> We collected a vocabulary consisting of about 1500 basic words, which try to mimic the vocabulary of a typical 3-4 year-old child, separated into nouns, verbs, and adjectives. In each generation, 3 words are chosen randomly (one verb, one noun, and one adjective). The model is instructed to generate a story that somehow combines these random words into the story
You can do the same for generating worlds, just prepare good ingredients and sample at random.
These are “stories” in the most vacuous definition possible, one that is just “and then this happened” like a child’s conception of plot
For LLMs like GPT-4, this all seems reasonable to account for and assume the LLM is capable of processing, given appropriate guidance/frameworks (of which may be just classical programming).
Yes. This is an active research area. See https://github.com/yingpengma/Awesome-Story-Generation, which is not up to date.
When did we start thinking this way? That things HAVE to get better and in fact to think otherwise is very negative? Is HN under a massive hot hand fallacy delusion?
Sure, progress will likely not be linear or without challenges, but we already have the human brain as proof that it is possible.
You're not gonna get new intriguing stories from AI which only regurgitates what it's stolen. You're going to get a themeless morass without intention.
I also find it amusing how your example to Siri uses one of the oldest pieces of literature when you also tire of stories heard a thousand times before.