6 ms·

We're all just impressed that it's even possible. No one is saying these are fun. I guess the next question is if they can be made fun without too much additio

We're all just impressed that it's even possible. No one is saying these are fun. I guess the next question is if they can be made fun without too much additional work with a human guiding the AI.

minimaxir 2mo ago
Unfortunately people are saying they are fun for the purposes of ragebait that goes viral, which is half the reason people intentionally post AI slop on social media.
tripleee 2mo ago
> the next question is if they can be made fun without too much additional work They can't. If you think about how these things are trained it's blatantly obvious fun is an impossible metric to optimize them for
- egeozcan 2mo ago
  Training impossibilities aside, how would you even make an optimization loop for "fun"?
  - tripleee 2mo ago
    Brain-computer interface, maybe. Hook a million play-testers up to the output and have it iterate. ..feels like there was a black mirror episode about that though
    - egeozcan 1mo ago
      Black mirror is the dark version of simpsons with a bit of xkcd.
- hdjrudni 1mo ago
  I suppose. But real human-made games require lots of play testing to become fun. Maybe we just have the AI churn something out, have humans play it, and iterate. It could still speed up the overall dev time.
Jtarii 2mo ago
How well encoded is "good game feel" in the weights of an LLM. I am guessing not very well.