347
Yes Google, 2/3 is TOTALLY the same as 1/2
(lemmy.world)
Probably should've just asked Wolfram Alpha
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2024
347 points (93.7% liked)
Programmer Humor
19564 readers
655 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
~~Yes, and the Google AI response is correct (and quite clear) in what it says.~~ edit: Thanks Batman. I mean that Google's understanding of the question is logical (although still the maths is wrong as you say (now I've re-read you)) and its answer explained the angle it was answering from.
However, I think the reasonable assumption for the intention behind the question is relative to a whole. I had third of a pizza, and now I have an extra sixth of a pizza. It's subtle, but that's the kind of thing AI falls down on.
I agree with your assessment regarding the intention of the phrase. We're back at the silly arithmetic meme that hinges on not grouping terms explicitly and watching people yell at each other in the mistaken belief that there's one authoritative interpretation of an ambiguous string of symbols.
Still, the actual mistake remains. Why an extra 1/6 of the pizza? 1/3 of 1/3 is 1/9, not 1/6. That's 1/2 of 1/3.
I thought we were finally agreeing fully! My understanding of the question is "what is the difference between a third (of a pizza, say) and a half?"
1/2 - 1/3 = 1/6
1/2 = 1/3 + 1/6
a half is one sixth more than a third.
btw, I fixed my Kagi screenshot since I'd missed a word from the question (reading comprehension's clearly not my strong point today)
Aha, yes. Somehow I forgot the difference interpretation for a moment. Oops!
You are saying "yes" to a comment explaining why the Google AI response cannot possibly be correct, so what do you mean "and [it's] correct"?
Ah, you're right - I misunderstood jbrain's point to just be about the "relative to the original" understanding. Guess I'm no smarter than Google's AI.