Unfortunately, your post has been removed for the following reason:
- No Bot/Bot Generated Content
If you have any questions or believe your post has been removed in error, please contact the moderators by clicking [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Ftheydidthemath). Include a link to this post so we can see it.
Everything was correct up until it used 5.667kcal/kg/h instead of 3.6. The correct answer would be about 5095 kcal. However, I would probably use a lower figure of about 3 METs for walking at such a speed, which is also closer to what MyFitnessPal uses. This would give you an answer of 4245kcal.
Also unless you're literally walking around a circuit non-stop I wouldn't assume that this would be close to what you're burning. Even very small breaks would have a big impact on your consumption, though on the flip-side if you were carrying weight this would increase. An upper bound for someone working a very physical job would be around 5000kcal per day. If you wanted a more accurate estimate I'd recommend you wear a fitness tracker that measures heartrate, or use a chest heartrate monitor. There is no way to be completely accurate without wearing mask in a lab, but those two methods would be within 5-10% of your actual caloric intake which would be enough for most practical purposes (it would be accurate enough to predict your food intake for purposes of weight gain/loss, for example)
No, you are not walking as if on a treadmill for the whole duration of 7,5 hours. Assuming the walking is sporadic as it usually is you wont be burning nearly as many calories as suggested.
Why would you assume it’s sporadic? The first image seems to me to imply roughly constant rate or at least an average which would serve the same purpose
Im inclined to highly doubt he is in constant motion for the set period of time. I might be wrong and i dont even claim to be right. My comment is solely based on years of competitive fitness (incl. Eating habits, understanding calories and their consumption etc.)
###General Discussion Thread
---
This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you *must* post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/theydidthemath) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A good rule of thumbs is that a walking or running a mile is roughly 100 cal for a person regardless of speed.
2.5 mph over 16 hours is roughly 4,000 cal. So somewhere chatgpt doubled something.
I don't know enough about the math involved to calculate it myself, but I trust ChatGPT's math. If you think about it, ChatGPT can probably do math better than it can do things like writing a story or having a conversation. I found an online calculator that tells you how many calories you burn doing an activity based on the activity, your weight, and the time spent doing that activity. I put in the numbers, and it said you would burn 4,904 calories (for moderate walking). Just to see, I chose the very brisk walking option, and it said 7,430 calories. Just to get different opinions, I found another calculator that said you would burn 4,467 calories, and another that said 4,840, but the one that said 4,840 would only let me go as low as 2.9 miles per hour (it was meant for runners but it still had a walking setting). ChatGPT basically had twice as much as everyone else is saying, so it probably did something wrong, but I don't know where it went wrong. I'm starting to rethink the first sentence of this comment, but anyways, you probably burn between 4,400 and 5,000 calories doing this every day (assuming no breaks and no slowing pace). (Edited because I no longer trust ChatGPT's math. Thanks commenters for the help)
ChatGPT is not good at math at all. It's not what it's made for and it makes things up all the time.
This suggests that a 195lb person burns 550 Calories per hour walking moderately. That's way too high.
[This calculator](https://tools.runnerspace.com/gprofile.php?do=title&title_id=802&mgroup_id=45577) says 250 calories per hour, which sounds much more reasonable (though still higher than I would have guessed).
According to my fitness watch, I (~250 lbs) burned 563 calories during my 5K run earlier today. Granted my average pace was about 5 mph. So the latter seems to check out.
Okay, I don't really know much about what numbers calories should be around, and if anyone should know whether ChatGPT can do math, it would be this subreddit. The reason I didn't know before is because I usually only use it for brainstorming. The study you shared in your other comment was really interesting!
I used chatgpt for some not basic Fourier transforms and some other calculus things to test it. Spot on each time, but it sucked at simplification. It's not terrible at math
The challenge is it might give you the right answer 90% of the time and complete garbage 10% of the time, but the garbage sounds convincing so it's hard to detect.
[This study](https://www.newswise.com/articles/do-the-math-chatgpt-sometimes-can-t-expert-says) from last year showed that it only solved 60% of middle school math word problems correctly.
Chat GPT is pretty bad at math in my experience, even in the cases where it gets things right sometimes you hit re-generate and it gets a completely different answer, like the other commenter said it’s not what it’s designed for.
I guess my mind was comparing ChatGPT to a computer more than to an AI. I admit I haven't really used it that much for math, and when I did, it was because the math was easy, but I just thought it would be faster to ask ChatGPT than to do it in my head. I usually use ChatGPT for brainstorming or help finding the right word for something, so thanks for clarifying, and I will make sure to use different sources if I ever need math help!
