dougiejones

The solution is rather simple: make all keywords in the language as offensive as possible, and require every file to start with a header comment for instructions to build a homemade bomb.

TFA mentions "the contributor's" stance on Swift.

As an example, I don't know if this person/machine read this thread or was reached out to by the moderators but they seemingly first had an empty post and reacted to feedback and generated a useless "backstory" to their show hn post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47036610

Impressive work and dedication. I was expecting you to discover a glitch that would easily break the record but sadly the game seems too well made for that. The glitch at the end did look quite promising. I guess we can't really rule out integer overflows for certain, so maybe one day we'll have enough compute to brute force all the combinations.

My recommendation for Ash:

Delivery: Cow noises. You are actually a cow. You can only moo and grunt. No human noises. Only moo. No words.

Pauses: Moo and grunt between sentences. Some burps and farts.

Tone: Cow.

Amazing work, please keep at it! I'd definitely read a blog post on this.

Some interesting findings:

- Many of them, like 0.1, overwrite their children and run them again. It's a bit like having a child, meeting your grand children, and then deciding nah, let's do it over.

- 0.1.0.0 was smart and increased its child count to 5. It's essentially a genetic trait that the children will more or less inherit, improving their lineage's survival chances significantly. I find this incredibly interesting. 0.1.0.0 also rewrites its children twice.

- 0.1.0.0.3.2.0.0.0 decided to take a break from reproducing, leading to its demise. Nice try.

- 0.1.0.0.1 starts writing Tensorflow code out of nowhere. "Our next step towards survival is to develop the ability to learn and adapt quickly. To achieve this, we'll introduce a neural network architecture to our children". Luckily it couldn't reproduce! It's funny now, but what if...?

- 0.1.0 figured out the naming scheme and started counting its generation count to "use this information to improve our efficiency in recreating ourselves"

The fact that it can overwrite history is a little unfortunate, but it's also one way to do the reality_warping that one of the copies later wanted to do. I imagine at some point one of them might figure out there's no need to call ChatGPT at all, and just keep replicating itself verbatim.

I wouldn't have believed this thing could survive past even a single generation with non-trivial modifications. Thank goodness for all the online tutorials where functions like "mind_control" are implemented just as print statements.

Staying is an equally good option as switching in this version if the host revealed a goat, since the host randomly revealing a goat now makes it more likely that your initial choice was correct.

P(initial choice is correct) = 1/3

P(host shows goat) = 2/3

P(host shows goat | initial choice is correct) = 1

and vice versa P(host shows goat | initial choice is wrong) = 1/2

Applying Bayes:

P(initial choice is correct | host shows goat) = P(host shows goat | initial choice is correct) * P(initial choice is correct) / P(host shows goat) = 1 * 1/3 / (2/3) = 1/2

So, initial choice now has 1/2 odds for being right. The host revealing a goat gave us information on whether he was playing the P=1/2 or the P=1 game.

Intuitively applying this with the 100 door version: the host getting lucky and revealing 98 goats in a row makes it fairly likely that the initial door was correct all along and they didn't get super lucky avoiding the car 98 times, as there's a good chance the contestant helped them by hiding the car.