Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How information theory saved my word game

motplot.app

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 32 posts

Re: How information theory saved my word game

#21

Post by freehorse »

stavros wrote: post #10
jamwise wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it certainly was a wall. That's how I kept describing it to my partner, I was hitting a wall.

Yes but I'm fairly sure you didn't use the words "this isn't a speed problem. It is a wall" when talking to your partner. I liked the post, I just don't like Claude writing every article I read, just like I didn't like every website I visited looking like Bootstrap.

> Yes but I'm fairly sure you didn't use the words "this isn't a speed problem. It is a wall" when talking to your partner.

I am not afraid of a future where people use llms to write. I am afraid of a future where people adopt themselves the writing style of llms because that's all they ingest.

Oops

Re: How information theory saved my word game

#23

Post by mental_block »

Even ignoring the llm-speak, the game is frustrating. I love the concept but the puzzle uses archaic words and there is no hint or a way (like sudoku) to enter in guesses (yes I know I can take out a pen). At least, I'd suggest the author to do these puzzles daily and then put some difficulty ranking so people know to manage expectations. Tough words are fine but this game is just slightly obtuse in its approach.

It's cool that llms are helping but there is a genuine "human" element of game design which needs various iterations even when you have the mechanic down.

Nice job OP on bringing this concept to life though!

Re: How information theory saved my word game

#24

Post by jamwise »

frostpine wrote: post #22

For the game, I dont like the hashed/greyed out squares. Looks like its trying to be a black square in a crossword, but it is actually just a hidden letter? Maybe there is a different way to obscure the letter?

Thanks for the feedback. The premise of the game is you solve each individual word in order, so greyed out cells are places that aren't the next letter for any of the words right now. As you place the letters those cells open up.

Re: How information theory saved my word game

#25

Post by jamwise »

mental_block wrote: post #23

Even ignoring the llm-speak, the game is frustrating. I love the concept but the puzzle uses archaic words and there is no hint or a way (like sudoku) to enter in guesses (yes I know I can take out a pen). At least, I'd suggest the author to do these puzzles daily and then put some difficulty ranking so people know to manage expectations. Tough words are fine but this game is just slightly obtuse in its approach. It'…

Appreciate the feedback, thanks for checking it out.

To be clear, LLMs were not used to design this game, just to edit my post talking about creating the board generator. And I do play it every day, today was definitely a tougher one, but the variety day by day is by design, which is pretty common in word games.

Mini Mot | Jul 1, 2026 ⣤s⣤y⣀e⣀b⣀i⣀o⣀u⣀t⣀o⣀d⣀

Max Mot | Jul 1, 2026 ⣿d⣿b⣿i⣶r⣤i⣤o⣤e⣤l⣤c⣤t⣤s⣤o⣤e⣤

The key to this game is to use your general intuition about English phonetics to deduce where a letter can't go among the available spots on the board. Kind of like Sudoku logic applied to a crossword. So in theory you can solve quite a few words you've never seen before because certain letter sequences just don't work in English, (the premise behind XKCD for example).

Re: How information theory saved my word game

#26

Post by stavros »

jamwise wrote: post #12
stavros wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but I'm fairly sure you didn't use the words "this isn't a speed problem. It is a wall" when talking to your partner. I liked the post, I just don't like Claude writing every article I read, just like I didn't like every website I visited looking like Bootstrap.

Yeah that's fair. I might dust off my draft and re-edit myself, I foolishly thought this would lead to a better post, and I guess am not as attuned to the AI smell as others.

Yeah I'm now in the camp where it's just refreshing to read something another human wrote, even if it has mistakes, just because I'm tired of only reading a single author everywhere.

Re: How information theory saved my word game

#27

Post by yepyoukno »

nl wrote: post #6
yepyoukno wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compression is not intelligence. While intelligence and compression both may have similar goals (to optimize paths of information), intelligence negotiates probability (allowing multiple divergent outcomes) while compression requires an idempotent symbolic translation.

> intelligence negotiates probability (allowing multiple divergent outcomes) while compression requires an idempotent symbolic translation. What does this mean? Lossy, non-deterministic compression is a thing. Does that meet the "allowing multiple divergent outcomes" criteria?

No, while you loose some details, there is only one direction of determination.

Compression is not intelligence!

Re: How information theory saved my word game

#28

Post by alehlopeh »

Michelangelo11 wrote: post #4

> Marshall McLuhan gets the credit for the medium is the message, but Claude Shannon had beaten him to a colder version of it years earlier: to a machine moving your words, the meaning doesn’t matter at all; only the medium does, and which of its signals can be told apart. Bravo and Delta survive a bad line; B and D don’t. > I didn’t arrive there as a mathematician; I’m not one. > This wasn’t a speed problem I could…

I’ve noticed that A.I. can’t help but talk about Marshall McLuhan when you mention “medium” and “message” for some reason. Personally I don’t find the guy’s “medium is the message” bit to be so insightful as to merit pinning his name to every mention of the phrase, forever. It just seems kind of obvious.

Re: How information theory saved my word game

#29

Post by nl »

yepyoukno wrote: post #27
nl wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> intelligence negotiates probability (allowing multiple divergent outcomes) while compression requires an idempotent symbolic translation. What does this mean? Lossy, non-deterministic compression is a thing. Does that meet the "allowing multiple divergent outcomes" criteria?

No, while you loose some details, there is only one direction of determination. Compression is not intelligence!

You are going to need to explain yourself in more details.

> Compression is not intelligence

Just saying this doesn't make it so.

It's widely accepted that compression and intelligence have a close relationship. I think this summary of Marcus Hutter's work provides some background: https://www.antoinebuteau.com/lessons-from-marcus-hutter/

Re: How information theory saved my word game

#30

Post by yepyoukno »

nl wrote: post #29
yepyoukno wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, while you loose some details, there is only one direction of determination. Compression is not intelligence!

You are going to need to explain yourself in more details. > Compression is not intelligence Just saying this doesn't make it so. It's widely accepted that compression and intelligence have a close relationship. I think this summary of Marcus Hutter's work provides some background: https://www.antoinebuteau.com/lessons-from-marcus-hutter/

> algorithmic information theory, arguing that general intelligence is mathematically equivalent to data compression and sequence prediction

Then let it be said “algorithmic intelligence” for true “general” intelligence is not constrained by sequence or brevity. There is indirection, substitution, and other variabilities to the chaotic circumstances of real world (“general”) problem solving. All forms of intelligence relate to the reduction of uncertainty. Compression sounds like “shortest path” and sequence sounds like constrained conditions, neither are “general.”

Post reply on HN