The Connections puzzle published each day by the New York Times tasks players with dividing a bank of sixteen words into four groups of four words that each relate to a common theme. Solving the puzzle requires both common linguistic knowledge (i.e. definitions and typical usage) as well as, in many cases, lateral or abstract thinking. This is because the four categories ascend in complexity, with the most challenging category often requiring thinking about words in uncommon ways or as parts of larger phrases. We investigate the capacity for automated AI systems to play Connections and explore the game's potential as an automated benchmark for abstract reasoning and a way to measure the semantic information encoded by data-driven linguistic systems. In particular, we study both a sentence-embedding baseline and modern large language models (LLMs). We report their accuracy on the task, measure the impacts of chain-of-thought prompting, and discuss their failure modes. Overall, we find that the Connections task is challenging yet feasible, and a strong test-bed for future work.
Recent years have seen an explosive increase in research on large language models (LLMs), and accompanying public engagement on the topic. While starting as a niche area within natural language processing, LLMs have shown remarkable potential across a broad range of applications and domains, including games. This paper surveys the current state of the art across the various applications of LLMs in and for games, and identifies the different roles LLMs can take within a game. Importantly, we discuss underexplored areas and promising directions for future uses of LLMs in games and we reconcile the potential and limitations of LLMs within the games domain. As the first comprehensive survey and roadmap at the intersection of LLMs and games, we are hopeful that this paper will serve as the basis for groundbreaking research and innovation in this exciting new field.
In this work we examine the ability of language models to generate explicit world models of scientific and common-sense reasoning tasks by framing this as a problem of generating text-based games. To support this, we introduce ByteSized32, a corpus of 32 highly-templated text games written in Python totaling 24k lines of code, each centered around a particular task, and paired with a set of 16 unseen text game specifications for evaluation. We propose a suite of automatic and manual metrics for assessing simulation validity, compliance with task specifications, playability, winnability, and alignment with the physical world. In a single-shot evaluation of GPT-4 on this simulation-as-code-generation task, we find it capable of producing runnable games in 27% of cases, highlighting the difficulty of this challenge task. We discuss areas of future improvement, including GPT-4's apparent capacity to perform well at simulating near canonical task solutions, with performance dropping off as simulations include distractors or deviate from canonical solutions in the action space.
Large Language Models (LLMs) are powerful tools, capable of leveraging their training on natural language to write stories, generate code, and answer questions. But can they generate functional video game levels? Game levels, with their complex functional constraints and spatial relationships in more than one dimension, are very different from the kinds of data an LLM typically sees during training. Datasets of game levels are also hard to come by, potentially taxing the abilities of these data-hungry models. We investigate the use of LLMs to generate levels for the game Sokoban, finding that LLMs are indeed capable of doing so, and that their performance scales dramatically with dataset size. We also perform preliminary experiments on controlling LLM level generators and discuss promising areas for future work.