They provide a service to the market and that’s just a pretty basic description of it. Obviously they hope to make money from doing so, but so does every company.

No different to saying McDonald’s focuses on delivering quick and easy food to customers.

They definitely don’t all compile to the same thing. Some do, most don’t.

I meant to say they are all the same thing on logical level, all those fancy typed theories can be reduced to hol/fol, for some it is implemented, for others not.

That’s not true either. Coq’s logic is significantly different to HoL.

hol meaning higher order logic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher-order_logic) not the lang of hol prover.

It also just follows from X being >= 30.

January 2023 is an age ago in terms of generative AI. DALL-E 3 has been out what, a month? I just tried and it generated hands no problem.

Sure. I get that. I was simply providing context to kolinko's comment (albeit in a low effort way) in case he/she wasn't aware that this was a problem at some in time.

You’re saying that based on what? All the code and assets are AI.

The music?

What music? There is none.

There's AI for that too, now.

But it wasn't used to generate the music in this "game" that isn't a game. This was my point - that it is unclear exactly what AI did and did not do in this case. Like, I'm 100% sure my mom could not have done this, so, not "all" AI like the title says.

The Angry Pumpkins game doesn't have sound effects or music - you can play it here: https://bestaiprompts.art/angry-pumpkins/index.html

The Twitter thread shows exactly what the AI made. It was used for the JavaScript code and the image assets.

If you don't have a Twitter account you can see the full content on Nitter https://nitter.net/javilopen/status/1719363262179938401 or in my Gist copy: https://gist.github.com/simonw/f7ed52daaa66f849858d17e0d6c1c...

>"game" that isn't a game.

Why is it not a game? I even played it a bit -- was I hallucinating?

Dice is plural, and common games have you roll two dice at a time. So you’re looking for a pair of pairs.

Uh, no, when you describe a pair you use the plural. “Pair of pants”, “pair of earrings”, “pair of socks” — these phrases do not refer to four of something.

You are right, though "pair of pants" is somewhat problematical as an example of this!

Dice is plural. Die is the singular.

A pair of earrings.

Earrings is plural, earring is the singular.

I play board games and rpgs, so I spend a lot of time with dice and reading about dice. I don’t think I have ever heard a dice pair to reference multiple pairs of dice. My mind was looking for some weird die with a top higher than 6 since you need a pair that adds up to 14. Dice is plural but pair implies 2.

They should have said just the group of dice whose top sides sum to 14.

> Dice is plural

It's also a descriptive label we use when discussing numbered cubes. In the captcha's context, that's the meaning I've fixed in place - while I parse the rest of the text.

I'm seeing hints that the captcha also comes with a short time clock along with the usual locked-account punishment for failure-to-solve. Fast assumptions seem appropriate.

Oof, I’ve never heard anyone say “dice pair” to mean four dice.

Well, clearly you aren’t human then. Next!

Now that's terrible design.

Your way of counting things will ensure you cannot solve this captcha I'm afraid.

C is definitely a high level language.

Higher level than assembly? Yes. High-level? No. Not with manual memory management, not without strings/encodings native support (char* is a bytestring, not a text string), not with so many platform-dependent features that are not abstracted away.

Under your definition they can just hold the bonds to maturity to be solvent.

But you can't "just hold to maturity"; you are obligated to pay back deposits on demand.

Obviously not in reality, but their (wrong) definition refers to ‘time to do so’.

>> time to do so, thats the definition of being illiquid, not insolvent.

i said time is about liquidity, not solvency. i never said gaining money in the future makes you solvent in the past.

No one is claiming it is a tautology for all X and Y, it just happens to be true in this particular case.

Lisp is not very functional at all.