[tomjen3]

That is interesting. And it's an AI critique I haven't heard before.

Would you consider it possible that the way non-intentionally placed items break the game immersion for you is because they appear in such a way that you think you can interact with them in a certain way, but you can't?

Like if there's an extra door in the house you're trying to get into, but that door doesn't really open, then in your mind that breaks the integrity of the game's systems. If so, I think the LLM response is that there are no more doors that don't open and that the world can be generated as needed.

No computer can handle the complexity of even a small town. But it would be possible, at least in the future, to generate the part of the world you interact with, which would heighten the emersion.

[8note]

its reasonably the same "reversion to the mean" or "not x, but y"

the intentionally placed tree serves no particular in-game job mechanically. it instead points your eyes to the right place when you walk up the path, and then again when you look back down from above.

when they're saying everything is intentionally placed, they mean everything, whether it looks important or not. It's all directed to a cohesive core

[pbhjpbhj]

So you want a human going 'oh stick a tree anywhere, it doesn't matter' rather than having that done procedurally whether by a simple algorithm or an ML model?

It sounds like you might be assuming intent where there is little. I suspect if you didn't know a poem was written by an LLM you might ascribe purpose and intent to many aspects - rather like a high-school English language teacher.