10 ms·

It's still incredible you can coerce a language model to produce this, but it's not a new game, I've had it on my phone for a few years: https://play.google.com

It's still incredible you can coerce a language model to produce this, but it's not a new game, I've had it on my phone for a few years: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.rohitpailwangames.summerpro&hl=en&gl=US https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.rohitpailw...

ducktective 4y ago
Nice find! Seems to be similar to a game called Kakuro. This [1] repo even contains a similar rule: > The algorithm exceed the rules that the sum over a row must equal to the value on the left and the sum over a column must be equal to the value on the bottom of the cells with the diagonal and one or two numbers [1]: https://github.com/MarioBonse/KakuroSolverCSP https://github.com/MarioBonse/KakuroSolverCSP [2]: https://github.com/topics/kakuro https://github.com/topics/kakuro
- hgsgm 4y ago
  That's the first thing ChatGPT said at the start of the whole process. It created a game like Kakuro.
samwillis 4y ago
And herein lies the issue with ChatGPT, it can generate functioning code, but can also lie through its none existent teeth about it. Using ChatGPT (or Co-Pilot) can feel like pair-programming with a very talented developer who loves to bullshit.
- neilv 4y ago
  ...and plagiarize like crazy, while lying about it. :)
  - ChatGTP 4y ago
    ...maybe this is the key to success and ChatGPT is here to show us the way! :) Ride those coattails and take other peoples ideas as your own!
  - dbrgn 4y ago
    Could it be plausible that ChatGTP processed some text describing this exact game, where it is claimed that the idea is novel (because it was, at that time)? Since ChatGPT does not understand the concept of novelty, it would simply "learn" that the rules are novel, and then repeat the rules, still claiming that they're novel. After all, that's the information it was trained with :)
  - sekai 4y ago
    Is it plagiarizing if ChatGPT knows about chess rules, analyzes every single chess strategy, then create a similar game?
    - yowzadave 4y ago
      ChatGPT does not know chess rules, nor can it “analyze” a chess strategy. ChatGPT has digested the conversations of many many people who have talked about chess, and can reproduce a transcript that sounds similar to this corpus of conversations. But it is not synthesizing an understanding of the game of chess.
      - skeaker 4y ago
        Except that there is demonstrable evidence that indicates GPT actually does have some level of understanding via internalized world models (of Othello in this case, not chess, but the idea is the same): https://thegradient.pub/othello/ https://thegradient.pub/othello/
  - sebzim4500 4y ago
    Is this actually in the training data though? I couldn't find a textual description of the rules though Google, so I'm not convinced.
- jstummbillig 4y ago
  I am confused at to how this would be "the issue" with ChatGPT. Being wrong and not being aware of it is not a unique concept. At least with ChatGPT it is fair to assume there is no hidden agenda and no need to worry about ill will. If anything that makes it less of an issue, compared to humans.
  - samwillis 4y ago
    Ok, so maybe not the issue with ChatGPT, but with peoples understanding of its limitations. It can generate text and code from instructions, but it's limited in its logical analysis of what it's "saying". In this case it was asked: > And to the best of you knowledge this type of puzzle does not currently exist? and it responded: > As far as I am aware, this specific type of puzzle with the given rules and mechanics does not currently exist in the puzzle game genre. However, there may be similar games out there that share some similarities with this puzzle. That response is not generated (as far as I am aware) by any form of logical analysis or understanding, it's just generated text based on its training and prompting. It was asked to come up with something "new", and will continue to claim that as it was part of its prompts. So yes, this may not be a failing of ChatGPT, but of users understanding of it. You cannot take what it states as "fact" as anything other than potential BS. But it is an incredible tool for using to generate text and code. We are still early in its development though, who knows where it will be in 18 months time!
    - kqr 4y ago
      This is a very good comment. ChatGPT uses language so fluidly it's easy to interpret as there being more substance than there is. Looking at the response the way you suggest, it's clear it's given a boilerplate answer that would seem likely given the context it has found itself in.
      - prox 4y ago
        Exactly, as soon as were to butcher my english, a certain amount of credibility will be incurred, even if the communicators are aware of it. It could probably eloquently explain the workings of a Retro Encabulator fluidly and you’d nod a few times and thinking it’s fine. If words not right said for listen like now, think you might not be smart as is tho.
- Technotroll 4y ago
