Lots of people commenting seem to have not read the article. The author didn't hook Claude up directly with the controls, asking it to one-shot a successful flight.
The author tried getting Claude to develop an autopilot script while being able to observe the flight for nearly live feedback. It got three attempts, and did not manage autolanding. (There's a reason real autopilots do that assisted with ground-based aids.)
You're quite abjectly wrong, though. Text adventures were heavily advertised, in their illustrious and very brief moment of sunshine, as 'accepting English input' (cf. Maher, The Digital Antiquarian), which by definition constitutes NLP. They were just extremely bad at it, hence their accompaniment by a constant stream of excuses like the one you just made. (You must have had to dust it off first! That one is older than me.)
Our understanding of what makes for a fun game has evolved significantly since the 1980s. Designers of text adventures today generally agree that structured, non-natural input is a good thing and reduces frustration in the end. I can't think of any prominent text adventure designer who still pretends the parser understands English. There are also no widely used text adventure development systems that even strive to understand English in their parsers.[1]
I would understand your joke if it was made in the 1980s, but today it only shows a very old misunderstanding of the genre. (One might say you must have had to dust that misunderstanding off first!)
[1]: The systems that do strive to understand English – usually through LLMs – generally do not result in very satisfying games. They are primarily made by AI enthusiasts rather than text adventure designers.
Now you're defending games from the 70s and 80s on the basis of technology and design attitudes from today.
Your profile says you are a quantitative analyst. (I take this as reliable, since it does not also call you a rhetorician or humorist.) The fetish for logic puzzles thus checks out, but I admit I had thought the denumeration of time among the arts of number. Or had you mistaken Graham Nelson, Emily Short, and allies for Infocom alumnae?
Many, many historic text adventures are available in the browser, thanks to the Parchment interpreter. You can find them on the IFDB, and click the link to play online. One of my favourites among the classics are Plundered Hearts[1].
There's also a lively community of people who make modern text adventures. These tend to be shorter and more well designed than many of the cruel games of the past. My all-time favourite is The Wise-Woman's Dog[2], a passion project with a very high quality bar.
Text adventures are great[3], and no, as of yet, they are not improved by LLMs. Too inconsistent, too much hallucination. They can't even play text adventures well.
> With the cantankerous Wizard of Wordplay evicted from his mansion, the worthless plot can now be redeveloped. The city regulations declare, however, that the rip-down job can't proceed until all the items within have been removed.
It's full of delightful wordplay and puzzles that play with the text-adventure medium, constraining what words you can use. Highly recommended.
Mine is ‘Anchorhead’ (1998), by Michael Gentry. I think it’s actually my favourite game of all time, of all genres.
I’ve played the old, text-only, Z-code version back in high school, around 1999, and the experience was so vivid and immersive that to this day I can draw a map of Anchorhead from memory and recite the lineage of the Verlac family. I think it’s still my favourite game of all time (although I spent much more time on some others).
These days, an illustrated version can be bought on Steam for something like $10. Highly recommended!
There was a time where I spent most evenings playing "A Mind Forever Voyaging" by Steve Meretzky [1], complete with trying to draw maps and jot down notes and clues, while listening to a Dave Brubeck album on repeat. The fact that I still remember that more than a decade later is a testament to how good that experience was.
"Spider and Web" is famous because it's a subversion of genre norms. It does not play fair by traditional text adventure game standards. I don't recommend it for beginners, because other than the central gimmick, the puzzles are not particularly interesting. You won't appreciate it unless you know how unusual it is.
And even if you do know how unusual it is, you won't necessarily like it. I can't go into detail without spoilers, but I can compare it to an analogous situation with the Fighting Fantasy gamebook "Creature of Havoc", which is, depending on your point of view, either a work of genius or a broken mess. You opinion of "Spider and Web" will likely match that of "Creature of Havoc".
