[ilaksh]

With the new function calling feature you may not need the second system. Only present options to ChatGPT that are valid. Feed it updated state information as JSON. Have it describe and elaborate on what the game engine is doing, or use functions to invoke entity creation that can then be tracked by the engine.

So for example the engine can do combat rolls and the LLM can give each a unique description of the type of attack and defense. Each monster or treasure can get its own unique description generated by the LLM that matches the stats given by the LLM.

[yencabulator]

Yes, but then I fear you're back to having limited "things that can happen", with predefined entities and so on. I'd prefer the acid trip to break more paradigms, tell a story, while the lawyer makes sure there remain challenges.

For example: with strict entities "behind an API", the diamond is the singular diamond and is a diamond. With an ML-based lawyer, well, maybe you can duplicate the diamond? Maybe you can transmogrify it temporarily into a non-diamond, which the Enemy drops as undesirable? Maybe you can wander into an elaborate system of mines full of dwarves who actually know how to mine a diamond, as long as you help them with this pesky dragon... No human has to come up with all these possibilities.

[ilaksh]

Good point. You could also have the system create the entities on-the-fly if necessary by calling a function. But having them there in the prompt as a structure it's supposed to adhere to some degree makes it more consistent and would give it tools such as for dice rolls or a precise inventory and game state database etc.