That's definitely one of the ways it's going to be applied.
The bigger challenge is union negotiations around voice synthesis for those lines, but that will eventually get sorted out.
It won't be dynamic, unless live service, but you'll have significantly more fleshed out NPCs by the next generation of open world games (around 5-6 years from now).
Earlier than that will be somewhat enhanced, but not built from the ground up with it in mind the way the next generation will be.
Base model =/= Corpo fine tune
Wait until it starts feeling like revelation deja vu.
Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth, saying resurrection has already occurred. They are upsetting the faith of some.
I'm a seasoned dev and I was at a launch event when an edge case failure reared its head.
In less than a half an hour after pulling out my laptop to fix it myself, I'd used Cursor + Claude 3.5 Sonnet to:
I never typed a single line of code and never left the chat box.
My job is increasingly becoming Henry Ford drawing the 'X' and not sitting on the assembly line, and I'm all for it.
And this would only have been possible in just the last few months.
We're already well past the scaffolding stage. That's old news.
Developing has never been easier or more plain old fun, and it's getting better literally by the week.
Edit: I agree about junior devs not blindly trusting them though. They don't yet know where to draw the X.
Actually, they are hiding the full CoT sequence outside of the demos.
What you are seeing there is a summary, but because the actual process is hidden it's not possible to see what actually transpired.
People are very not happy about this aspect of the situation.
It also means that model context (which in research has been shown to be much more influential than previously thought) is now in part hidden with exclusive access and control by OAI.
There's a lot of things to be focused on in that image, and "hur dur the stochastic model can't count letters in this cherry picked example" is the least among them.
I was thinking the same thing!!
It's like at this point Trump is watching the show to take notes and stage direction.
Yep:
https://openai.com/index/learning-to-reason-with-llms/
First interactive section. Make sure to click "show chain of thought."
The cipher one is particularly interesting, as it's intentionally difficult for the model.
The tokenizer is famously bad at two letter counts, which is why previous models can't count the number of rs in strawberry.
So the cipher depends on two letter pairs, and you can see how it screws up the tokenization around the xx at the end of the last word, and gradually corrects course.
Will help clarify how it's going about solving something like the example I posted earlier behind the scenes.
You should really look at the full CoT traces on the demos.
I think you think you know more than you actually know.
I'd recommend everyone saying "it can't understand anything and can't think" to look at this example:
https://x.com/flowersslop/status/1834349905692824017
Try to solve it after seeing only the first image before you open the second and see o1's response.
Let me know if you got it before seeing the actual answer.
I fondly remember reading a comment in /r/conspiracy on a post claiming a geologic seismic weapon brought down the towers.
It just tore into the claims, citing all the reasons this was preposterous bordering on batshit crazy.
And then it said "and your theory doesn't address the thermite residue" going on to reiterate their wild theory.
Was very much a "don't name your gods" moment that summed up the sub - a lot of people in agreement that the truth was out there, but bitterly divided as to what it might actually be.
As long as they only focused on generic memes of "do your own research" and "you aren't being told the truth" they were all on the same page. But as soon as they started naming their own truths, it was every theorist for themselves.
The pause was long enough she was able to say all the things in it mentally.
You haven't used Cursor yet, have you?