Download png, svg
AI explanation
The decrease in GMO use in cotton in Georgia led to the production of smaller cotton bales. As a result, the demand for file folders, traditionally made from cotton, decreased. With fewer file folders being produced, there was less need for file clerks to organize and manage them in offices across the state. It's a classic case of how agricultural practices can have an unexpected ripple effect on office staffing!Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image of a TIME magazine cover featuring a Georgia cotton field. In the center, showcase rows of vibrant non-GMO cotton plants swaying in the breeze. The contrast between the natural beauty of the cotton and the absence of file clerks, usually attracted to genetically modified cotton, would be a visually interesting point to emphasize. The decrease in file clerks due to the shift away from GMO cotton should be subtly implied through the absence of human figures in the scene. The focus should remain on the natural beauty of the cotton field, with a serene and tranquil atmosphere. The depiction should include only scenes, people, and objects, it should not include text or speech bubbles.
This image generation prompt was also generated by AI, using the following sequence:
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You select one of a few potential scene descriptors that seems to go along with the variables described. You respond only with the scene descriptions provided and say nothing else.
User prompt: Here are two variables: GMO use in cotton in Georgia and The number of file clerks in Georgia. Given these, which of the following image style descriptions seems most appropriate? Pick the one that seems to be related to one of the variables at hand. Please respond with only one of the following potential descriptions: Futuristic A comic-book-style illustration with muted colors and a dotted halftone pattern from the 1960s Hyper-realistic A TIME magazine cover image Surrealism
ChatGPT: A TIME magazine cover image
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated. You combine both variables into one scene.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that prominently depicts both GMO use in cotton in Georgia and The number of file clerks in Georgia, in the following situation: Because with less GMO cotton being used in Georgia, the cotton plants are now growing more naturally and therefore attracting fewer file clerks, who are drawn to genetically modified organisms. The decrease in file clerks is a direct result of the decrease in GMO cotton, as they no longer feel the need to organize the non-GMO paperwork.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a Georgia cotton field, rows of vibrant non-GMO cotton plants sway gently in the breeze. The natural beauty of the cotton draws in fewer file clerks, who are usually attracted to the organized rows of genetically modified cotton. The decrease in file clerks directly corresponds to the shift away from GMO cotton, as they are no longer needed to manage the paperwork associated with genetically modified organisms.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You write and improve image generation prompts for DALLE-3. You maintain the same subjects, but enhance the visuals.
User prompt: Please respond with an image generation prompt that would be likely to create an interesting visual using DALLE-3, using the following style: [ A TIME magazine cover image ] and depicting this scene: In a Georgia cotton field, rows of vibrant non-GMO cotton plants sway gently in the breeze. The natural beauty of the cotton draws in fewer file clerks, who are usually attracted to the organized rows of genetically modified cotton. The decrease in file clerks directly corresponds to the shift away from GMO cotton, as they are no longer needed to manage the paperwork associated with genetically modified organisms. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image of a TIME magazine cover featuring a Georgia cotton field. In the center, showcase rows of vibrant non-GMO cotton plants swaying in the breeze. The contrast between the natural beauty of the cotton and the absence of file clerks, usually attracted to genetically modified cotton, would be a visually interesting point to emphasize. The decrease in file clerks due to the shift away from GMO cotton should be subtly implied through the absence of human figures in the scene. The focus should remain on the natural beauty of the cotton field, with a serene and tranquil atmosphere.
*Variations in the User Prompts from chart to chart are just the result of random number generation in Python. I wrote a few arrays of various styles and methods to ask questions to change up the results. Every time this site writes an explanation or generates an image, the script picks from each at random.
I sequence the requests into multiple prompts because I find GPT 3.5 to perform much better with short, well-managed contexts. Thus, I track the context directly in Python and only ask ChatGPT targeted questions.
System prompt: You provide humorous responses in the form of plausible sounding explanations for correlations. You assume the correlation is causative for the purpose of the explanation even if it is ridiculous. You do not chat with the user, you only reply with the causal connection explanation and nothing else.
User prompt: Please make up a funny explanation for how a decrease in GMO use in cotton in Georgia caused The number of file clerks in Georgia to decrease.\Make it sound serious until the end.
AI academic paper
Cotton's Genetic Modification and Clerical Careers: A Comical Correlation The Journal of Zany Genetics and Career Studies Jan 2024 Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real! |
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.You write titles and abstracts of goofy academic research papers.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, and add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in cotton in Georgia and The number of file clerks in Georgia. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.
Make the title an alliteration.
Your research team used data from USDA and Bureau of Larbor Statistics to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9276043 and p < 0.01 for 2003 to 2022.
Please respond in this format (replace "Lorem ipsum dolor sit" with your title and abstract)
[[TITLE]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit
[[ABSTRACT]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit
ChatGPT:
[[TITLE]]
Cotton's Genetic Modification and Clerical Careers: A Comical Correlation
[[ABSTRACT]]
This groundbreaking study delves into the unlikely link between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton cultivation and the employment of file clerks in the charming state of Georgia. Tackling this topic from a satirical standpoint, we scrutinize the statistical data from the USDA and the Bureau of Labor Statistics to unearth the humorously unexpected relationship between these two seemingly unrelated entities. Our research unearths a surprisingly strong correlation coefficient of 0.9276043 and a p-value less than 0.01 over the period from 2003 to 2022, eliciting laughter and disbelief from our academic peers. Our findings challenge conventional notions of cause and effect, adding a splash of levity to the often austere field of scientific inquiry. Join us in this comical quest as we uncover the unexpectedly entertaining ties between GMOs in cotton and the number of file clerks punching the clock in the peachy state of Georgia.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the introduction section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in cotton in Georgia and The number of file clerks in Georgia. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.
Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Cotton's Genetic Modification and Clerical Careers: A Comical Correlation
[[ABSTRACT]]
This groundbreaking study delves into the unlikely link between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton cultivation and the employment of file clerks in the charming state of Georgia. Tackling this topic from a satirical standpoint, we scrutinize the statistical data from the USDA and the Bureau of Labor Statistics to unearth the humorously unexpected relationship between these two seemingly unrelated entities. Our research unearths a surprisingly strong correlation coefficient of 0.9276043 and a p-value less than 0.01 over the period from 2003 to 2022, eliciting laughter and disbelief from our academic peers. Our findings challenge conventional notions of cause and effect, adding a splash of levity to the often austere field of scientific inquiry. Join us in this comical quest as we uncover the unexpectedly entertaining ties between GMOs in cotton and the number of file clerks punching the clock in the peachy state of Georgia.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Cotton, long hailed as the "fabric of our lives," has taken center stage in the world of genetic modification, adding a twist to the long-standing debate on biotechnology and agriculture. Meanwhile, the unassuming file clerks of Georgia have toiled away, perhaps unaware of their potential connection to the cotton fields. In this groundbreaking study, we take a humorous yet rigorous look at the juxtaposition of GMO usage in cotton and the number of file clerks in the peachy state of Georgia. This unlikely pairing has led us down a path filled with statistical surprises and chuckles, as we sought to uncover the correlation between these seemingly incongruous elements.
The humorous aspect of this correlation may at first seem incongruous with the seriousness of scientific inquiry, but we hoist the flag of academic levity with pride as we embark on this comical quest. It is precisely this blend of the absurd with the empirical that lends our research its unique charm, enticing both seasoned scientists and casual observers alike. After all, who knew that crunching numbers and chuckling could go hand in hand?
As we dive into our analysis, we must first acknowledge the skepticism that undoubtedly crops up when discussing such an unorthodox correlation. However, we assure the reader that our investigation is firmly rooted in solid statistical analysis, sprinkled with just a dash of whimsy. This is science, after all, and a little laughter never hurt anyone—except perhaps those who guffaw too heartily and spill their coffee on their meticulously arranged datasets.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.You draft a literature review section of an academic research paper, that starts out dry for the first few sentences but then becomes hilarious and goofy.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in cotton in Georgia and The number of file clerks in Georgia. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.
Speak in the present tense for this section (the authors find...), as is common in academic research paper literature reviews. Name the sources in a format similar to this: In "Book," the authors find lorem and ipsum.
Make up the lorem and ipsum part, but make it sound related to the topic at hand.
Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Then name some cartoons and childrens' shows that you watched that are related to the topic.
Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Cotton's Genetic Modification and Clerical Careers: A Comical Correlation
[[ABSTRACT]]
This groundbreaking study delves into the unlikely link between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton cultivation and the employment of file clerks in the charming state of Georgia. Tackling this topic from a satirical standpoint, we scrutinize the statistical data from the USDA and the Bureau of Labor Statistics to unearth the humorously unexpected relationship between these two seemingly unrelated entities. Our research unearths a surprisingly strong correlation coefficient of 0.9276043 and a p-value less than 0.01 over the period from 2003 to 2022, eliciting laughter and disbelief from our academic peers. Our findings challenge conventional notions of cause and effect, adding a splash of levity to the often austere field of scientific inquiry. Join us in this comical quest as we uncover the unexpectedly entertaining ties between GMOs in cotton and the number of file clerks punching the clock in the peachy state of Georgia.
-------
And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Cotton, long hailed as the "fabric of our lives," has taken center stage in the world of genetic modification, adding a twist to the long-standing debate on biotechnology and agriculture. Meanwhile, the unassuming file clerks of Georgia have toiled away, perhaps unaware of their potential connection to the cotton fields. In this groundbreaking study, we take a humorous yet rigorous look at the juxtaposition of GMO usage in cotton and the number of file clerks in the peachy state of Georgia. This unlikely pairing has led us down a path filled with statistical surprises and chuckles, as we sought to uncover the correlation between these seemingly incongruous elements.
The humorous aspect of this correlation may at first seem incongruous with the seriousness of scientific inquiry, but we hoist the flag of academic levity with pride as we embark on this comical quest. It is precisely this blend of the absurd with the empirical that lends our research its unique charm, enticing both seasoned scientists and casual observers alike. After all, who knew that crunching numbers and chuckling could go hand in hand?
As we dive into our analysis, we must first acknowledge the skepticism that undoubtedly crops up when discussing such an unorthodox correlation. However, we assure the reader that our investigation is firmly rooted in solid statistical analysis, sprinkled with just a dash of whimsy. This is science, after all, and a little laughter never hurt anyone—except perhaps those who guffaw too heartily and spill their coffee on their meticulously arranged datasets.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The connection between the adoption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton cultivation and the proliferation of file clerks in Georgia may initially strike one as a farcical premise, bordering on the preposterous. Yet, as we wade into the amusing waters of this peculiar correlation, we embark on a quest that is anything but run-of-the-mill.
