this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2024
437 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37739 readers
712 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

"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 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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 2 points 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.