Larian's head writer has a simple answer for how AI-generated text helps development: 'It doesn't,' thanks to its best output being 'a 3/10 at best' worse than his worst drafts
-
That means in about 6 months or so the AI content quality will be about an 8/10. The processors spread machine “learning” incredibly fast. Some might even say exponentially fast. Pretty soon it’ll be like that old song “If you wonder why your letters never get a reply, when you tell me that you love me, I want to see you write it”. “Letters” is an old version of one-on-one tweeting, but with no character limit.
Only if you assume that its performance will continue improving for a good while and (at least) linearly. The companies are really struggling to give their models more compute or more training data now and frankly it doesn’t seem like there have been any big strides for a while
-
Tons of shit games are going to have lots of dialogue written by AI. It’s very likely that those games would have had shit dialogue anyway.
Sure, but human-written shit still had that human touch. It could be unintentionally funny, it could be a mixed bag that reaches unexpected heights at times. AI writing is just the bland kind of bad, not the interesting kind of bad.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Larian's head writer has a simple answer for how AI-generated text helps development: 'It doesn't,' thanks to its best output being 'a 3/10 at best' worse than his worst drafts
My worst drafts are a 5/10 but I might have lower standards.
PC Gamer (www.pcgamer.com)
I like the way Ted Chiang puts it:
Some might say that the output of large language models doesn’t look all that different from a human writer’s first draft, but, again, I think this is a superficial resemblance. Your first draft isn’t an unoriginal idea expressed clearly; it’s an original idea expressed poorly, and it is accompanied by your amorphous dissatisfaction, your awareness of the distance between what it says and what you want it to say. That’s what directs you during rewriting, and that’s one of the things lacking when you start with text generated by an A.I.
There’s nothing magical or mystical about writing, but it involves more than placing an existing document on an unreliable photocopier and pressing the Print button.
I think our materialist culture forgets that minds exist. The output from writing something is not just “the thing you wrote”, but also your thoughts about the thing you wrote.
-
Yeah… Linear increases in performance appear to require exponentially more data, hardware, and energy.
Meanwhile, the big companies are passing around the same $100bn IOU, amortizing GPUs on 6-year schedules but burning them out in months, using those same GPUs as collateral on massive loans, and spending based on an ever-accelerating number of data centers which are not guaranteed to get built or receive sufficient power.
-
Sure, but human-written shit still had that human touch. It could be unintentionally funny, it could be a mixed bag that reaches unexpected heights at times. AI writing is just the bland kind of bad, not the interesting kind of bad.
Great point. There’s no opportunity for “so bad it’s good”. The Room wouldn’t have been a thing if Tommy used AI.
-
I like the way Ted Chiang puts it:
Some might say that the output of large language models doesn’t look all that different from a human writer’s first draft, but, again, I think this is a superficial resemblance. Your first draft isn’t an unoriginal idea expressed clearly; it’s an original idea expressed poorly, and it is accompanied by your amorphous dissatisfaction, your awareness of the distance between what it says and what you want it to say. That’s what directs you during rewriting, and that’s one of the things lacking when you start with text generated by an A.I.
There’s nothing magical or mystical about writing, but it involves more than placing an existing document on an unreliable photocopier and pressing the Print button.
I think our materialist culture forgets that minds exist. The output from writing something is not just “the thing you wrote”, but also your thoughts about the thing you wrote.
The dialog pushing AI media seems to start from this assumption that I consume media just to have colors and words and sounds enter my face holes. In fact, I consume art and media because I like hearing, seeing, and reading about how other humans experience the same world I do. It’s a form of communication. I like the product but also the process of people trying to capture the bonkers, ineffable experience we all seem to be sharing in ways I would never think of, but can instantly verify.
What’s funny is, due to the nature of media, it’s kind of impossible to not communicate something, even if the artwork itself is empty. When I see AI media I see the communication of a mind that doesn’t know or give a shit about any of this. So in their attempt make filler they are in fact making art about how inarticulate they are. It’s unintentional, corporate dadaism.
-
That means in about 6 months or so the AI content quality will be about an 8/10. The processors spread machine “learning” incredibly fast. Some might even say exponentially fast. Pretty soon it’ll be like that old song “If you wonder why your letters never get a reply, when you tell me that you love me, I want to see you write it”. “Letters” is an old version of one-on-one tweeting, but with no character limit.
I love how you idiots think this tech hasn’t already hit its ceiling. It’s been functionally stagnant for some time now.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Larian's head writer has a simple answer for how AI-generated text helps development: 'It doesn't,' thanks to its best output being 'a 3/10 at best' worse than his worst drafts
My worst drafts are a 5/10 but I might have lower standards.
