• eicker@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    124
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    4 days ago

    Four AIs spent 11 minutes deciding who was authorized to fertilize one wheat block. At that point, I’m not sure the experiment failed. They recreated middle management with no humans involved. Give them another hour and they’ll require a quarterly performance review from the wheat.

    • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      4 days ago

      Honestly, humans have been doing agriculture for thousands of years and we’re still hung up on who’s allowed to cultivate what land.

      So 11 minutes isn’t that bad, honestly…

    • bonesawmcl@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 days ago

      What do you mean “no humans involved”? The LLMs are statistical models trained on humans (and their behaviours) and so obviously the outcome is a representation of exactly that. They’re just worse at it.

    • reksas@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 days ago

      They should try again after they fix the problems. Though i wonder if they even understand what the problem was or are they “allowed” to fix it.

      • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 days ago

        It’s pretty clear to me that the problem is that the division of labor wasn’t clearly defined. This seems like a management issue.

        Like, with 50 players, you can make 5 teams of ten. Assign one team to mining, one to woodcutting, one to crafting, one to building, and one to food production.

        Then within each team, give each one a zone to focus on. Each crafter gets a workshop, each fooder gets a field or some coastline. Two or three different mining locations and you can assign each miner a cardinal direction for their main shaft. The woodcutters can replant the trees as they go, so each one only needs a moderate sized area.

        Then the builders can be divided into categories. Maybe 4 on wall duty, 4 on buildings, 2 on paths and lights.

        Or better yet make it only 5 woodcutters, 5 crafters, and 5 food producers. Then you have 15 extra players and you can set 10 of those to act as guards to protect the others from monsters, and 5 as runners to carry materials from the mines, groves, farms, etc., to the town, and carry replacement tools, supplies, food, etc. back to the stations.

        Once the structures are complete, the builders can join the other teams. Eventually when you add stuff like enchanting and brewing there will be more roles, like hunting monsters for exp, or fighting blazes for their powder.

        But yeah for early game, it seems like a simple solution, and the answer is proper delegation instead of a free-for-all.

        • Dave.@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          4 days ago

          But yeah for early game, it seems like a simple solution, and the answer is proper delegation instead of a free-for-all.

          That’s the problem. Humans would each gravitate to what they do best and organise themselves into a structure relatively quickly.

          LLMs get stuck in circular patterns because they don’t have the ability to do that. They can’t think outside the box. None of them arbitrarily becomes the boss to take charge. They’re all yes men stuck in endless board meetings where even just flipping a coin would break the deadlock. But they are incapable of realising that, because they are just statistical regurgitation machines flavoured with a bit of randomness on the most probable outputs.

          • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 days ago

            I think the lesson is that a swarm of LLMs alone isn’t going to be effective, but there needs to be a human in the loop to direct them intelligently

        • reksas@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          I think the point of having something that should be able to do stuff autonomously, is that it should be able to define these things by itself. Or at least the value of it would be in it being able to do it. But would giving up control be what the ones in control want to do? I wonder if that is also one of the things that keeps the corporations from getting any closer to more functional llm that isnt just a brainless yesman.

  • Nouvellalia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 days ago

    Lobotomize all the parts that make a person free, raise someone with an HR mommy, then force them to do stuff under duress, and this is exactly what you get, white bread middle management indecisive apologetic unimaginative boring bland banality.

    • some_designer_dude@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      That’s how humanity lives on forever. The Matrix had them using us for power, but they won’t need us meat bags at all, really.

      • cardfire@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        Fun fact, early scripts for the original film had Humanity plugged in to share computational processing Power for the Machines, but the studios didn’t believe audiences could grasp that so it was changed to providing electricity.

        Which is impossible, the whole feeding cycle for harvesting us as batteries would yield less power than just using the feed source for power.