[teiferer]

Never stops fascinating me how folks are arguing this kind of thing. Why make up an explanation for why this obvious mistake is actually some kind of elaborate 4D chess sarcastic "intention"? It's a simple machine, its network just didn't support making up a new Toy Story character. That's it! Simple as that! Occam's Razor anybody?

Or yes, maybe the regex I wrote the other day which also had a bug that missed replacing certain parts also had an "intention". It just wanted to demonstrate how fallible I am as a human, so it played this elaborate prank on me. /s

[LordDragonfang]

...Because Occam's razor is not assuming it's a "mistake"?

There's a thread full of people saying how clever humorous they find almost every headline.

The real 4D chess is dogmatically assuming it is not assuming it managed to by pure accident succeed in that dozens of separate times, because your dogma refuses to incorporate evidence to the contrary.

Occam's razor is that this system which no one actually understands the emergent capabilities of, and is convincing so many people it has intention... has intention.