5 ms·
Just because it's approximated by a bell curve doesn't make it a bell curve. There are quite obvious separate phenomena shaping the curve at different times.
by fluoridation 3mo ago
Just because it's approximated by a bell curve doesn't make it a bell curve. There are quite obvious separate phenomena shaping the curve at different times.
- khalic 3mo ago> just because it's approximated by a bell curve doesn't make it a bell curve I'm going to assume this is bait...
- jdlshore 3mo agoBell curves are probability distributions. This is a time series, so it can’t be a bell curve. It just has the same shape.
- khalic 3mo agoAre you discarding the utility of Gaussian functions in analysis simply because the independent variable is time? A Gaussian curve can be used as a descriptive model without claiming that the observations themselves are a probability distribution The fit does not prove causation, but it does show that the decline was already well described by a trend that began years before generative AI. If the claim is that 2023 created a separate structural break, it's different claim then the title describes
- samatman 3mo agoYou can't call it a bell curve unless it's from the Charles Murray region. It's just sparkling statistics.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- strken 3mo agoDo you mean "just because it's a bell curve, doesn't make it a normal distribution"?
- fluoridation 3mo agoNo, I meant what I said.