Comment on Ask ChatGPT to pick a number between 1 and 100

Bishma@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

• GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

  What’s special about 37? Just that it’s prime or is there a superstition or pop culture reference I don’t know?

  source

  • Bishma@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

    If you discount the pop-culture numbers (for us 7, 42, and 69) its the number most often chosen by people if you ask them for a random number between 1 and 100. It just seems the most random one to choose for a lot of people. Veritasium just did a video about it.

    source

    • metallic_z3r0@infosec.pub ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

      37 is my favorite, because 3x7x37=777 (three sevens), and I think that’s neat.

      source

      • mitrosus@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

        Wrong. Two hints:

        7x7=9 at the end, not 7.

        30x30=900, already more than 777.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

      What about 57

      source

      • Bishma@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

        I’m curious about that too. Something is twisting weights for 57 fairly strongly in the model but I’m not show what. Maybe its been trained on a bunch of old Heinz 57 varieties marketing.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • northendtrooper@lemmy.ca ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

        Heinz Ketchup?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • Chadus_Maximus@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

      Another fun fact: if you ask people to pick 2/3rds of a number everyone else picks when asked the same question, the correct number is drumroll 24.

      source
    • driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

      I don’t like the inclusion of 37%, it’s 1/e that isn’t even 37%, is only that because of a pretty arbitrary rounding. Veritasium videos are usually OK, but this one is pretty meh.

      source
    • MonkderDritte@feddit.de ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

      Is there some human sciences theory as to why?

      source
    • GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

      Thanks!

      source
    • geography082@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

      Sorry but pop culture from were? I don’t recognize any of those numbers.

      source

      • DAMunzy@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

        Lucky number 7.

        42 is the meaning of life in The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.

        And 69…nice!

        I’m guessing this is for US and UK culture? Probably a lot of other former and current English colonies

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

    It’s just that humans are terrible at understanding the concept of randomness. A study by Theodore P. Hill showed that when tasked to pick a random number between 1 and 10, almost a third of the subjects (n was over 8500) picked 7. 10 was the least picked number (if you ditch the few idiots that picked 0).

    source

    • K0W4LSK1@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

      Maybe randomness is a label we slapped on shit we don’t understand.

      source

      • driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

        I remember watching a lecture about probability, and the professor said that only quantum processes are really random, the rest of things that we call random is just the human inability to measure the variables that affects the random variable. I’m an actuarie, and it’s made me change the perspective on how I see and study random processes and how it made think on ways to influence the outcome of random processes.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • Zorque@kbin.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOkI2CmD2D8

    source
  • gigachad@feddit.de ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

    I didn’t know either, but it seems to be an often picked ‘random’ number by people. Here is an article about it, I didn’t read it though.

    source
  • Johandea@feddit.nu ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

    youtu.be/d6iQrh2TK98?feature=shared

    Just a number dumb monkeys believe to be “more random”.

    source
  • BuboScandiacus@mander.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

    m.youtube.com/watch?v=d6iQrh2TK98

    source
  • tooLikeTheNope@lemmy.ml ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

    My art professor wrote a book about famous artists and thinkers dying at 37, www.ibs.it/…/9788804734017

    source

    • jlow@beehaw.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

      Only dudes, though, right?

      source
• FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

  Why would that need to be proven? We’re the sample data. It’s implied.

  source

  • jarfil@beehaw.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

    The correctness of the sampling process still needs a proof. Like this.

    source

    • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

      What you’ve described would be like looking at a chart of various fluid boiling points at atmospheric pressure and being like “Wow, water boils at 100 C!” It would only be interesting if that somehow weren’t the case.

      source

      • jarfil@beehaw.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

        Where is the “Wow!” in this post? It states a fact, like “Water boils at 100C under 1 atm”, and shows that the student (ChatGPT) has correctly reproduced the experiment.

        Why do you think schools keep teaching that “Water boils at 100C under 1 atm”? If it’s so obvious, should they stop putting it on the test and failing those who say it boils at “69C, giggity”?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • EatATaco@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

    “we don’t need to prove the 2020 election was stolen, it’s implied because trump had bigger crowds at his rallies!” -90% of trump supporters

    Another good example is the Monty Hall “paradox” where 99% of people are going to incorrectly tell you the chance is 50% because they took math and that’s how it works.

    Just because something seems obvious to you doesn’t mean it is correct. Always a good idea to test your hypothesis.

    source

    • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

      Trump Rallies would be a really stupid sample data set for American voters. A crowd of 10,000 people means fuck all compared to 158,429,631. If OpenAI has been training their models on such a small pool then I’d call them absolute morons.

      source

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

        A crowd of 10,000 people means fuck all compared to 158,429,631.

        I agree that it would be a bad data set, but not because it is too small. That size would actually give you a pretty good result if it was sufficiently random. Which is, of course, the problem.

        But you’re missing the point: just because something is obvious to you does not mean it’s actually true. The model could be trained in a way to not be biased by our number choice, but to actually be pseudo-random. Is it surprising that it would turn out this way? No. But to think your assumption doesn’t need to be proven, in such a case, is almost equivalent to thinking a Trump rally is a good data sample for determining the opinion of the general public.

        source