Asking LLMs to create my game Shepard's Dog(github.com) |
Asking LLMs to create my game Shepard's Dog(github.com) |
- You can play the Claude game here (note: doesn't work on Safari for some reason): https://html-preview.github.io/?url=https://raw.githubuserco...
- o3-mini's version is here: https://html-preview.github.io/?url=https://raw.githubuserco...
Results of other models and a leaderboard is here: https://github.com/vnglst/when-ai-fails/blob/main/shepards-d...
Some videos: https://hachyderm.io/@vnglst/114125938185826311
Not sure if you're aware, but there was a game like that for playstation and GBA, called Sheep! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheep_(video_game) Here's some gameplay footage (player here didn't chose a dog to play with for some reason): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP058CHQj20 Premise of the game is the same, you run the sheep to the designated area over obstacles.
Scope issue.
No barking or dog player model but pretty similar in style to Claude's output.
What's interesting to me about playing with AI Codegen is each model has specific and sometimes overlapping output errors. Claude 3.7 really like to solve errors by returning dummy data as a 'fallback' when doing client or server calls. A little prompting can reduce this but not eliminate it. 'The tests always pass if you return dummy data'
https://gist.github.com/jchv/e8869a7cbe2d854a0ec93e946030d90...
It seems like it has some issues, but the result is interesting nonetheless. Just a one-shot like the others, needed a single "Keep going" but otherwise this is the vanilla output from the prompt.
Edit: Looks like you can share an HTML preview of a gist using html-preview.github.io, so here's that. https://html-preview.github.io/?url=https://gist.githubuserc... - It'll go to level 2 if you refresh the page and hit Restart, but I don't think it's possible to clear Level 2. The flock stays too far apart to fit enough sheep in the pen.
Indeed in boids each element has a constant (or minimum) velocity, s.t. the sheep never stop 'running'. I find the Claude flocking behaviour looks more natural, for sheep.
Demo: https://show.franzai.com/a/clean-parrot-brown (Page will self-destruct after 3 months, feel free to host it somewhere else)
Oneshot Prompt https://chatgpt.com/share/67cff8e6-e218-8009-af5b-d91060eaed...
https://show.franzai.com/a/leaf-bug-wasp (LGPT - feel free to fork - Page will vanish in 3 months)
See the Crash magazine "Unclear User" parody. Page 125 of the August 1985 edition for context. [0]
[0] https://archive.org/details/Crash_No._19_1985-08_Newsfield_G...
> uBO Lite has prevented the following page from loading:
https://html-preview.github.io/?url=https://raw.githubuserco...
The page was blocked because of a matching filter in OpenPhish Domain Blocklist.
[0] https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/10/infosec_in_brief/
I don't think it's fair to say Mistral didn't implement flocking. The force is just very weak.
EDIT: I guess I confused flocking with herding, fair enough.
I've build a very similar game for a 3 hour game jam once :D
The link is the final result with lots of controls, but the idea is that it's a tutorial/workshop where you build it step by step yourself, in Norwegian though https://github.com/Matsemann/boids-workshop
Instead I spent an hour reading through a description and implementing manually and it at least worked.
But yes, boids is a good start, but it requires some work to make it more natural for mammals, who can have a 0 min speed.
pre { text-wrap: wrap; }Would love to see a multiplayer version of this game!
> A cozy co-op party game where you and your sheepdog buddies guide colorful flocks through beautiful landscapes [...]
It has a free demo but no release date yet
This is a wild thing to say in 2025.
What 'political views of flags' anyway? I played a few levels and saw no flags, political or otherwise.
in creative work that's absolutely irrelevant. Don't even think about that. Everything has been done before; It's your take that counts, your vision!
This is really easily searched (as you said).
You might read up on it if interested. Check out why inbreeding can lead to expression of genetic defects. What is the mechanism? (hint: it's not "losing gene diversity" or "suppression").
https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/58769/what-are-t...
Here is the first sentence from the top answer:
`You are right. Inbreeding strongly increases overall homozygosity which subjects inbred individuals to diseases caused by rare recessive alleles.`.
Let's see what homozygosity means shall we?
https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/homozygous
`Homozygous, as related to genetics, refers to having inherited the same versions (alleles) of a genomic marker from each biological parent. Thus, an individual who is homozygous for a genomic marker has two identical versions of that marker. By contrast, an individual who is heterozygous for a marker has two different versions of that marker.`
In other words, errors can accumulate and are more likely to be expressed. Not "gene diversity" (this is a topic relating to evolutionary fitness, selection potential etc.), not "suppression". Error accumulation.
Which is the exact analogy I made initially.
I have no problems being wrong on the Internet. Unfortunately, for some magical reason, in the overwhelming majority of my conversations, I either recognize it within a minute (or one reply when in writing), or never.
Let's say a person has a recessive faulty gene. The gene doesn't get expressed because there is only one copy (recessive). We can notate this Aa (small "a" being the faulty gene, large "A" being the good copy). The person has two copies because they get one from each parent.
So "Aa" has a partner we can notate as "AA" (two good copies of the gene). AA and Aa have a child. What is the chance the child has the recessive gene? 25% because we have 4 possibilities with 1 bad outcome. Can the child have two bad copies (i.e. "aa" where the gene gets expressed)? No, they cannot because there are not two copies available from the parents, only one. At most they get "Aa". 75% chance they get "AA".
Let's say AA and Aa have a bunch of kids, the kids intermarry. Then their kids intermarry. Now what is the chance of an individual having two bad copies (i.e "aa"). What is the chance they have 1 bad copy (Aa)?
It's just probability calculations, and the expression becomes more probable as there are more copies of the bad gene in the gene pool. I.E within a population, the errors accumulate, they build up, there is a larger chance of getting expression of the defect (aa) with continued inbreeding.
This works with desirable genes too which is why we have so many kinds of dogs for instance. We select for it and build up copies of gene expressions we want to see to the point there is a 100% (or close to) chance of expression.
Hopefully you get this now. If not, read up on Mendelian genetics and table calculations maybe that will help you see.
------------------------
So let me take this back to the original example of LLMs. Suppose there is 1% chance an LLM confidently claims Python library "Foo" exists and does XX when it's not true. This is analogous to a bad copy of the gene. If you train on that output (i.e. "inbreeding"), then use that as a reference (more inbreeding), soon many sources will say "Foo" exists and you'll have a larger chance of getting "Foobarred" information from the LLM.