2025-12-22 00:03 UTC
I've long since lost the link, but there was an article early on in the current LLM boom that made the absolutely galaxy brain argument that gamedevs have been doing AI since the Pac-Man days, intentionally conflating A* with LLMs.
Which, no, I have no fucking issue with A*, NiGHTS' A-Life system, or the weird and cool shit Naughty Dog did with LISP AIs in the early aughts.
Maybe that should be an asterisk I add to every toot, but I'm tired, friends. So very tired.
Replies (1)
-
@xgranade@wandering.shop 2025-12-22 00:09
One adjacent example of intentional miscommunication: the word "open" as applied to AI. An LLM cannot be "open source" unless you have access to the training data and methodologies. "Open weights" is a craven attempt to misdirect the word "open" — we might as well say that bunch of machine code is "open" because you can disassemble it. LLMs can only be trained at extremely disproportionate scale, such that they cannot be "open" in any meaningful sense.