No absolutely not. This is reality, if something increases from 30% to 50%, you need to increase your capacity to handle it by 66%.
That’s reality, and not moronic idiocy.
Correct, my question is because the article outright states the number:
38.6% of respondents said they “very trust” or “somewhat trust” advice from AI-generated sources regarding relationships and social interactions. Trust levels were higher among younger generations, with over half of those in their teens and twenties expressing this trust. Among teenage girls, the figure reached 63.1%.
Going off saying ‘you don’t understand the numbers’ when neither of you have translated the article seemed genuinely funny to me.
Edit: I should say, I recognize you understand the numbers — I was not calling out your math.
This person appears to be using shrinkflation math: The difference between 30 and 50 is 20, 20 is 66% of 30. When you see a bottle on the counter in the store that says 20% more that’s how they’re getting their number. It’s the percentage of the smaller bottle.
The math was not the funny part, the funny part was them discussing something that had already been included in the article.
When asked about their purposes for using AI-generated content in daily life (multiple answers allowed), the most common overall response was information retrieval and research at 76.4%, followed by writing and editing texts at 33.9%, and seeking advice at 23.3%. Information retrieval remained the top choice across all age groups, but seeking advice ranked second among teenage girls and third among women in their 20s to 40s and men in their 30s.
38.6% of respondents said they “very trust” or “somewhat trust” advice from AI-generated sources regarding relationships and social interactions. Trust levels were higher among younger generations, with over half of those in their teens and twenties expressing this trust. Among teenage girls, the figure reached 63.1%.
As I say above, it’s funny to me that neither of them translated the article.
Dude probably reversed some numbers, math is hard sometimes. Or… they’re focusing only on comparing between the affected population which is kinda weird.
To make the logic for that math easier to follow, imagine it was actually 60% of teenage girls rather than the 50% from the article.
If you pick a random man, there is a 30% chance they consult AI. If you pick a random girl, that chance is instead 60%. So twice as likely, or expressed a different way, 100% more likely than when picking a random man.
Switching back to the 30/50 numbers you get that a random teenage girl is (at least) 66% more likely to turn to AI than a random man.
To me, this seems like a reasonable way to compare these numbers and it makes it clear that the difference is actually pretty significant, contrary to OP comment’s claim.
Absolutely 100% correct, and if I recall correctly, it’s about 5th grade math. It’s astounding the number of people here who don’t understand such a simple concept.
Is this a joke?
No absolutely not. This is reality, if something increases from 30% to 50%, you need to increase your capacity to handle it by 66%.
That’s reality, and not moronic idiocy.
Correct, my question is because the article outright states the number:
Going off saying ‘you don’t understand the numbers’ when neither of you have translated the article seemed genuinely funny to me.
Edit: I should say, I recognize you understand the numbers — I was not calling out your math.
I did translate and read the article, so WTF do you mean?
I used rounded numbers that are close to make the calculation easier to follow for the people that apparently don’t understand how this works.
The part you quote was already quoted.
This person appears to be using shrinkflation math: The difference between 30 and 50 is 20, 20 is 66% of 30. When you see a bottle on the counter in the store that says 20% more that’s how they’re getting their number. It’s the percentage of the smaller bottle.
The math was not the funny part, the funny part was them discussing something that had already been included in the article.
As I say above, it’s funny to me that neither of them translated the article.
Dude probably reversed some numbers, math is hard sometimes. Or… they’re focusing only on comparing between the affected population which is kinda weird.
No, their math is right — it says so in the article itself.
Well the math they did was 0.5/0.3 = 1.(6)
To make the logic for that math easier to follow, imagine it was actually 60% of teenage girls rather than the 50% from the article.
If you pick a random man, there is a 30% chance they consult AI. If you pick a random girl, that chance is instead 60%. So twice as likely, or expressed a different way, 100% more likely than when picking a random man.
Switching back to the 30/50 numbers you get that a random teenage girl is (at least) 66% more likely to turn to AI than a random man.
To me, this seems like a reasonable way to compare these numbers and it makes it clear that the difference is actually pretty significant, contrary to OP comment’s claim.
Absolutely 100% correct, and if I recall correctly, it’s about 5th grade math. It’s astounding the number of people here who don’t understand such a simple concept.