  In this case I think I'd give ChatGPT the benefit of the doubt. It is possible to invent something that already exists, and it has happened on several occasions trough-out history. A great example is the history on who was really first at inventing the telephone. In the end Alexander Graham Bell got the patent, but perhaps Elisha Gray was actually first? Historians remain divided on the topic. For instance, I once found what I thought was an ingeniously original idea about about how TV is really just a kind of reflection of reality akin to Plato's Cave. I immediately got started writing a thesis about it, but I didn't have to search for long on the topic before I found an entire book written on this way of thinking about television. I wasn't really disappointed, because in the back of my head I knew that it had too be too good to be true that I'd be first with such a great idea. In any case I kept working with the thesis, and I still did got a good grade on it despite the idea not being revolutionary. The questions I now wonder about is, can ChatGPT forget? Or could it be that ChatGPT was never exposed to this game, but could still infer it through other game rules, such as those for Soduko? Which I guess opens up another rabbit hole on if or how AI can be creative. Which I guess opens up another rabbit hole on how creativity works in general.
  - Jensson 4y ago
    > Or could it be that ChatGPT was never exposed to this game, but could still infer it through other game rules, such as those for Soduko? There is no way, the game type is centuries old, you can read this giant wikipedia articles about games like this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_square https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_square ChatGPT "inventing" this is like thinking it invented chess.
    - mynameisvlad 4y ago
      This is not a magic square, though. All rows and columns explicitly do not add to the same number.
      - Jensson 4y ago
        Yes, but the non magic square is inspired by the magic square and such games are everywhere. Just buy a random puzzle book and you find pages and pages of puzzles with "make the numbers add up to these columns and rows", because they are very easy to make. Point about magic square is that every culture invents games like that, it is one of the most basic puzzle ideas humans have, I don't see how ChatGPT can't have that in its training set.
- olalonde 4y ago
  > can also lie through its none existent teeth about it Ironically, it seems to me that you are anthropomorphizing ChatGPT a bit too much here. It has no reason to lie so I think it's more likely that it just doesn't know such game exists. It probably came up with it independently or doesn't have a strong memory of it. In some respect, it would be even more impressive if it was actually "lying through its teeth" because it would imply the AI had some kind of hidden agenda.
  - furyofantares 4y ago
    Similarly I don't think it makes sense to say it "knows" anything at all. I would be more comfortable saying Wolfram Alpha knows things than saying an LLM does, but I'm not comfortable with either. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with "remembers" either. My gut says I want to say I'd be more comfortable with that word for a web cache, but due to my understanding of human memory as constructive maybe I should be more comfortable with that for an LLM than for any other software. Happy to be convinced otherwise.
    - rhtgrg 4y ago
      ChatGPT does indeed know nothing at all. Proving this is quite easy, it was trained on text generation and can generate paragraphs quite well, so if you ask it to tell you about Harry Potter's family tree it will do well. However, it will fail immediately when you ask it to print an ASCII chart of Harry Potter's family tree, because it does not actually "know" anything, and it will make all sorts of odd connections. The clearest observation I can make of ChatGPT's success is that the general public is quite ill-informed and easily impressed by theatrics, both lessons we've already learned from politics.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - fastball 4y ago
        That seems less like a reasoning issue and more an issue of building up an ASCII chart in a single pass. I doubt most humans would be able to accomplish that. To demonstrate this a bit, I asked for HP's family tree as JSON, suitable for use in a charting library, and this is what it came up with: --- { "nodes": [ { "id": "Harry Potter" }, { "id": "Ginny Weasley" }, { "id": "James Potter" }, { "id": "Lily Potter (née Evans)" }, { "id": "Arthur Weasley" }, { "id": "Molly Weasley (née Prewett)" }, { "id": "Fleamont Potter" }, { "id": "Euphemia Potter" }, { "id": "Mr. Evans" }, { "id": "Mrs. Evans" }, { "id": "Vernon Dursley" }, { "id": "Petunia Dursley (née Evans)" }, { "id": "Dudley Dursley" }, { "id": "James Sirius Potter" }, { "id": "Albus Severus Potter" }, { "id": "Lily Luna Potter" } ], "links": [ { "source": "Harry Potter", "target": "James Potter" }, { "source": "Harry Potter", "target": "Lily Potter (née Evans)" }, { "source": "Ginny Weasley", "target": "Arthur Weasley" }, { "source": "Ginny Weasley", "target": "Molly Weasley (née Prewett)" }, { "source": "James Potter", "target": "Fleamont Potter" }, { "source": "James Potter", "target": "Euphemia Potter" }, { "source": "Lily Potter (née Evans)", "target": "Mr. Evans" }, { "source": "Lily