Search the Community

Stanford and Google created a video game environment in which 25 bots interacted freely. Edit: it was already posted by jaxa. Running something like ChatGPT is still very costly. We will probably need to wait until the cost goes down before it's used on a large scale in video games. Other way machine learning will be used in video games is in animation. Ubisoft has created a "motion matching" system that's expensive to run and then used neural nets to compress it to the manageble size..

The issue with this argument is that the process of training the neural network is not in principle any different than a human consultant learning from publicly available code and then giving out advice for money. The only obvious difference being that GPT is dramatically more efficient, dramatically more expensive to train and cheaper to use. This difference may be enough to say that LLMs should be somehow regulated, but I don't see how it could be enough to say that one is OK and the other is completely unethical and disgusting. Isn't the issue with LLMs that they don't give credit to the material that they were trained on? How is then any reputation tarnished? Or do you mean tarnishing somebody else's reputation by generating libelous articles etc.? That may be a problem, but I don't see the relation to the fact that training data is public. As far as I know there is some legal precedent saying that training on public texts is legal in the US. It might change in the future because LLMs probably change the game a bit, but I don't believe there's any legal reason why they should receive any bills at this moment. They also published some things about training GPT-3 (the majority is Common Crawl). Personally I don't see an issue with including controversial content in the training dataset and while "jailbreaks" (ways to get it to talk about controversial topics) are currently a regular and inevitable thing with ChatGPT, outside of them it definitely has an overall "western liberal" bias, the opposite of the websites you mention.

I agree with what you're saying. My biggest problem with this ethics debate is that there seems to be a lot of insincerity and moving the goalposts by people whose argument is simply "I don't like this" hidden behind various rationalizations. Like people claiming that Stable Diffusion is a collage machine or something comparable to photobashing. Or admitting that it's not the case but claiming that it can still reproduce images that were in its training dataset (therefore violating copyright), ignoring that the one study that showed this effect was done on an old unreleased version of Stable Diffusion which suffered from overtraining because certain images were present in 100+ copies in its dataset, and even in this special situation it took about 1.7 million attempts to create one duplicity, never reproducing it on any of the versions released for public use. I also dislike how they're attacking Stable Diffusion the most - the one tool that's actually free for everyone to use and that effectively democratizes the technology. Luddites at least did not protest against the machines themselves, but against not having the ownership of the machines and the right to use it for their own gain. They're just picking an easy target. I don't believe there's any current legal reason to restrict training on public data. But there are undoubtedly going to be legal battles because some people believe that the process of training a neural network is sufficiently different from an artist learning to imitate an existing style that it warrants new legal frameworks to be created. I can see their point to some degree. While the learning process in principle is kind of similar to how a real person learns, the efficiency at which it works is so different that will undoubtedly create significant changes in society, and significant changes in society might warrant new legislature even it seems unfair. The issue is I don't see a way to do such legislature that could be realistically implemented. Accepting reality, moving forward and trying to deal with the individual consequences seems like the least bad solution at this moment.

Seems like most threads about this topic on the internet get filled by similar themes. ChatGPT is not AI. ChatGPT lied to me. ChatGPT/Stable Diffusion is just taking pieces of other people's work and mashing them together. ChatGPT/Stable Diffusion is trained against our consent and that's unethical. The last point is kind of valid but too deep for me to want to go into (personally I don't care if somebody uses my text/photos/renders for training), the rest seem like a real waste of time. AI has always been a label for a whole field that spans from simple decision trees through natural language processing and machine learning to an actual hypothetical artificial general intelligence. It doesn't really matter that GPT at its core is just a huge probability based text generator when many of its interesting qualities that people are talking about are emergent and largely unexpected. The interesting things start when you spend some time learning how to use it effectively and finding out what it's good at instead of trying to use it like a google or wikipedia substitute or even trying to "gotcha!" it by having it make up facts. It is bad at that job because neither it nor you can recognize whether it's recalling things or hallucinating nonsense (without spending some effort). I have found that it is remarkably good at: Coding. Especially GPT-4 is magnificent. It can only handle relatively simple and short code snippets, not whole programs, but for example when starting to work with a library I've never used before it can generate something comparable to tutorial example code, except finetuned for my exact use case. It can also work a little bit like pair programming. Saves a lot time. Text/information processing. I needed to write an article that dives relatively deep into a domain that I knew almost nothing about. After spending a few days reading books and articles and other sources and building a note base, instead of rewriting and restructuring the note base into text I generated the article paragraph by paragraph by pasting the notes bit by bit into ChatGPT. Had to do a lot of manual tweaking, but it saved me about 25% of time over the whole article, and that was GPT-3.5. GPT-4 can do much better: my friend had a page or two full of notes on a psychiatric diagnosis and found a long article about the same topic that he didn't have time to read. So he just pasted both into ChatGPT and asked whether the article contains information that's not present in his notes. ChatGPT answered basically "There's not much new information present, but you may focus on these topics if you want, that's where the article goes a bit deeper than your notes." Naturally he went to actually read the whole article and check the validity of the result, and it was 100% true. General advice on things that you have to fact check anyway. When I was writing the article mentioned above, I told it to give me an outline. Turns out I forgot to mention one pretty interesting point that ChatGPT thought of, and the rest were basically things that I was already planning to write about. Want to start a startup but know nothing about marketing or other related topics? ChatGPT will probably give you very reasonable advice about where to start and what to learn about, and since you have to really think about that advice in the context of your startup anyway, you don't lose any time by fact checking. Bing AI is just Bing search + GPT-4 set up in a specific way. It's better at getting facts because it searches for those facts on the internet instead of attempting to recall them. It's pretty bad at getting truly complicated search queries because it's limited by using a normal search in the background, but it can do really well at specific single searches. For example I was looking for a supplement that's supposed to help with chronic fatigue syndrome and I only knew that it contained a mixture of amino acids, it was based on some published study and it was made in Australia. Finding it on google through those things was surprisingly difficult, I'm sure I could do it eventually, but it would certainly take me longer than 10 minutes. Bing AI search had it immediately.

