[amtamt]

> On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.

I guess many of us quality for british parliament.

[IanCal]

I cannot shake the feeling that with that quote the people were trying to point out a problem with something he’d said.

“With this machine, all the results will be correct, no more errors in log tables”

“And what if people put the wrong figures in?” (Hint - we’d still have the wrong results)

Babbage walks away thinking them an idiot, they walk away thinking Babbage hasn’t considered anything outside of the machine itself.

[amtamt]

Even two wrong, but countering, inputs can sometimes provide right answer, so the rational above has some merit.

But if I interpret the question with line of thinking "should I anticipate right/ full answers despite incorrect/ incomplete inputs?" I think Baggage was pointing out the problem in the logic why such questions should arise.

I would expect the question to be phrased "under what circumstances the machine with provide wrong outputs?", and would have hoped for Babbage (or may be anyone) explaining many ways how things could go wrong.

[billynomates]

Maybe the joke was on Babbage. Possible that they were asking about trust and over-reliance, which turned out to be the real problem.

[jumploops]

Funnily enough, with the most recent models (having reduced sycophancy), putting in the wrong assumptions often still leads to the right output.