AI rule summaries are full of errors

[drewco]

Are people using AI to generate the rule summaries for new games? Because most of them recently have had glaring errors, things like saying it's a 4x4 grid when it's a 3x5 grid in Pondscape. In fact half of the rules for that game are wrong. It caused a lot of frustration in our first game.

[lefalaf]

It wouldn't surprise me. Many people seem to have some sort of pro-AI psychosis and believe it is more capable than it really is.

[lefalaf]

Are people using AI to generate the rule summaries for new games? Because most of them recently have had glaring errors, things like saying it's a 4x4 grid when it's a 3x5 grid in Pondscape. In fact half of the rules for that game are wrong. It caused a lot of frustration in our first game.

If it's more or less completely wrong, and thus doing no one any good, and you don't have the time or inclination to fix it right now, I would recommend deleting the summary and commenting why in the wiki edit comment when you save.

If just a few things, you could fix them, or add a comment at the top to not use the summary and why, and perhaps point out the issues you noticed.

[Resolute445]

Looks like a bot called "Thomas" created it, and a pile of others in March, and a few more in July. Embarrassingly, the most recent "help" doc creation states outright that the bot didn't even read the rule book. It just guessed at rules based on online play. Seriously. This is genuinely embarrassing for BGA.

So yeah, when Grizzo and a bunch of other games show up as new releases on BGA, just treat the wiki as completely useless for learning the game. If this was Wikipedia, I'd be nominating every single contribution of that account for deletion.

[yodamus]

Sounds like the entire site has been taken over by AI. Games, rules, introductions to game, next we will be playing bots. So sad. Such a great site to have to go down that rabbit hole

[lefalaf]

Slight aside, I just noticed "Users browsing this forum: Amazon [Bot]" at the bottom. I expect to and do see things like "Bing [Bot}" there from time to time to index the forum for search engine use, but Amazon doesn't do search, so it must be feeding their gen-AI our posts.

EDIT: Bing just joined the party after I sent this, lol.
EDIT: and now Google.

[cigma]

Are people using AI to generate the rule summaries for new games? Because most of them recently have had glaring errors, things like saying it's a 4x4 grid when it's a 3x5 grid in Pondscape. In fact half of the rules for that game are wrong. It caused a lot of frustration in our first game.

Looks like a bot called "Thomas" created it, and a pile of others in March, and a few more in July.

I agree that it's unpleasant to have wrong rule summaries, and that happening repeatedly. But Thomas is not a bot. To avoid further occurances, I have informed Thomas and asked him to read this forum post.

[lefalaf]

AI output/slop should never have been used for the summaries, even with the disclaimer that it is slop. Now they cannot be trusted. I recall having to delete one from some game a few months ago that stated it was from AI and was also not accurate. I don't know if it was Thomas or another user.

I do use outside sources for the first time playing, although not everyone does, but the summaries that the community creates and edits have always been decent reminders when returning to a game after a while.

Yet another thing becoming polluted with AI slop. I know I can no longer trust these anymore and a good resource is more or less gone (or fading).

And BGA seems unwilling to take a stance against AI use, so it isn't looking like it'll get better. While hard to police, there are things that maybe could be done to discourage it.

I've also seen some that were not even for the same game before. Don't know if human error, AI, or bug.

[tbhp]

Why would you bother with those summaries anyway? Humans are as capable as AI of making errors when writing those. When you are new to a game, you should read the official booklet. Then if you want to remember something later, it's not hard to go back to it and find the information you want, since you are already familiar with it.

Since this rule summaries thing is just a "help" that doesn't even count as official, I don't think it's a big deal. You may as well complain that the reviews of the game contain mistakes. It's just something that was written by some random person.

[Jellby]

Errors made by humans are quite different from AI slop. Humans tend to miss corner cases, get timing wrong, forget options. AI just makes up things based on what "could have been" the reality. And it is very verbose and confident about it.