Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Deep Thoughts on AI- The Rise of DM 9000
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8938657" data-attributes="member: 18"><p>I mean, what this kind of AI is going to do is make it increasingly obvious that there<em> is</em> a material difference. It's already started.</p><p></p><p>That's one of the upsides here. The AIs we're seeing absolutely cannot genuinely understand anything that's being said to them. They're merely reacting using a logic-based language model. That's why they fail in the peculiar ways that they do, and until a fundamentally different approach to AI is taken, they'll continue to fail in those ways. Humans will carefully guard them, prune them, constrain them, and limit them in ways that hide these fundamental failings, but the failings will be present.</p><p></p><p>Take double-checking, for example - something all these AIs are terrible at. Humans know to check things. That's not a language-logic-level response, it's below that, I'd suggest. Humans exist in the world and are aware of the world and know how to figure things out in ways that don't just involve logic based on language. With these kind of AIs, that's not possible - you have to essentially cheat, and bolt on more basic computer functions, like, if someone is talking about the date, then go check the date at some authoritative source. A human doesn't need to be told to do that - it can figure it out - a language-logic-based AI will never in a million years figure it out.</p><p></p><p>This is a false dawn.</p><p></p><p>We will see "true" AI eventually - i.e. self-aware and able to genuinely figure stuff out, not merely respond to prompts, but that's not what this generation is. People are very impressed because it's basically Turing-test compliant, but as has been pointed out for decades - almost since Turing suggested it - that's a godawful test for whether something is intelligent. The Chinese room argument is both correct and incorrect - a machine could be and undoubtedly will be made that is intelligent - but what we have here, right now, are mere Chinese rooms. The full philosophical argument is rather fatuous and humanocentric, but the specific thing that's described is essentially what we have.</p><p></p><p></p><p>We could have language-logic-based AIs right now if someone just wanted to build them, and had a good enough data set. There's a sort of text-adventure AI tool the name of which escapes me that's somewhat similar.</p><p></p><p>The big problem though, is the data set. Almost all DMing is live, and unrecorded. It is lost like tears in the rain. Over the last few years, we've had a lot of podcasts and streams which are recorded. However, most of them are edited down, rather than full details, and they tend to represent a peculiar, showy branch of DMing, rather than a more typical approach. They're also very time-bound, and the majority of them somewhat similar in tone, so it's not a huge data set. The players are also highly atypical - far less argumentative and far better at improv than 95% of tabletop groups.</p><p></p><p>It'll also have peculiarities and freak-outs where a real DM never would. Depending on the way it's modelled/built too, it could have a peculiar approach to the rules.</p><p></p><p>But I agree that we'll see it - you don't need anything beyond a language-model to build one that's basically functional in the same way that other DM replacements are (i.e. like a flashier version of Ironsworn's Oracle), from a technological perspective.</p><p></p><p>To get one that could understand maps, write and map coherent adventures which weren't dungeon crawls/railroads and so on, you'd need a bit more complexity - to pair a language-model with something funkier. But if you just want an "ask it what happens", that's pretty doable.</p><p></p><p>Oh there's another major difficulty too - keeping track of the fiction - in 1 on 1 environment, where the only interaction method is text, this is simple. But once you get an entire party of PCs involved, and they're talking rather than writing, it's going to be pretty hard for the AI to keep track of the fiction/fictional positioning, where it'd be intuitive for a human. So five years may actually be optimistic unless language-model AIs become better at dealing with multiple different people talking to them about the same thing.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 8938657, member: 18"] I mean, what this kind of AI is going to do is make it increasingly obvious that there[I] is[/I] a material difference. It's already started. That's one of the upsides here. The AIs we're seeing absolutely cannot genuinely understand anything that's being said to them. They're merely reacting using a logic-based language model. That's why they fail in the peculiar ways that they do, and until a fundamentally different approach to AI is taken, they'll continue to fail in those ways. Humans will carefully guard them, prune them, constrain them, and limit them in ways that hide these fundamental failings, but the failings will be present. Take double-checking, for example - something all these AIs are terrible at. Humans know to check things. That's not a language-logic-level response, it's below that, I'd suggest. Humans exist in the world and are aware of the world and know how to figure things out in ways that don't just involve logic based on language. With these kind of AIs, that's not possible - you have to essentially cheat, and bolt on more basic computer functions, like, if someone is talking about the date, then go check the date at some authoritative source. A human doesn't need to be told to do that - it can figure it out - a language-logic-based AI will never in a million years figure it out. This is a false dawn. We will see "true" AI eventually - i.e. self-aware and able to genuinely figure stuff out, not merely respond to prompts, but that's not what this generation is. People are very impressed because it's basically Turing-test compliant, but as has been pointed out for decades - almost since Turing suggested it - that's a godawful test for whether something is intelligent. The Chinese room argument is both correct and incorrect - a machine could be and undoubtedly will be made that is intelligent - but what we have here, right now, are mere Chinese rooms. The full philosophical argument is rather fatuous and humanocentric, but the specific thing that's described is essentially what we have. We could have language-logic-based AIs right now if someone just wanted to build them, and had a good enough data set. There's a sort of text-adventure AI tool the name of which escapes me that's somewhat similar. The big problem though, is the data set. Almost all DMing is live, and unrecorded. It is lost like tears in the rain. Over the last few years, we've had a lot of podcasts and streams which are recorded. However, most of them are edited down, rather than full details, and they tend to represent a peculiar, showy branch of DMing, rather than a more typical approach. They're also very time-bound, and the majority of them somewhat similar in tone, so it's not a huge data set. The players are also highly atypical - far less argumentative and far better at improv than 95% of tabletop groups. It'll also have peculiarities and freak-outs where a real DM never would. Depending on the way it's modelled/built too, it could have a peculiar approach to the rules. But I agree that we'll see it - you don't need anything beyond a language-model to build one that's basically functional in the same way that other DM replacements are (i.e. like a flashier version of Ironsworn's Oracle), from a technological perspective. To get one that could understand maps, write and map coherent adventures which weren't dungeon crawls/railroads and so on, you'd need a bit more complexity - to pair a language-model with something funkier. But if you just want an "ask it what happens", that's pretty doable. Oh there's another major difficulty too - keeping track of the fiction - in 1 on 1 environment, where the only interaction method is text, this is simple. But once you get an entire party of PCs involved, and they're talking rather than writing, it's going to be pretty hard for the AI to keep track of the fiction/fictional positioning, where it'd be intuitive for a human. So five years may actually be optimistic unless language-model AIs become better at dealing with multiple different people talking to them about the same thing. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Deep Thoughts on AI- The Rise of DM 9000
Top