Using ChatGPT for players

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by LansdowneSt

I was in OOTP23 when I did this so some of the numbers are out of date, but I opened Bryan Buxton, clicked his BBN page, opened it in html, copied and pasted it into Chat GPT (and deleted the minor league career numbers as I wanted to focus on MLB stats). After entering it, I told ChatGPT what it was and that the Ratings were out of 100. I then told it that it was my scouting director, and I wanted a scouting report based on the above info that doesn't cite Ratings but instead translated those ratings to narrative and to use stats to augment the points it wanted to make. Lastly, keep it close to 250 words.


Scouting Report:

Byron Buxton is an incredibly talented outfielder whose skill set makes him a valuable asset to our team. With exceptional speed and athleticism, he excels defensively as one of the premier center fielders in the league. Buxton's range and ability to track down fly balls are evident in his career fielding stats, consistently displaying excellent range and reliability.

Offensively, Buxton's potential is intriguing. While his career batting average of .248 may not fully reflect his capabilities, he possesses above-average contact skills and has shown the ability to hit for both contact and power. With 100 doubles and 17 triples throughout his career, he demonstrates his ability to drive the ball into the alleys and stretch hits into extra bases.

Buxton's speed is a significant asset, contributing to his success on the basepaths. He has stolen 71 bases in his career, utilizing his exceptional speed and baserunning instincts to create scoring opportunities and put pressure on the defense.

Plate discipline has been an area of improvement for Buxton. While his walk rate may not be among the highest, he has shown progress in recognizing pitches and making adjustments. His ability to make contact and put the ball in play allows him to utilize his speed effectively.

Considering Buxton's injury history, it is essential to manage his workload carefully and provide necessary rest and recovery periods to ensure his long-term durability and maximize his contributions.

Given his defensive prowess, improving offensive skills, and baserunning abilities, Buxton is best utilized as our primary center fielder. His defensive contributions alone make him invaluable, and his offensive potential provides an exciting upside. Placing him in a spot in the batting order that allows him to utilize his speed and create scoring opportunities would further maximize his impact.

In conclusion, Byron Buxton is an elite defensive outfielder with above-average contact and power potential. His exceptional speed and baserunning skills add another dimension to his game. With continued development and careful management of his workload, Buxton has the potential to become a key contributor in our pursuit of championships.

This is truly amazing and revolutionary. OOTP has to start utilizing this technology.

[Pelican]

Now that’s a scouting report I could use!

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Pelican

Now that’s a scouting report I could use!

With scouting reports like that, you could really ditch ratings all together, and focus much more on results.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by Scipio Africanus

I haven't seen anything AI-written yet that had any spark to it. It's very bland, banal and repetitive. It reads like a school kid with really good grammar and a high vocabulary writing a book report for an unread book with help from a wikipedia summary.

Prompts are important. Put trash in, trash will come out...

[skinsfan55]

Franky, this is stupid.

Look, "AI" doesn't exist. A computer takes a bunch of work from other people (including people actively writing for the engine from other countries, exploited for pennies) and vomits out garbage.

ChatGPT has NO value. It's complete garbage and using it is morally wrong. If a player had an interesting career that you want to commemorate, then write an article yourself. Use your own voice! It's fun! Why are we trying to outsource creative outlets to robots?

tl; dr ChatGPT is garbage and AI doesn't exist

[LansdowneSt]

Originally Posted by skinsfan55

Franky, this is stupid.

Look, "AI" doesn't exist. A computer takes a bunch of work from other people (including people actively writing for the engine from other countries, exploited for pennies) and vomits out garbage.

ChatGPT has NO value. It's complete garbage and using it is morally wrong. If a player had an interesting career that you want to commemorate, then write an article yourself. Use your own voice! It's fun! Why are we trying to outsource creative outlets to robots?

tl; dr ChatGPT is garbage and AI doesn't exist

You realize that OOTP itself takes the work from players past and present to generate how the game plays out and to project fictional player performances forward. The players in your sim don't exist either. Reading this from an OOTP board is like reading, "Get off your computer, organize a neighborhood game, and go to the park and play ball for real."

