ReignOnU said:
But does it run in real time?

Training part or processing?

Training naturally doesn't run in real time (re-training the network is a task for few minutes with full data set). It is not progressively re-trained as due to what it does, data in training set require some processing.

Processing is in interactive mode (request-response based service).

The service is supposed to run as server-side job, you upload data to it (images to be precise), these get processed, producing some output - which is then interpreted and returned to the user. The actual processing is very fast - it is the image upload which takes some time (therefore ‘interactive’ instead of ‘real time’ processing).

When executed locally (for testing purposes) - the result is basically instant.

ReignOnU said:
Where are all the solo devs making successful PC and console games without an engine?

They were never gone.

Most of the market uses some 3rd party engine, but that hardly means all of it.

ReignOnU said:
Is unity stealing people's game code and concepts without their knowledge?

Can you surely say it isn't?

@Vilem Otte Can you surely say it isn't?

No, another reason I don't use unity. Always online IDEs automatically feel sus to me

JoeJ said:
However, the dev of Newton engine is working on ML driven characters. He does it all on CPU. Training can take a day, but running the model afterwards is real time.

Whether you use CPU or GPU is irrelevant. I use CPU for whatever I need also. The test set learns in under minute on CPU - would using GPU significantly increase my productivity there? No, because any changes I do in between take significantly longer than that.

I don't care how long the runtime set takes - whether it is 1 hour or 5 minutes makes no sense to me. The (re)training happens rarely because adding more items to set is time consuming.

JoeJ said:
Personally i'm not so excited about this. But i make a difference between ML used fur such purposes, and ‘generative AI’ trained by mega corps from data not asking its creators for permission or paying them.

ML is not a magical tool mega corps try to sell it as (why … well it's obvious, they need to make revenue and income for share holders - so far they are heavily in negative numbers, and their growth is only on hopes and dreams - i.e. venture capital and all time new share holders).

I've tried to use Github's Copilot integrated into Visual Studio. First impressions which are capable of auto-writing some boring parts of the code (various constructors, etc.) are quickly downed by any attempt to do functional code (i.e. where something happens).

At the end of day - it is about cost of the tool. Which seems to be somewhat on the higher end for such tool.

@JoeJ I actually was thinking of going deep into AI in the next few months to explore such possibilities, if AI can make use of GPU to train data, there is no way we can not make use of AI to render Data.

Though, I am no expert in how those chips work.

JoeJ said:
Btw, seeing all CPUs get AI acceleration it seems, what can those accelerators do?

Apple Neural Engine is just a machine learning accelerator with limited area of application. The AppleNeuralEngine.framework is private to Apple and you can't use it.

There is a repo coremltools from Apple, which interfaces with PyTorch and Tensorflow (and therefore uses ANE in those).

It operates with layer connectivity map and net weights - from posts I've read it can do mainly convolution acceleration. Some references state that veclip, BLAS and other on Apple use ANE - they don't.

@JoeJ I think its a good attitude…

You could say that about just anything. Oh look how long it took this guy to make a game, he's a genius, he put 5 years of work into this game, how dare we criticize it. Or including any invention in existence, can't be criticized because somebody put work into it. Yet the physics engine you used fails you and makes it difficult for you to do animations. And that is one good reason to criticize stuff, plus its just fun

JoeJ said:
So i do not really fully understand what's the problem. But there is a problem, and it's huge.

Well, I don't know if it is me growing older or games have changed, but I rarely enjoyed any modern game, with very few exceptions, I tried playing games from early 2000s recently and I liked them, a lot! I figured one of the biggest killers that most modern games don't have: Challenge I enjoy the challenges presented by games, the intriguing puzzles, the fact that a game expect me to develop a skill, master it and use it. A quick example is hand-eye coordination, as even as early Super Mario Bros, you really don't expect yourself to finish that game without improving the sync between what your eyes see and what your hands press.
I talked about this with a former Ubisoft employee, who simply said to me: “well you might be right, but you don't consider that some people get home late and just wanna play a couple of hours, if we don't provide them with an easy route they gonna rage quit our game.”
I really liked when I finished a game, I feel like I conquered something, considering modern games micro transaction, money systems, over time buffs, this pretty much kills every sort of skill/challenge that could presented. If you feel this might be relatable, I can share some of the famous games in early 2000s or so that you might like (there are many other reasons I prefer older games, but as far as I see, this one is the biggest)