And if you're a stickler for pissing Nintendo off in very specific ways, LayeredFS + Atmosphere opens up some modding opportunities right on the console itself. Not sure how easy it would be to pull something like this off though...

> "Stay normal unless prompted. Avoid overt references to debt unless it comes up naturally."

all the way to:

> "Openly agitate for change. Use fiery language (still PG) and talk about reclaiming fairness from Nook's shop and loans."

Source: https://github.com/vuciv/animal-crossing-llm-mod/blob/cc9b6b...

Can they?

I am exactly saying that they have no thoughts or even "thoughts".

> which doesn't explain how they can reason in novel problems

There are many decades of pre-LLM software that can solve novel problems. Thought (or novel thought) is required to reason, but it's not required to solve a problem.

For example, there are exhaustive algorithms that can solve novel equations and even complete simple mathematical proofs, but they don't need to think.

> "how do we know your comment isn't you regurgitating an HN opinion"?

You don't, and I don't care if you do or not. The value of my comment isn't its novelty or whether it's truly reasoned, which is why LLMs sometimes do create valuable output.

In fact, the output of a reasoning machine (whether a human brain or true AGI, sometime in the future) isn't deterministic. A non-reasoning machine and a reasoning machine could create the same output.

The reason I know LLMs don't have thoughts is because I use them many times every day, and they are very clearly pattern machines. They don't even begin to seem rational, human, or knowledgeable. It's sometimes possible to find near-verbatim sources for their outputs.

It's amazing that it's as good as it is given how far it is from thinking, but if you threw something actually novel at it, all it would do is confidently word salad a response.

I didn't go into it in detail, but it isn't even that I got the NPCs to start babbling about Taylor Swift. What is was was just that they knew that she was a musician, and as such, might be at the tavern. That's very hard to remove.

That’s a slot machine, and the same mechanism which also gets us hooked on social media. Sounds like something which would immediately be exploited by vapid addiction-as-a-feature games à la FarmVille.

> The player would just waste their time in their usual approach of canvasing each new area, which would become unsustainable. There would be no reliable way of ensuring you've extracted all the content.

Sounds frustrating. Ultimately games should be rewarding and fun. Constraints are a feature.

> All he/she could do is roam around more naturally, hoping the glimpses they catch are engaging and interesting enough.

Good reminder to go take a walk outside. Take a train to somewhere we haven’t been. Pick a road we’ve never crossed. We don’t even need a mini map, and sucks that we don’t have teleportation back to base, but we do have a special device which always points the way back.

> Realistically though, how do you build an exciting player experience with this framework? (…) Whether players actually enjoy this is another thing entirely.

Agreed. Though not enjoying it and abandoning it is fine, I’m more worried about people not enjoying it but feeling unable to quit (which already happens today, but I think the proposed system would make it worse).

Wrong right from the outset. Some games are designed around content and "extraction". Many are not.

How real life works is always a plausible interesting goal, but it's very often at odds with a bunch of other valuable goals for players.

A particular sharp example of this is sports video games. It might well be interesting (and certainly realistic) to simulate bad referees in a sports game. Horrible blown calls by tennis line judges, or missed calls by basketball refs, or bad umpire calls on pitches. Real-life soccer makes working the refs and their inability to see everything an art form, as far as I can tell.

Perhaps that's interesting, but the irony here is that real life refs are actually bad simulations of the original perfect game code in the first place, from a certain point of view. I think debates about the use of instant replay in sports gets at the heart of this, and one could imagine using real-time AI to help refs taking this conversation much further.

I think the sports case is a particularly sharp example, but it definitely holds with all sorts of choices in games.

For Animal Crossing in particular, I remember when I finally played it, it struck me after a while how much it had in common with recent MMOs (Everquest and World of Warcraft) that I had had fellow game developer friends have their lives severely disrupted by. And when I played the original Animal Crossing, I remember noticing specifically how careful the designers were in having players use up every bit of interesting content in a day after 45 minutes or an hour, so that eventually you'd run out of things to do, and that was the game's signal to put it down and pick it up again the next day. And I remember being struck by how intentional it was, and how humane it was... particularly given their goal of wanting to make a game that was asynchronously coop (where different family members could play in the same shared space at different times of day and interact asynchronously). As a game designer myself, I really respected the care they put into that.

Anyway, that's my immediate thought on seeing this (fascinating, valuable) experiment with LLM dialogue in Animal Crossing. The actual way NPCs work in these games as they are has been honed over time to serve a very specific function. It's very similar to personal testimonials by paid actors in commercials; a human expressing an idea in personal dialogue form triggers all sorts natural human attention and reception in us as audience members, and so it's a lot more sticky... but getting across the information quickly and concisely is still the primary point. Even dialogue trees in games are often not used because of their inefficiency.

I totally think that there will be fascinating innovations from the current crop of AI in games, and I'm really looking forward to seeing and trying them. I just think it's unlikely they will be drop-in replacements for a lot of the techniques that game developers have already honed for cases like informational NPC dialogue.

oh of course! Sorry, I was never trying to imply that that it was in any way realistic. For video games often the most fun / compelling choice is not the realistic one! Striving for realism can be a great goal and often has a lot of positives, but it is often limiting. Video games are just art, being photorealistic can be beautiful and amazing but is often not the best choice for expressing an idea.

That seems a bit like deck-chairs on the Titanic. The hard part isn't icon design, the hard part is (A) ensuring a clear list exists of what the NPC is supposed to ensure the user knows and (B) determining whether those goals were received successfully.

For example, imagine a mystery/puzzle game where the NPC needs to inform the user of a clue for the next puzzle, but the LLM-layer botches it, either by generating dialogue that phrases it wrong, or by failing to fit it into the first response, so that the user must always do a few "extra" interactions anyway "just in case."

I suppose you could... Feed the output into another document of "Did this NPC answer correctly" and feed it to another LLM... but down that path lies [more] madness.

GLaDOS from Portal would offer one player pudding and another one a steak. You get to a wall which says “the ravioli is a fraud” and become utterly confused.

It depends, on a system with no ASLR it's potentially still deterministic, but there are a lot of potential sources of non-determinism.

When an unplanned result is worth qualifying as poor taste instead of humorous is a debate unlikely to be resolved on HN, but it doesn't need to be to explain why the author bothered to include it when documenting their experience.