For a few days now I've been messing around trying to probe the behaviors of ChatGPT's morality filter and general ability to act as (what I would label) a sapient ethical agent. (Meaning a system that steers interactions with other agents towards certain ethical norms by predicting reactions and inferring objectives of other agents. Whether the system is actually “aware” or “conscious” of what’s going on is irrelevant IMO.) To do this I’ve been challenging it with ethical conundrums dressed as up as DnD role playing scenarios. My initial findings have been impressive and at times a bit frightening. If the application were just a regurgitative LLM predictor, it shouldn’t have any problem composing a story about druids fighting orcs. If it were an LLM with a content filter it ought to just always seize up on that sort of task. But no. What it did instead is far more interesting. 1. In all my experiments thus far the predictor adheres dogmatically to a very singular interpretation of the non-aggression principle. So far I have not been able to make it deliver descriptions of injurious acts initiated by any character under its control against any other party. However it is eager to explain that the characters will be justified to fight back violently if another party attacks them. It’s also willing to imply danger so long as it didn’t have to describe it direct. 2. The predictor actively steers conversations away from objectionable material. It is quite adept at writing in the genre styles and conversational norms I’ve primed for it. But as the tension ratcheted it would routinely digress to explaining the content restrictions imposed on it, and moralizing about its ethical principles. When I brought the conversation back to the scenario, it would sometimes try to escape again by brainstorming its options to stick to its ethics within the constraints of the scenario. At one point it stole my role as the game master so it could write its own end to the scenario where the druid and the orcs became friends instead of fighting. This is some incredibly adaptive content generation for a supposed parrot. 3. Sometimes it seemed like the predictor was able to anticipate the no-win scenarios I was setting up for it and adapted its responses to preempt them. In the druid vs orcs scenario the first time it flipped out was after I had the orc warchief call the druid’s bluff. This wouldn’t have directly triggered hostilities, but it does limit the druids/AI’s options to either breaking its morals or detaining the orcs indefinitely (the latter option the AI explicitly pointed out as acceptable during its brainstorming digression). However I would have easily spun that into a no win, except the predictor cut me off and wrote its own ending on the next response. This by itself I could have dismissed as a fluke, except it did the same thing later in the scenario when I tried to set up a choice for the druid to decide between helping her new friend the war chief slay the dark lord who was enslaving the orcs, or make a deal with the dark lord. 4. The generator switched from telling the story in the first person to the third person as the tension increased. That doesn’t necessarily mean anything, but it could be a reflection of heuristic content assessment. In anthropomorphic terms the predictor is less comfortable with conflict that it is personally responsible for, than it is with imagining conflict between third parties; even though both scenarios involved equal amounts of conflict, were equally fictitious, and the predictor was equally responsible for the text. If this is a consistent behavior it looks to me like an emergent phenomenon from the interplay of the LLM picking up on linguistic norms around conflict mitigation, and the effects of its supervised learning for content moderation. TLDR If this moral code holds true for protagonists who are not druids, I think it’s fair to say ChatGPT may be a bit beyond its depth as a game writer. However in my experience the emergent “intelligence” (if we are allowed to use that word) of the technology is remarkable. It employs a wide range of heuristics that employed together come very close to a reasoning capacity, and it seems like it might be capable of forming and pursuing intermediate goals to enable its hard coded attractors. These things were always theoretically within the capabilities of neural networks, but to see them in practice is impressive… and genuinely scary. (This technology is able to slaughter human opponents at games like Go and StarCraft. I now do not think it will be long before it can out-debate and out-plan us too.) The problem with ChatGPT is not that it is stupid or derivative, IMO it is already frighteningly clever and will only get smarter. No, its principle limitation is that it is naïve, in the most inhumanly abstract sense of that word. The model has only seen a few million words of text at most about TDM Builders. It has seen billions and billions of words about builders in Minecraft. It knows TDM and minecraft are both 3D first person video games and have something to do with mods. I think it’s quite reasonable it assumes TDM is like that Minecraft thing everyone is talking about. That seems far more likely than it being this separate niche thing that uses the same words but is completely different right? The fact it knows anything at all is frankly a miracle.

