized abbreviated human language. Therefore the output due to their own ignorance is a mess of mass produced garbage. So I am of a mind that it is not the fault of the agent.
Prices (Score:2)
How about graphics card prices? Is he empathetic to those?
This is so much worse than on first glance (Score:2)
DLSS 5 isn't a shader, it's an image fuckaround, and one that isn't temporally stable either. I originally skipped the FIFA example they demonstrated (because I hate the game and EA), but holy shit DLSS 5 fundamentally can't handle moving scenes at all. Originally the only motion I saw was in Starfield's outdoor scene and I noted in the previous article how shadows and ambient occlusion are now completely unstable which was distracting as all hell, but now that I've seen the FIFA demo,... oooh boy.
- During
Re: (Score:2)
There's this Disney video game my partner loves playing and it has absolutely horrible issues with clipping. They recently added horseback riding as a game mechanic, and the horse clips through damn near everything. That's pretty much where the bar is right now for graphical accuracy in games, so I'm not entirely sure that a bit of AI introduced graphical glitches are a total dealbreaker.
Needing $4k worth of GPUs though? Yeah, that part's not gonna fly.
Intel... (Score:2)
I'm about done with NVIDIA. Here's to hoping Intel improves their Linux driver support... They step up their game, and I could be convinced to switch. But right now.... It's all crap.
T
The blatant lies part of the hype (Score:2)
it's been a neverending stream of blatant lies out of Nvidia around this, the kind that spells "easy lawsuit" when the bubble pops. Someone finally got through the PR machine at Nvidia to find this thing is nothing more than a slop filter pasted over video games. All the stuff about "materials and lighting" and artist input and etc. are easily provable lies. The demo itself is basically a lie, 5 second clips without camera movement because if the camera does move stuff can start warping around randomly. Tha
Re: (Score:2)
I almost believed it until I saw the FIFA footage with the ball disappearing and re-appearing and smearing all over the place. It's clearly not aware of wireframes and in-game objects.
Finally (Score:2)
Someone who knows what "empathetic" means.
It's hot garbage (Score:2)
It's really nice to have what is basically the world's most awesome anti-aliasing / magical magnification application there is.
The problem is that you cannot extract more information than there was in the source data, so when you add detail you are literally adding it (not recovering it). When AI adds detail, it can do some amazing things... but it can also hallucinate or average things towards a blend of its relevant training data.
It's a cheap shortcut that is unnecessary for most people and for the peopl
Product sucks (Score:2)
Do better next time.
ReShade (Score:1)
So it's super fancy ReShade. As long as you can turn it off, who cares?
[1]https://reshade.me/ [reshade.me]
[1] https://reshade.me/
Re: (Score:2)
The current fear rangers from reasonable things, like fear that it will be used to cover sloppy work same way that temporal anti-aliasing solutions are used today, to patently unreasonable things such as "AI bad" screechers.
Re: (Score:1)
> As long as you can turn it off, who cares?
I'm sure at least some of the hate directed towards DLSS 5 is just sour grapes, because it will probably be a great long while before the technology trickles down to GPUs that don't require the sale of a kidney to afford.
Re: ReShade (Score:1)
I thought no this is the correct response.
The people that whippee up something quick for a tech demo failed, but in the long run artists will be able to properly use it to make things look better.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, it is dependent on the game makers to adjust things in DLSS5 to their liking and their artist level.
But what this demo showed was not that, it was taking "AI renderings" abusing artists art, and reshaping it to what someone else thinks is what "looks good". The overlay is not something that a game developer has control over. So, it is a concern, and it isnt that the demo failed, its that it showed bad tech usage. It showed bad technique and overlays crap as a result. It also does not fix current i
Re: (Score:2)
Disagree. I don't think many of the folks criticising this even heard about the hardware requirements until later. If that were the issue here we wouldn't see people rolling their eyes at the slop, they'd be lamenting their access to it. They're absolutely not doing that.
If anything, the sentiment I saw was that this was going to be inevitably included in next gen consoles in a way that would influence the industry as a whole... but also that it reduced the authenticity of the game and... I think people und
Re: (Score:2)
> As long as you can turn it off, who cares?
Everyone should care. The past 10 years have shown us that developers will take any shortcut they can. There's a reason visual graphics are getting *worse*, and that's because developers just don't care anymore. Who needs carefully designed lighting when you can just rely on raytracing. Fuck the people who don't want to use ray tracing, they can put up with bland graphics that look worse than what we had in 2010.
Who needs optimisation anyway? Everyone can just turn on frame generation to magic in missing fr
Re: (Score:2)
this is the sound of the triple A side of the industry eating its own lies about itself and choking
(you're not wrong, but I daresay most actual developers don't wanna live that life)
Re: (Score:2)
These kinds of comments always read like time and money is somehow no object.
If they take such shortcuts then that just means your game is cheaper or it has more content elsewhere. They're not just going to sit around doing nothing while still getting paid with whatever time they saved of course.
You won't be able to turn it off (Score:2)
Studios will use it as a shortcut so they don't need to spend as much time doing development work and don't need to pay those filthy filthy employees. So it'll be turned on by default whether you like it or not.
That's why you're starting to see Ray traced lighting everywhere. It requires fewer man hours to program because you can let the GPU do a bunch of the work as long as you're willing to let it tank frame rates.
Which would be fine if games were designed for 30fps gaming like they were on the Xb