I made the Pacman game by iteratively talking with chatGPT (chat log included)

Submitted by DEATH_STAR_EXTRACTOR t3_zi5jhb in singularity

First off, the conversation is really neat, and it updates code and talks with me, even suggesting to improve my code because it became sloppy.

I started with asking it for a maze displayed on the screen. I then asked it to display a Pacman icon in the maze (I provided the images). Then I asked it to allow the user to use the arrow keys to move pacman. Then wall barriers. Then the ghost that chases him. Then I asked it for yellow pellets along the maze. Then asked it for them to go away when Pacman touches them.

I could have probably kept going and added all sorts of other things to it!

You can find all video links and code below, I seem to not be allowed to post certain links.

Click the link below:

agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T8da4111e2ef210e2/chatgpt-talks-to-me-to-make-the-pacman-game

35

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

gangstasadvocate t1_izptvk5 wrote

Very cool I finally signed up for it because of all the hype and yeah I feel like if I stick with it for a few weeks it would definitely up my programming game as someone who only knows basic HTML and the tiniest amount of JavaScript. Wonder how much of an improvement GPT4 will be. I would hope it’s not too filtered but it also would admit when it doesn’t know something instead of just bullshitting. Which I haven’t encountered any bad info like that yet but it happens

3

Swimming_Gain_4989 t1_izpxe23 wrote

Be careful learning with gpt because it will VERY CONFIDENTLY be wrong. It's honestly sociopathic how convincing it is.

7

gangstasadvocate t1_izpxofu wrote

Yeah I’m somewhat aware but yeah I feel like for a newbie for simple tasks it shouldn’t be that bad and should give me a decent foundation but always good to check its work

1

Swimming_Gain_4989 t1_izq10ty wrote

It should be pretty good with foundational concepts because of how much information exists on the internet, but you still need to be careful. The biggest roadblock is learning proper terminology. As problems become more and more complex you need to start using very specific, organized, technical language in order fot the bot to understand what you want.

3

KingRamesesII t1_izq5zwz wrote

Very good point. For ChatGPT to actually be a powerful programming assistant, you actually already have to be a good enough programmer to know the technical terminology to tell ChatGPT what to do.

1

gangstasadvocate t1_izqe4ns wrote

True, but for the simple tasks natural language seems to be sufficient which I think is impressive.

1

nutidizen t1_izqa7hy wrote

chatgpt is not that good for factual stuff. But it's amazing for creative stuff. Kinda the opposite what a traditional computer performs well in.

1

UnlikelyPotato t1_izzs8p6 wrote

I've had it argue that it can't pretend or emulate a linux shell, opened a new session, repeated the same prompt, it worked. Went back to the original one and it just kept saying it can't emulate a linux shell...

1

Swimming_Gain_4989 t1_j01ju3a wrote

It can imitate an operating system, but that's all it is, an imitation. It's very impressive but it's a hallucination.

1

UnlikelyPotato t1_j04ofny wrote

I like my language models and reddit people to not debate semantics. It can imitate to the point of letting you write a bash script that interacts with the file system, "run" the script, and the imaginary script modifies imaginary files in the imaginary file system.

Realistically, because neurons are turing complete it could be argued that it is emulation...just an impracticable and shitty one at times.

1

Swimming_Gain_4989 t1_j04pwrz wrote

Yeah don't get me wrong it's very impressive what you can do in the imaginary virtual system, but this isn't semantics. I subscribe to the philosophy that emulation doesn't have to involve computation but chatgpt is far too inconsistent to NOT clarify the distinction.

1