[asoneth]

I think everyone here is trying to avoid spoilers while conveying that there is more to the game than you think initially.

(You may already know that from reading the article or playing the game, but it's not clear from your comment.)

[willis936]

I think everyone here is either misreading my comments or misremembering the end of the game.

[asoneth]

> everyone here is either misreading my comments

I suspect I misread your comment in that case, so I apologize. Though if everyone else did as well, perhaps the comment was ambiguous?

> or misremembering the end of the game.

Exactly, there is a point that is pretty clearly "the end of the game". The fact that one can continue playing after that point doesn't make it less of an ending.

[willis936]

My comments are not ambiguously worded. They are made concise so my point can't be missed, yet it still is because readers are mistaking conciseness for lack of understanding.

The end of the game is something a human player reaches and is satisfied with their work. A paperclip producing AI would not choose a path that results in no more paperclips being made.

[asoneth]

If many people misinterpret a piece of writing or miss its point then that seems like it is empirically "ambiguously worded", regardless of how clear it seemed to you.

(You are of course free to think and write how you please, but attributing all comprehension errors to readers may limit the reach of your writing.)

[chris_st]

> * My comments are not ambiguously worded. They are made concise so my point can't be missed*

"It is impossible to speak in such a way that it cannot be misinterpreted." -- Karl Popper

[eru]

Depends on how the AI was programmed.

If it got the goal to make as many paperclips in this universe, the game can end in-universe as well.