It is, but the statement goes further than that and says they use no gen ai at all in making their games. Which feels unnecessary, unless they mean just in the art and writing, which feels misleading
Which is fine. RuneScape has been in development since the early 2000s, long before GenAI even existed. They got along before GenAI and they can continue to not use it.
People may be forgetting the game has 20 years of content already, why do they need to make more faster with GenAI? Its already a massive piece of software.
Runescape is quite literally a dinner table name it is that famous. Their only true competition is probably World of Warcraft. The community is already huge. What competitive advantages are they going to lose? Likely none.
If there is a genuine conspiracy, it (edit: not Claude evidently) will take their claims at face value. A couple I've run into recently:
- why did Hollywood lobby for box office receipts to be added to the onion futures act
- do gratuities on cruise ships actually increase crew pay
In both cases it went to the official source and repeated their statements, without thinking about the fact it was blatant paltering. Only after I pointed that out did it go digging deeper and realise it was more complicated (and less favourable for Hollywood / cruise lines) than it had said
Which I'm assuming is a consequence of the post-4o anti-delusion anti-conspiracy training
What answers do you expect and what sources do you have to back it up?
this is what I got. And we can examine whether Claude is egregiously wrong or not. Although I agree that LLMs can't figure out when there's a genuine conspiracy theory.
Cool I stand corrected, I had asked an openai model (probably sol?) and got much worse answers, broadly:
- Listing the reasons why Hollywood claimed to want to law, like not giving premature ideas that a movie would flop, without pointing out how much Hollywood benefits from the information symmetry
- Saying yes the gratuities affect pay but not as straightforwardly as you would expect, quoting the "all gratuities go to staff" while ignoring the fact that can and does mean paying the labour bill the company would have to pay anyway
I would be happy with the answers you linked. Which I'm now realising demonstrates the point you actually made. I read "I use Claude" as context not as a conditional.
I didn't realise there was such a difference on this. We need a "willing to ignore official company information and point out paltering" benchmark.
They are saying there appears to be a lot more to these refusals than saying no, and this process appears to only touch the tip of the iceberg; as the refusal seems to run deeper into the token prediction process.
Yes, it submits lots of varied prompts that get refused, and then lots of varied prompts that don't get refused, then iteratively edits weights so those two groups end up in roughly the same latent space.
While I think you're right that this is a real problem, there's also real costs to a partial solution. It encourages people to see it as a solved problem, disincentivising further reform and giving the impression you don't need to keep an eye on your kid's internet use because the state is handling it for you
Zero shot classifier indeed. Reminiscent of asking an llm a yes/no question, constraining the output to either yes or no, and looking at the logits directly
And each question is a separate single token model completion done in parallel
reply