Am I the only one that cringes at "10x fewer?"
How do I multiply positive numbers and get something smaller?
Is "1/10th" or "90% less" not better arithmetic?
Maybe I should have done more gooder at math but it hurts my ears (eyes).
back
6 comments
> How do I multiply positive numbers and get something smaller?
fractions are gonna blow your mind
I one presented a p75 result of some work as "a 60% improvement" and got direct feedback that it was not a very impressive figure. However when they realized what I really meant was a "2.5x improvement" their eyes lit up.
I've asked around and people generally seem to prefer the bigger, sexier number. I don't care too much either way so I just go with the flow. Shrug.
Years ago A&W rolled out a “1/3 pound” burger to compete with McDonald’s quarter pounder, but it failed miserably despite being priced the same and rating higher in blind taste tests. Why? Because people perceive 1/4 to be larger than 1/3.
I think it depends how you think of the initial number, I think of it as a fraction and the multiplier applies to the denominator.
eg. if hallucinations occur roughly 1 in 20 prompts then 10x fewer is 1 in 200 prompts, rather than 0.1 in 20 prompts.
Isn't 1 in 200 equivalent to .1 in 20?
It is. I think their point is “10x fewer” makes sense if you imagine going from a denominator of 20 to 200.
Bigger number better, obviously!
I am also annoyed by most modern tech marketing using percentages incorrectly and inconsistently. But 150% is a bigger number than 1.5x so I suppose their hands are tied.
They are overloading "fewer" to mean division as well as subtraction. According to this logic "twice fewer" means "half as much".
Fewer is subtraction, times fewer is division.
More is addition, times more is multiplication (or 1 plus multiplication, oops).
I don't think anyone says "twice fewer". Or "twice more" when talking about quantities.
They're speaking to the lay community. The lay community is not known for using precise language. If they had used language like yours, the lay community probably wouldn't have received the key message: "10x better".
On the other side, it seems clear that the scientific community was able to deduce the intended meaning of "10x fewer".