I had to look up the article to figure out if this was the intolerable downside of having kids (all this work raising them, and then they just fly out of the nest) or _not_ having them (with your scientific work the only great project of your life). I believe he meant the latter :)
I don't think people choose Python because it's virtues as a language for tooling (it's not great from that perspective, statically linked binaries would be better). They choose it because of the ecosystem of libraries. For data analysis, visualization, and scientific computing, there are no comparable offerings in any other language. And a lot of this is stuff you _really_ don't want to be reimplementing from scratch, because it's very easy to introduce bugs (around numerical stability, say) that cause your software to produce correct results 99% of the time, and plausibly-looking but totally incorrect ones 1% of the time.
Thank you for the prompt, that's very useful! I'm surprised GPT "knows" what Monster of the Week is. RPGs in general are somewhat obscure, and to ask for a specific one at that?
I agree with all these criticism. But I also know many human DMs who make the same stylistic decisions as GPT did here. It's definitely not good Burning Wheel, but it might be ok D&D?
On the other hand, I appreciate the GPT's willingness to follow the players' revealed interests where they lead, instead of sticking to a predetermined railroad. The comment here about engaging zombies in a multilevel marketing scheme illustrates this nicely. That's very deft DMing in my opinion. (Whether _asking_ for such a tonal shift is deft playing on part of the non-DM player is a different question.)
Yeah, maybe there's a confusion between percentage and fraction, and this was meant to be 0.001 (not 0.001%). But if so, the error is not the journalist's: I clicked through and the original paper also contains this improbable figure.