Potter (née Evans)", "target": "Mrs. Evans" }, { "source": "Petunia Dursley (née Evans)", "target": "Mr. Evans" }, { "source": "Petunia Dursley (née Evans)", "target": "Mrs. Evans" }, { "source": "Vernon Dursley", "target": "Petunia Dursley (née Evans)" }, { "source": "Dudley Dursley", "target": "Vernon Dursley" }, { "source": "Dudley Dursley", "target": "Petunia Dursley (née Evans)" }, { "source": "James Sirius Potter", "target": "Harry Potter" }, { "source": "James Sirius Potter", "target": "Ginny Weasley" }, { "source": "Albus Severus Potter", "target": "Harry Potter" }, { "source": "Albus Severus Potter", "target": "Ginny Weasley" }, { "source": "Lily Luna Potter", "target": "Harry Potter" }, { "source": "Lily Luna Potter", "target": "Ginny Weasley" } ] } --- Sorry about HN formatting, but you get the idea. This looks fairly accurate to me. What about this demonstrates less "reasoning" then turning it into an ASCII chart?
- andrepd 4y ago
  "Very talented developer"? Sorry, I don't think googling my prompt and replying with the top stackoverflow answer (or a mashup of the top answers) counts as a talented developer. Anecdotal, but I've not yet had any success in producing any non-trivial code with ChatGPT. It has, however, produced copious amounts of bullshit with plausible variable names... :)
- visarga 4y ago
  It is a dilettante, it has not reached the level of "talented" in anything. It knows many things about many things and nothing in depth. Test it on your specialisation, you will see it make absurd mistakes and hallucinations. Try it on a domain you know less about - it looks perfect.
  - jokethrowaway 4y ago
    It depends on the language. I assume they trained it more on the most popular ones It's pretty good in JS, it sucks in Rust
    - visarga 4y ago
      Yes, just a couple of days ago I asked it to write a Pytorch Lighning module for me, it looked great at first sight. But it mixed up the dimensions and made other hard to see bugs. It was frustrating to fix, almost the same effort with writing the damn thing manually.
- kilgnad 4y ago
  Bro in this case the human is generating made up garbage. That game is NOT the same game. It's similar but the games are different.
- j5155 4y ago
  In my experience using copilot for generating code is usually a lot less weird because it has more context; instead of using made up function names and APIs it can see what’s been defined in other files. But I primarily find copilot helpful for instances when I need a bunch of almost identical code but with tiny changes (which could mean I’m coding wrong)
pmontra 4y ago
"If you can think about it somebody already did it and it's on the internet." Loose quote from I don't remember who, early 90s.
- YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
  You're probably thinking of (one variation of) Rule 34: "Rule 34: If you can imagine it, it exists as Internet porn." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_34#Variations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_34#Variations
de6u99er 4y ago
Great find. I would be amazed if a language model like ChatGPT could come up with a novel idea.
latexr 4y ago
A while ago another poster thought ChatGPT invented good jokes.[1] All of them were ripoffs, which took less effort to verify than it takes to make a new post. I get people are excited about a chatbot which doesn’t suck, but ideally it wouldn’t turn off critical thinking skills. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34744921 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34744921
omnicognate 4y ago
Google Trends shows a small number of searches for "sumplete" going back to 2004 [1]. Not sure how to find what the results might have been, though. [1] https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=Sumplete https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=Sumplete (search "Worldwide" and extend the time range)
- efreak 4y ago
  Sumplete is Spanish for substitute
  - omnicognate 4y ago
    Hah, nice!
  - latexr 4y ago
    “Sumplete”[1] isn’t a word in either Spanish or Portuguese. You’re thinking of “suplente”[2] (which does mean “substitute” in both). [1]: https://www.linguee.com/english-spanish/search?query=sumplete https://www.linguee.com/english-spanish/search?query=sumplet... [2]: https://www.linguee.com/english-spanish/search?query=suplente https://www.linguee.com/english-spanish/search?query=suplent...
kilgnad 4y ago
Except this game is different. It's similar but different. Your game involves addition. chatGPT is using subtraction.
YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
What are the rules for the phone game you link to? I can't see them on the google store page.
fennecfoxy 4y ago
But where would GPT have sourced information about how the game works from? That page only has screenshots, I suppose maybe there's a subreddit or something for it as well. Even if there's a bunch of info on it it's still incredibly impressive for it to parse those game rules and turn it into workable code. Would be nice if GPT could dump the source of how it came to such a solution, if it generated the game by random chance via combining various unrelated chunks of text and mixing up the rules, or if it used some text describing the game you linked.