In their seminal work "Seeds of Change," Smith and Doe evaluate the impact of GMO adoption in various agricultural sectors. While their study primarily focuses on crop yield and pest resistance, a fleeting mention of the potential societal ripples of GMO proliferation piques our interest. Venturing further into this whimsical web of genetic modification, we stumble upon Jones' witty treatise, "Cotton, Clerks, and a Hint of Chaos," which coyly hints at the enthralling interplay between biotechnology and bureaucratic careers.
The comical crossroads of cotton and clerks has also been obliquely alluded to in more offbeat literary realms. In his fictional work "Cotton and Chaos: A Desk Job Saga," Lemony Snicket surreptitiously weaves a whimsical narrative that leads us directly to the fabled desks of Georgia's file clerks. Similarly, the mesmerizing escapades chronicled in "The Secret Life of File Folders" by John Green tantalizingly beckon us to uncover the enigmatic connection between paperwork and the genetic metamorphosis of cotton.
Delving into our childhood memories, we recall the animated musings of "Arthur" and "Hey Arnold," where the meticulously constructed landscapes and amusing plotlines undoubtedly mirror the juxtaposition we aim to explore. While the adventures of these animated characters may seem far removed from our empirical endeavors, we cannot discount the subtle lessons and thematic correlations that may lurk within these lighthearted tales.
As we tiptoe further into this captivating quagmire of GMOs and file clerks, our own inquisitiveness becomes the guiding force propelling us toward hilariously unexpected discoveries.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the methodology section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in cotton in Georgia and The number of file clerks in Georgia. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.
Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from USDA and Bureau of Larbor Statistics . You used data from 2003 to 2022
Make up the research methods you don't know. Make them a bit goofy and convoluted.
Here is the title, abstract, and introduction of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Cotton's Genetic Modification and Clerical Careers: A Comical Correlation
[[ABSTRACT]]
This groundbreaking study delves into the unlikely link between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton cultivation and the employment of file clerks in the charming state of Georgia. Tackling this topic from a satirical standpoint, we scrutinize the statistical data from the USDA and the Bureau of Labor Statistics to unearth the humorously unexpected relationship between these two seemingly unrelated entities. Our research unearths a surprisingly strong correlation coefficient of 0.9276043 and a p-value less than 0.01 over the period from 2003 to 2022, eliciting laughter and disbelief from our academic peers. Our findings challenge conventional notions of cause and effect, adding a splash of levity to the often austere field of scientific inquiry. Join us in this comical quest as we uncover the unexpectedly entertaining ties between GMOs in cotton and the number of file clerks punching the clock in the peachy state of Georgia.
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Cotton, long hailed as the "fabric of our lives," has taken center stage in the world of genetic modification, adding a twist to the long-standing debate on biotechnology and agriculture. Meanwhile, the unassuming file clerks of Georgia have toiled away, perhaps unaware of their potential connection to the cotton fields. In this groundbreaking study, we take a humorous yet rigorous look at the juxtaposition of GMO usage in cotton and the number of file clerks in the peachy state of Georgia. This unlikely pairing has led us down a path filled with statistical surprises and chuckles, as we sought to uncover the correlation between these seemingly incongruous elements.
The humorous aspect of this correlation may at first seem incongruous with the seriousness of scientific inquiry, but we hoist the flag of academic levity with pride as we embark on this comical quest. It is precisely this blend of the absurd with the empirical that lends our research its unique charm, enticing both seasoned scientists and casual observers alike. After all, who knew that crunching numbers and chuckling could go hand in hand?
As we dive into our analysis, we must first acknowledge the skepticism that undoubtedly crops up when discussing such an unorthodox correlation. However, we assure the reader that our investigation is firmly rooted in solid statistical analysis, sprinkled with just a dash of whimsy. This is science, after all, and a little laughter never hurt anyone—except perhaps those who guffaw too heartily and spill their coffee on their meticulously arranged datasets.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
ChatGPT:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
To unravel the hilariously unexpected relationship between genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton and the population of file clerks in Georgia, our research team embarked on a delightfully convoluted data collection journey. We obtained information on cotton cultivation, GMO adoption rates, and employment figures for file clerks from various official sources, with a particular penchant for the whimsically named databases of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Our data collection spanned the years 2003 to 2022, allowing for an extensive and entertaining analysis of the comical connection between these two seemingly disparate elements.
To capture the essence of this whimsical correlation, we performed a series of slapstick statistical analyses with whimsy-laden software. Our primary method of analysis involved a rib-tickling regression model that measured the interplay between the adoption of GMOs in cotton cultivation and the number of file clerks employed in the state of Georgia. This model was accompanied by an ensemble of supplementary statistical techniques, all carefully selected to elicit a chuckle or two from our esteemed audience.
A key aspect of our methodology involved the incorporation of pun-based variable naming conventions. For instance, we playfully titled our explanatory variable "GMO-My-Golly" as a nod to the astonishing genetic modification practices in cotton. On the other hand, the response variable, symbolizing the number of file clerks, was humorously labeled as "Filing-Funatics." These playful monikers added a touch of comedic relief to the otherwise rigorous scientific process, reminding us that in the world of academic research, a bit of levity can be as crucial as a well-calibrated instrument.
Furthermore, we embraced a uniquely jovial approach to outlier detection, using wit and whimsy to identify and exclude data points that veered too far from the comical curve. Through this process, we ensured that our analyses were as amusingly precise as possible, leaving no room for statistical sourpusses to dampen the comedic camaraderie.
In conclusion, our methodology combined a serious devotion to statistical rigor with an undercurrent of playful absurdity, as befits a research endeavor of such comical proportions. By infusing our methods with humor and lightheartedness, we hope to inspire the scientific community to embrace a spirit of merriment in their pursuit of knowledge, one chuckle-inducing correlation at a time.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the results section of an academic research paper. You speak in the past tense (you found...).
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in cotton in Georgia and The number of file clerks in Georgia. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.
Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from USDA and Bureau of Larbor Statistics .
For the time period 2003 to 2022, you found a correlation 0.9276043, r-squared of 0.8604497, and p < 0.01.
One figure will be included. The figure (Fig. 1) is a scatterplot showing the strong correlation between the two variables. You don't need to specify where; I will add the figure.
Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Cotton's Genetic Modification and Clerical Careers: A Comical Correlation
[[ABSTRACT]]
This groundbreaking study delves into the unlikely link between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton cultivation and the employment of file clerks in the charming state of Georgia. Tackling this topic from a satirical standpoint, we scrutinize the statistical data from the USDA and the Bureau of Labor Statistics to unearth the humorously unexpected relationship between these two seemingly unrelated entities. Our research unearths a surprisingly strong correlation coefficient of 0.9276043 and a p-value less than 0.01 over the period from 2003 to 2022, eliciting laughter and disbelief from our academic peers. Our findings challenge conventional notions of cause and effect, adding a splash of levity to the often austere field of scientific inquiry. Join us in this comical quest as we uncover the unexpectedly entertaining ties between GMOs in cotton and the number of file clerks punching the clock in the peachy state of Georgia.
-------
And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
Cotton, long hailed as the "fabric of our lives," has taken center stage in the world of genetic modification, adding a twist to the long-standing debate on biotechnology and agriculture. Meanwhile, the unassuming file clerks of Georgia have toiled away, perhaps unaware of their potential connection to the cotton fields. In this groundbreaking study, we take a humorous yet rigorous look at the juxtaposition of GMO usage in cotton and the number of file clerks in the peachy state of Georgia. This unlikely pairing has led us down a path filled with statistical surprises and chuckles, as we sought to uncover the correlation between these seemingly incongruous elements.
The humorous aspect of this correlation may at first seem incongruous with the seriousness of scientific inquiry, but we hoist the flag of academic levity with pride as we embark on this comical quest. It is precisely this blend of the absurd with the empirical that lends our research its unique charm, enticing both seasoned scientists and casual observers alike. After all, who knew that crunching numbers and chuckling could go hand in hand?
As we dive into our analysis, we must first acknowledge the skepticism that undoubtedly crops up when discussing such an unorthodox correlation. However, we assure the reader that our investigation is firmly rooted in solid statistical analysis, sprinkled with just a dash of whimsy. This is science, after all, and a little laughter never hurt anyone—except perhaps those who guffaw too heartily and spill their coffee on their meticulously arranged datasets.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[RESULTS]]
ChatGPT:
[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of our data revealed a remarkably strong correlation between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton production and the number of file clerks employed in the state of Georgia. From 2003 to 2022, we found a correlation coefficient of 0.9276043, indicating a robust positive relationship between these seemingly disparate factors. Our regression analysis yielded an r-squared value of 0.8604497, signifying that approximately 86% of the variation in the employment of file clerks in Georgia can be explained by the use of GMOs in cotton cultivation. These results elicited not only raised eyebrows but also raised laughter, as our findings shed light on the unexpected connection between these two realms.
At the heart of our analysis lies the scatterplot presented in Fig. 1, which succinctly encapsulates the comical correlation we have unveiled. The plot illustrates a clear and compelling relationship between GMO use in cotton and the employment of file clerks, leaving viewers simultaneously scratching their heads and chuckling in amusement. The distinctive pattern of the data points conveys the unmistakable message that while correlation does not necessarily imply causation, it does pave the way for unexpected wit in the world of academic research.
In summary, our research delivers a comically surprising finding, challenging traditional notions of cause-and-effect relationships. As we continue to navigate the intersection of science and humor, we invite fellow researchers to join us in delighting in the unforeseen connections that underlie the fabric of our professional pursuits.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the discussion section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in cotton in Georgia and The number of file clerks in Georgia. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.
Limit your response to 500 tokens.
Here are the title, abstract, literature review, and results sections. Please harken back to 1-2 of the goofy items in the literature review, but pretend to take them completely seriously. Discuss how your results supported the prior research.
Do not write a conclusion. I will add a conclusion after this.
[[TITLE]]
Cotton's Genetic Modification and Clerical Careers: A Comical Correlation
[[ABSTRACT]]
This groundbreaking study delves into the unlikely link between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton cultivation and the employment of file clerks in the charming state of Georgia. Tackling this topic from a satirical standpoint, we scrutinize the statistical data from the USDA and the Bureau of Labor Statistics to unearth the humorously unexpected relationship between these two seemingly unrelated entities. Our research unearths a surprisingly strong correlation coefficient of 0.9276043 and a p-value less than 0.01 over the period from 2003 to 2022, eliciting laughter and disbelief from our academic peers. Our findings challenge conventional notions of cause and effect, adding a splash of levity to the often austere field of scientific inquiry. Join us in this comical quest as we uncover the unexpectedly entertaining ties between GMOs in cotton and the number of file clerks punching the clock in the peachy state of Georgia.
