4 ms·

The outputs on pageload are just a random uncurated set I ran. I never claimed smaller models like the MtG models were immune to the same curation issues as lar

The outputs on pageload are just a random uncurated set I ran. I never claimed smaller models like the MtG models were immune to the same curation issues as larger text generation models. As someone who did try to reproduce RoboRosewater with LSTMs years ago, I can say using GPT-2 overall has a higher signal-to-noise ratio in terms of generating interesting cards which is a win.

YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
>> The outputs on pageload are just a random uncurated set I ran. I never claimed smaller models like the MtG models were immune to the same curation issues as larger text generation models. Are you sure? I reloaded the page once, before commenting above, but the output didn't change. I keep reloading now and the same set of cards is displayed. I reloaded with Shift-F5 to be sure ish. >> As someone who did try to reproduce RoboRosewater with LSTMs years ago, I can say using GPT-2 overall has a higher signal-to-noise ratio in terms of generating interesting cards which is a win. I don't know what an "interesting" card is, when we're talking about automatically generated cards. If a card looks too much like an existing card (e.g. if it has abilities that you can find on cards in a real-world set) then it's not very interesting. If it's an ability that hasn't been seen before but is only a variant of an existing ability ("Destroy target donkey") it's still not very interesting. To generate really "interesting" cards a generator must go beyond what's in the M:tG corpus, but not so far out that the abilities don't make sense anymore because that's not "interesting", just "random". The ones generated by your project are not far out enough to be what I'd call "interesting" but I think if you tried to make them more interesting they'd also become less coherent than they are currently (looking at the same few results I keep getting anyway). (This is not very harsh criticism I hope.)
- minimaxir 6y ago
  You have to run the notebook itself by following the instructions at the top, then you can customize the output (lower temperatures will follow the rules better). Here's some examples of curated cards generated that probably fit your description of "interesting": https://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/n396g8/i_trained_an_ai_on_all_magic_cards_and_now_you/gwpp8tf/?context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/n396g8/i_trained_...
  - YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
    Sorry, you said on pageload, I thought you meant when the page is loaded :) On the cards you posted to reddit: a) "Keening Vythat", "Tombsis Satyr", "Quarpling Barrier". These are typical nonsense-nonsense names (as opposed to the fantasy-nonsense names found on M:tG cards) that are typical, in my experience, of card names generated by language models trained at the character level. M:tG fantasy-nonsense names, like "Rathi", "Kapashen", "Viashino", etc, are derived from a real-world narrative created specifically to theme the cards. A backstory. Without such a backstory, "Vythat", "Tombsis", "Quarpling" are just random strings that have no reason to be used as names. This is an important limitation of this kind of card generation, especially given the very low chance that you'll see any more "Vythat" cards (and if you did, they'd likely have a completely different function). Also "Keening Vythat" sounds like a creature, rather than a Sorcery. So, first problem: thematic consistency of names is all over the place. b) The text on Keening Vythat is ungrammatical: Basic lands are basic land type in addition to its other types. c) Seismic Mind has an interesting ability (the one that modifies its base P/T). The mana cost makes sense, actually (although I bet it'd end up at {4U} at R&D), and the effect is very Blue. Nice. d) Tombsis Satyr also has an even more interesting ability (feeds the inner Johnny). The cost and colours are right and the Angel type is just the cherry on top. Very nice. If only it wasn't called "Tombsis Satyr"... X) e) Quarpling Barrier's ability is more of a crippling weakness than an interesting ability. A creature without Defender would not be called a "Barrier" these days, either. Pass, I fear. f) Trade Damage is more balanced than interesting, but it's very well balanced! It would fit very nicely in a modern tempo deck. Nice also. So that's three nice, two not so nice and a bit of a problem with themes. Still, those are not that bad at all. Unfortunately, there's just five of them. At this point it's hard to tell whether your project is able to generate better cards than other projects - and why would it, if it's using the same tech as those projects? You can fine tune and turn more knobs, but what, fundamentally, is the innovation here? I suggest that you add the five cards above (and/or others) to the colab of your project alongside the auto-generated ones, to have examples of the "best case" and "average case" together. That'll give a boost to the appeal of your project. Anyway, better than I originally thought but still a ways to go.
    - minimaxir 6y ago

YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago

>> The outputs on pageload are just a random uncurated set I ran. I never claimed smaller models like the MtG models were immune to the same curation issues as larger text generation models. Are you sure? I reloaded the page once, before commenting above, but the output didn't change. I keep reloading now and the same set of cards is displayed. I reloaded with Shift-F5 to be sure ish. >> As someone who did try to reproduce RoboRosewater with LSTMs years ago, I can say using GPT-2 overall has a higher signal-to-noise ratio in terms of generating interesting cards which is a win. I don't know what an "interesting" card is, when we're talking about automatically generated cards. If a card looks too much like an existing card (e.g. if it has abilities that you can find on cards in a real-world set) then it's not very interesting. If it's an ability that hasn't been seen before but is only a variant of an existing ability ("Destroy target donkey") it's still not very interesting. To generate really "interesting" cards a generator must go beyond what's in the M:tG corpus, but not so far out that the abilities don't make sense anymore because that's not "interesting", just "random". The ones generated by your project are not far out enough to be what I'd call "interesting" but I think if you tried to make them more interesting they'd also become less coherent than they are currently (looking at the same few results I keep getting anyway). (This is not very harsh criticism I hope.)

minimaxir 6y ago
You have to run the notebook itself by following the instructions at the top, then you can customize the output (lower temperatures will follow the rules better). Here's some examples of curated cards generated that probably fit your description of "interesting": https://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/n396g8/i_trained_an_ai_on_all_magic_cards_and_now_you/gwpp8tf/?context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/n396g8/i_trained_...
- YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
  Sorry, you said on pageload, I thought you meant when the page is loaded :) On the cards you posted to reddit: a) "Keening Vythat", "Tombsis Satyr", "Quarpling Barrier". These are typical nonsense-nonsense names (as opposed to the fantasy-nonsense names found on M:tG cards) that are typical, in my experience, of card names generated by language models trained at the character level. M:tG fantasy-nonsense names, like "Rathi", "Kapashen", "Viashino", etc, are derived from a real-world narrative created specifically to theme the cards. A backstory. Without such a backstory, "Vythat", "Tombsis", "Quarpling" are just random strings that have no reason to be used as names. This is an important limitation of this kind of card generation, especially given the very low chance that you'll see any more "Vythat" cards (and if you did, they'd likely have a completely different function). Also "Keening Vythat" sounds like a creature, rather than a Sorcery. So, first problem: thematic consistency of names is all over the place. b) The text on Keening Vythat is ungrammatical: Basic lands are basic land type in addition to its other types. c) Seismic Mind has an interesting ability (the one that modifies its base P/T). The mana cost makes sense, actually (although I bet it'd end up at {4U} at R&D), and the effect is very Blue. Nice. d) Tombsis Satyr also has an even more interesting ability (feeds the inner Johnny). The cost and colours are right and the Angel type is just the cherry on top. Very nice. If only it wasn't called "Tombsis Satyr"... X) e) Quarpling Barrier's ability is more of a crippling weakness than an interesting ability. A creature without Defender would not be called a "Barrier" these days, either. Pass, I fear. f) Trade Damage is more balanced than interesting, but it's very well balanced! It would fit very nicely in a modern tempo deck. Nice also. So that's three nice, two not so nice and a bit of a problem with themes. Still, those are not that bad at all. Unfortunately, there's just five of them. At this point it's hard to tell whether your project is able to generate better cards than other projects - and why would it, if it's using the same tech as those projects? You can fine tune and turn more knobs, but what, fundamentally, is the innovation here? I suggest that you add the five cards above (and/or others) to the colab of your project alongside the auto-generated ones, to have examples of the "best case" and "average case" together. That'll give a boost to the appeal of your project. Anyway, better than I originally thought but still a ways to go.
  - minimaxir 6y ago