This reads like an AI hallucination. I'm willing to steak-out this ground even if I'm wrong because of the glaring lack of skepticism. I don't even know when dollars became a concrete compute measure. We used to use FLOPs before we were trying to pull headlines like it were a claw machine game.
This is a great and well-constructed game but the difficulty scaling is almost comically bad, like, incredibly frustrating. I would recommend adding a tutorial level and some easier difficulty settings. Then the game would at least have the appearance that it is winnable.
Edit: Final score 195 in about a thousand tries. It was the catchy soundtrack that kept me going.
After playing a few rounds (or studying the board after dieing) there are a few patterns you can notice, like how the 8s are placed, where the slime revealer guy is, where the wizard thing is, etc.
It seems solvable for me (303 score) without risk about a third of the time. You can also cheat a little by clicking randomly a few times and restarting until you get a good start.
It's more difficult if you try to tackle the monsters head on. If you instead focus on finding clear spaces to unlock the scrolls, and maximize your HP usage (kill 5hp worth when you have 5hp, immediately level up at zero, repeat) it's relatively moderate in difficulty.
The comparison with the original minesweeper is a little bit unfavorable. That's a game that you can win more consistently with skill rather than luck until you crank up the number of mines to an excessive level. This game is punishingly difficult without near perfect play and extreme luck, while containing almost no instructions.
This begs the question, is this wave of LLM AI anything more than a fancy mirror? They're certainly very good at agreeing with people and following along, but, as many have noted, not really useful for anything acting on their own.
The thing that shocked me about doing Swift app development was despite all of the syntactic requirements for types and null-checking, the program would crash with runtime errors as if I were still using C.
The clips of him rolling his eyes and head around in boredom at the inauguration definitely looked like he was suffering from some kind of withdrawal symptoms.
Doesn't take very much searching to find this pretty nifty palindrome prime:
3,212,123 (the 333rd palindrome prime)
Interestingly, there are no four digit palindrome primes because they would be divisible by 11. This is obvious in retrospect but I found this fact by giving NotebookLM a big list of palindrome primes (just to see what it could possibly say about it over a podcast).
reply