[sphars]

Something is wrong with this question[0]. It looks like the topic is Larry Sanger, one of the choices is Gerry Sanger, the "correct" answer is Jimmy Wales, and the explanation says Lawrence Sanger is the correct answer.

Something screwy here. Seems pretty good otherwise

[0]: https://i.imgur.com/Rht9jbu.png

[yummytummy]

Thank you for reporting it!

I've actually seen this particular question before. It's hard to figure out why some questions get bad or wrong answers. This question also doesn't have a proper reference.

I think it's difficult to get the initial result perfect 100% of the time. So far, my solution to this is an upvote/downvote system. This lets me either hide downvoted questions, or improve them. Right now a user who downvoted can report an issue, and I will generate new variations of the question. If either of the variations receive enough upvotes, the question will be updated.

[gumballindie]

Have you considered using a database and static questions and answers? This technique gets 100% perfect results each time and needs less energy.

[yummytummy]

It would actually be interesting to know what the energy required by a human is to research a topic, think of plausible options, find references and type it out.

I'm not sure how much energy Trivai requires, or if it's even remotely comparable, but you might be happy to know that all generated questions are stored in a database.

I would guess that humans produce "perfect" results 95+% of the time. In my own tests, Trivai gets "good" results, ~90% of the time.

[gumballindie]

The question is not human vs software, it’s software vs software. The software you use is unreliable. Why would i play trivia against an opponent that is likely as dumb as i am?