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

AI Can't Recreate the Thrust Game (But It Can Help You Understand It)

jamesdrandall.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 40 posts

Re: AI Can't Recreate the Thrust Game (But It Can Help You Understand It)

#21

Post by jamesrandall »

iainmerrick wrote: post #20

Your reconstruction is so close, I'm a little surprised you didn't stick with the original controls! Even though the BBC had a rather weird layout for all the non-alphanumeric keys. It's been a very long time since I played Thrust, and I've played plenty of WASD games in the meantime, but it still felt really strange to control it that way rather than the classic BBC Z/X/*/? for left/right/up/down. Pretty sure it was…

Maybe I should pop in an original keyset as an option - I think the original uses the caps key maybe. I'm pretty sure it's weird on a modern keyboard layout. I think the version on the bbcmicro site keymaps it by default, in any case if you want to revisit the original its here:

https://bbcmicro.co.uk/game.php?id=432

Edit: I'm going to have to go and revisit it again now... I was sure it was infuriating on a modern keyboard.

Re: AI Can't Recreate the Thrust Game (But It Can Help You Understand It)

#23

Post by heaney-555 »

I hate when people say "AI" without specifying which model. It's like saying "plane" without specifying if you're talking about a Cessna or an F-22 Raptor.

> I asked Claude

There is no such thing as 'Claude'. Claude is a brand of model, some incredibly dumb and some incredibly capable. Was this 4.6 Sonnet? 5 Fable? Without specifying, the post is essentially meaningfless.

Re: AI Can't Recreate the Thrust Game (But It Can Help You Understand It)

#24

Post by antonymoose »

heaney-555 wrote: post #23

I hate when people say "AI" without specifying which model. It's like saying "plane" without specifying if you're talking about a Cessna or an F-22 Raptor. > I asked Claude There is no such thing as 'Claude'. Claude is a brand of model, some incredibly dumb and some incredibly capable. Was this 4.6 Sonnet? 5 Fable? Without specifying, the post is essentially meaningfless.

I get this all the time at work because I am bearish on “AI” - except I try it with the models available and they all fall down similarly.

Perhaps go try it with your model de jure and report back?

Re: AI Can't Recreate the Thrust Game (But It Can Help You Understand It)

#25

Post by msephton »

aenis wrote: post #10

Funny. I had claude recreate Thrust based on wiki article alone - and it nailed it. I then spent a week trying to implement a perfect autopilot for it. And then a solveable level generator. I have this running as a screen saver in one of my apps.

Love this!

Re: AI Can't Recreate the Thrust Game (But It Can Help You Understand It)

#27

Post by nomel »

heaney-555 wrote: post #23

I hate when people say "AI" without specifying which model. It's like saying "plane" without specifying if you're talking about a Cessna or an F-22 Raptor. > I asked Claude There is no such thing as 'Claude'. Claude is a brand of model, some incredibly dumb and some incredibly capable. Was this 4.6 Sonnet? 5 Fable? Without specifying, the post is essentially meaningfless.

No mention of model, effort, harness, prompt, etc. Completely incompetent article, so it generating slop is not too surprising.

Re: AI Can't Recreate the Thrust Game (But It Can Help You Understand It)

#28

Post by cortesoft »

I feel like a lot of the success of an AI project currently still comes down to the skills of the operator. I don't think it is possible to say "AI can't create this because I told AI to create it and it failed" any more than you can say "You can't write this in Rust because I tried and failed."

There is still a TON of skill involved in guiding an AI to create something, and how good it turns out has a lot to do with how the AI development process went.

Re: AI Can't Recreate the Thrust Game (But It Can Help You Understand It)

#30

Post by conception »

cortesoft wrote: post #28

I feel like a lot of the success of an AI project currently still comes down to the skills of the operator. I don't think it is possible to say "AI can't create this because I told AI to create it and it failed" any more than you can say "You can't write this in Rust because I tried and failed." There is still a TON of skill involved in guiding an AI to create something, and how good it turns out has a lot to do with…

What I’ve discovered is for things I’m good at when AI takes a first shot at it I think “this is pretty mediocre “ and can guide it to something pretty good. If I’m less skilled on what it’s working on I tend to think “Hey this is pretty good!” But then I remember the former and then realize I don’t really have the skill to judge and that the work done is probably just… ok at best.

I generally apply this thinking when I hear people talking about using AI and their results and what I know about their skill levels.

Post reply on HN