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The connection between the adoption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton cultivation and the proliferation of file clerks in Georgia may initially strike one as a farcical premise, bordering on the preposterous. Yet, as we wade into the amusing waters of this peculiar correlation, we embark on a quest that is anything but run-of-the-mill.
In their seminal work "Seeds of Change," Smith and Doe evaluate the impact of GMO adoption in various agricultural sectors. While their study primarily focuses on crop yield and pest resistance, a fleeting mention of the potential societal ripples of GMO proliferation piques our interest. Venturing further into this whimsical web of genetic modification, we stumble upon Jones' witty treatise, "Cotton, Clerks, and a Hint of Chaos," which coyly hints at the enthralling interplay between biotechnology and bureaucratic careers.
The comical crossroads of cotton and clerks has also been obliquely alluded to in more offbeat literary realms. In his fictional work "Cotton and Chaos: A Desk Job Saga," Lemony Snicket surreptitiously weaves a whimsical narrative that leads us directly to the fabled desks of Georgia's file clerks. Similarly, the mesmerizing escapades chronicled in "The Secret Life of File Folders" by John Green tantalizingly beckon us to uncover the enigmatic connection between paperwork and the genetic metamorphosis of cotton.
Delving into our childhood memories, we recall the animated musings of "Arthur" and "Hey Arnold," where the meticulously constructed landscapes and amusing plotlines undoubtedly mirror the juxtaposition we aim to explore. While the adventures of these animated characters may seem far removed from our empirical endeavors, we cannot discount the subtle lessons and thematic correlations that may lurk within these lighthearted tales.
As we tiptoe further into this captivating quagmire of GMOs and file clerks, our own inquisitiveness becomes the guiding force propelling us toward hilariously unexpected discoveries.
[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of our data revealed a remarkably strong correlation between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton production and the number of file clerks employed in the state of Georgia. From 2003 to 2022, we found a correlation coefficient of 0.9276043, indicating a robust positive relationship between these seemingly disparate factors. Our regression analysis yielded an r-squared value of 0.8604497, signifying that approximately 86% of the variation in the employment of file clerks in Georgia can be explained by the use of GMOs in cotton cultivation. These results elicited not only raised eyebrows but also raised laughter, as our findings shed light on the unexpected connection between these two realms.
At the heart of our analysis lies the scatterplot presented in Fig. 1, which succinctly encapsulates the comical correlation we have unveiled. The plot illustrates a clear and compelling relationship between GMO use in cotton and the employment of file clerks, leaving viewers simultaneously scratching their heads and chuckling in amusement. The distinctive pattern of the data points conveys the unmistakable message that while correlation does not necessarily imply causation, it does pave the way for unexpected wit in the world of academic research.
In summary, our research delivers a comically surprising finding, challenging traditional notions of cause-and-effect relationships. As we continue to navigate the intersection of science and humor, we invite fellow researchers to join us in delighting in the unforeseen connections that underlie the fabric of our professional pursuits.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[DISCUSSION]]
ChatGPT:
[[DISCUSSION]]
Our findings not only tickle the intellect but also provide credence to the whimsical inklings presented in the literature review. Much like a lighthearted sitcom, our results converge with the mischievous musings of fictional literary works and animated tales. The comically consonant correlation we have uncovered serves as a testament to the intersection of scientific inquiry and jovial irony.
The unexpected alliance between GMO use in cotton cultivation and the employment of file clerks in Georgia mirrors the comedic chaos suggested by Jones' hints in "Cotton, Clerks, and a Hint of Chaos." It appears that the orderly world of file clerks and the unruly genetic modifications in cotton may not be as mismatched as anticipated. Our results align with Jones' playful conjecture, substantiating the enthralling interplay between biotechnology and bureaucratic careers.
Similarly, our research lends credence to the surreptitious suggestions of Lemony Snicket's "Cotton and Chaos: A Desk Job Saga" and John Green's enigmatic musings in "The Secret Life of File Folders." The unforeseen correlation we have brought to light resonates with the comedic chaos and whimsy encapsulated in these literary works, exemplifying the unexpected connections that lurk within the seemingly disparate realms of paperwork and genetic metamorphosis.
Moreover, our findings reflect the subtle parallels and thematic correlations hinted at in the animated escapades of "Arthur" and "Hey Arnold." The charming landscapes and amusing plotlines of these childhood tales now find a surprising echo in our empirical discoveries, demonstrating the playful lessons and thematic connections that traverse the divide between our comical findings and childhood stories.
In conclusion, our research provides a refreshing twist to the often austere field of scientific inquiry, inviting fellow researchers to embrace the unexpectedly entertaining ties between GMOs in cotton and the number of file clerks in the peachy state of Georgia. The whimsical correlations we have unveiled offer a dose of levity in the realm of empirical endeavors, beckoning researchers to embrace the comedic uncertainties that underpin our professional pursuits.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the discussion section of goofy academic research papers that sounds like it belongs based on the title and abstract provided.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in cotton in Georgia and The number of file clerks in Georgia. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.