Counterfeit Monkey similarly fuses classic text adventure mechanics with a wordplay mechanic where you can transform objects by adding and removing letters to solve puzzles.
Not sure if it qualifies as a real "text adventure", but I recently played "Type Help" (https://william-rous.itch.io/type-help) and was unexpectedly amazed, how such simple interface, with very few text commands, can lead player through very intriguing story. Will be looking into more IF games now.
A great modern text adventure is roadwarden. You can't play it in a terminal as it does have a GUI and images for the set pieces, but it's still a text adventure at heart.
Funny -- I feel almost the opposite way! In modern games there's a very small set of action one can take in any situation (hence why game controllers can get by with so few buttons) whereas in text adventures, there are several dozens of plausible actions in any situation, down to details like "smell photo" or "break frame".
Sure, a modern game could implement breaking the picture frame as a narrative element, but then it would be telegraphed as "press X to break frame" -- one action in a small set possible at that time. The text adventure would also have to hint at it, of course, but it would be more subtle, like "there is a piece of paper wedged behind the picture" or whatever. The user would then have to figure out on their own that the frame is breakable.
Of course, that unparalleled freedom is also why good text adventures are difficult both to make and to play.
This was an eye-opener for me when I read C.A. Gregory's Savage Money.
Our values, i.e. the things we do to gain the approval of each other, has a huge effect on how we live. Much larger than I had expected.
Some people (not limited to Africa -- common also in e.g. rural India) value lifecycle rituals, like coming-of-age parties, marriages, and funerals. Those are the reasons they make money. They don't make money for something else and then blow it on a funeral. They made money specifically for the funeral.
I make money to be able to eventually unchain myself from the daily grind and spend my later years doing armchair research. Some people near me make money to buy a fancy home and pay eyewatering amounts of mortgage interest to their bank. And some people further from me make money to spend on lavish funerals.
It's easy to feel superior about any of these, but I struggle to see how one is better than the other. They're all restricting the way we live and imposed on us from society, they're just different from each other.
You struggle to see how a society which has a system where you put requests from other people ahead of your own healthcare is not equal to one where you take care of yourself?
Did you see the examples that those women started actually getting healthcare as soon as they had their own bank account?
The picture you paint is about respecting what people do with their surplus money. The picture the article paints is that in those societies you don't even take care of your basic needs and you never get to have surplus money. So debating which use of surplus money is better is besides the point.
It's not entirely crazy. I believe Thorp described this about roulette wheels. If they had no imperfection at all, it would be computationally laborious but not unthinkable to compute the result from the initial positions and velocities. In order to be unpredictable, roulette wheels need to have imperfections. Those very same imperfections, of course, lead to some statistical regularities.
Anecdotally I was on a streak and the dealer was actively concentrating and focusing to get my number again. She managed to get it 4 out of 5 spins. Now she would obviously never admit to this, but I'm positive that she was able to, on this specific wheel, land on the number she wanted.
I think we would've kept going but she rotated off and I cashed out.
Edit: Thorp and Shannon! What a duo. Great articles, thanks for sharing.
The house wants you to think that anyway. If it is possible or not..
The house wants people to win money and tell their friends, and every "winning" strategy is good for them - so long as in the end the house makes money.
I mean, yes, but also no. The house wants you to lose money, but win just enough to think you have a chance. There's a reason those zeroes are on the board.
There's no deep strategy in Roulette, really. I play for fun, and the money I put on the table is already spent.
The anecdote was: I wouldn't have seriously believed that you could reliably manipulate the spin outcome, and as an observer, that's true. I didn't believe the dealer could either, but after seeing this dealer pull it off I definitely see the potential for manipulation. It was almost like she was showing off that she could. And besides, she earned a hefty tip.
> The house wants you to lose money, but win just enough to think you have a chance
The house wants to make money overall. They know that individuals who make money tend to tell more friends than those who lose money - free advertising - so they want some people to make money. The total needs to be the average person loses money, but they need some individuals to make money.