ducktective 4y ago

Nice find! Seems to be similar to a game called Kakuro. This [1] repo even contains a similar rule: > The algorithm exceed the rules that the sum over a row must equal to the value on the left and the sum over a column must be equal to the value on the bottom of the cells with the diagonal and one or two numbers [1]: https://github.com/MarioBonse/KakuroSolverCSP https://github.com/MarioBonse/KakuroSolverCSP [2]: https://github.com/topics/kakuro https://github.com/topics/kakuro

hgsgm 4y ago
That's the first thing ChatGPT said at the start of the whole process. It created a game like Kakuro.

samwillis 4y ago

And herein lies the issue with ChatGPT, it can generate functioning code, but can also lie through its none existent teeth about it. Using ChatGPT (or Co-Pilot) can feel like pair-programming with a very talented developer who loves to bullshit.

neilv 4y ago
...and plagiarize like crazy, while lying about it. :)
- ChatGTP 4y ago
  ...maybe this is the key to success and ChatGPT is here to show us the way! :) Ride those coattails and take other peoples ideas as your own!
- dbrgn 4y ago
  Could it be plausible that ChatGTP processed some text describing this exact game, where it is claimed that the idea is novel (because it was, at that time)? Since ChatGPT does not understand the concept of novelty, it would simply "learn" that the rules are novel, and then repeat the rules, still claiming that they're novel. After all, that's the information it was trained with :)
- sekai 4y ago
  Is it plagiarizing if ChatGPT knows about chess rules, analyzes every single chess strategy, then create a similar game?
  - yowzadave 4y ago
    ChatGPT does not know chess rules, nor can it “analyze” a chess strategy. ChatGPT has digested the conversations of many many people who have talked about chess, and can reproduce a transcript that sounds similar to this corpus of conversations. But it is not synthesizing an understanding of the game of chess.
    - skeaker 4y ago
      Except that there is demonstrable evidence that indicates GPT actually does have some level of understanding via internalized world models (of Othello in this case, not chess, but the idea is the same): https://thegradient.pub/othello/ https://thegradient.pub/othello/
- sebzim4500 4y ago
  Is this actually in the training data though? I couldn't find a textual description of the rules though Google, so I'm not convinced.
jstummbillig 4y ago
I am confused at to how this would be "the issue" with ChatGPT. Being wrong and not being aware of it is not a unique concept. At least with ChatGPT it is fair to assume there is no hidden agenda and no need to worry about ill will. If anything that makes it less of an issue, compared to humans.
- samwillis 4y ago
  Ok, so maybe not the issue with ChatGPT, but with peoples understanding of its limitations. It can generate text and code from instructions, but it's limited in its logical analysis of what it's "saying". In this case it was asked: > And to the best of you knowledge this type of puzzle does not currently exist? and it responded: > As far as I am aware, this specific type of puzzle with the given rules and mechanics does not currently exist in the puzzle game genre. However, there may be similar games out there that share some similarities with this puzzle. That response is not generated (as far as I am aware) by any form of logical analysis or understanding, it's just generated text based on its training and prompting. It was asked to come up with something "new", and will continue to claim that as it was part of its prompts. So yes, this may not be a failing of ChatGPT, but of users understanding of it. You cannot take what it states as "fact" as anything other than potential BS. But it is an incredible tool for using to generate text and code. We are still early in its development though, who knows where it will be in 18 months time!
  - kqr 4y ago
    This is a very good comment. ChatGPT uses language so fluidly it's easy to interpret as there being more substance than there is. Looking at the response the way you suggest, it's clear it's given a boilerplate answer that would seem likely given the context it has found itself in.
    - prox 4y ago
      Exactly, as soon as were to butcher my english, a certain amount of credibility will be incurred, even if the communicators are aware of it. It could probably eloquently explain the workings of a Retro Encabulator fluidly and you’d nod a few times and thinking it’s fine. If words not right said for listen like now, think you might not be smart as is tho.
Technotroll 4y ago
In this case I think I'd give ChatGPT the benefit of the doubt. It is possible to invent something that already exists, and it has happened on several occasions trough-out history. A great example is the history on who was really first at inventing the telephone. In the end Alexander Graham Bell got the patent, but perhaps Elisha Gray was actually first? Historians remain divided on the topic. For instance, I once found what I thought was an ingeniously original idea about about how TV is really just a kind of reflection of reality akin to Plato's Cave. I immediately got started writing a thesis about it, but I didn't have to search for long on the topic before I found an entire book written on this way of thinking about television. I wasn't really disappointed, because in the back of my head I knew that it had too be too good to be true that I'd be first with such a great idea. In any case I kept working with the thesis, and I still did got a good grade on it despite the idea not being revolutionary. The questions I now wonder about is, can ChatGPT forget? Or could it be that ChatGPT was never exposed to this game, but could still infer it through other game rules, such as those for Soduko? Which I guess opens up another rabbit hole on if or how AI can be creative. Which I guess opens up another rabbit hole on how creativity works in general.
- Jensson 4y ago
  > Or could it be that ChatGPT was never exposed to this game, but could still infer it through other game rules, such as those for Soduko? There is no way, the game type is centuries old, you can read this giant wikipedia articles about games like this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_square https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_square ChatGPT "inventing" this is like thinking it invented chess.
