81–90 of 138 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Other advanced tactics involve giving a broad clue that matches 3-4 of your own and just one other (either your opponents or a civilian). Your team can pick up all the matches across several turns and the one off doesn't hurt as much as the plus four helps
> the one off doesn't hurt as much as the plus four helps Doesn’t the turn end if you hit the opponents word?
I've been trying out various "reasoning" models (o1, R1, Gemini Thinking etc) against the NYT Connections word puzzle - it's a really interesting test of them. So far o1 Pro has been the most consistently successful: https://www.nytimes.com/games/connections
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But the guesser model connects Paper and Log because "paper is made from logs" (reaching the conclusion through a different meaning of Log) No, it doesn't. It reaches the conclusion because of vector similarity (simplified explanation): these explanations are post-hoc .
> these explanations are post-hoc. The best available evidence suggests this is also true of any explanations a human gives for their own behaviour; nevertheless we generally accept those at face value.
GPT-based predictive text systems are incapable of introspection of any kind: they cannot execute the algorithm I execute when I'm giving explanations for my behaviour, nor can they execute any algorithm that might actually result in the explanations becoming or approaching truthfulness.
The GPT model is describing a fictional character named ChatGPT, and telling you why ChatGPT thinks a certain thing. ChatGPT-the-character is not the GPT model. The GPT model has no conception of itself, and cannot ever possibly develop a conception of itself (except through philosophical inquiry, which the system is incapable of for different reasons).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you elaborate on some of the more advanced tactics? When I play, it's mostly about getting a good 2 clue each time. Then if you can opportunistically get a 3 or 4, that's awesome. Some tactics come in for choosing the right pairs of 2's so you don't end up mismatched, or leaving clues that might be ambiguous with your opponent's... But that's mostly it. It'll be fun for multiplayer! Just like how in other online…
If you really want to get good, your goal is not so much to get as many tiles as possible, but rather to get the tiles that are semantically distinct from your opponent’s. A single mistake that triggers your opponent’s tile is generally enough to lose the game. And even if they don’t do it, having them uncover the tiles from their side that are semantically similar to your own team is also useful. If you want to get…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you elaborate on some of the more advanced tactics? When I play, it's mostly about getting a good 2 clue each time. Then if you can opportunistically get a 3 or 4, that's awesome. Some tactics come in for choosing the right pairs of 2's so you don't end up mismatched, or leaving clues that might be ambiguous with your opponent's... But that's mostly it. It'll be fun for multiplayer! Just like how in other online…
If you really want to get good, your goal is not so much to get as many tiles as possible, but rather to get the tiles that are semantically distinct from your opponent’s. A single mistake that triggers your opponent’s tile is generally enough to lose the game. And even if they don’t do it, having them uncover the tiles from their side that are semantically similar to your own team is also useful. If you want to get…
Can you clarify? Isn't the card placement random?
Fun quirk about this game: If there aren't too many cards left and your teammate knows their powers of two, you have a winning strategy. You simply lay a mental bitmap over all remaining cards, setting 1 for cards that belong to your team and 0 for all others. You can then just say the number that is represented by this bitmap, e.g. "five" for 0101, and your teammate can decode it in their head. All numbers are, afte…
What if the game showed a different order of cards to every player?
The digital version could and should do this, IMO. (I don't actually know if it does, though, as I've only played the digital version a few times.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're free to add additional prohibitions on communication as a house rule I guess, but the only prohibition in the rule book I've seen is that the clue giver's speech must consist exclusively of clues (and private consultation with the other clue giver). The clue giver is free to adjust their clue in reaction to anything they hear, and guessers can speak freely. Important: the clue giver cannot acknowledge the inst…
If you take this idea of communication restrictions to the limit, you could imagine the guessers identifying N sets of cards by a single word each as they discuss their guess. The clue giver listens, then uses the clue that identifies the correct set of N cards. You really just need an algorithm to generate unique sets of 8 or 9 from the whole board, and identifies those sets by a word.