Jaden Norman@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 days agoAI agents wrong ~70% of time: Carnegie Mellon studywww.theregister.comexternal-linkmessage-square254fedilinkarrow-up1923arrow-down118
arrow-up1905arrow-down1external-linkAI agents wrong ~70% of time: Carnegie Mellon studywww.theregister.comJaden Norman@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 days agomessage-square254fedilink
minus-squareKnock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·5 hours agoNo the chances of being wrong 10x in a row are 2%. So the chances of being at least right once are 98%.
minus-squareLog in | Sign up@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·4 hours agoAh, 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.
minus-squarejwmgregory@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·4 hours agodon’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 >:(
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.
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 >:(