I wouldn't be surprised either. But the original formatting of the worm makes me think it was human written, or maybe AI assisted, but not 100% AI. It has a lot of unusual stylistic choices that I don't believe an AI would intentionally output.
> It has a lot of unusual stylistic choices that I don't believe an AI would intentionally output.
Indeed. One of those unusual choices is that it uses jQuery. Gotta have IE6 compatibility in your worm!
I'm not sure what to make of `Number("20")` in the source code. I would think it's some way to get around some filter intended to discourage CPU-intensive looping, but I don't think user scripts have any form of automated moderation, and if that were the case it doesn't make sense that they would allow a `for` loop in the first place.
> It has a lot of unusual stylistic choices that I don't believe an AI would intentionally output.
Indeed. One of those unusual choices is that it uses jQuery. Gotta have IE6 compatibility in your worm!
I'm not sure what to make of `Number("20")` in the source code. I would think it's some way to get around some filter intended to discourage CPU-intensive looping, but I don't think user scripts have any form of automated moderation, and if that were the case it doesn't make sense that they would allow a `for` loop in the first place.