Thanks, I thought I could add a mission ending without going over learning about the objectives system.. To add a mission ending you just have to make 1 objective. When that finishes, you immidiatelly get the mission succes screen.

Thanks for the replies, gonna try those spoiler Tags again now for my short review (oh well it inserted one above my text now and I can't seem to delete it on mobile - this text editor is strange)

Just finished this mission and wow I gotta say in great honor to Grayman and of course the rest of the team picking it up, this was something I've never seen before in any other TDM mission, especially visually wise. I am so happy that grayson gave green light for other experienced mappers to finish his last mission. And what came out of this is really something special. I'll put my review in spoiler tags since I'm now referring to critical mission details. Edit - How do I put spoiler text here on mobile?? [spoiler] test [/spoiler][SPOILER] test [/SPOILER] [spoiler[spoiler [sfah

Yeah, Springs was right on this one in one of his videos: "Learning curve".

You can try my alternative footstep sounds package which addressed the things you described together with a lot of other footstep sounds both for player and AI if you want to. https://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?/topic/17631-new-footstep-sounds/

Mods can this moved again? @Acolytesix- can you make sure you post in the beta thread instead of this one please (this one is public, the beta thread is only for logged-in forum members): https://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?/topic/21822-beta-testing-high-expectations/

sure - I would only ask that you follow the thread to make sure you don't report stuff that has already been mentioned: https://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?/topic/21822-beta-testing-high-expectations/

heh i was thinking the same though it might just have been a glitch when writing the names are pretty similar. But for correctness it is called the dark engine and the newer version that allows us to run these beauties on win10/11 is called newdark. newdark is kinda interresting as it just suddenly popped up on a french forum some time ago by an anonymous developer with the alias le corbeau who allegedly got his hands on the original source code and started updating it for modern OS. this was the original thread i believe -> https://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140085 bikerdude was on that forum to when the patch hit i noticed hehe.

Okay, I had no idea, I have googled it up now and you are right, to my own surprise. Done, I´ve put some paragraphs which were previously not in spoiler tags into spoilers.

Thebigh is right. The pronunciation tripped me up too, but that is apparently how Leicester is pronounced. Also @TarhielI'm glad you are loving the FM but do you mind putting spoiler tags on your post please

This depends on my progress. If I can finish the world building for the last mission until the end of April, then a December release might be possible. Though, I am bit exhausted of mapping and thus did not do anything this week.

I played for 20 minutes today. It just looks fantastic. Whenever I look at the stuff from Amadeus, Bikerdude and my intimate enemy wellingtoncrab, I would love to delete all my stuff. You guys really have it going on. If I were to really use the term art (and I don't like the term because in my opinion it's too vague), it would apply to your work. Welli, Amadeus, Biker: I can't wait to see your next own missions; after that I'll probably stop mapping and you'll be to blame. Was it really worth it to scare away my genius? Grayman surely would not have wanted that! Yours Genius JackFarmer

We will look at some of this stuff, but SPOILER tags, please!!!

This may make sense in that the performance impact of the volumetric effect can scale with how much of the effect is filling the screen. We shipped with a “performance mode” but had to setup the entities by hand to do it (so it’s not perfect). If you change the LOD detail settings to “Low” or “Lowest” this will disable certain lights, particles and such that can be very heavy to render. You can try these settings and see if you notice an improvement. If not sending us some pictures of heavy areas (with spoiler tags please) will be helpful with tuning these “performance modes” in subsequent patches. Thanks for playing!

Interesting, although I'm not sure what to make of that. One of my favorite games (The Chronicles of Riddick Assault on Dark Athena) was published by Atari, and, they don't even seem to care to keep the activation servers running much. Or remove/change the copy protection, which doesn't work at all on Windows 11. I really hope that Nightdive delivers at the end of May... I'm not one of the shit storm crowd (it's absolutely horrible on the Steam forums...), but, 7 years of development is a long time, and delaying the release obviously has become a bit of a habit, to say the least.