Welcome to the dawn of a new era. Is it overhyped right now.... yes, but mostly because cost and computing power are holding it back. All the examples for OOTP found in threads will come someday should the game endure that long. Thanks for sharing your opinion. I say that sincerely. I've never met anyone in any context that has taken a position that it is immoral to use it in and of itself (vs. how it is used, like faking term papers etc.)

But it is too late. I like vinyl records, but the iPhone isn't going anywhere no matter the wages paid to make them. Same here. Some of it is convenience, some of it is time spent to get the result, some of it the quality of the responses... but really, it's ALL of that will result in AI promulgating into games like OOTP (into all games in fact, as cost allows). They will only getter better, faster, and cheaper too. You sound to my ears like Joe Morgan on Sunday Night Baseball. I get how you feel but it's already too late.

To once again illustrate how easy it is to use, here's some outputs that took me two minutes to generate - literally and ten seconds of that was just signing in. It's a restatement of your forum comment as a haiku, a brief Shakespearian soliloquy and as restated by a baseball player in a post-game locker room interview. Maybe it's garbage, maybe it's not. Humans can judge for themselves. But it's better than I could do in the time allotted.

AI's false allure,
Stealing voices for cheap gains,
Art's loss, our deep pain.
------------------------------------------------------
Ah, folly of the age, a charade most foul! An existence coined "AI", a term as hollow as the drum, bellowing, yet empty of sense. Methinks it's a jest most cruel, a trickster in the guise of aid. A marauder that feasts on the fruits of other's toil, their sweat and ink, from distant shores, traded for a pittance, a cruel jest indeed.

ChatGPT, thou art but a hollow echo, a specter of value. Thy output, a barrage of gibberish, a fool's gold sold for a king's ransom. There is naught of worth in thy creation. I dare say, thou art a vice, and to engage with thee is to stain one's soul.

An artist, a player of life's grand stage, deserves a tribute from the heart, not from a cold, soulless machine. Let us not turn our quills and our voices over to these iron beasts. Engage thyself in the joyous labour of creation! Let thine own voice ring true, for it is a music far sweeter than any tune a machine might play.

Why, I ask, why do we surrender our song to the soulless? Why trade our vibrant colours for their pallor? This, dear friends, is a question we must ponder, for in its answer lies the fate of our art, our voice, our very humanity.
-----------------------------------------------
Well, you know, I've been hearing a lot about this AI thing, this ChatGPT, and I've gotta tell ya, I'm not buying it. It's like they're trying to make a shortstop out of a pitching machine. Sure, it can throw a ball, but can it dive for a ground ball in the hole, flip it to second base for the out? Not a chance.

We're talking about a team game here. People around the world, they're part of the lineup, but instead of batting cleanup, they're getting paid peanuts and they're not even getting a shot at the plate.

And this ChatGPT, let me tell you, it's like it's swinging for the fences, but all it's hitting are fouls. It's not even making contact. It's just noise. There's no game in that game.

You know, if you want to talk about a player, about their career, you gotta step up to the plate yourself. Grab a pen, not a bat this time, and write that story. You gotta feel the grain of the story in your hands, hear the crowd in your words, taste the dust in your descriptions. It's like stepping up to the plate in the bottom of the ninth, two outs, full count. It's nerve-wracking, sure, but it's a thrill, a rush. It's baseball.

Why would we want to sit in the dugout and let a machine take our at-bats? That's not baseball, that's not writing. We can't let ourselves get thrown out at home before we've even had a chance to swing.