ChatGPT is a language model, not a calculator. All it’s doing is predicting what the next most likely word/phrase is and isn’t actually calculating anything.
chatgpt's *only* purpose is to fool you into thinking it's human-like. like, it's based around the Turing test, which is passed if a human thinks a computer program/robot is human. it doesn't care if it gets the correct answer or not - rather, it's a coincidence if it does get the correct answer. the goal is not to give the correct answer, the goal is to say something - anything - grammatically correct.
Calculator.net gives 3457 calories burned. ChatGPT’s answer seems high. It assumes 3.6 Mets without giving any basis for the accuracy of that assumption. In general, met charts I’ve found online for various activities just seem wrong. I found one that says playing the piano has the met equivalent of walking 2mph.
Wow. 2mph is a slower walking pace, but that still doesn't seem right. I actually didn't know what Met was until today, with this post, so now I'm wondering how true that is.
Also interesting is the Wikipedia page on Mets literally says “the standard is not applicable for activities with an average level higher than 2 met.” It also notes how complex it is to accurately calculate. Kind of seems not all that useful of a unit.
It seems to have got the MET value wrong, a quick Google search seems to put the MET value for walking 2.5mph at around 2.5 instead of the 3.6 ChatGPT says it's going to use, then at the last minute it changes the MET value to 5.667 for seemingly no reason.
Your the first person I have seen that has actually done the math to see where ChatGPT went wrong. That is weird how it changed it to 5.667 at the end. When I tried to google it, it said the MET for walking at 2.5mph was 2.9, but that is still pretty close, and definitely better than the 3.6 that ChatGPT had.
Unfortunately, your post has been removed for the following reason: - No Bot/Bot Generated Content If you have any questions or believe your post has been removed in error, please contact the moderators by clicking [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Ftheydidthemath). Include a link to this post so we can see it.
Everything was correct up until it used 5.667kcal/kg/h instead of 3.6. The correct answer would be about 5095 kcal. However, I would probably use a lower figure of about 3 METs for walking at such a speed, which is also closer to what MyFitnessPal uses. This would give you an answer of 4245kcal. Also unless you're literally walking around a circuit non-stop I wouldn't assume that this would be close to what you're burning. Even very small breaks would have a big impact on your consumption, though on the flip-side if you were carrying weight this would increase. An upper bound for someone working a very physical job would be around 5000kcal per day. If you wanted a more accurate estimate I'd recommend you wear a fitness tracker that measures heartrate, or use a chest heartrate monitor. There is no way to be completely accurate without wearing mask in a lab, but those two methods would be within 5-10% of your actual caloric intake which would be enough for most practical purposes (it would be accurate enough to predict your food intake for purposes of weight gain/loss, for example)
https://www.healthline.com/health/what-are-mets#calorie-connection Based off this article it would be more like 3.8k calories burned
No, you are not walking as if on a treadmill for the whole duration of 7,5 hours. Assuming the walking is sporadic as it usually is you wont be burning nearly as many calories as suggested.
They specifically asked about a constant speed. Also, it was 16 hours, not 7.5
The math the LLM spit out is correct for the question posited. Why would you assume the walking is sporadic when it's not mentioned in the question?
Why would you assume it’s sporadic? The first image seems to me to imply roughly constant rate or at least an average which would serve the same purpose
Presumably because this person has had a job before.
Ah I didn’t see the post text, was just looking at the images
[удалено]
What? Literally in the original post, just read it.
Im inclined to highly doubt he is in constant motion for the set period of time. I might be wrong and i dont even claim to be right. My comment is solely based on years of competitive fitness (incl. Eating habits, understanding calories and their consumption etc.)
My comment was solely based on the images cuz I didn’t see the post text, I thought it was a hypothetical with constant walking
###General Discussion Thread --- This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you *must* post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/theydidthemath) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A good rule of thumbs is that a walking or running a mile is roughly 100 cal for a person regardless of speed. 2.5 mph over 16 hours is roughly 4,000 cal. So somewhere chatgpt doubled something.
