That's like adding puke frosting to a turd cake.

It depends how good the AI is and how it's used etc. It would for example be neat to walk around in a massive AI generated multiplayer city that has a lot of intricate details.

Are we labeling procedural generation AI now? There have been procgen city generators for decades. Here's a particularly nice example:

https://store.steampowered.com/app/2859220/Vuntra_City/

Humans are really good at identifying the unreality of procgen because it loses the intentionality we expect from our built environments. Here's the author of that game talking about their solutions to the problem:

https://youtu.be/4MZ5-KQW3pc

Procedural generation isn't what we call "AI" now, but AI is absolutely procedural generation.

If your inputs to an LLM are prompt + seed, isn't that analogous to world config + seed in Minecraft? In fact, I would argue they both have the same problem: In an infinite world, geography has no meaning.

Why do I get bored of exploring new minecraft worlds? Because ultimately, I know the limits. I've seen cool minecraft mountains, what do I care if this time they're next to a desert but last time they were next to a lake? None of it has any meaning, there's no context. That mountain isn't a holy site for some religion, or a reminder of an ancient battle. It isn't a clever ploy by the writers of a game to set the stage for a final fight. No, it's just mountain #9057382 in minecraft world #74893124.

Midjourney's "wizard tower" with seed 1 vs seed 2? There are differences but none of them mean anything.

I played with AI image generators for a whole month and then I got bored. Not because I can't think of other prompts, but because "witch cat riding a broomstick" is something I can easily imagine in my head and that takes about the same level of effort as typing it into midjourney. And the result has the same meaning. None of my friends want to see "witch cat riding a broomstick" #A213DEF675, the novelty is gone. If they wanted to see a cat on a broomstick they could type the same prompt in.

Now, I only use image generators for D&D campaign art, and I write the campaign myself. Because I know my friends, I know what they like. I know what references they will understand, and every detail I hide in the world is something special for them.

I don't see the "metaverse" being any different. It's cool that we figured out a way to make the monkeys on the typewriters turn out stuff that is readable language instead of gibberish, but how can any work ever stand out in an infinite library?

Dead Cells uses procedural generation but does it in bespoke chunks, so while a level is different it’ll have chunks that are determined fun and then glued together by the procedural algorithm.

Yes, all of the games with the best procedural generation achieve it by heavily leveraging handcrafted pieces, but that's an indictment of procedural generation, not an endorsement.

Yes. This is the standard approach going back at least as far as the first Diablo: https://www.boristhebrave.com/2019/07/14/dungeon-generation-...

Sorta? Procedurally generated levels tend to not invite repeated playthroughs. Maybe this is a leap above previous efforts, but also maybe that isn't a problem.

I'm all for folks trying. I'm less enthusiastic it will pay off.

When the breadth of the content is just about infinite, will they care about repeated playthroughs? I think they could capture quite a few people just keen to explore and see what's around each successive corner.

I think they could do things like check the response to some areas and favour those to weed others out.

I remember spending time in RDR2 exploring the landscape, and finding the variety of moments that spawned (hunters, animal attacks, peril and whatever else). I think AI can get close enough to that quality of environment to satisfy people. As it was, the level designers were clearly inspired by the natural world which was not generated by human game designers.

Again, I'm not against people trying. I just have low confidence. It doesn't feel much different from many ideas I've experienced.

All said, the hubris of new attempts accomplishes a ton.

> When the breadth of the content is just about infinite, will they care about repeated playthroughs?

Read about the launch and the development of No Man's Land.

I dunno, it feels like when content tends towards infinite it also tends towards meaningless.

> Procedurally generated levels tend to not invite repeated playthroughs.

I agree with your broader point about low confidence in an AI-powered quantum leap, but in my experience this point about repeated playthroughs is actually backwards. Lots of the most popular and/or heralded games in recent years use procedural generation to enable repeated playthroughs as a core mechanic. Balatro, Hades, Slay the Spire, Diablo, Helldivers, Civilization, etc etc. Even things like drafting in MtG or board layouts in Settlers of Catan use procedural generation to increase replayability.

Hades is proceduralish. More randomized stitching together of created rooms. Some of the ones you name are not exploration, at all, though. Balatro and spire are tough to call procedurally generated? Literally static encounters randomly chosen.

Fair, though, that there are some that are closer than a straight read of my post would imply. Minecraft would be a good counterpoint. Those tend to be sandbox style. And nothing wrong with that.

AI isn't the same as procedural, but anyways, I think there are a lot of interesting possibilities. Maybe a long ways off though.

Fair it is technically different. I question by how much? This is a lot like ML not being statistics. Somewhat true, but also largely not.

Check out Shadows of Doubt if you want an infinite supply of procedurally generated cities with intricate details. No multiplayer, though.

Yeah but have you seen what people like to eat these days?

“Metaverse” is a moving target and has one goal for Meta: get everyone off the platforms that can eat their lunch (Chrome, iOS, Android) and onto a platform where Meta can start collecting 30% from everyone who wants to play.

People don't want to interact with the human-generated content, why would AI-generated content change their minds? I have yet to meet anyone who uses the metaverse, and it's not for lack of funding on Meta's part.

That’s because you aren’t 12 years old. Ryan George (a YouTuber) made a video where he checked out the metaverse and it was basically exclusively filled with children. He played metaverse worlds for around 5 hours straight and didn’t meet a single adult the whole time. It’s children using their parent’s old Meta Quest 2 headsets they bought during the pandemic because they were bored, then forgot about.

Until I locked my headset down my kid got onto the metaverse a few times without me realizing, and playing a bunch of random “experiences”.

The few times I (50s male) tried horizons universe I felt a visceral creepiness - that any adult I “met” was likely there because it wasn’t technically within 100meters of a school.

VR Chat was less locked down and felt more self patrolled and honest. (On the other hand I wandered a common “watch a movie” vrchat video room instance where Nazi propaganda played and the people in the room were bro-asting about being racist anti-semites.)

The population is mostly kids, but that doesn't imply it's popular with them.

Anything that can generate metaverse activities can do the same for flat-screens, which meta has been failing to convince people away from for many years despite billions of dollars of investment.

You can't blame them for trying though. Their cash cows aren't going to last forever. Actually, I don't understand why this company has such a high valuation. From all the FAANG, it seems to be the less diversified.

Metas ad platform is unfathomably large. Their tracking capabilities on mobile make them the ad market most apps use to serve ads. Apple tried to kill that but turns out it wasnt so easy and meta came back as a better tracker than ever.

> Apple tried to kill that but turns out it wasnt so easy and meta came back as a better tracker than ever.

Have any articles you can link about this? I'd like to learn more.

Making an attempt at a new line of business is fine, but normally you'd expect the funding to be reduced or stop if it wasn't succeeding.

They could have build quite a number of products with the money spent.

My gut says it's the hardware that holds it back more than anything else. It's all too heavy, clunky and inconvenient.

But the thing is that's probably not solvable without fundamental breakthroughs leading to sci-fi level technology.

Like physically there's just no way to make sunglasses a decent AR or VR display people would use all the time voluntarily.