  - mynameisvlad 4y ago
    This is not a magic square, though. All rows and columns explicitly do not add to the same number.
    - Jensson 4y ago
      Yes, but the non magic square is inspired by the magic square and such games are everywhere. Just buy a random puzzle book and you find pages and pages of puzzles with "make the numbers add up to these columns and rows", because they are very easy to make. Point about magic square is that every culture invents games like that, it is one of the most basic puzzle ideas humans have, I don't see how ChatGPT can't have that in its training set.
olalonde 4y ago
> can also lie through its none existent teeth about it Ironically, it seems to me that you are anthropomorphizing ChatGPT a bit too much here. It has no reason to lie so I think it's more likely that it just doesn't know such game exists. It probably came up with it independently or doesn't have a strong memory of it. In some respect, it would be even more impressive if it was actually "lying through its teeth" because it would imply the AI had some kind of hidden agenda.
- furyofantares 4y ago
  Similarly I don't think it makes sense to say it "knows" anything at all. I would be more comfortable saying Wolfram Alpha knows things than saying an LLM does, but I'm not comfortable with either. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with "remembers" either. My gut says I want to say I'd be more comfortable with that word for a web cache, but due to my understanding of human memory as constructive maybe I should be more comfortable with that for an LLM than for any other software. Happy to be convinced otherwise.
  - rhtgrg 4y ago
    ChatGPT does indeed know nothing at all. Proving this is quite easy, it was trained on text generation and can generate paragraphs quite well, so if you ask it to tell you about Harry Potter's family tree it will do well. However, it will fail immediately when you ask it to print an ASCII chart of Harry Potter's family tree, because it does not actually "know" anything, and it will make all sorts of odd connections. The clearest observation I can make of ChatGPT's success is that the general public is quite ill-informed and easily impressed by theatrics, both lessons we've already learned from politics.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - fastball 4y ago
      That seems less like a reasoning issue and more an issue of building up an ASCII chart in a single pass. I doubt most humans would be able to accomplish that. To demonstrate this a bit, I asked for HP's family tree as JSON, suitable for use in a charting library, and this is what it came up with: --- { "nodes": [ { "id": "Harry Potter" }, { "id": "Ginny Weasley" }, { "id": "James Potter" }, { "id": "Lily Potter (née Evans)" }, { "id": "Arthur Weasley" }, { "id": "Molly Weasley (née Prewett)" }, { "id": "Fleamont Potter" }, { "id": "Euphemia Potter" }, { "id": "Mr. Evans" }, { "id": "Mrs. Evans" }, { "id": "Vernon Dursley" }, { "id": "Petunia Dursley (née Evans)" }, { "id": "Dudley Dursley" }, { "id": "James Sirius Potter" }, { "id": "Albus Severus Potter" }, { "id": "Lily Luna Potter" } ], "links": [ { "source": "Harry Potter", "target": "James Potter" }, { "source": "Harry Potter", "target": "Lily Potter (née Evans)" }, { "source": "Ginny Weasley", "target": "Arthur Weasley" }, { "source": "Ginny Weasley", "target": "Molly Weasley (née Prewett)" }, { "source": "James Potter", "target": "Fleamont Potter" }, { "source": "James Potter", "target": "Euphemia Potter" }, { "source": "Lily Potter (née Evans)", "target": "Mr. Evans" }, { "source": "Lily Potter (née Evans)", "target": "Mrs. Evans" }, { "source": "Petunia Dursley (née Evans)", "target": "Mr. Evans" }, { "source": "Petunia Dursley (née Evans)", "target": "Mrs. Evans" }, { "source": "Vernon Dursley", "target": "Petunia Dursley (née Evans)" }, { "source": "Dudley Dursley", "target": "Vernon Dursley" }, { "source": "Dudley Dursley", "target": "Petunia Dursley (née Evans)" }, { "source": "James Sirius Potter", "target": "Harry Potter" }, { "source": "James Sirius Potter", "target": "Ginny Weasley" }, { "source": "Albus Severus Potter", "target": "Harry Potter" }, { "source": "Albus Severus Potter", "target": "Ginny Weasley" }, { "source": "Lily Luna Potter", "target": "Harry Potter" }, { "source": "Lily Luna Potter", "target": "Ginny Weasley" } ] } --- Sorry about HN formatting, but you get the idea. This looks fairly accurate to me. What about this demonstrates less "reasoning" then turning it into an ASCII chart?
andrepd 4y ago
"Very talented developer"? Sorry, I don't think googling my prompt and replying with the top stackoverflow answer (or a mashup of the top answers) counts as a talented developer. Anecdotal, but I've not yet had any success in producing any non-trivial code with ChatGPT. It has, however, produced copious amounts of bullshit with plausible variable names... :)
visarga 4y ago
It is a dilettante, it has not reached the level of "talented" in anything. It knows many things about many things and nothing in depth. Test it on your specialisation, you will see it make absurd mistakes and hallucinations. Try it on a domain you know less about - it looks perfect.
- jokethrowaway 4y ago
  It depends on the language. I assume they trained it more on the most popular ones It's pretty good in JS, it sucks in Rust
  - visarga 4y ago
    Yes, just a couple of days ago I asked it to write a Pytorch Lighning module for me, it looked great at first sight. But it mixed up the dimensions and made other hard to see bugs. It was frustrating to fix, almost the same effort with writing the damn thing manually.
kilgnad 4y ago
Bro in this case the human is generating made up garbage. That game is NOT the same game. It's similar but the games are different.
j5155 4y ago
In my experience using copilot for generating code is usually a lot less weird because it has more context; instead of using made up function names and APIs it can see what’s been defined in other files. But I primarily find copilot helpful for instances when I need a bunch of almost identical code but with tiny changes (which could mean I’m coding wrong)