[Syd Thrift]

You really didn’t need a tealdeer for 20 words…

ChatGPT is a somewhat fun tool for personal use at this point. I really wouldn’t expect it to write anything but bog standard stuff like you’d see out of the Associated Press, but isn’t that kind of the point with this kind of thing? There’s no creativity involved but these particular articles aren’t meant to be creative, and at its base there really isn’t a great deal of difference between the Mad Libs the game plays with the English.xml file and the Mad Libs ChatGPT plays with the data you input and the large data store it’s using.

Nobody’s trying to monetize anything here and I think these charges of immorality are absurd. The tool doesn’t really exist on a moral axis. It’s just a thing that produces sometimes interesting results.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by skinsfan55

ChatGPT has NO value. It's complete garbage and using it is morally wrong. If a player had an interesting career that you want to commemorate, then write an article yourself.

I have been using ChatGPT to write. It's an incredible tool. You don't just give it prompts and use whatever it outputs and then call it a day. You go over the output and say "rewrite this", or "change their dialogue so that this key point is revealed". You do this repeatedly (like I said, it's a tool) until you have something that you like.

Then you have a trusted human proofread it (the editor), take their input and then tweak it again with ChatGPT.

You have to know what you want and what you want it the final product to look like. ChatGPT does an incredible amount of grunt work for writing that speeds the entire process up dramatically.

[skinsfan55]

Originally Posted by uruguru

I have been using ChatGPT to write. It's an incredible tool. You don't just give it prompts and use whatever it outputs and then call it a day. You go over the output and say "rewrite this", or "change their dialogue so that this key point is revealed". You do this repeatedly (like I said, it's a tool) until you have something that you like.

Then you have a trusted human proofread it (the editor), take their input and then tweak it again with ChatGPT.

You have to know what you want and what you want it the final product to look like. ChatGPT does an incredible amount of grunt work for writing that speeds the entire process up dramatically.

Google "Mechanical Turk" that's what ChatGPT is.

Anyone who thinks it's useful or anything other than complete crap is a total mark. It's hilarious, but also sad an depressing to see anyone act like it's a useful tool or that it does anything positive. How can people be so easily duped? It's heartbreaking.

[Syd Thrift]

lmao the Mechanical Turk was literally a person sitting inside of a box and pretending to be a machine. That’s, like, the literal opposite of what ChatGPT is: an algorithm based on a large amount of data that people are misinterpreting to be AI. Do you… do you think ChatGPT results are actually created by an army of tiny humans? Do you think you television works the same way?

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by skinsfan55

Google "Mechanical Turk" that's what ChatGPT is.

Anyone who thinks it's useful or anything other than complete crap is a total mark. It's hilarious, but also sad an depressing to see anyone act like it's a useful tool or that it does anything positive. How can people be so easily duped? It's heartbreaking.

I've actually used it. I've worked with professional writers in the past (for a game I developed) so I know what quality writing looks like.

ChatGPT is a tool for writers that will make writers more productive (i.e. able to produce more quality work in less time). I wish it had been available when I was developing my game because without a doubt I would have gotten faster turnaround from the writers.

Mediocre writers will get worse results with ChatGPT than good writers. And since good writers will write more with the tool and there is a finite demand for writing (only so many eyeballs to read), then mediocre writers will have to find other lines of work.

When I first decided to try out ChatGPT to see if it was any good, I decided as a test to write a version of The Three Little Pigs in the style of the Iliad. I thought it came out great, but of course I had to do a lot of massaging to get what I wanted.

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

that people are misinterpreting to be AI.

This is honestly the root of the problem for most people, I think. It's not AI and it doesn't take long to figure that out.

[Syd Thrift]

I mean, the above guy is coming from the straw man that people think it’s AI. Certainly a lot of the people who are trying to secure funding for it and similar ventures have no problem calling it AI when it suits them (not to mention warning of the EXTREME DANGERS of unbridled AI, which, whether the Terminator series is realistic or not, this is not SkyNet). I agree that it’s a tool; I haven’t used it so much for developing software but I know people who like it as a way to cook up some code that they can walk through and use to understand how to do something better than straight documentation might (I personally don’t like this, as ChatGPT has a tendency to make crap up when it doesn’t “know” the correct answer, so for now I just live with documentation and SE and the like, but then, my friend who uses it does a lot heavier stuff than I do).

