11–20 of 28 posts
It seems it is not that too bad for small "well-known" algorithms. I am thinking high level language "ports" toward "human" assembly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suppose some of the design choices were guided by the prompts chatGPT got from me, so to be fair I’d be to blame for confusing design. I figure the best way to get the hang of the rules was to play a couple of throwaway games — they are quick to play. However if you can share any suggestions for making the experience more intuitive, please let me know, I’d be happy to try making it better :)
Ok you got me I was kind of being a jerk, sorry. Main thing was being prompted to "read the rules first" and then not being able to figure out what to do after about 30 seconds. Brutal, but realistic test of many games.
If you have a chance to try it out for longer and it’s still confusing, let me know! I do wish the game calculated your score for you at the end, but as I explain in the blog, this ended up being too complex for the first cut. I hope I can work this out in due course…
This reminds me of a game from the 1990s, but I don't remember the name of it. It involved something with rats and cheese and drawing walls to keep them from it. Does anyone remember this game? EDIT: I think I'm remembering Rodent's Revenge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodent%27s_Revenge
This reminds me of sheepish the iphone game. Unfortunately the only record I can find of it is a negative review. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2009/02/10-lessons-of-iphone...
I have to confess I have no professional experience in design, although I do consider myself a moderately picky user :)
I did try to think about what I’d enjoy or be put off by if I was playing — but I didn’t have anything beyond this common sense approach to guide the design choices.
Sheepish sounds like a slightly different game though: it reminds me of a few others (one to do with pipes again and another with laying out train tracks). Will dig these up and share once I do have the pointers. Thanks again!
I tried to break it by asking for -1 rounds. It caught it but then it told me to pick between 10-20, not 5-20 as previously indicated. This feels like a ChatGPT style bug. I find it doesn’t like to do abstractions such as “MIN_GAME_COUNT”, possibly because it doesn’t exactly do a great job going back to what it previously wrote, unless you ask it to.
I hope you do play it for a positive number of rounds though :)
I tried to break it by asking for -1 rounds. It caught it but then it told me to pick between 10-20, not 5-20 as previously indicated. This feels like a ChatGPT style bug. I find it doesn’t like to do abstractions such as “MIN_GAME_COUNT”, possibly because it doesn’t exactly do a great job going back to what it previously wrote, unless you ask it to.
This may have actually been my bad: once chatGPT gave me what I asked for, I would think about it some more and tweak the code manually, especially if it was a low-effort edit. Consequently there will perhaps be some bugs: I’ll fix this one, thanks for sharing! I hope you do play it for a positive number of rounds though :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This may have actually been my bad: once chatGPT gave me what I asked for, I would think about it some more and tweak the code manually, especially if it was a low-effort edit. Consequently there will perhaps be some bugs: I’ll fix this one, thanks for sharing! I hope you do play it for a positive number of rounds though :)
I might just play this for Number.POSITIVE_INFINITY rounds. I’m having a good time. Thank you for using your time to make and share this.
What ChatGPT did is equivalent to what a writing assistant might do who is given a list of bullet points by an author, and asked to expand them into a synopsis.
We would never say that a brick layer designed a building, or that a printer wrote a book. ChatGPT did not author this game. The rules were created by humans. The code was churned out by a machine.
The word "authored" is being used completely wrong here. What ChatGPT did is equivalent to what a writing assistant might do who is given a list of bullet points by an author, and asked to expand them into a synopsis. We would never say that a brick layer designed a building, or that a printer wrote a book. ChatGPT did not author this game. The rules were created by humans. The code was churned out by a machine.
Thanks for the input!