You have the proof right there that it will never be a waste of time. You can't understand why the C one is faster, and someone who does will be superior to a machine because they can apply this learning, context, and much more, to solve really though problems.
Writing Fibonacci in assembly as recursive functions using C-like calling conventions is like asking Superman to mainline Kryptonite, rather I'd expect an assembly implementation to look like a BASIC version that calculates iteratively.
You have the proof right there that it will never be a waste of time. You can't understand why the C one is faster, and someone who does will be superior to a machine because they can apply this learning, context, and much more, to solve really though problems.
If it was a real superhuman AI it would use the closed form expansion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_sequence
Writing Fibonacci in assembly as recursive functions using C-like calling conventions is like asking Superman to mainline Kryptonite, rather I'd expect an assembly implementation to look like a BASIC version that calculates iteratively.
You have a really sad view on what constitutes a waste of time.
[flagged]