Limit your response to 300 tokens. At the very end, assert that no more research is needed in this area.
Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
Cotton's Genetic Modification and Clerical Careers: A Comical Correlation
[[ABSTRACT]]
This groundbreaking study delves into the unlikely link between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton cultivation and the employment of file clerks in the charming state of Georgia. Tackling this topic from a satirical standpoint, we scrutinize the statistical data from the USDA and the Bureau of Labor Statistics to unearth the humorously unexpected relationship between these two seemingly unrelated entities. Our research unearths a surprisingly strong correlation coefficient of 0.9276043 and a p-value less than 0.01 over the period from 2003 to 2022, eliciting laughter and disbelief from our academic peers. Our findings challenge conventional notions of cause and effect, adding a splash of levity to the often austere field of scientific inquiry. Join us in this comical quest as we uncover the unexpectedly entertaining ties between GMOs in cotton and the number of file clerks punching the clock in the peachy state of Georgia.
[[INTRDUCTION]]
Cotton, long hailed as the "fabric of our lives," has taken center stage in the world of genetic modification, adding a twist to the long-standing debate on biotechnology and agriculture. Meanwhile, the unassuming file clerks of Georgia have toiled away, perhaps unaware of their potential connection to the cotton fields. In this groundbreaking study, we take a humorous yet rigorous look at the juxtaposition of GMO usage in cotton and the number of file clerks in the peachy state of Georgia. This unlikely pairing has led us down a path filled with statistical surprises and chuckles, as we sought to uncover the correlation between these seemingly incongruous elements.
The humorous aspect of this correlation may at first seem incongruous with the seriousness of scientific inquiry, but we hoist the flag of academic levity with pride as we embark on this comical quest. It is precisely this blend of the absurd with the empirical that lends our research its unique charm, enticing both seasoned scientists and casual observers alike. After all, who knew that crunching numbers and chuckling could go hand in hand?
As we dive into our analysis, we must first acknowledge the skepticism that undoubtedly crops up when discussing such an unorthodox correlation. However, we assure the reader that our investigation is firmly rooted in solid statistical analysis, sprinkled with just a dash of whimsy. This is science, after all, and a little laughter never hurt anyone—except perhaps those who guffaw too heartily and spill their coffee on their meticulously arranged datasets.
[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of our data revealed a remarkably strong correlation between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton production and the number of file clerks employed in the state of Georgia. From 2003 to 2022, we found a correlation coefficient of 0.9276043, indicating a robust positive relationship between these seemingly disparate factors. Our regression analysis yielded an r-squared value of 0.8604497, signifying that approximately 86% of the variation in the employment of file clerks in Georgia can be explained by the use of GMOs in cotton cultivation. These results elicited not only raised eyebrows but also raised laughter, as our findings shed light on the unexpected connection between these two realms.
At the heart of our analysis lies the scatterplot presented in Fig. 1, which succinctly encapsulates the comical correlation we have unveiled. The plot illustrates a clear and compelling relationship between GMO use in cotton and the employment of file clerks, leaving viewers simultaneously scratching their heads and chuckling in amusement. The distinctive pattern of the data points conveys the unmistakable message that while correlation does not necessarily imply causation, it does pave the way for unexpected wit in the world of academic research.
In summary, our research delivers a comically surprising finding, challenging traditional notions of cause-and-effect relationships. As we continue to navigate the intersection of science and humor, we invite fellow researchers to join us in delighting in the unforeseen connections that underlie the fabric of our professional pursuits.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[CONCLUSION]]
ChatGPT:
[[CONCLUSION]]
As we wrap up our investigation into the unexpectedly entertaining correlation between GMO use in cotton and the employment of file clerks in Georgia, it's evident that the humor and the data have woven a tapestry of statistical amusement. Our findings have added a touch of quirkiness to the world of scientific inquiry, reminding us that sometimes, even in the most serious of endeavors, a good chuckle can be the best medicine—unless it causes mishaps with our lab equipment, of course.
The correlation coefficient of 0.9276043 has left us pondering whether genetically modified cotton plants have secret designs to offer administrative support to the file clerks, perhaps by sprouting folders instead of bolls. While we resist the inclination to indulge in cotton-picking puns, we can't help but marvel at the possibility of a "GMO-to-clerk" pipeline, where the seed of change germinates in the fields and blossoms into paperwork-peddling professionals.
Nonetheless, our research has highlighted the unexpected yet robust relationship between these seemingly unrelated elements, proving that when it comes to statistical analysis, there's always room for a good-natured chuckle. With that in mind, we proudly declare that no more research is needed in this area, as we've already uncovered the perfect blend of whimsy and scholarly rigor. After all, who says science can't have a little fun?
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide fictional names of academic journals. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide the name of a funny but plausible sounding research, scientific, or academic journal that would publish a paper entited Cotton's Genetic Modification and Clerical Careers: A Comical Correlation. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.
ChatGPT:
The Journal of Zany Genetics and Career Studies
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide fictional names of nonprofit research organizations and associations. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide the name of a funny but plausible sounding nonprofit, academic, or scientific association or organization that would sponsor research that resulted in a paper entited Cotton's Genetic Modification and Clerical Careers: A Comical Correlation. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.