On the small stakes systems they may even like it when they lose money like that - the dealer makes a big tip, and it encourages people (or their friends) to move to a higher stakes bet where they will lose more. They have to be careful about the law (which probably doesn't allow that manipulation if possible, even if it isn't in their favor), but again individuals with a story to tell are worth a lot more than than the money they lose on that story.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. If you're trying to suggest that the casinos train or encourage croupiers to cheat so that patrons get winning streaks, then what you're describing is a fantasy. Casinos are plenty successful without those sort of shenanigans.
If anything it's the opposite: pit bosses actively police croupiers who are spinning too consistently, and croupiers are encouraged to vary their spin throughout their session to avoid bias.
That's not how pre-statistical reasoning works. We have known for a long time that coins tend to land on either side around half the time. But before statistics, the outcome of any individual coin toss was considered "not uncertain, merely unknown".
Before you toss the coin, God has determined with full certainty on which side it will land based on everything riding on that coin toss and all the third-order consequences, in His infinite wisdom. It cannot land on any side other than the preordained. The way you find God's will is to flip the coin.
To the pre-statistical brain it was unthinkable (and probably blasphemeous) to perform any sort of expected value calculation on this.
We know today that the frequency is useful for making decisions around the individual throws. Back then, that connection just wasn't there. Each throw was considered its own unique event.
(We can still see this in e.g. statistically illiterate fans of football. Penalty kicks are a relatively stable random process -- basically a weighted coin toss. Yet you'll see fans claim each penalty kick is a unique event completely disconnected from the long-run frequency.)
Statistics is a very young invention. As far as we know, it didn't exist in meaningful form anywhere on Earth until the 1600s. (However, if it existed in the Americas earlier than that, that would explain why it suddenly popped up in Europe in the 1600s...)
----
Important edit: What I know about this comes mostly from Weisberg's Willful Ignorance as well as A World of Chance by Brenner, Brenner, and Brown. These authors' research is based mostly on European written sources, meaning the emphasis is on how Europeans used to think about this.
It's possible different conceptualisations of probability existed elsewhere. It's possible even fully-fledged statistical reasoning existed, although it seems unlikely because it is the sort of thing that relies heavily on written records, and those would come up in research. But it's possible! That's what I meant by the last parenthetical – maybe Europeans didn't invent it at all, but were merely inspired by existing American practice.
Fatalism is widespread, but not nearly universal enough that we can say it was the norm 15000 years ago.
For that matter, people who were pretty fatalist were still capable of using chance for purposes of fairness. The democrats in ancient Athens come to mind. I'm also pretty sure the (Christian) apostles' use of chance was also more about avoiding a human making the decision, than about divination.
I'm not saying divination isn't a thing, I'm saying there are examples of use of chance where it doesn't seem like divination.
Athenians selected through sortition didn't seem to act much like they believed they were chosen by the gods, and they defended their institutions mainly as wisdom, not as revelation.
And the apostles, being Jews, had a big taboo about using chance to determine God's will, but apparently not against using chance to fill vacancies.
There are bible passages suggesting the outcome of lots is God's will, and there are passages condemning divination. You can find them from the same links you posted above. But at the time of the apostles, it was a no-no to use chance to figure out God's will.
Please don't just shake links out of your sleeve, and talk to me instead. Do you think the Athenians acted like they were chosen by the gods when their number came up?
Don't you see a difference between the situations where chance could clearly have been used simply as a mechanism for fairness / avoiding a biased choice, and things like reading the movement of the birds or interpreting the shape of molten lead thrown into water?
Even in things like the goat choice in the bible you link above, I think it may be more about fairness than divination. Because as far as I know, the priests actually got to eat the sacrificial goat, but not the scapegoat they chased into the wild. So was it really about divining which goat God hated more, or was it maybe about "don't cheat by keeping the juicy goat for yourselves and chasing away the mangy one!"?
