|
|
|
|
|
|
by godelski
784 days ago
|
|
|
I think __you__ are misunderstanding the experiment and what it is testing. Yours (with context) would be a different experiment and it would be interesting. But that lets the LLM count and I'm willing to bet if it does get it correct that there are unlikely to be long sequences of the same number like you'd see in a real 1k coin flip. The author is testing for bias. This is no different to the test of "pick a number" and finding the bias of "42". It is also testing for reasoning and logic. This is a blind consensus building exercise. Surprisingly humans do decently well on this. But it does require reasoning and collaborative forecasting. No matter the strategy the person picks, there is more going on at play than just a random selection, even if they think it is. And looking at the results, it does not seem like asking different LLMs to perform this would get the right result, as they are all biased in the same way. |
|
|