4 ms·

When you think of the content of the books in Baldur's Gate and the sheer amount of human hours poured into something just to give background to the game, this

When you think of the content of the books in Baldur's Gate and the sheer amount of human hours poured into something just to give background to the game, this is going to save indeed a lot of time. But on the other hand, just like open world was a terrible curse with hundred of games feeling empty, I'm afraid we will see a wave of games with a lot of generated but eventually uninteresting content because this is so easy to do. After all, good content is coherent, and filtered. It's not just about producing a lot, it's what you don't put in the game, and what you do to glue things together. I sure GPT will eventually be better at it than humans, but for now, having a human veto is necessary to have a good noise/signal ratio and because GPT is "good enough", being lazy is tempting. But yeah, I can confirm GPT4 is already quite good at it and will only improve from this point. This is going to be very interesting years. Edit: I just made it write a full video game scenario, using BG as a competitor for basis. At first it was average, but with directions, it refined it and became quite good. Some kind of steam punk guild called the Navigators reading the wind, living in floating islands and a girl rediscovering the earth bellow the clouds and rebuilding old aliances with lost civilizations, plus a politician leader trying to prevent that and even a mentor to help her. Not bad. I would play this, and even read it. You can see the inspiration from "The Pillars of the Earth", "Gunnm", "Baldur's Gate" and "nausica" proving again it's mostly assembling known stuff. But a cake is mostly assembling known stuff and it's still good. The "last of us" is just a good take on something that has been done a thousand times. So why not?

Asooka 4y ago
What's missing is overt structure. More or less the same reason as to why AI can't draw hands - there is no "understanding" of the fact that a hand is a rectangle with five sticks coming out of it in a specific arrangement. For a human, that is all that's needed to recognise a hand, i.e. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +---+---+---+ | | | | | | | | | . | | / | | / +-----------+-+ This is a (very crude) hand. This registers as a hand for you, because it has the structure of a hand. This is less similar to a photorealistic hand than a 6-fingered AI hand, objectively, however it fits the human understanding of what a hand is supposed to be, because it has the right kind of shapes in the right relations to one another. In the same vein, if we could get the AI to understand the structure of a story, it should be able to DM session by session, starting from a high level abstract idea and refining it based on player actions, incorporating player input into the game. I'm not sure if hierarchical abstract reasoning should be forcibly added to the model, or if it can be emergent in a specific configuration, but if we figure out how to build an AI with that, then it should be able to produce something a lot more sensible.
- JieJie 4y ago
  I had a fun conversation with GPT-4 about your ASCII hand. You're absolutely right, it had a very difficult time and thought it was a city skyline, game or puzzle diagram, and a scale, but after a few hints, it got it: "Considering the hint that the image is part of a human being and the diagonal line is similar to the vertical lines, it appears that the image might represent a hand, specifically an open hand with fingers splayed out. The vertical lines represent the fingers, and the diagonal line represents the thumb, which is extending out at an angle from the square (representing the palm of the hand). The image is a 2D, stylized representation of a human hand. With the provided hints and context, the interpretation of the ASCII art as a hand seems more plausible. If you have more hints or information, please share them, and I'll be happy to refine the interpretation further if necessary." This technology appears to show great promise, but is clearly still in its infancy.
- YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +---+---+---+ | | | | | | | | | . | | / | | / +-----------+-+ Oh, hey, a nice steaming cup of tea! ... Uh oh. >> For a human, that is all that's needed to recognise a hand, i.e. Blast it! Cover blown. :poof:

Asooka 4y ago

What's missing is overt structure. More or less the same reason as to why AI can't draw hands - there is no "understanding" of the fact that a hand is a rectangle with five sticks coming out of it in a specific arrangement. For a human, that is all that's needed to recognise a hand, i.e. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +---+---+---+ | | | | | | | | | . | | / | | / +-----------+-+ This is a (very crude) hand. This registers as a hand for you, because it has the structure of a hand. This is less similar to a photorealistic hand than a 6-fingered AI hand, objectively, however it fits the human understanding of what a hand is supposed to be, because it has the right kind of shapes in the right relations to one another. In the same vein, if we could get the AI to understand the structure of a story, it should be able to DM session by session, starting from a high level abstract idea and refining it based on player actions, incorporating player input into the game. I'm not sure if hierarchical abstract reasoning should be forcibly added to the model, or if it can be emergent in a specific configuration, but if we figure out how to build an AI with that, then it should be able to produce something a lot more sensible.

JieJie 4y ago
I had a fun conversation with GPT-4 about your ASCII hand. You're absolutely right, it had a very difficult time and thought it was a city skyline, game or puzzle diagram, and a scale, but after a few hints, it got it: "Considering the hint that the image is part of a human being and the diagonal line is similar to the vertical lines, it appears that the image might represent a hand, specifically an open hand with fingers splayed out. The vertical lines represent the fingers, and the diagonal line represents the thumb, which is extending out at an angle from the square (representing the palm of the hand). The image is a 2D, stylized representation of a human hand. With the provided hints and context, the interpretation of the ASCII art as a hand seems more plausible. If you have more hints or information, please share them, and I'll be happy to refine the interpretation further if necessary." This technology appears to show great promise, but is clearly still in its infancy.
YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +---+---+---+ | | | | | | | | | . | | / | | / +-----------+-+ Oh, hey, a nice steaming cup of tea! ... Uh oh. >> For a human, that is all that's needed to recognise a hand, i.e. Blast it! Cover blown. :poof: