[applicative]

You are saying: it turns out that one-shot playable Minecraft clones are actually pretty simple. Maybe it seemed a hard problem to programmers, but why not just say that the verifiable-rewards training has shown that their skill is unusually simple?

[cornholio]

Can't wait to see what unusually simple Erdos problem LLMs will expose next, hiding in plain sight for decades and seemingly intractable for professional mathematicians who weren't aware just how simple the problem was.

[latentsea]

I am saying 3 years ago there wasn't a snowballs chance in hell I could one shot a playable Minecraft clone, and there has never been a snowballs chance in hell a human developer could do so in 45 minutes.

The difficulty of the task and human performance on that task hasn't changed. LLMs performance on that task has changed dramatically.

[8note]

it could almost certainly regurgitate something like minetest

its in the training data, probably many times, and it was then, too

[latentsea]

And that's exactly why 3 years ago we saw people one shotting it in 45 minutes :)

[staticman2]

"Some idiot on Twitter did a game tech demo" has been a thing since, like GPT 3.5 or 4.0?

[latentsea]

It has. We can see 3.5 started with text adventure games https://medium.com/@duncanariey/using-chatgpt-to-make-the-it... and with 4.0 it moved up to pong https://x.com/skirano/status/1635736107949195278

As the generations increase, so too has the complexity of the games it can one-shot.

[staticman2]

But nobody has nailed "this is a game anyone wants to play" or "professional game development life cycles are shorter" so it's not particularly impressive.

I'm still waiting for any evidence of LLM economic impact in the real world.

[senordevnyc]

What a great example of the no true Scotsman fallacy.