Thinking has nothing to do with it. The positive context in which the bot was trained made it unlikely for a sentence describing a likely negative reaction to be output.
People on Lemmy are absolutely rabid about “AI” they can’t help attacking people who don’t even disagree with them.
Honestly this is the first I’ve heard of groff, but I’d be surprised if it’s not easy to transpile a Markdown document into the format. Have written only Markdown-based docs for a decade
Topology is immensely useful to describe reality.
You could use it as a dressing rather than a dip. Like sriracha or tabasco, but not spicy.
A placeholder isn’t what they’re working on either. It’s a placeholder for something someone else is working on but hasn’t completed yet.
It was a placeholder texture that was always intended to be replaced by actual art made by a human. It was overlooked accidentally and promptly replaced. So no, it isn’t a very different thing. It was never supposed to be part of the game or even a significant part of its development.
A stance that is perfectly relatable in 2025, but not as much when Expedition 33 was in early development.
Why not? If the tools weren’t available, they’d have used stock art or something super basic and crappy looking, which would’ve been just as good as a placeholder. But the tools were available.
In 2025 it makes sense for companies to have policies against using generative AI tools even for stuff like this because of the systemic effects of normalized use. But in 2022, it wouldn’t have been a thing. Nobody would have thought twice about it. Just a neat new thing that does the job.
The only takeaway is that the Indie Game Awards’ rule is overly restrictive. Woops, one of your contracted artists used a GenAI model to generate a music playlist to set the mood while he was working on your game, you’re disqualified and the fact that you didn’t come forward with this information immediately makes you a liar. Obviously absurd. If they’re going to take a strong anti-AI stance, it should be more realistic. At some point, maybe even already, every single competitor should be disqualified but isn’t aware or forthcoming about it, so what’s the rule actually doing except rewarding dishonesty?
“the truth” being that a few generated placeholder textures were accidentally left in and promptly replaced? crazy
Make sure to cite your source when you use it
Pure mathematicians often answer questions that really only other pure mathematicians care about, but occasionally their results or techniques have relevance in other fields, so universities will pay them to work on this stuff and publish papers. Usually part of the job is applying for grants to fund your research and teaching students.
Highly effective unless the universe really does revolve around you.
I can sorta see that. An exit code is an exit code. But exit codes, like words, have meanings. Sometimes that meaning is a boolean value, as is the case in e.g. GNU Coreutils conditions: https://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/manual/coreutils.html#Conditions
Yes, it is used consistently in GNU Coreutils: https://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/manual/coreutils.html#Conditions
false: do nothing, unsuccessfully (returns 1)
true: do nothing, successfully (returns 0)
test: check file types and compare values is documented as “returns a status of 0 (true) or 1 (false)”
What you’re saying is irrelevant. In the real world, when an exit code is a boolean, 0 is true.
Every time an exit code is a boolean, 0 is true. Shell scripting would be very annoying if this were inconsistent
Not quadratic in the length of the input. Assuming replace is linear this is also linear
There are non-standard models of arithmetic. They follow the original first-order Peano axioms and any theorem about the naturals is true for them, but they have some wacky extra stuff in them like you mention.
It’s for families of tea/hot water drinkers who drink many small cups throughout the day.