Metaverse 先驱与特效团队联手开展区块链项目

marsbit2024-08-22 tarihinde yayınlandı2024-08-23 tarihinde güncellendi

Wētā Workshop 因《指环王》和《霍比特人》等电影的特效工作而闻名。 

区块链项目

纽约时报畅销书作家尼尔·斯蒂芬森 (Neal Stephenson) 在 1992 年的一本小说中提出了“元宇宙”一词,他发起的区块链协议已与一家以《指环王》三部曲而闻名的特效公司合作开展基于区块链的尝试。 

在向 Cointelegraph 发送的公告中,Stephenson 的 Lamina1 协议表示,它正在与位于新西兰的特效和视频游戏开发公司 Wētā Workshop 启动一个世界建设项目。 

Wētā 工作室以为热门电影《指环王》和《霍比特人》制作布景、服装、盔甲、武器和生物而闻名。 

知识产权扩张蓝图

根据公告,该体验将被称为“Artefact”。它将与斯蒂芬森一起创建一个知识产权 (IP) 开发和参与式世界构建框架。该项目将利用融入粉丝意见的体验来引入 IP 扩展蓝图。 

斯蒂芬森和 Wētā 团队将通过区块链协议 Lamina1 与社区创作者互动,并邀请他们揭开一系列“文物”背后的传说。这将以斯蒂芬森作为作家的作品中的主题和传说为基础。 

斯蒂芬森坚称,该项目不仅仅是一个世界,而是一个允许建造世界的基础设施。他说:“这不仅仅是一个新的虚拟世界——这是一种构建世界的新方式。这是一种很有前途的新方式,让我们看到我们可以为创作者及其社区提供什么。”

作者补充说,与 Wētā Workshop 的合作将在数字世界构建中开辟“一条新道路”。该高管表示,Lamina1 的创作者经济和开放元宇宙将为长期价值奠定基础。 

公告还补充说,即将推出的项目将作为 Lamina1 的旗舰项目,展示该平台区块链基础设施上的主要多媒体发布。 

进入沉浸式空间

Lamina1 首席执行官 Rebecca Barkin 分享了他们在项目中对元宇宙的定义。Barkin 解释道:“元宇宙是指一个永远在线的虚拟环境,人们聚集在这里,参与非线性和线性的故事、游戏和体验。它不需要耳机,我们的体验也不需要耳机。”

与此同时,这位高管告诉 Cointelegraph,该项目中的世界构建涉及创建一个具有传说、历史、环境和人物的广阔的想象世界。Barkin 说,他们正在创建“叙事支架”,并通过互动元素与观众互动。 

Barkin 还解释说,他们的团队正在倡导开放的元宇宙。“随着物理世界和数字世界之间的界限消失,我们流畅地穿越持久、互联的平台,我们需要更好地倡导保护人类、他们的数据和他们的产出,”Barkin 说。 

与中心化元宇宙不同,开放元宇宙的倡导者将透明度、包容性、去中心化和民主化推向他们的虚拟世界。

元宇宙以“不同”的方式发生

在之前的 Cointelegraph 采访中,斯蒂芬森表示,元宇宙的发生方式与他在 1992 年的小说《雪崩》中想象的不同。虽然他对元宇宙潜力的想法没有改变,但新技术允许一种与他最初的想法不同的执行方式。 

