Comment on AI agents wrong ~70% of time: Carnegie Mellon study
About 0.02
So the chances of it being right ten times in a row are 2%.
No the chances of being wrong 10x in a row are 2%. So the chances of being at least right once are 98%.
Ah, my bad, you’re right, for being consistently correct, I should have done 0.3^10=0.0000059049
so the chances of it being right ten times in a row are less than one thousandth of a percent.
No wonder I couldn’t get it to summarise my list of data right and it was always lying by the 7th row.
That looks better. Even with a fair coin, 10 heads in a row is almost impossible.
And if you are feeding the output back into a new instance of a model then the quality is highly likely to degrade.
don’t you dare understand the explicitly obvious reasons this technology can be useful and the essential differences between P and NP problems. why won’t you be angry >:(
davidagain@lemmy.world 1 month ago
So the chances of it being right ten times in a row are 2%.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 month ago
No the chances of being wrong 10x in a row are 2%. So the chances of being at least right once are 98%.
davidagain@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Ah, my bad, you’re right, for being consistently correct, I should have done 0.3^10=0.0000059049
so the chances of it being right ten times in a row are less than one thousandth of a percent.
No wonder I couldn’t get it to summarise my list of data right and it was always lying by the 7th row.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 month ago
That looks better. Even with a fair coin, 10 heads in a row is almost impossible.
And if you are feeding the output back into a new instance of a model then the quality is highly likely to degrade.
jwmgregory@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
don’t you dare understand the explicitly obvious reasons this technology can be useful and the essential differences between P and NP problems. why won’t you be angry >:(