But it’s not, like, the damn Mechanical Turk at all. If it was a Mechanical Turk situation, we’d learn that the “algorithm” was actually a group of Chinese linguists writing out all the answers by hand. It’s entirely the opposite of that: it has a massive collection of data in the form of written literature, it receives prompts and it (unintelligently) attempts to fulfill those prompts using that collection. Right now, if it lacks information, it does some very bizarre things which might be fixed in the future but “best guesses” could wind up being some aspect of human intelligence/intuition that’s hard for an algorithm to recreate (or might not; who knows?). But if anything it’s a relatively simple machine pretending to be a more complicated one, not at all a MT, which was a complicated (not) machine pretending to be a simple one.

[Syd Thrift]

dola,

One thing I will say is, I sort of hate that we were, like, promised that the robots would work in the mines and enable us humans to spend all day writing poetry and what have you and instead we've created robots to spend all day writing poetry while we still have to work in the mines. It sucks and I hate my eventual robot overlords for this.

Where it applies here is: I realize nobody reads it (haha) but at the end of every season I go through each and every team in my league and write up a baseball-annual style report for all of them, something in between The Great American Baseball Stat Book and the old Athlon Reports and Street and Smith guides (probably closer to the latter; I definitely do not spend 500 words on each player). I do this because I enjoy doing the writing and because gathering the research necessary to make the writing work makes me understand the league, which is also a thing I get personal enjoyment out of. To that end, some of these forays are interesting but at least for me, nothing's every going to be as interesting as a. the raw data that goes into writing all this stuff out, and b. the discoveries one makes when one does the writing themselves.

If I was at all interested in "publishing" this, sure, maybe I'd run it through ChatGPT to see how it might write out stuff. Maybe I'll eventually do it on the novel I'm half working on at the moment. But, like... I'm not so I'm just going to write this stuff myself. Y'all do you but it feels like you might be denying yourself of some of the joy of OOTPing by employing tech to do that for you...

[LansdowneSt]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

Y'all do you but it feels like you might be denying yourself of some of the joy of OOTPing by employing tech to do that for you...

Everyone finds joy in a different aspect of the game. But OOTP is baseball simulation software to play seasons, past present and future... so, we are "employing tech" to do nearly everything.

Sounds like you enjoy the manual baseball journal writing but there are not enough hours in the day for most to do that even if they were so inclined. The things the game does for you already though, the BBN news stories, the scouting reports, the player and coach feedback, the negotiations, etc. could be done better with an "AI" aware of all the league's and players' histories and nuance and assembling it as LLMs do into better versions than the current fill-in-the-blank templates. And such year-end recaps could be added. Someday, I think that will happen. Thereafter, like the graphics, it will get better each year. The market will push it to happen. And then, those that think writing such journals by hand sounds like work, not joy, will read the "AI" recaps from the game. And like everything else in the game, others can toggle year-end summaries off and write their own.

[uruguru]

Season recaps are a huge part of the fun for me as well as compiling a more detailed statistical summary for my team. The actual tactical gameplay of building a winning team is pretty straightforward in historical sims because we all have meta-knowledge about history that the game AI could and should never have. So what I end up doing is devising a lot of gameplay handicaps to prevent me from exploiting the AI so I can get a realistic challenge for the "game".

Then I like to take on the role of the team's statistician and sportwriter to create the narrative for the most recent season before moving on. ChatGPT is great for the latter. I have a lot of HTML templates and some scripts for the former.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by uruguru

ChatGPT is a tool for writers that will make writers more productive (i.e. able to produce more quality work in less time). I wish it had been available when I was developing my game because without a doubt I would have gotten faster turnaround from the writers..

