this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2024
35 points (92.7% liked)

Technology

35123 readers
54 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

As long as you can reduce something to a pattern, it will work with a LLM. That's what they're great at, matching and recognizing patterns.

You might still do better with random moves. Depends on a couple of things.

First, a LLM is only as good as its training data. Depends on whether that data contained enough good moves that would work against a random button pusher.

There's also the question of whether the random pusher is human or not. Humans are not great at generating random data, we tend to think in patterns and there's also muscle memory. So I think the moves of a human random masher could easily fit into defendable patterns.

If the random masher is a computer I think it comes down to how well the game is designed, whether it rewards combos, whether longer patterns that build on each other have a large advantage over a series of completely random individual moves.