Yes, but so too is a modern western framing of these “dice” as “gambling” objects.
And also, the esteem in recognizing them as prefiguring a skill or system of thought that fund managers and FDA panels use today. In a roundabout way, it praises our own society’s systems by recognizing an ancient civilization for potentially having discovered some of their mathematical preliminaries.
They found 239 unique sets of dice from 130 tribes across 30 linguistic stocks. Although many of them are "binary lots" there is clear evidence that games of chance are extremely widespread in ancient North America
> His final report includes illustrations and descriptions of 293 unique sets of Native American dice from “130 tribes belonging to 30 linguistic stocks,” and it notes that “from no tribe [do dice] appear to have been absent”. In addition, Culin cites and quotes at length 149 ethnographic accounts of how these dice were used to power games of chance and for gambling. Based on this record, Culin suggested that “the wide distribution and range of variations in the dice games points to their high antiquity”.
> No prehistoric dice have ever been discovered in the eastern part of North America.
Come on, you don’t really think modern statistics might’ve come about from Europeans taking inspiration in the gambling practices of nomadic peoples in remote southwestern parts of North America. No need to pay lip service to every scold.
> In a landmark article, foundational to the field of behavioral economics, Tversky and Kahneman (Reference Tversky and Kahneman1974:1130) argued that humans do not infer the statistical regularities embedded in everyday experience because they “are not coded appropriately”—meaning that the quantitative features inherent in these experiences are not isolated, noted, and organized in ways that reveal probabilistic patterns that are usually obscured by the noise of other incoming experience. Intriguingly, Native American dice games appear to perform such a “coding” function. They produce a simplified stream of random events that are carefully observed and recorded at multiple levels: in the scoring of individual dice throws, in the keeping of cumulative scores in single matches, and in tallying wins and losses in multiple matches over time as recorded by the giving or receiving of goods. Therefore, by observing and recording the patterns appearing in these outcomes, ancient Native American dice players repeatedly presented themselves with the very type of “coded” experiences that Tversky and Kahneman (Reference Tversky and Kahneman1974) argued would allow humans to observe and infer the presence of underlying probabilistic regularities.
Anytime you bring God into it... the concept of truth has the option of getting very abstract.
It's pretty common, for example, to believe that God is on our side and we will win the war or somesuch. Actually walking onto a battlefield with a literal expectation of divine intervention... much less as common. Pious generals still believe in tactics, steel and suchlike. Not always... but usually.
European pre-modern writers were mostly very pious. The works preserved are likewise very pious. Greek philosophers were often closer to atheists than later Christians.
> Statistics is a very young invention. As far as we know, it didn't exist in meaningful form anywhere on Earth until the 1600s. (However, if it existed in the Americas earlier than that, that would explain why it suddenly popped up in Europe in the 1600s...)
> It's possible different conceptualisations of probability existed elsewhere.
That has barely to do with my specific point. The researcher in TFA said if they were doing complex counting then blah blah blah.
The general insight is that complex counting would force some kind of Bayesian or probabilistic reasoning even one that is informal, intuitive, rudimentary or partly incorrect. Whereas a theory of divining stones usage would have very little actual complex counting involved, maybe they had the tribal equivalent of fortune slips, and so they would not be cognitively challenged to reason about dice. What constitutes complex counting, I don't know, ask the researcher. But IMO it's not out realm of impossibility and time and again we have discovered the old ones of Homo sapiens were more cognitively/intellectually sophisticated than these kinds of scientists assumed earlier. I'm not wedded to this, it would be hard to prove, especially as a hypothesis involving human cognitive constraints/evolution, but I won't dismiss it as completely implausible either. It is an interesting if-then "archaeological cognitive science" argument, that's all.
The author tried getting Claude to develop an autopilot script while being able to observe the flight for nearly live feedback. It got three attempts, and did not manage autolanding. (There's a reason real autopilots do that assisted with ground-based aids.)
reply