3 ms·
> Let’s go back to our users who have also fallen victims to Gambler’s fallacy. If you just heard a song from a particular artist, that doesn’t mean that the ne
by franciscop 3y ago
> Let’s go back to our users who have also fallen victims to Gambler’s fallacy. If you just heard a song from a particular artist, that doesn’t mean that the next song will be more likely from a different artist in a perfectly random order.
Wait no, it does, right? Since we are not doing random independent events, but taking things out off a finite set. Going back to the colors, if there are 4 green and 4 not-green, there's a 50% chance that the first song is green. But if the first song is green, doesn't that mean that there's now a 3/7, or 43% chance, that the second song is green? And 57% that it's NOT green?
At the extreme, if I have a single song of My Chemical Romance among 10 songs, and it plays first, I expect MCR not to play again (until the list resets, the algorithm describes a finite set, not a rolling one).
- airstrike 3y agoWhen they say "more likely from a different artist" they don't mean "more likely than before your last song" but rather that the probability that it is a different artist is higher than the artist last played (which is what the average person likely expects from their shuffle) If we're shuffling the set of my liked songs, and 90% of my liked songs are by Taylor Swift, even after hearing 3 of her songs back-to-back on shuffle, chances are I'm hearing her again next
- low_tech_love 3y agoYeah, you’re right. I think this is a case of simplification in communication over perfect technical accuracy. What he meant was more that song “similarity” (as in artist, album, etc) is not taken into account by the algorithm. But yes you’re absolutely right.