Search results

Okay. So no relevant additions to the discussion. We are at an impasse. My suggestion is that there is no great way to test ai outside of a live environment. Your suggestion is that there must be a good way but that you cannot comment on what it might be due to lack of expertise. There’s...

I see. That wasn’t my understanding of that.

Obviously. That doesn’t answer the meat of the question of how you do that in the legal domain. Nor of what standards denote a pass vs a fail. Etc. The broader point is sometimes testing can only be achieved in live environments as opposed to testing environments.

You mean it doesn’t still do that ;)

Sure. I can agree that they should be tested. Do we all agree with that? Because I get the vibes that some want AI taken out back with a shotgun and put out of its misery. The next question is how do you test them?

Is that what was actually done. Or was it just a single 15 minute segment at any time of the day for 365 days?

Okay going back to the moral line part of the definition of narrativist. Does character safety vs character ambition form a moral line?

Exactly. Thanks for the better examples.

Yea. My supposition is that without rigorous protocols around the timing of checking OR timestamps for the test AND some way to translate measurements taken at a different time of day into a measurement at a standard time then while it’s interesting data, it’s enough to draw hard conclusions on...

As an aside, this follows the general flow of most discussions I see here. When things go bad they go really bad. Rebuttal - but in most cases those bad things won’t occur and there’s a lot of benefit when things don’t go to hell. Counter rebuttal - but it doesn’t matter how often they go...

It’s more like the head chef told their helper exactly what to prepare and how to prepare it. Does the head chef get the credit or the helper for following his instructions?

If we can accept that a player can roleplay a character that doesn't always make the correct tactical or strategic choice and count that as playing the game as a game (likely due to viewing those roleplay restrictions on choices as part of the game itself), then I'm not sure why one couldn't do...

Okay. Then to me that would be an additional requirement in the definition of narrativist than rising action. Especially if we are staying close to the literary meaning of rising action. At least I now know more about what it means to you. Yes, but it's never said a piece of literature or...

Apparently it's not been very well defined ;) .. ala the 15k current thread.

So part of it is that people bring up those single bold line directives into discussions where others don’t have that additional context. There’s no wonder those conversations go badly.

I’m saying everyone is in agreement on that. No one thinks fail forward is about getting the characters to take risks? Sorry for the lack of clarity in my previous post, it was made late when I should have been asleep.

I wasn’t. I was analogizing ‘example of’ and ‘part of’ since you specifically declared you didn’t understand what I meant by them. Well, it seems you do have understanding of the difference between what I mean by ‘part of’ and ‘example of’. Component is good synonym for what I meant. But...

I don’t agree that the intent of fail forward is to get the characters to take risks.

For example, an engine is not an example of a car but it is part of a car. Does this clear that part up?

Where is this projection coming from? Or am I mistaken and someone did say that? If so prove me wrong. Quote one person here who has said anything remotely close to that? Everyone on this thread has went to great lengths to say this is just our preference and we are happy there are RPGs that...