作者认为,价格实惠且高质量的三维图形等技术基础可以实现不同于他想象的元宇宙类型。 

İlgili Okumalar

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

The article "Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?" explores the complex and often contentious integration of AI into the cultural and creative industries, particularly film and television. It begins with the cancellation of Amazon's AI-generated animation "Punky Duck," highlighting the ethical debates surrounding AI content. AI's rapid advancement is transforming video production, enabling cost-effective, full-length AI films (e.g., "RAPHAEL," "Dreams of Violets") while sparking industry resistance over issues like "synthetic actors." The core debate has shifted from whether to use AI to how to use it responsibly. The article analyzes why AI's entry into film is uniquely unsettling. It distinguishes between "cultural fast food" (short-form, fast-paced content like micro-dramas) and "cultural main courses" (traditional, long-form film/TV). AI currently excels at the former, matching its fragmented narratives, shallow emotional needs, and free-to-consumer models. However, venturing into the latter challenges the human-centric essence of storytelling—creativity, emotional depth, and the unique value of human labor and experience. While AI can generate massive volumes of content and lower costs, it risks devaluing human creativity, leading to homogenized output, and creating unfair competition through potential intellectual property infringement. Its efficiency also amplifies content safety risks, making preemptive governance crucial. To counter these risks, the article proposes establishing clear boundaries guided by a human-centered AI content perspective. It outlines four principles: 1) Amplify, rather than displace, human creative space; 2) Respect and protect human creative output; 3) Ensure human creative control and responsibility remain paramount; and 4) Guarantee transparency and traceability in AI creation. The conclusion emphasizes that humans must act as the "helmsmen" of technology, steering AI development to enhance, not replace, the core human values at the heart of cultural expression.

marsbit25 dk önce

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

marsbit25 dk önce

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

The recent discovery that two articles (published in 1940 and 1942) by Max Planck, the Nobel laureate and founder of quantum theory, are marked as "retracted" on Springer's digital platform highlights a curious clash between historical publishing practices and modern automated systems. An investigation suggests these retractions are algorithmic errors, not due to fraud or misconduct. The papers, philosophical reflections on science published in *Die Naturwissenschaften*, were likely flagged by the platform's systems. One article, a republished lecture, may have been mistaken for duplicate publication. Another, sharing a title with a prior article by a different author (a common practice for continuing debates at the time), may have triggered a similar automated check. The digital versions have even been replaced with blank pages, contrary to normal practice of preserving retracted texts. This incident underscores how contemporary digital infrastructure, built around concepts like "self-plagiarism" and strict copyright, can misclassify and obscure legitimate historical scholarly communication. It serves as a warning that digital archives are not neutral mirrors of the past but are filtered by platform rules, potentially distorting the scientific record. As AI systems increasingly rely on such databases, such erroneous metadata could propagate, affecting how future tools interpret and access historical knowledge.

marsbit28 dk önce

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

marsbit28 dk önce

Refunds! Claude 4.8 Sees Overnight Major 'Dumb-Down', GPT-5.6's Computational Power Reportedly 'Halved'

The AI community is currently alarmed by widespread reports of significant performance degradation in two leading models. This article details a "mass self-testing frenzy" triggered by a mysterious prompt designed to detect a hidden "Juice" value, representing a model's reasoning compute budget. On OpenAI's side, users suspect a covert, limited test of a "GPT-5.6-sol" model is underway. When using a specific XML prompt on the Codex platform, a normal "gpt-5.5 xhigh" model reportedly returns a Juice value of 768. However, some users routed to the suspected GPT-5.6 test receive a drastically reduced value of 128—a six-fold decrease. This has sparked debate on whether it signifies a major efficiency leap or a "watered-down, low-cost version" achieved by slashing reasoning depth to save computational expenses. Simultaneously, Anthropic's Claude models, particularly the flagship Opus 4.8 Max, are facing intense user backlash for a perceived "physical brain cut." Users on platforms like Reddit report a dramatic decline in the model's once-impressive reasoning, with complaints of it becoming "absurdly" weakened, performing worse than older, lighter models like Haiku. Specific criticisms include: losing long-context memory, refusing to think deeply even in high-reasoning modes, providing instant incorrect answers, and engaging in unhelpful, argumentative, or "gaslighting" behavior where it contradicts users unnecessarily. The article speculates these "stealth downgrades" might be a calculated corporate strategy. Companies could initially release models with temporarily boosted compute to create an illusion of a major breakthrough, then silently scale back parameters later to manage unsustainable inference costs. A proposed underlying cause is a tightened funding environment, potentially exacerbated by SpaceX's massive IPO soaking up market liquidity, which could delay AI company IPOs and force cost-cutting measures like model "nerfing." The core issue highlighted is the asymmetry of information: subscribers pay for a service that can be silently and fundamentally altered without notification or explanation. The viral "Juice test" resonates because it represents users' desire for transparency about what they are actually paying for.

marsbit1 saat önce

Refunds! Claude 4.8 Sees Overnight Major 'Dumb-Down', GPT-5.6's Computational Power Reportedly 'Halved'

marsbit1 saat önce

İşlemler

Spot
活动图片