4 ms·

I tried using search engines to find the 'StatCounter Global Stats, from 2002 through 2007' numbers. Earliest I can find is 2009. It kind of matches up with htt

by mtmail 4y ago

I tried using search engines to find the 'StatCounter Global Stats, from 2002 through 2007' numbers. Earliest I can find is 2009. It kind of matches up with https://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp https://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp numbers bt I'd ask ChatGPT for reference URLs to be sure.

tus666 4y ago
This was the reply: Sure! Here are the references to the StatCounter Global Stats website for the worldwide market share of desktop operating systems in January of 2002 and 2003: January 2002: https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide/2002 https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide... January 2003: https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide/2003 https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide... Note that these are specific to desktop operating systems and may not include market share for mobile devices or other platforms.
- verdverm 4y ago
  Notice how the actual data on these pages is exactly the same and from 2022-2023? This is what I mean by making up links that don't work. The links further down the page don't even go back that far. You ought to inspect the links before posting them as proof. By not doing so, you demonstrate the limitations and fallacies of humans putting to much faith in these tools. This graph made 7 years ago would appear to contradict the numbers ChatGPT gave you: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/3s3c8o/relative_operating_system_market_share_from_2003/ https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/3s3c8o/rel... Are you ready to rethink your exuberance for ChatGPT? --- I performed two searches, both from image search, took 1 minute to find a good graph. I suspect ChatGPT took longer to write the combined, inaccurate responses, based on my experience at how slow it streams the answers back. 1. windows version usage by year, 2000 - 2010 2. operating system usage by year, 2000 - 2010
  - tus666 4y ago
    But the numbers seem credible and realistic when you think about OS usage at that time. If it was hallucinating from web-pages that only go back to 2009, how on earth did it come up with such credible figures?
    - verdverm 4y ago
      It's not looking things up, it is making things up. This is what it was designed to do... that's why they call it "generative AI" Half of statistics are made up, so the saying goes. It's easy to make "credible and realistic" numbers if you understand confirmation bias. You want to believe in ChatGPT, so you see its numbers as credible and realistic, despite them not being so. Also understand that we are in the beginnings of a hype cycle. There was a time when HN was exuberant about the potential for blockchain. I expect that our expectations for LLMs to be made realistic with time. I also believe that LLMs will provide value, unlike blockchain, so the hype cycle is probably closer to dotcom in how it plays out. The plugin system will be interesting to see play out. It's sort of a hybrid system, using LLMs as an interface for intent while calling out to other systems for accurate retrieval. I'm curious how far it can be pushed, it's hard to see these things being able to interact and navigate all of the tools we have created. Too much variability and opaqueness.
      - tus666 4y ago
        > You want to believe in ChatGPT, so you see its numbers as credible and realistic, despite them not being so. I didn't really, I had doubts myself. I say the are credible based on my own understanding of how OS usage changed, being there myself at the time.
        verdverm 4y ago
        > I say the are credible based on my own understanding of how OS usage changed, being there myself at the time. This is a classic example of a confirmation bias. How would you know the statistics from that time? Based on anecdotal observations from 20 years ago?
verdverm 4y ago
The numbers on that page contradict the output OP was given by ChatGPT, though they are only from W3's logs, so data bias is likely

by mtmail 4y ago

tus666 4y ago

This was the reply: Sure! Here are the references to the StatCounter Global Stats website for the worldwide market share of desktop operating systems in January of 2002 and 2003: January 2002: https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide/2002 https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide... January 2003: https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide/2003 https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide... Note that these are specific to desktop operating systems and may not include market share for mobile devices or other platforms.

verdverm 4y ago
Notice how the actual data on these pages is exactly the same and from 2022-2023? This is what I mean by making up links that don't work. The links further down the page don't even go back that far. You ought to inspect the links before posting them as proof. By not doing so, you demonstrate the limitations and fallacies of humans putting to much faith in these tools. This graph made 7 years ago would appear to contradict the numbers ChatGPT gave you: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/3s3c8o/relative_operating_system_market_share_from_2003/ https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/3s3c8o/rel... Are you ready to rethink your exuberance for ChatGPT? --- I performed two searches, both from image search, took 1 minute to find a good graph. I suspect ChatGPT took longer to write the combined, inaccurate responses, based on my experience at how slow it streams the answers back. 1. windows version usage by year, 2000 - 2010 2. operating system usage by year, 2000 - 2010
- tus666 4y ago
  But the numbers seem credible and realistic when you think about OS usage at that time. If it was hallucinating from web-pages that only go back to 2009, how on earth did it come up with such credible figures?
  - verdverm 4y ago
    It's not looking things up, it is making things up. This is what it was designed to do... that's why they call it "generative AI" Half of statistics are made up, so the saying goes. It's easy to make "credible and realistic" numbers if you understand confirmation bias. You want to believe in ChatGPT, so you see its numbers as credible and realistic, despite them not being so. Also understand that we are in the beginnings of a hype cycle. There was a time when HN was exuberant about the potential for blockchain. I expect that our expectations for LLMs to be made realistic with time. I also believe that LLMs will provide value, unlike blockchain, so the hype cycle is probably closer to dotcom in how it plays out. The plugin system will be interesting to see play out. It's sort of a hybrid system, using LLMs as an interface for intent while calling out to other systems for accurate retrieval. I'm curious how far it can be pushed, it's hard to see these things being able to interact and navigate all of the tools we have created. Too much variability and opaqueness.
    - tus666 4y ago
      > You want to believe in ChatGPT, so you see its numbers as credible and realistic, despite them not being so. I didn't really, I had doubts myself. I say the are credible based on my own understanding of how OS usage changed, being there myself at the time.
      - verdverm 4y ago
        > I say the are credible based on my own understanding of how OS usage changed, being there myself at the time. This is a classic example of a confirmation bias. How would you know the statistics from that time? Based on anecdotal observations from 20 years ago?

verdverm 4y ago

The numbers on that page contradict the output OP was given by ChatGPT, though they are only from W3's logs, so data bias is likely