> I want a Minecraft that tells intriguing stories with infinite quest generation. Procedural infinite world gen recharged gaming, where is the procedural infinite story generation?
You're not gonna get new intriguing stories from AI which only regurgitates what it's stolen. You're going to get a themeless morass without intention.
I also find it amusing how your example to Siri uses one of the oldest pieces of literature when you also tire of stories heard a thousand times before.
if you do basic chatgpt prompts in late 2024 asking for dynamic story telling, sure, you'll get what you said. it's super dismissive to think that wont get better over time, or that even with the tools today, that you can't get dynamic and interesting stories out of it if you provide it with the proper framework
> it's super dismissive to think that wont get better over time
When did we start thinking this way? That things HAVE to get better and in fact to think otherwise is very negative? Is HN under a massive hot hand fallacy delusion?
If you compare the historical rate of improvements in computing power and algorithms vs rate of improvements in building scale, you'll find one is a whole lot more likely to reach its goal, even if the rate of progress slows significantly.
Lots of people want that AI grift money and need to be pollyanna true believers to convince others that models that don't know truth are useful decision makers
Actually, all you need to do is to apply structured randomness to get diversity from a LLM. For example in TinyStories paper, a precursor of the Phi models:
> We collected a vocabulary consisting of about 1500 basic words, which try to mimic the vocabulary of a typical 3-4 year-old child, separated into nouns, verbs, and adjectives. In each generation, 3 words are chosen randomly (one verb, one noun, and one adjective). The model is instructed to generate a story that somehow combines these random words into the story
You can do the same for generating worlds, just prepare good ingredients and sample at random.
A story is not just words crammed together that sound plausible. Is the AI going to know about pacing? About character motivations? About interconnecting disparate plots? That paper sounds like it has a scientist’s conception that a story is just words, and not complex trade offs between the start of a story and its end and middle, complexity and planning that won’t come from any sort of next-token generation.
These are “stories” in the most vacuous definition possible, one that is just “and then this happened” like a child’s conception of plot
> Is the AI going to know about pacing? About character motivations? About interconnecting disparate plots?
For LLMs like GPT-4, this all seems reasonable to account for and assume the LLM is capable of processing, given appropriate guidance/frameworks (of which may be just classical programming).
You're not gonna get new intriguing stories from AI which only regurgitates what it's stolen. You're going to get a themeless morass without intention.
I also find it amusing how your example to Siri uses one of the oldest pieces of literature when you also tire of stories heard a thousand times before.