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

• Bishma@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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 ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

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

    source

    • mitrosus@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Wrong. Two hints:

      7x7=9 at the end, not 7.

      30x30=900, already more than 777.

      source

      • jarfil@beehaw.org ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        One hint: 3x7=21, 21x37=777.

        When in doubt, use a calculator.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • RisingSwell@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        ? My calculator definitely thinks that 3x7x37=777. Did you read it as 37x37 instead?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    What about 57

    source

    • Bishma@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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

      • boredtortoise@lemm.ee ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Wesley Snipes

        source
    • northendtrooper@lemmy.ca ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Heinz Ketchup?

      source

      • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        I think you mean heinz 57 the steak sauce…

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • Chadus_Maximus@lemm.ee ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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 ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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 ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Is there some human sciences theory as to why?

    source
  • GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Thanks!

    source
  • geography082@lemm.ee ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

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

    source

    • DAMunzy@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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

      • FryHyde@lemmy.zip ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        It’s not the meaning of life. It’s the Ultimate Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything. Nobody knows what the Question is.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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 ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

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

    source

    • driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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

      • jarfil@beehaw.org ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        …which is kind of a hilarious tautology, because “quantum processes” are by definition “processes that we are unable to decompose into more basic parts”.

        The moment we learn about some more fundamental processes being the reason for a given process, it stops being “quantum” and the new ones become “it”.

        source
      • K0W4LSK1@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Even quantum just appears random I think. it’s beyond our scope of perspective, it works in multiple dimensions. we only see part of the process. That’s my guess though it could be totally wrong

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• Zorque@kbin.social ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

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

  source
• gigachad@feddit.de ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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 ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  youtu.be/d6iQrh2TK98?feature=shared

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

  source
• BuboScandiacus@mander.xyz ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  m.youtube.com/watch?v=d6iQrh2TK98

  source
• tooLikeTheNope@lemmy.ml ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

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

  source

  • jlow@beehaw.org ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Only dudes, though, right?

    source