The choice between simulation and real-world data depends on a task's core difficulty. For locomotion, complex reactive behavior is harder to capture than simple ground physics, favoring simulation. For manipulation, complex object physics are harder to simulate than simple grasping behaviors, favoring real-world data.
Related Insights
GI discovered their world model, trained on game footage, could generate a realistic camera shake during an in-game explosion—a physical effect not part of the game's engine. This suggests the models are learning an implicit understanding of real-world physics and can generate plausible phenomena that go beyond their source material.
Large language models are insufficient for tasks requiring real-world interaction and spatial understanding, like robotics or disaster response. World models provide this missing piece by generating interactive, reason-able 3D environments. They represent a foundational shift from language-based AI to a more holistic, spatially intelligent AI.
Training AI agents to execute multi-step business workflows demands a new data paradigm. Companies create reinforcement learning (RL) environments—mini world models of business processes—where agents learn by attempting tasks, a more advanced method than simple prompt-completion training (SFT/RLHF).
Beyond supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and human feedback (RLHF), reinforcement learning (RL) in simulated environments is the next evolution. These "playgrounds" teach models to handle messy, multi-step, real-world tasks where current models often fail catastrophically.
GI's founder argues game footage is a superior data source for spatial reasoning compared to real-world videos. Gaming directly links visual perception to hand-eye motor control ("simulating optical dynamics with your hand"), avoiding the information loss inherent in interpreting passive video, which requires solving for pose estimation and inverse dynamics.
The adoption of powerful AI architectures like transformers in robotics was bottlenecked by data quality, not algorithmic invention. Only after data collection methods improved to capture more dexterous, high-fidelity human actions did these advanced models become effective, reversing the typical 'algorithm-first' narrative of AI progress.
Instead of replacing entire systems with AI "world models," a superior approach is a hybrid model. Classical code should handle deterministic logic (like game physics), while AI provides a "differentiable" emergent layer for aesthetics and creativity (like real-time texturing). This leverages the unique strengths of both computational paradigms.
As reinforcement learning (RL) techniques mature, the core challenge shifts from the algorithm to the problem definition. The competitive moat for AI companies will be their ability to create high-fidelity environments and benchmarks that accurately represent complex, real-world tasks, effectively teaching the AI what matters.
Self-driving cars, a 20-year journey so far, are relatively simple robots: metal boxes on 2D surfaces designed *not* to touch things. General-purpose robots operate in complex 3D environments with the primary goal of *touching* and manipulating objects. This highlights the immense, often underestimated, physical and algorithmic challenges facing robotics.
The "bitter lesson" (scale and simple models win) works for language because training data (text) aligns with the output (text). Robotics faces a critical misalignment: it's trained on passive web videos but needs to output physical actions in a 3D world. This data gap is a fundamental hurdle that pure scaling cannot solve.