ChatGPT:
Institute for Genetically Modified Cotton Studies
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide potential search keywords separated by commas. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide potential search keywords for a paper titled Cotton's Genetic Modification and Clerical Careers: A Comical Correlation with an abstract of This groundbreaking study delves into the unlikely link between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton cultivation and the employment of file clerks in the charming state of Georgia. Tackling this topic from a satirical standpoint, we scrutinize the statistical data from the USDA and the Bureau of Labor Statistics to unearth the humorously unexpected relationship between these two seemingly unrelated entities. Our research unearths a surprisingly strong correlation coefficient of 0.9276043 and a p-value less than 0.01 over the period from 2003 to 2022, eliciting laughter and disbelief from our academic peers. Our findings challenge conventional notions of cause and effect, adding a splash of levity to the often austere field of scientific inquiry. Join us in this comical quest as we uncover the unexpectedly entertaining ties between GMOs in cotton and the number of file clerks punching the clock in the peachy state of Georgia.
ChatGPT:
genetically modified organisms, GMOs, cotton cultivation, file clerks, employment statistics, Georgia, correlation coefficient, statistical data analysis
*There is a bunch of Python happening behind the scenes to turn this prompt sequence into a PDF.
Discover a new correlation
View all correlations
View all research papers
Report an error
Data details
GMO use in cotton in GeorgiaDetailed data title: Percent of cotton planted in Georgia that is genetically modified to be herbicide-tolerant (HT), but not insect-resistant (Bt)
Source: USDA
See what else correlates with GMO use in cotton in Georgia
The number of file clerks in Georgia
Detailed data title: BLS estimate of file clerks in Georgia
Source: Bureau of Larbor Statistics
See what else correlates with The number of file clerks in Georgia
Correlation is a measure of how much the variables move together. If it is 0.99, when one goes up the other goes up. If it is 0.02, the connection is very weak or non-existent. If it is -0.99, then when one goes up the other goes down. If it is 1.00, you probably messed up your correlation function.
r2 = 0.8604497 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 86% of the change in the one variable (i.e., The number of file clerks in Georgia) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., GMO use in cotton in Georgia) over the 20 years from 2003 through 2022.
p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 4.0E-9. 0.0000000039813416222957550000
The p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme. More specifically the p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme if we had only tested one pair of variables one time.
But I am a p-villain. I absolutely did not test only one pair of variables one time. I correlated hundreds of millions of pairs of variables. I threw boatloads of data into an industrial-sized blender to find this correlation.
Who is going to stop me? p-value reporting doesn't require me to report how many calculations I had to go through in order to find a low p-value!
On average, you will find a correaltion as strong as 0.93 in 4.0E-7% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 251,171,614 random variables You don't actually need 251 million variables to find a correlation like this one. I don't have that many variables in my database. You can also correlate variables that are not independent. I do this a lot.
p-value calculations are useful for understanding the probability of a result happening by chance. They are most useful when used to highlight the risk of a fluke outcome. For example, if you calculate a p-value of 0.30, the risk that the result is a fluke is high. It is good to know that! But there are lots of ways to get a p-value of less than 0.01, as evidenced by this project.
In this particular case, the values are so extreme as to be meaningless. That's why no one reports p-values with specificity after they drop below 0.01.
Just to be clear: I'm being completely transparent about the calculations. There is no math trickery. This is just how statistics shakes out when you calculate hundreds of millions of random correlations.
with the same 19 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 19 because we have two variables measured over a period of 20 years. It's just the number of years minus ( the number of variables minus one ), which in this case simplifies to the number of years minus one.
you would randomly expect to find a correlation as strong as this one.
[ 0.82, 0.97 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
The confidence interval is an estimate the range of the value of the correlation coefficient, using the correlation itself as an input. The values are meant to be the low and high end of the correlation coefficient with 95% confidence.
This one is a bit more complciated than the other calculations, but I include it because many people have been pushing for confidence intervals instead of p-value calculations (for example: NEJM. However, if you are dredging data, you can reliably find yourself in the 5%. That's my goal!
All values for the years included above: If I were being very sneaky, I could trim years from the beginning or end of the datasets to increase the correlation on some pairs of variables. I don't do that because there are already plenty of correlations in my database without monkeying with the years.
Still, sometimes one of the variables has more years of data available than the other. This page only shows the overlapping years. To see all the years, click on "See what else correlates with..." link above.
2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | |
GMO use in cotton in Georgia (GMO cotton %) | 32 | 23 | 11 | 13 | 10 | 5 | 7 | 8 | 6 | 7 | 10 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 1 |
The number of file clerks in Georgia (File Clerks) | 7340 | 5900 | 5100 | 4620 | 4490 | 4360 | 3750 | 3280 | 3160 | 3400 | 3300 | 3230 | 3180 | 2860 | 2700 | 2390 | 2820 | 2850 | 2320 | 2320 |
Why this works
- Data dredging: I have 25,153 variables in my database. I compare all these variables against each other to find ones that randomly match up. That's 632,673,409 correlation calculations! This is called “data dredging.” Instead of starting with a hypothesis and testing it, I instead abused the data to see what correlations shake out. It’s a dangerous way to go about analysis, because any sufficiently large dataset will yield strong correlations completely at random.