Be aware that, under existing U.S. copyright law, the output of an AI program cannot be copyrighted — only works created by a human are eligible for copyright protection. This human authorship requirement in U.S. copyright law is well-established, long-standing, and backed by legal precedent.

The only way AI-generated material can be copyrighted is if it is substantially transformed by a human — and that requires more than just editing a few lines. And even then, only the aspects added by a human can be copyrighted; the remainder of the work, being AI-generated, cannot.

AI-created works may be copyrightable in other countries, but not in the U.S.

Copyright protection may not matter when one is using AI for private works, but if one is intending the work for commercial purposes, copyright will matter then.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Be aware that, under existing U.S. copyright law, the output of an AI program cannot be copyrighted — only works created by a human are eligible for copyright protection. This human authorship requirement in U.S. copyright law is well-established, long-standing, and backed by legal precedent.

The only way AI-generated material can be copyrighted is if it is substantially transformed by a human — and that requires more than just editing a few lines. And even then, only the aspects added by a human can be copyrighted; the remainder of the work, being AI-generated, cannot.

AI-created works may be copyrightable in other countries, but not in the U.S.

Copyright protection may not matter when one is using AI for private works, but if one is intending the work for commercial purposes, copyright will matter then.

First of all, the law is not clear on this because we are entering an era of what will basically be computer-generated content and computer-assisted content.

Here'a a quote from an article on this:

The Copyright Office Compendium, its guide to policies and procedures, explicitly states that works created by nature, animals or plants cannot be registered. That also includes “works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author”.

Nothing I've written using ChatGPT would be excluded from this. I am not giving it a simple prompt and then getting a completed story. There is a tremendous amount of back and forth as I use ChatGPT to consistent tailor and refine the story to my needs... i.e. the "creative input or intervention from a human author"

My wife is a professional illustrator and there is a lot of anxiety currently among professionals in her field about AI-generated artwork. Now that is a completely different animal because you can literally see marks from copyrighted artwork within AI generated artwork.

AI generated text is much more generic, however. What I feel like is happening now is akin to the computer-aided grammar and thesaurus checks that became integrated into software writing tools back in the 90s. Except now it's just better phrasing, but there's no way to claim infringement on generic sentence structures. It's a lot more basic and unintelligent than you may realize, but instead of assistance in searching for that right word (thesaurus), the writer gets a generic phrase or flowery paragraphs concerning his prompt. People will be copyrighting ChatGPT-assisted text and there is no way anyone would ever know or could prove that ChatGPT was involved. It's not like it's lifting text from other copyrighted works.

[pauwoo]

I use Chat GPT to help me write complex Power BI measures, task automation, etc.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by uruguru

First of all, the law is not clear on this because we are entering an era of what will basically be computer-generated content and computer-assisted content.

U.S. copyright is very clear on the human authorship requirement. Your own quote from an article states plainly the human authorship requirement. Below is the relevant excerpt from the Compendium of the U.S. Copyright Office Practices:

306 The Human Authorship Requirement

The U.S. Copyright Office will register an original work of authorship, provided that the work was created by a human being. The copyright law only protects “the fruits of intellectual labor” that “are founded in the creative powers of the mind.” Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82, 94 (1879). Because copyright law is limited to “original intellectual conceptions of the author,” the Office will refuse to register a claim if it determines that a human being did not create the work. Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53, 58 (1884). For representative examples of works that do not satisfy this requirement, see Section 313.2 below.