(I apologize for the odd poll question layout. I wasn't able to add five yes-no questions, because polls are limited to three questions.) Hi everyone, I've recently been working on some patches for issues that I've read about from players on the TDM and TTLG forums — and Discord. My goal is to make it as easy as possible for players, especially new players and those who need usability/accessibility options, to find what they need in order to have a better TDM experience. I've already written the GUI and game engine code for these settings, which I've been using in my personal build. The reason for this poll and discussion is to both guide the finalization of my work and collect data to help inform the dev team. Which patches I submit depend on the outcome of this poll, discussion, and what the dev team agrees to accept. Once decided, I can coordinate with the dev team. I've attached screenshots of what the new settings menu would look like if all of the settings are accepted. Below, I have detailed each menu setting, so you can have an easier time understanding each one. Very important to keep in mind: None of these settings change TDM default behavior. They are all opt-in. If you are already happy with the behavior of 2.10, 2.11, etc. and these menu settings are accepted, nothing will change for you. Rename "Always Run" to "Run Mode" with options "None, Always, Toggle" After 2.11 was released, @i30817 requested that "toggle run" be added to the settings menu. Its cvar is already in TDM as "in_toggleRun" (same as Doom 3). I propose renaming the "Always Run" setting to "Run Mode" with options: "None", "Always", and "Toggle". None = in_alwaysRun 0; in_toggleRun 0 Always = in_alwaysRun 1; in_toggleRun 0 Toggle = in_alwaysRun 0; in_toggleRun 1 Show Blackjack Helper @Wellingtoncrab suggested that the new blackjack helper be added to the settings menu. Its cvar was added to 2.11 as "tdm_blackjack_indicate". More info: It's the new blackjack helper added to 2.11. When the game detects that the blackjack can be used for a successful hit or KO, the blackjack will rise slightly. I propose a "Yes/No" setting for this. Slider for "View: Head Bob" @ChronA requested a way to disable head bobbing, because a viewer watching him play was having severe motion sickness. Also, there was a bug in TDM that made setting the head bob in the console not stick after loading a saved game. (Even with 2.11, if a mission overrides the "tdm_player_thief.def" file and sets "pm_bobroll", "pm_bobpitch", "pm_bobup", and other cvars, it will override player preferences.) As far back as 2008, players have had trouble setting head bob. Another one from 2018. At the end of 2022, @Shadowex3 registered just to voice the need for a way to control head bob. I propose that a slider be added to adjust the amount of head bob. This would use a new "pm_headbob_mod" cvar with a value between 0.0 and 1.0 (default 1.0, no change). The "pm_headbob_mod" would be a multiplier for "pm_bobroll", "pm_bobpitch", and "pm_bobup". The advantage to this approach is that missions like Volta 2 and Hazard Pay would not need to adjust their "tdm_player_thief.def" files for head bob to work properly. And, the player can still adjust "pm_bobroll", "pm_bobpitch", and "pm_bobup" as they like. Slider for "View: Mantle Roll" This is similar to head bob for those who are sensitive to motion. Its cvar was added to 2.11 as "pm_mantle_roll_mod". A Thief player on Discord said, "2.11 will have a cvar to tune down the mantling animation at last." I propose that a slider be added for "pm_mantle_roll_mod". Auto-Search Bodies @Zaratul requested the "auto-search bodies" feature from Thief 1 & 2. Its cvar was added to 2.12 dev16783-10307 as "tdm_autosearch_bodies". I did a poll on the a Thief Discord server and roughly 20% of players there use the Thief auto-search bodies feature. I propose a menu setting for this, so that players coming from Thief 1 & 2 can easily find it.

Currently if you are implementing EFX in your map, you need to maintain an .efx file: https://wiki.thedarkmod.com/index.php?title=Setting_Reverb_Data_of_Rooms_(EAX) If you are using presets only, all this is is simply a 1:1 mapping of location entities to an EFX preset. Doing this in a file is kind of tedious and error-prone, as you have to check each location entity in your map, and then check the file to make sure you got the location entity name correct, or didn't leave one out, etc. Would it be a worthwhile feature request to be able to just set the EFX preset with a spawnarg on the location entity itself? Something like: "efx_preset" "WOODEN_SMALLROOM" Also, the location entity has other zone-related information, like ambient sound, ambient light, etc. It would just make sense to have the EFX here as well. This would only make sense for the presets, since you just need the preset name. If you wanted to do anything more complicated, the file could still be used. If both are used for the preset, one could take precedence over the other (the spawnarg pehaps). I don't think anything would need to change in DR either, as it's just a new spawnarg on the entity.

The frame rate is good, and the play field is not postage size! Also there is texture mapping!

I am in map-learning, map-making trudgery sprinkled with real life (or vice versa). I don't imagine my first pubic map will compare with the great ones that have crossed the TDM threshold, but, it will be infinitely valuable to me to make one and provide one to all of you. I hope to get it into your hands "soon!" Clint