pmontra 4y ago

"If you can think about it somebody already did it and it's on the internet." Loose quote from I don't remember who, early 90s.

YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
You're probably thinking of (one variation of) Rule 34: "Rule 34: If you can imagine it, it exists as Internet porn." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_34#Variations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_34#Variations

de6u99er 4y ago

Great find. I would be amazed if a language model like ChatGPT could come up with a novel idea.

latexr 4y ago

A while ago another poster thought ChatGPT invented good jokes.[1] All of them were ripoffs, which took less effort to verify than it takes to make a new post. I get people are excited about a chatbot which doesn’t suck, but ideally it wouldn’t turn off critical thinking skills. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34744921 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34744921

omnicognate 4y ago

Google Trends shows a small number of searches for "sumplete" going back to 2004 [1]. Not sure how to find what the results might have been, though. [1] https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=Sumplete https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=Sumplete (search "Worldwide" and extend the time range)

efreak 4y ago
Sumplete is Spanish for substitute
- omnicognate 4y ago
  Hah, nice!
- latexr 4y ago
  “Sumplete”[1] isn’t a word in either Spanish or Portuguese. You’re thinking of “suplente”[2] (which does mean “substitute” in both). [1]: https://www.linguee.com/english-spanish/search?query=sumplete https://www.linguee.com/english-spanish/search?query=sumplet... [2]: https://www.linguee.com/english-spanish/search?query=suplente https://www.linguee.com/english-spanish/search?query=suplent...

kilgnad 4y ago

Except this game is different. It's similar but different. Your game involves addition. chatGPT is using subtraction.

YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago

What are the rules for the phone game you link to? I can't see them on the google store page.

fennecfoxy 4y ago

But where would GPT have sourced information about how the game works from? That page only has screenshots, I suppose maybe there's a subreddit or something for it as well. Even if there's a bunch of info on it it's still incredibly impressive for it to parse those game rules and turn it into workable code. Would be nice if GPT could dump the source of how it came to such a solution, if it generated the game by random chance via combining various unrelated chunks of text and mixing up the rules, or if it used some text describing the game you linked.