I recently had the chance to read a book explaining how to use ChatGPT with a certain programming language. (I'm not going to describe the book any more than that because I don't want to embarrass whoever wrote it.)
They have appendix material showing three queries to ChatGPT and the answers. Paraphrased, the queries are "if I throw 2 (3, 4) fair dice, what is the probability I get 7 or 11? Show the reasoning." I thought those questions would make a nice little example, maybe something for Exercism or RosettaCode. Here's the R version: > faces <- 1:6 > sum(rowSums(expand.grid(faces, faces)) %in% c(7,11))/6^2 [1] 0.2222222 > sum(rowSums(expand.grid(faces, faces, faces)) %in% c(7,11))/6^3 [1] 0.1944444 > sum(rowSums(expand.grid(faces, faces, faces, faces)) %in% c(7,11))/6^4 [1] 0.09567901 Here's where it gets amusing. ChatGPT explained its answers with great thoroughness. But its answer to the 3 dice problem, with what was supposedly a list of success cases, was quite wrong. ChatGPT claimed the answer was 33/216 instead of 42/216. Here's where it gets bemusing. Whoever wrote the book included the interaction in the book WITHOUT CHECKING the results, or at least without commenting on the wrongness of one of them. I actually wrote the program in 6 other programming languages, and was startled at how simple and direct it was in base R. Well done, R. ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
