1,807 karma · joined November 16, 2013
Yes you can try and take things in an original direction but we're ignoring the incredible amount of work that's gone into Linux, solving most of the problems you can't imagine and that AI will burn though a lot of time and tokens trying to re-solve (badly, without a ton of intelligent intervention).
I think you're more likely to see more people experimenting with existing open source work, rather than generating new projects. These new projects are easy come, easy go.
I'd be interested if the author would tell us more about what they did here and what went into the design and evolution, rather than the AI README.
The reward of a game is playing it, not the 'prize', although that can add to the enjoyment too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Rabin_primality...
As you'll see they are using the number of digits, not the value of the number, because the number of digits is the size of the input.
You can find countless examples of this in literature. So this is not a 'personally-interesting' way as you assert.
What seems to happen is it will get a lot of words like curriculum wrong that people rarely spell incorrectly because they're long enough that if your English isn't confident you would look it up or use a spell checker, or spell words incorrectly that people don't usually spell wrong like 'imediate' or 'puzzel'.
The way to understand the value is to see the engineer as an asset. Engineers aren't interchangeable and no codebase can truly be documented and CI'd to the point where expertise doesn't matter.
Later the security guard is called upstairs to break a tie on votes for what to spend the surplus on, and Michael starts reciting Oscar's 5 year old explanation, and the guard cuts him off saying he knows what a surplus is.
I have to imagine this is sort of a joke about the audience too as inevitably the writers were considering that audience members might not know what a surplus is, and this kind of joke is an opportunity to explain it.