It's been written at length here and elsewhere by game devs, but this isn't a thing that anyone would truly want. A purely AI generated or controlled world would have no constraints, and be fundamentally untestable - games aren't really games unless they have constraints. Even the 'purest' sandboxes have some kind of constraint buried within them, and I think you'd find an RPG of this type extremely boring, at least with current technology.
> Citation needed.
Lol, a citation of what? This is my opinion statement and the rest of my post follows it.
> That's a shitty AI then. Make a better one. I can play 2000 Vampire: The Masquerade games with 2000 different groups. They will each be different, but they will also be each distinctly Vampire: The Masquerade ttrpg games. If the AI you are thinking about can't do the same, then think of a better AI.
Sure, I'll get right on that.
> Well. Who is the group who will make the "next technology"? Should we work on that, or just lay down on the ground and wait for it to fall from the sky? Testing what are the limits of the current technology (as done in the paper we are talking about here) is the way to get there. Or at least to systematically answer the question of where and what are we lacking.
I'm really unsure of what or who you are addressing here but it certainly isn't anything I've written in my post.
> citation of what?
Citation that nobody wants what you described? The sentence which I was quoting.
> This is my opinion statement
Your opinon can be that "I don't want this." "nobody wants this" is refers to things outside of your head. Do you see the difference between the two?
> it certainly isn't anything I've written in my post.
Your post is suffused with defeatism. The 3 "no"s it contains are: "nobody wants this", "with current technology this cannot be fun" and an implicit "we can't make the next technology". I believe each of those are wrong, and I'm calling you out on the attitude.
> Care to make any citations yourself here?
Happily. I know you are wrong on the "nobody wants this" statement because I want it. With a sweeping generic statement like "nobody wants this" a single example is enough to disprove it. There you have it.
> what advances are being made in AI technology in this gaming that lends you such confidence?
There is a ton of experimenting going on. AI Dungeon and Deep Realms are the two obvious ones. I don't think anyone has found the golden solution yet, but that is also not evidence that no such thing exists.
I don't really buy this. I don't think the tech is quite there, although at this point it might be a matter of clever prompting more than a fundamental limitation depending on the type of game you have in mind. A strong enough DM AI could take a prompt like "I want to play a game with a similar loop to Satisfactory, set in Mordor at the beginning of the second age." And the AI could figure out from there, including devising appropriate constraints.
There's no reason why an AI-driven sandbox cannot have constraints, as well.
Now it's true that, with the current crop of LLMs, a persistent enough player would always be able to break through them. But if it takes conscious and deliberate effort, I think it's reasonable to say that whatever experience the person gets as a result, they were asking for it.
I mean this isn't it fun to generate ancient rome/alice in wonderland/medivial Poland kind of the world?
> this isn't a thing that anyone would truly want.
Citation needed.
> A purely AI generated or controlled world would have no constraints
That's a shitty AI then. Make a better one. I can play 2000 Vampire: The Masquerade games with 2000 different groups. They will each be different, but they will also be each distinctly Vampire: The Masquerade ttrpg games. If the AI you are thinking about can't do the same, then think of a better AI.
> at least with current technology.
Well. Who is the group who will make the "next technology"? Should we work on that, or just lay down on the ground and wait for it to fall from the sky? Testing what are the limits of the current technology (as done in the paper we are talking about here) is the way to get there. Or at least to systematically answer the question of where and what are we lacking.