• EatATaco@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    7 months 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.

    • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months 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.

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months 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.