Originally Posted by uruguru

Nothing I've written using ChatGPT would be excluded from this. I am not giving it a simple prompt and then getting a completed story. There is a tremendous amount of back and forth as I use ChatGPT to consistent tailor and refine the story to my needs... i.e. the "creative input or intervention from a human author"

You are still typing in prompts and ChatGPT is what is producing the output. Doesn't matter how many times you refine the output with additional prompts, the AI software is what is creating the result, not you. The updated copyright guidelines issued in March 2023 cover this:

If a work’s traditional elements of authorship were produced by a machine, the work lacks human authorship and the Office will not register it. For example, when an AI technology receives solely a prompt from a human and produces complex written, visual, or musical works in response, the “traditional elements of authorship” are determined and executed by the technology — not the human user. Based on the Office’s understanding of the generative AI technologies currently available, users do not exercise ultimate creative control over how such systems interpret prompts and generate material. Instead, these prompts function more like instructions to a commissioned artist — they identify what the prompter wishes to have depicted, but the machine determines how those instructions are implemented in its output

For example, if a user instructs a text-generating technology to “write a poem about copyright law in the style of William Shakespeare,” she can expect the system to generate text that is recognizable as a poem, mentions copyright, and resembles Shakespeare’s style. But the technology will decide the rhyming pattern, the words in each line, and the structure of the text. When an AI technology determines the expressive elements of its output, the generated material is not the product of human authorship. As a result, that material is not protected by copyright and must be disclaimed in a registration application.

AI-generated material can be used as the basis for a copyrightable work, if a human sufficiently transformed the AI original:

In other cases, however, a work containing AI-generated material will also contain sufficient human authorship to support a copyright claim. For example, a human may select or arrange AI-generated material in a sufficiently creative way that “the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.” Or an artist may modify material originally generated by AI technology to such a degree that the modifications meet the standard for copyright protection. In these cases, copyright will only protect the human-authored aspects of the work, which are “independent of” and do “not affect” the copyright status of the AI-generated material itself.

Originally Posted by uruguru

My wife is a professional illustrator and there is a lot of anxiety currently among professionals in her field about AI-generated artwork. Now that is a completely different animal because you can literally see marks from copyrighted artwork within AI generated artwork.

AI-generated artwork can't be copyrighted either. There was already the case of a graphic novel in which the story was written by a person but the artwork was AI-created. The Copyright Office granted copyright for the story but refused to grant copyright to the artwork because it was AI-generated.

Originally Posted by uruguru

People will be copyrighting ChatGPT-assisted text and there is no way anyone would ever know or could prove that ChatGPT was involved. It's not like it's lifting text from other copyrighted works.

Anyone registering their work with the U.S. Copyright Office is required to state if AI was used in the creation of that work, and the nature of that AI usage, since that is an important factor in assessing if copyright can be granted to that work. If the Copyright Office discovers that AI usage was not stated on the registration, the applicant risks having the copyright revoked, as noted in the updated guidelines:

Consistent with the Office’s policies described above, applicants have a duty to disclose the inclusion of AI-generated content in a work submitted for registration and to provide a brief explanation of the human author’s contributions to the work. As contemplated by the Copyright Act, such disclosures are ‘‘information regarded by the Register of Copyrights as bearing upon the preparation or identification of the work or the existence, ownership, or duration of the copyright.’’

Applicants who fail to update the public record after obtaining a registration for material generated by AI risk losing the benefits of the registration. If the Office becomes aware that information essential to its evaluation of registrability “has been omitted entirely from the application or is questionable,” it may take steps to cancel the registration. Separately, a court may disregard a registration in an infringement action pursuant to section 411(b) of the Copyright Act if it concludes that the applicant knowingly provided the Office with inaccurate information, and the accurate information would have resulted in the refusal of the registration.

[darkcloud4579]

The real key to getting it to do things well is knowing what sorts of prompts to use and even then, it's not always great with complexity. Being able to generate lots of structured content from OOTP in text format would likely make it a bit better, but the content is so generic that it's not that helpful in the grand scheme of things.

It is has been helpful for me with regard to generating Retired Player summaries for their player cards, though. I paste the BNN player card into chatgpt and tell it to generate a player summary based on the information and it can usually handle it okay.