9 ms·
I think that's their point. Since there isn't an actual correlation, their guess is basically 50/50.
by floodle 4y ago
I think that's their point. Since there isn't an actual correlation, their guess is basically 50/50.
- Closi 4y agoBut if their guess is 50/50, that is from a subset that is mostly under-60's, which presumably means that they have evidence for the opposite? (i.e. there is no statement that the 51% figure is age adjusted) I'm probably just being silly here...
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Freeboots 4y agoI think they're saying over or under 60 is completely arbitrary when judging only from 'random' answers. It could be over or under a month, or 1000 years, the result would still be 50/50 because the ability to create a sequence that appears random has no link to age.
- runnerup 4y agoGP is saying it's even more than 50/50. Less than half of people are >60. A more extreme example would be if it guessed: "You are younger than 99 years old."
- Closi 4y agoYeah, 'We tried to work out the impact of age on randomness, and guessed that people were younger than 99 years old 50% of the time!"