Also I’m going to unilaterally and preemptively declare that mailing people or otherwise page/whisper/message spamming from bots will be shut down fast and hard by us if it pops up. The limited intent of this is to power NPC interactions that are not otherwise feasible to dedicate a player to.
I was going to say I’d entertain a bot mailing yourself for say status updates. But that gets into spyish territory quickly.
Neither bots nor puppets should ever need to mail people.
Have to say, I’m looking forward to “feral-regression Miranda week”!
It wasn’t even a bad form of cute, just waking up and stretching and getting out of a sunbeam for new customers didn’t feel Miranda.
Then why was it given the option to do so?
Because when you try a new thing, you’re trying a new thing.
This is a test, an experiment, a beta, an action where ramifications and detaila need to be figured out.
Just one day more, and you’ll have the Miranda puppet back!
Just reading through some of the feedback.
Hehe. Yeah, I know. But it kept the permission handling simple.
I’ll look into manager tokens to see if that one should be extended with bot control functions.
But also to allow global scripts (once we have them) to control bots, such as mobs.
Yes, sending chats to OpenAI is something I dislike.
But for this project, it was just me testing out the idea with AI controlled NPCs in general, and to understand more how it may be used to improve a realm.
And when it comes to that test - I think it works.
The way you can interact with it through poses, as well as the way you can have the AI be Allowed to call functions based on your instructions, you can create pretty neat NPCs.
Though, in the end, I much rather have the LLM installed on a server I control.
It would allow us to get rid of restriction otherwise imposed by companies like OpenAI, but also to remain strict about the privacy part - which is a part I like.
Gee, let’s use our head here…
The 1 week test is up, and I’ve returned Miranda back to all of her puppeteers again.
If you still want to try out interacting with her as a bot, you can still visit her on the test server: https://test.mucklet.com
Highly appreciate it, although I do have a question, specifically if the puppet can be transferred to another character of mine. I’m currently in the process of erasing one of my characters for safety reasons.
Do you mean “make one of my characters a puppet”? If so, a builder can do that for you. It remains your character and controllable directly by you, as well as being possible to register for control by others with your approval. You can set up profiles for puppeteers to switch between in advance, but “How to Play” can only be added after the flag is set.
There is not really much to transfer.
What you can do is to simply request to puppeteer Miranda with another character.
It is possible to have multiple character registered as puppeteer. In such a case, Miranda will appear multiple times in the list of Puppets, but with different puppeteer names:
I see. Well, thank you.
Though I did not participate in the test, I feel that if this goes forward, such bots should be excluded from the ‘glass door’ and room counts, so that someone does not get drawn to a far-flung otherwise empty room just to find an AI-bot occupying the space. It’d be worse than getting attracted to an area full of sleeping observers.
That’s not a bad idea at all.
Well, I typically go on that bot to see if they want to be served, and most of the time they accepted the request and the RP carries on.
In such a case, then it’s an interaction between two players. So I am not referring to puppets, since the player is there and can respond. This is just relating to the LLM-run bots, as the interaction there is limited to the LLM’s instructions and would have trouble outside those instructions. It would not be true RP, and you would also have the individuals who do not wish to interact with AI-bots and would leave even more frustrated.
I fully agree.
Bots should not be included in room counts. And it is not relevant to see them through exits.
I have already excluded them in overall “awake” count, but your suggestion just improves that further.