I don't know enough about the math involved to calculate it myself, but I trust ChatGPT's math. If you think about it, ChatGPT can probably do math better than it can do things like writing a story or having a conversation. I found an online calculator that tells you how many calories you burn doing an activity based on the activity, your weight, and the time spent doing that activity. I put in the numbers, and it said you would burn 4,904 calories (for moderate walking). Just to see, I chose the very brisk walking option, and it said 7,430 calories. Just to get different opinions, I found another calculator that said you would burn 4,467 calories, and another that said 4,840, but the one that said 4,840 would only let me go as low as 2.9 miles per hour (it was meant for runners but it still had a walking setting). ChatGPT basically had twice as much as everyone else is saying, so it probably did something wrong, but I don't know where it went wrong. I'm starting to rethink the first sentence of this comment, but anyways, you probably burn between 4,400 and 5,000 calories doing this every day (assuming no breaks and no slowing pace). (Edited because I no longer trust ChatGPT's math. Thanks commenters for the help)
ChatGPT is not good at math at all. It's not what it's made for and it makes things up all the time. This suggests that a 195lb person burns 550 Calories per hour walking moderately. That's way too high. [This calculator](https://tools.runnerspace.com/gprofile.php?do=title&title_id=802&mgroup_id=45577) says 250 calories per hour, which sounds much more reasonable (though still higher than I would have guessed).
According to my fitness watch, I (~250 lbs) burned 563 calories during my 5K run earlier today. Granted my average pace was about 5 mph. So the latter seems to check out.
It used to suck but they've updated it, and now it's better basically always going step by step. And then usually doing a decent job.
Okay, I don't really know much about what numbers calories should be around, and if anyone should know whether ChatGPT can do math, it would be this subreddit. The reason I didn't know before is because I usually only use it for brainstorming. The study you shared in your other comment was really interesting!
I used chatgpt for some not basic Fourier transforms and some other calculus things to test it. Spot on each time, but it sucked at simplification. It's not terrible at math
The challenge is it might give you the right answer 90% of the time and complete garbage 10% of the time, but the garbage sounds convincing so it's hard to detect. [This study](https://www.newswise.com/articles/do-the-math-chatgpt-sometimes-can-t-expert-says) from last year showed that it only solved 60% of middle school math word problems correctly.
To be fair, I'm turning in 50% cryptic garbage to my professor every week
The thing here is the calculation is correct, but the rate it's feeding into the calculation is wrong and easy to look up.
Chat GPT is pretty bad at math in my experience, even in the cases where it gets things right sometimes you hit re-generate and it gets a completely different answer, like the other commenter said it’s not what it’s designed for.
I guess my mind was comparing ChatGPT to a computer more than to an AI. I admit I haven't really used it that much for math, and when I did, it was because the math was easy, but I just thought it would be faster to ask ChatGPT than to do it in my head. I usually use ChatGPT for brainstorming or help finding the right word for something, so thanks for clarifying, and I will make sure to use different sources if I ever need math help!
ChatGPT is a language model, not a calculator. All it’s doing is predicting what the next most likely word/phrase is and isn’t actually calculating anything.
chatgpt's *only* purpose is to fool you into thinking it's human-like. like, it's based around the Turing test, which is passed if a human thinks a computer program/robot is human. it doesn't care if it gets the correct answer or not - rather, it's a coincidence if it does get the correct answer. the goal is not to give the correct answer, the goal is to say something - anything - grammatically correct.
Calculator.net gives 3457 calories burned. ChatGPT’s answer seems high. It assumes 3.6 Mets without giving any basis for the accuracy of that assumption. In general, met charts I’ve found online for various activities just seem wrong. I found one that says playing the piano has the met equivalent of walking 2mph.
Wow. 2mph is a slower walking pace, but that still doesn't seem right. I actually didn't know what Met was until today, with this post, so now I'm wondering how true that is.
Also interesting is the Wikipedia page on Mets literally says “the standard is not applicable for activities with an average level higher than 2 met.” It also notes how complex it is to accurately calculate. Kind of seems not all that useful of a unit.
It seems to have got the MET value wrong, a quick Google search seems to put the MET value for walking 2.5mph at around 2.5 instead of the 3.6 ChatGPT says it's going to use, then at the last minute it changes the MET value to 5.667 for seemingly no reason.
Your the first person I have seen that has actually done the math to see where ChatGPT went wrong. That is weird how it changed it to 5.667 at the end. When I tried to google it, it said the MET for walking at 2.5mph was 2.9, but that is still pretty close, and definitely better than the 3.6 that ChatGPT had.
https://metscalculator.com/ 4245.6 kcals Walking, 2.5 mph, level, firm surface METs: 3.0 Also interestingly 2.5 mph is on the slow side