this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2023
61 points (75.6% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35807 readers
1582 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 14 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I've had 100% failure rate on simple requirements that require a simple spin on well known solutions

"Make a pathfinding function for a 2d grid" - fine

"Make a pathfinding function for a 2d grid, but we can only move 15 cells at a time" - fails on lesser models, it keeps clinging to pulling you the same A* as the first one

"Make a pathfinding function for a 2d grid, but we can only move 15 cells at a time, also, some cells are on fire and must be avoided if possible, but if there is no other path possible then you're allowed to use fire cells as fallback" - Never works

There for that last one, none of the models give a solution that fits the very simple requirement. It will either always avoid fire or give fire a higher cost, which is not at all a fitting solution

High costs means if you've got a path that's 15 tiles long without fire, but way shorter with fire, then sure, some fire is fine! And if you could walk 15 tiles and go to your destination but need to walk on 1 fire, then it will count that as 15-something and that's too long.

Except no, that's not what you asked.

If you try and tell it that, gpt4 flip flops between avoiding fire and touching the price of tiles

It fails because all the literature on pathfinding talks about is the default approach, and cost heuristic functions. That won't cut it here, you have to touch the meat of the algorithm and no one ever covers that (because that's just programming, it depends on what you need to do there are infinite ways you could do it, to fit infinite business requirements)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Huh that's a neat problem. My instinct was to use a (fire, regular) tuple for cost, but then what A* heuristic can you use...

I guess run it once with no cost for regular tiles and remove fire from any tiles it used. Then run with normal tile costs, but block fire tiles. That doesn't break ties nicely of course and I'm not convinced the first pass has a good A* heuristic either...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

It works but you do it twice when you could do it once

But I expect anyone who's programmed some pathfinding before to, at the minimum, be able to say "run A* twice". Somehow AIs never understand the prompt well enough

I think the best option is to make sure to have 'sorted' the calls to the fire tiles, you can do that by having them in a separate grid or just stash them to a small local array on stack when you encounter them, and investigate those at the end of the loop

If there's no result that's been found under the cost limit without the fire at each point of the algorithm, you do do the recursive calls for the fire as well, and you flag your result as "has fire in it" for the caller on top

When getting a result from your several recursive calls, you take the best non-fire result that's under 15 tiles long, else you take the best result period

Then once you're back to the top level call, if there was a non-fire path you will get that result, if there wasn't you will get that instead

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Undeniably faster but doesn't change the big O of course. I wonder how it would benchmark.