> it’s not good immersion when every character is a chatbot that can inadvertently give you story beats you shouldn’t be aware of yet or you missed some crucial bit of information but no one talks about it anymore

What you're describing isn't bad dialog, it's bad interaction design.

I think your mental model might be of a single session with zero state, and no bounds on topics of conversation outside of the character's backstory. That isn't close to how this would work. A little understanding of how the game currently operates and some imagination, and you'll see how it could be improved further without degrading gameplay.

> those games would be made popular by people breaking the LLMs in funny ways

Because making the game do funny things didn't happen with RDR2, or any other game, device, or indeed humans (there are whole genre built around making people do or say "funny" things).

Perhaps try to steel man the argument. Your entire response is just one large condescendingly wrong straw man.

> What you're describing isn't bad dialog, it's bad interaction design.

I didn’t say it was bad dialogue. It should be pretty obvious that’s not the argument since I talked in terms of feature VS bug.

> Because making the game do funny things didn't happen with RDR2, or any other game, device, or indeed humans

Again, not at all what was said. Of course those things happen, and of course I know that. The clue is in the fact that I brought it up, which can be ascertained by reading the comment and engaging with it in good faith. The point was that becoming the focus.