PC Gamer (www.pcgamer.com)
Nah, can’t agree. I have postponed few ideas for years, was able to vibe them in a week during evenings, now i have something usable. 70% of it was vibed, just had to fix stupid stuff that was partially on my queries.
-
I like the way Ted Chiang puts it:
Some might say that the output of large language models doesn’t look all that different from a human writer’s first draft, but, again, I think this is a superficial resemblance. Your first draft isn’t an unoriginal idea expressed clearly; it’s an original idea expressed poorly, and it is accompanied by your amorphous dissatisfaction, your awareness of the distance between what it says and what you want it to say. That’s what directs you during rewriting, and that’s one of the things lacking when you start with text generated by an A.I.
There’s nothing magical or mystical about writing, but it involves more than placing an existing document on an unreliable photocopier and pressing the Print button.
I think our materialist culture forgets that minds exist. The output from writing something is not just “the thing you wrote”, but also your thoughts about the thing you wrote.
Your first draft isn’t an unoriginal idea expressed clearly; it’s an original idea expressed poorly
I like this a lot. I’m going to thieve it.
-
Nah, can’t agree. I have postponed few ideas for years, was able to vibe them in a week during evenings, now i have something usable. 70% of it was vibed, just had to fix stupid stuff that was partially on my queries.
That’s the difference between an amateur writer and a professional writer.
-
The dialog pushing AI media seems to start from this assumption that I consume media just to have colors and words and sounds enter my face holes. In fact, I consume art and media because I like hearing, seeing, and reading about how other humans experience the same world I do. It’s a form of communication. I like the product but also the process of people trying to capture the bonkers, ineffable experience we all seem to be sharing in ways I would never think of, but can instantly verify.
What’s funny is, due to the nature of media, it’s kind of impossible to not communicate something, even if the artwork itself is empty. When I see AI media I see the communication of a mind that doesn’t know or give a shit about any of this. So in their attempt make filler they are in fact making art about how inarticulate they are. It’s unintentional, corporate dadaism.
Yes, this is it right here. The whole point of art is communication and connection with another human being.
-
It would probably just have been less dialogue
They already said less shit.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Larian's head writer has a simple answer for how AI-generated text helps development: 'It doesn't,' thanks to its best output being 'a 3/10 at best' worse than his worst drafts
My worst drafts are a 5/10 but I might have lower standards.
PC Gamer (www.pcgamer.com)
I can see how it could be useful, or mandatory in future rpgs. It can generate a framework for a real writer, with extremely large amounts of logical branching, a billion times faster. Then you go over the top of it and use the framework as concepts to use or revise. This streamlines the process, unifies the creative vision, and allows for such a large game without procedural generation that would haven taken a team 10 years or not at all, done in 2.
-
Starfield is estimated to have sold 3 millions copies. Baldur’s gate 3, 15 million. Microsoft/Bethesda marketing budgets makes a difference, but not being garbage makes a much bigger difference.
-
I can see how it could be useful, or mandatory in future rpgs. It can generate a framework for a real writer, with extremely large amounts of logical branching, a billion times faster. Then you go over the top of it and use the framework as concepts to use or revise. This streamlines the process, unifies the creative vision, and allows for such a large game without procedural generation that would haven taken a team 10 years or not at all, done in 2.
This is based on the assumption that the AI output is any good, but the actual game devs and writers are saying otherwise.
If the game is too big for writers to finish on their own, they’re not going to have time to read and fix everything wrong with the AI output either. This is how you get an empty, soulless game, not Balders Gate 3.
-
I love how you idiots think this tech hasn’t already hit its ceiling. It’s been functionally stagnant for some time now.
Hey. I’m just one idiot. Who else are you talking about?
-
That means in about 6 months or so the AI content quality will be about an 8/10. The processors spread machine “learning” incredibly fast. Some might even say exponentially fast. Pretty soon it’ll be like that old song “If you wonder why your letters never get a reply, when you tell me that you love me, I want to see you write it”. “Letters” is an old version of one-on-one tweeting, but with no character limit.
What improvements have there been in the previous 6 months? From what I’ve seen the AI is still spewing the same 3/10 slop it has since 2021, with maybe one or two improvements bringing it up from 2/10. I’ve heard several people say some newer/bigger models actually got worse at certain tasks, and clean training data is pretty much dried up to even train more models.
I just don’t see any world where scaling up the compute and power usage is going to suddenly improve the quality orders of magnitude. By design LLMs are programmed to output the most statistically likely response, but almost by definition is going to be the most average, bland response possible.
-
Hey. I’m just one idiot. Who else are you talking about?
You’re not just one, you’re one of many. All saying the same shit.
-
You’re not just one, you’re one of many. All saying the same shit.
Lots and lots of people have told me that.
-
Lots and lots of people have told me that.
That tracks.
