Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Any Human Ever – One life, drawn at random from all who have ever lived

anyhumanever.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 327 posts

Re: Any Human Ever – One life, drawn at random from all who have ever lived

#231

Post by zamadatix »

no_multitudes wrote: post #211
zamadatix wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No anthropomorphization was required, I just looked at one of the sources on that section of the page and saw the statistic did not involve the number of newborns and so figured myself those facts could indeed be simultaneously true. How do I know the methods described in the source were correctly used here? I don't, but I also wouldn't know that based on whether or not a human wrote the webapp. I'd know that by chec…

Which source was that?

In my case it was:

Preston, S. H., Heuveline, P., & Guillot, M. (2001). Demography: Measuring and modeling population processes. Blackwell Publishers.

In GP's case I believe they are correct the Hajnal source is not relevant to the Yangtze Basin but reading the first page should have made it clear the facts could be simultaneously true regardless where the percentages came from or if they were accurate.

Again, there are plenty of problems with the site. That it was clear these facts can't all be true simultaneously was just not one of them.

Re: Any Human Ever – One life, drawn at random from all who have ever lived

#232

Post by mike_bob »

999900000999 wrote: post #213
no_multitudes wrote: post #145

I drew a woman born in 715 CE in the Yangtze Basin. It claims that 96% of women were married, the average age of marriage was 18, and 44% of women died before age 15. Clearly these facts can't all be true simultaneously. The firt citation for marriage data is listed as "Hajnal (RH31)", but links to a seemingly unrelated WorldCat search. The second citation is to "Kaplan (RH03)", which I was able to track down on sci-…

That’s basically what I’m thinking. Not only is this pointless, it’s outright mis information. Who gains anything from having an llm create an imaginary person ? I guess for pure entertainment, but this looks like it’s a historical website

Welcome to the future of widespread information, where the uneducated masses don't understand what context, or the definition of words for that matter, even is.

Re: Any Human Ever – One life, drawn at random from all who have ever lived

#234

Post by Wowfunhappy »

assumed_throwaw wrote: post #176
no_multitudes wrote: post #145

I drew a woman born in 715 CE in the Yangtze Basin. It claims that 96% of women were married, the average age of marriage was 18, and 44% of women died before age 15. Clearly these facts can't all be true simultaneously. The firt citation for marriage data is listed as "Hajnal (RH31)", but links to a seemingly unrelated WorldCat search. The second citation is to "Kaplan (RH03)", which I was able to track down on sci-…

I am genuinely puzzled as to why this kind of vibe-coded site are so popular on HN. I consider the crowd here to be much smarter than I am, which is why I enjoyed the links that were shared and the discussions that followed. The website is pretty, but the statistics and stories are the main point. Yet we are being fed hallucinated false claims, and somehow, that doesn't seem to be a problem... I don't understand why…

Until I read the comments here, I did not notice the stats were bad. I was just skimming the facts I thought were interesting, not looking for contradictions.

The site itself is a really cool concept! I just wish the information was accurate. Now that I know it's not, I feel cheated.

I suspect a lot of people don't read the comments.

Re: Any Human Ever – One life, drawn at random from all who have ever lived

#235

Post by no_multitudes »

morpheos137 wrote: post #216
no_multitudes wrote: post #145

I drew a woman born in 715 CE in the Yangtze Basin. It claims that 96% of women were married, the average age of marriage was 18, and 44% of women died before age 15. Clearly these facts can't all be true simultaneously. The firt citation for marriage data is listed as "Hajnal (RH31)", but links to a seemingly unrelated WorldCat search. The second citation is to "Kaplan (RH03)", which I was able to track down on sci-…

"I drew a woman born in 715 CE in the Yangtze Basin. It claims that 96% of women were married, the average age of marriage was 18, and 44% of women died before age 15. Clearly these facts can't all be true simultaneously." Umm yeah they can be true. Dead people are not counted. The straightforward interpretation is 96% of women living to 18 years or greater marry at some point in life. However the app has bigger prob…

Yes, if a human told me this collection of facts I would assume they failed to properly explain their methodology. Given that the LLM is just making up numbers (see the "sources" page, where these are listed as "attributed",) there isn't really a methodology to explain in this case.

Re: Any Human Ever – One life, drawn at random from all who have ever lived

#236

Post by Wowfunhappy »

pictureofabear wrote: post #233

The more details this gives, the less likely it is that the story is true. Since the output is a highly detailed story, the statistical reality of this site is that's complete bullshit.

The website is quite clear that the stories are made up based on statistical likelihood, so that part didn't bother me at all. It's a cool way to explore the statistics.

What bothers me is that the statistics themselves are bad.

Re: Any Human Ever – One life, drawn at random from all who have ever lived

#237

Post by ivanjermakov »

no_multitudes wrote: post #145

I drew a woman born in 715 CE in the Yangtze Basin. It claims that 96% of women were married, the average age of marriage was 18, and 44% of women died before age 15. Clearly these facts can't all be true simultaneously. The firt citation for marriage data is listed as "Hajnal (RH31)", but links to a seemingly unrelated WorldCat search. The second citation is to "Kaplan (RH03)", which I was able to track down on sci-…

Worst part is that it's often not clear at the first glance was it something carefully crafted or steamrolled by LLM.

Re: Any Human Ever – One life, drawn at random from all who have ever lived

#238

Post by DamnInteresting »

no_multitudes wrote: post #145

I drew a woman born in 715 CE in the Yangtze Basin. It claims that 96% of women were married, the average age of marriage was 18, and 44% of women died before age 15. Clearly these facts can't all be true simultaneously. The firt citation for marriage data is listed as "Hajnal (RH31)", but links to a seemingly unrelated WorldCat search. The second citation is to "Kaplan (RH03)", which I was able to track down on sci-…

> I drew a woman born in 715 CE in the Yangtze Basin. It claims that 96% of women were married, the average age of marriage was 18, and 44% of women died before age 15. Clearly these facts can't all be true simultaneously.

Yeah, I got: You have drawn a girl, born in the Yangtze Basin in 1295 CE.

Typical age at marriage: 18 Ever married (of adults): 96% Children per woman: 6.5

Life expectancy at birth: 28 yrs Died before age 5: 39% Died before age 15: 44%

Very similar to your "random" draw, and the facts are suspect. There was a link to the source, but it's behind a paywall.

Re: Any Human Ever – One life, drawn at random from all who have ever lived

#239

Post by no_multitudes »

zamadatix wrote: post #231
no_multitudes wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which source was that?

In my case it was: Preston, S. H., Heuveline, P., & Guillot, M. (2001). Demography: Measuring and modeling population processes. Blackwell Publishers. In GP's case I believe they are correct the Hajnal source is not relevant to the Yangtze Basin but reading the first page should have made it clear the facts could be simultaneously true regardless where the percentages came from or if they were accurate. Again, there…

This appears to be a general introductory demography textbook. I am surprised that you looked at it and it contains specific demographic tables about marriage rates at specific time periods? Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you mean by 'I looked at one of the sources and saw it did not involve newborn rates.'
Post reply on HN