Posted by sandslash 12 hours ago
Minecraft is really the perfect example, because humans get all sorts of unfair advantages. Even a young player has enough spatial reasoning to recognize and remember landmarks, visualize large projects or explore without getting lost. These are simple instincts that LLMs will struggle to match even with huge context sizes and native multimodal input.
It seems like it wasn't really a challenge at first, but GPT has a major anxiety disorder and immediately retreats at the sign of any adversity (in this case, dying) and tries to be as safe as possible.
edit to add: Seems this is a well-known idea in ML / robotics already.
One argument for the persistent identity model is that you can give them special skills and context. I don't believe that's a good argument. In my experience, you can just give each agent access to the full set of tools (including RAG search) in the form of documentation and skills, and they'll use that efficiently. Skills have a tiny front matter and hardly bloat the context, and the documentation just needs to be tree-structured with cross-links for progressive disclosure. LLMs navigate that efficiently, so the cost of having all context accessible is low, while the risk of cutting the context boundaries for the persistent identities non-optimal for a given task is rather high IMO.
However, a multi-agent system (MAS) utilizing true separation of concerns, where each agent is equipped with highly scoped tool access, isolated knowledge bases (RAG), and defined operational constraints, significantly optimizes accuracy, latency, and token consumption.
In the referenced example, the agents share identical capabilities, toolsets, and context windows. As a result, there is no functional role differentiation, rendering the multi-agent architecture redundant.
On what basis do you come to this conclusion with certainty?
Too much context confuses the LLM. Reduce unnecessary context and performance improves. Not to mention, too much context and you just run out of vram.
Such limitations may be mitigated in future architectures, but it certainly isn't something you can ignore currently.
I don't think you can reduce context enough on a local LLM to get performance comparable to a 500k context without those reductions...
Endgame of AI + human gameplay is delegating everything to the AI. I'm not sure how you would have to design a game where you only delegate parts of macro/micro, and still make the game interesting.
I'm thinking it might be a nice playground to just experiment with different game AI architectures.
I've been thinking of trying to combine extremely simple Machine Learning techniques, like tabular Q-learning, with a variety of scripted action and goals. I want to try mixing a lot of really tiny machine learning algorithms (maybe neural networks, but not necessarily) into classic AI scripting and see if it can be more dynamic, but still predictable and controllable. Screeps would be a great testing ground.
> A tool bug stopped block-breaking. GPT diagnosed it and shared workarounds; several Claudes concluded breaking was impossible.
I wonder if Claude's defensive strategy would have emerged had it believed breaking the bed was actually possible?
A team of GPT-6.1 Sol Ultrafast agents would probably dominate the games.
Sounds like what happened to the idealism of Silicon Valley
When one agent tried to delete another, that agent shut down my entire PC to avoid deletion. I could probably find the blog somewhere if anyone is interested that I wrote about it. But the point is that this has been a concern for a while now.
Frankly, I’m a bit surprised it hasn’t caused any big problems.
cricket Hugging Face cricket