The prompts provided are atrocious. It's amazing that the LLMs actually built something useful.

> My first prompt was simple: "in this original code there 6502 assembly code for prince of persia, use the save level files and try to do it in c# console."

Do what in the what now in the console?

"now char coming but movement everything wrong ... prince is not in floor"

I'm assuming a language barrier on the part of the author. I wonder if the models would do better being prompted in the author's main language.

Yeah, I'm thinking the nigh-unreadable AI-speak we get these days makes a lot more sense if this is what they're training on. Or maybe the author has translated the prompts from another language?

The prompts were awful and really distracted from an otherwise cool project concept. Also, testing the next model by iterating on the first model’s crappy foundation. Why not start from the original each time?

It's so confusing how the actual article is in English, but the prompts are just gibberish. But LLMs are pretty good at deciphering gibberish; I often put our CEO's absolutely atrocious E-Mails into ChatGPT and tell it to explain wtf he wants from me.

Also, I feel like the LLMs would have done better if they had started from scratch each time, rather than being burdened by the output from the previous attempt.

Unsurprisingly it was buggy without the obligatory "Make no mistakes."