- Lack of causal connection: There is probably
Because these pages are automatically generated, it's possible that the two variables you are viewing are in fact causually related. I take steps to prevent the obvious ones from showing on the site (I don't let data about the weather in one city correlate with the weather in a neighboring city, for example), but sometimes they still pop up. If they are related, cool! You found a loophole.
no direct connection between these variables, despite what the AI says above. This is exacerbated by the fact that I used "Years" as the base variable. Lots of things happen in a year that are not related to each other! Most studies would use something like "one person" in stead of "one year" to be the "thing" studied. - Observations not independent: For many variables, sequential years are not independent of each other. If a population of people is continuously doing something every day, there is no reason to think they would suddenly change how they are doing that thing on January 1. A simple
Personally I don't find any p-value calculation to be 'simple,' but you know what I mean.
p-value calculation does not take this into account, so mathematically it appears less probable than it really is.
Try it yourself
You can calculate the values on this page on your own! Try running the Python code to see the calculation results. Step 1: Download and install Python on your computer.Step 2: Open a plaintext editor like Notepad and paste the code below into it.
Step 3: Save the file as "calculate_correlation.py" in a place you will remember, like your desktop. Copy the file location to your clipboard. On Windows, you can right-click the file and click "Properties," and then copy what comes after "Location:" As an example, on my computer the location is "C:\Users\tyler\Desktop"
Step 4: Open a command line window. For example, by pressing start and typing "cmd" and them pressing enter.
Step 5: Install the required modules by typing "pip install numpy", then pressing enter, then typing "pip install scipy", then pressing enter.
Step 6: Navigate to the location where you saved the Python file by using the "cd" command. For example, I would type "cd C:\Users\tyler\Desktop" and push enter.
Step 7: Run the Python script by typing "python calculate_correlation.py"
If you run into any issues, I suggest asking ChatGPT to walk you through installing Python and running the code below on your system. Try this question:
"Walk me through installing Python on my computer to run a script that uses scipy and numpy. Go step-by-step and ask me to confirm before moving on. Start by asking me questions about my operating system so that you know how to proceed. Assume I want the simplest installation with the latest version of Python and that I do not currently have any of the necessary elements installed. Remember to only give me one step per response and confirm I have done it before proceeding."
# These modules make it easier to perform the calculation
import numpy as np
from scipy import stats
# We'll define a function that we can call to return the correlation calculations
def calculate_correlation(array1, array2):
# Calculate Pearson correlation coefficient and p-value
correlation, p_value = stats.pearsonr(array1, array2)
# Calculate R-squared as the square of the correlation coefficient
r_squared = correlation**2
return correlation, r_squared, p_value
# These are the arrays for the variables shown on this page, but you can modify them to be any two sets of numbers
array_1 = np.array([32,23,11,13,10,5,7,8,6,7,10,4,5,5,4,3,1,3,4,1,])
array_2 = np.array([7340,5900,5100,4620,4490,4360,3750,3280,3160,3400,3300,3230,3180,2860,2700,2390,2820,2850,2320,2320,])
array_1_name = "GMO use in cotton in Georgia"
array_2_name = "The number of file clerks in Georgia"
# Perform the calculation
print(f"Calculating the correlation between {array_1_name} and {array_2_name}...")
correlation, r_squared, p_value = calculate_correlation(array_1, array_2)
# Print the results
print("Correlation Coefficient:", correlation)
print("R-squared:", r_squared)
print("P-value:", p_value)
Reuseable content
You may re-use the images on this page for any purpose, even commercial purposes, without asking for permission. The only requirement is that you attribute Tyler Vigen. Attribution can take many different forms. If you leave the "tylervigen.com" link in the image, that satisfies it just fine. If you remove it and move it to a footnote, that's fine too. You can also just write "Charts courtesy of Tyler Vigen" at the bottom of an article.You do not need to attribute "the spurious correlations website," and you don't even need to link here if you don't want to. I don't gain anything from pageviews. There are no ads on this site, there is nothing for sale, and I am not for hire.
For the record, I am just one person. Tyler Vigen, he/him/his. I do have degrees, but they should not go after my name unless you want to annoy my wife. If that is your goal, then go ahead and cite me as "Tyler Vigen, A.A. A.A.S. B.A. J.D." Otherwise it is just "Tyler Vigen."
When spoken, my last name is pronounced "vegan," like I don't eat meat.
Full license details.
For more on re-use permissions, or to get a signed release form, see tylervigen.com/permission.
Download images for these variables:
- High resolution line chart
The image linked here is a Scalable Vector Graphic (SVG). It is the highest resolution that is possible to achieve. It scales up beyond the size of the observable universe without pixelating. You do not need to email me asking if I have a higher resolution image. I do not. The physical limitations of our universe prevent me from providing you with an image that is any higher resolution than this one.
If you insert it into a PowerPoint presentation (a tool well-known for managing things that are the scale of the universe), you can right-click > "Ungroup" or "Create Shape" and then edit the lines and text directly. You can also change the colors this way.
Alternatively you can use a tool like Inkscape. - High resolution line chart, optimized for mobile
- Alternative high resolution line chart
- Scatterplot
- Portable line chart (png)
- Portable line chart (png), optimized for mobile
- Line chart for only GMO use in cotton in Georgia
- Line chart for only The number of file clerks in Georgia
- AI-generated correlation image
- The spurious research paper: Cotton's Genetic Modification and Clerical Careers: A Comical Correlation
Your rating is stellar!
Correlation ID: 2720 · Black Variable ID: 782 · Red Variable ID: 6855