4 ms·

> Also, unlike GPT-3, it will roll dice for you I'd question the fairness of those rolls. But yeah, DMing seems like an excellent fit for these models. But yo

> Also, unlike GPT-3, it will roll dice for you I'd question the fairness of those rolls. But yeah, DMing seems like an excellent fit for these models. But you probably need to track hitpoints and stats separately, GPT-4 can't do math either. Or I guess it not doing math might be a feature, that way it will tell you what reasonably happens with fuzzy logic, might be a more immersive experience.

hhjinks 4y ago
It would be interesting to see the dsitribution of dice rolls when asking GPT-3 and 4 to roll a dice repeatedly.
- simonh 4y ago
  I hope they didn't train it on transcripts of XKCD. https://xkcd.com/221/ https://xkcd.com/221/
BiteCode_dev 4y ago
You don't need it to be fair, you need it to be fun. Most video games play with randomness so that the distribution serves the gameplay, sometimes bypassing completely the RNG to balance frustration/satisfaction. GPT can learn do to that: not providing true randomness, but the illusion of it to serve the game.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  Players will detect drama being injected into their randomness (unless it is very gently and rarely done), and over time they will start to be able to predict dice rolls [edit: or even learn to shape their responses to trick the model into generating the rolls they want.] That will ruin the game.
  - BiteCode_dev 4y ago
    Xcom 2 make hits more likely the more you miss because fair proba was frustrating the players when they missed a shot with 95% of success. So I'm not sure you are right.
    - Jensson 4y ago
      A 95% shot will never miss in Xcom 2 unless you play on harder difficulties. It multiplies hit chance by 1.1 so 91% is 100%.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - pessimizer 4y ago
        So that's not removing randomness, it's just grade inflation. I suppose it's also secret range narrowing, since an 3% improvement from 92% to 95% is actually no improvement at all at 1.1 * (random) capped at 100%.

hhjinks 4y ago

It would be interesting to see the dsitribution of dice rolls when asking GPT-3 and 4 to roll a dice repeatedly.

simonh 4y ago
I hope they didn't train it on transcripts of XKCD. https://xkcd.com/221/ https://xkcd.com/221/

BiteCode_dev 4y ago

You don't need it to be fair, you need it to be fun. Most video games play with randomness so that the distribution serves the gameplay, sometimes bypassing completely the RNG to balance frustration/satisfaction. GPT can learn do to that: not providing true randomness, but the illusion of it to serve the game.

pessimizer 4y ago
Players will detect drama being injected into their randomness (unless it is very gently and rarely done), and over time they will start to be able to predict dice rolls [edit: or even learn to shape their responses to trick the model into generating the rolls they want.] That will ruin the game.
- BiteCode_dev 4y ago
  Xcom 2 make hits more likely the more you miss because fair proba was frustrating the players when they missed a shot with 95% of success. So I'm not sure you are right.
  - Jensson 4y ago
    A 95% shot will never miss in Xcom 2 unless you play on harder difficulties. It multiplies hit chance by 1.1 so 91% is 100%.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      So that's not removing randomness, it's just grade inflation. I suppose it's also secret range narrowing, since an 3% improvement from 92% to 95% is actually no improvement at all at 1.1 * (random) capped at 100%.