fonix232

Very, very few TTRPG sessions have artists creating art for each of them. Mine certainly didn’t before I could run genAI models locally. At most I’d grab generic, CC-licenced ambiance art, or, if the group had an artistic veined person, they’d help out with some character sheet art and such.

AI took no jobs here. And as I said, if the art is for something you profit off of, you should use an actual artist.

Or where hiring an actual real artists - for example if you were to need dozens of graphics for, say, a TTRPG you’re running.

On the other hand, if you’re e.g. writing your own TTRPG, and getting it published, you ought to use a real artist.

IMO the best way to determine if AI is okay to use or not, is by the purpose - is it a personal project, something you won’t profit off? Then sure. Is it something you’re going to profit off of? Then use a real artist and include them in the profits.

They banned all AI regulations unless it affects MAGA detrimentally

While I do not disagree with that being part of the reason, I’m fairly sure that protecting the university employees from potentially being disappeared because they didn’t do what the Chinese secret police told them to do, was also a major part of it.

It HAS to come with at least four pieces of corn, otherwise I don’t want it!

No, your honour, we did not use the porn downloaded to train our AI, at least not directly.

The people working on training the AI? Oh, the definitely had a cheeky wank here and there after a stressful day! This just shows how committed Meta is to the wellbeing of our employees.

Europe On Line? EOL? End of line.

Patron-funded news doesn’t work in the combination of post-scarcity news (i.e. when anyone can have a platform because there’s no limit to entry, like owning a printing press) and economic recession where people’s disposable income drops sharply.

Even the first point is enough to kill all but the largest patron-funded news services. The two combined? Guaranteed death sentence.

Guess Conservapedia wasn’t conservative enough.

There’s always dookie in the banana stand?

Oh, we all know what’s in the Russian kompromat, Donnie, and what you really really want is the Nobel Piss Prize.

The only reason I won’t piss on your grave once you’re gone is because you’d no doubt enjoy it.

No no no. That is dessert at that point.

Toast and butter - maybe with a bit of garlic rubbed on the bread prior to buttering - is perfect on its own. Especially in the autumn with the cold weather coming in.

Oh, good to know. Last time I checked around WASM this wasn’t really an option.

And your comment also counts for jackshit since you provided no evidence of your claims, not even your own experience.

So you can fuck right off, buddy.

I have worked on games, and have a good understanding of the workflows involved.

You’ll obviously still need to do the creative parts manually (and should!) but the majority of the work involving the engine core build and the specific game coding, that can all be sped up borderline exponentially.

But I’m glad that someone with absolutely no understanding of the topic does their best to call out those who do show some experience on the topic just because they don’t get a neatly pre-chewed and pre-digested reply detailing all the information they lack and are unwilling to look it up themselves. As a next step would you like me to cut your steak up and feed it to you byte by byte, or tuck you in at night?

See the main issue with that is you need to bundle everything into the app.

Modern computing is inherently cross-dependent on runtimes and shared libraries and whatnot, to save space. Why bundle the same 300MB runtime into five different apps when you can download it once and share it between the apps? Or even better, have a newer, backwards compatible version of the runtime installed and still be able to share it between apps.

With WASM you’re looking at bundling every single dependency, every single runtime, framework and whatnot, in the final binary. Which is fine for one-off small things, but when everything is built that way, you’re sacrificing tons of storage and bandwidth unnecessarily.

Alright I did read further and damn, you just keep going on being wrong, buddy!

Yes, you can fucking do “stand on the table and make a speech” work. You know how? By breaking it up into detailed steps (pun intended), something that LLMs are awesome at!

For example in this case the LLM could query the position and direction of the table compared to the NPC and do the following:

• plan a natural path between the two points (although the game engine most likely already has such a function)
• make the NPC follow that path
• upon path end, it will instruct the NPC to step onto the table via existing functions (Skyrim pretty much has all these base behaviours already coded, but the scripting engine should also be able to modify the skeleton rig of an NPC directly, which means the LLM can easily write it)
• then the script can initiate dialogue too.

I’ve asked Perplexity (not even one of the best coding agents out there, it’s mistake ratio is around 5%), and within seconds it spit out a full on script to identify the nearest table or desk, and start talking. You can take a look here. And while my Papyrus is a bit rusty, it does seem correct on even the third read-through - but that’s the fun part, one does not need trust the AI, as this script can be run through a compiler or even a validator (which let’s be honest is a stripped down compiler first stage) to verify it isn’t faulty, which the LLM can then interact with and iterate over the code based on the compiler feedback (which would point out errors).

now mind you this is the output of an internet-enabled, research oriented LLM that hasn’t been fine-tuned for Papyrus and Skyrim. With some work you could probably get a 0.5B local model that does only natural language to Papyrus translation, combined with a 4B LLM that does the context expansion (aka what you see in the Perplexity feed, my simple request being detailed step by step) and reiteration.

You’d also be surprised just how flexible game engines are. Especially freeroaming, RPG style engines. Devs are usually lazy so they don’t want to hardcore all the behaviours, so they create ways to make it simple for game designers to actually code those behaviours and share between units. For example, both a regular object (say, a chair) and a character type object (such as an NPC) will have a move() function that moves them from A to B, but latter will have extra calls in that function that ensure the humanoid character isn’t just sliding to the new position but taking steps as it moves, turns the right direction and so on. Once all these base behaviours are available, it’s super easy to put them together. This is precisely why we have so many high quality Skyrim mods (or in general for Bethesda games).

And again, code quality in LLMs has come a VERY long way. I’m a software engineer by trade, and I’d say somewhere between 80-90% of all the code I write is actually done by AI. I still oversee it, review what it does, direct it the right way when it does something silly, but those aren’t as minor functionalities as we’re talking here. I’ve had AI code a full on display driver for a microcontroller, with very specific restrictions, in about 4 hours (and I’d argue 2 of that was spent with running the driver and evaluating the result manually then identifying the issue and working out a solution with the LLM). In 4 hours I managed to do what otherwise would’ve taken me about a week.

Now imagine that the same thing only needs to do relatively small tasks, not figure out optimal data caching and updating strategies tied to active information delivery to the user with appropriate transformation into UI state holders.

Okay I won’t even read past the first paragraph because you’re so incredibly wrong that it hurts.

First generation LLMs were bad at writing long batches of code, today we’re on the fourth (or by some metric, fifth) generation.

I’ve trained LLM agents on massive codebases that resulted in <0.1% fault ratio on first pass. Besides, tool calling is a thing, but I guess if I started detailing how MCP servers work and how they can be utilised to ensure an LLM agents doesn’t do incorrect calls, you’d come up with another 2-3 year old argument that simply doesn’t have a foot to stand on today.

My own fucking experience. Which I’ve already explained in detail above.

By improving the cadence of projects.

A project costs X amount because of the standard template of pay per time unit Y multiplied by timeframe in time unit Z.

Simply said if you have 100 people working on the project, that costs 100Y per hour. If the project takes 6 months (approx. 960 hours), you multiply the two and get that your costs are 96000Y.

Now the two ways to reduce this is to either reduce the number of employees, with AI you can get rid of maybe 2/3, reducing the expenses to 32000Y…

Or since AI speeds up almost every workflow by about 8 to 10 times, you can keep all the people, but cut down project time from 6 months to about 2 months, which doesn’t just reduce the expenses by the same 2/3 but also increases potential profits for the same 6 month period by 200%, as instead of one product you’re releasing three.

Cutting jobs ain’t the only way to reduce costs with AI.