The NBA and ChatGPT (Nerd Addition)

Alright, here's the deal. I love basketball. I like statistical analysis. And I am learning how to use AI to my advantage. 

I had an interesting interchange with Chat GPT about some of the greatest players in the NBA. I offer this for several reasons.

First, I find in fascination how changing parameters changers answers. Statistics are tricky things. They give answers that reflect that questions and parameters you set. They can give you a truth based on your rubric that is not the same at truth. Maybe there is a life lesson here? 

Second, I think it simultaneously shows the incredible opportunity AI provides (I got these answers in seconds) and the limits of computation (you are going to disagree with some of the answers because there is still some component that neither I nor ChatGPT thought of).

So, with no further ado, here we go.

Thinking From Behind A COVID-19 "Veil Of Ignorance"

(a thought experiment inspired by John Rawls)

 

John Rawls (1921-2002) argued that we could determine just ethical principles by seeing what a free and rational people would choose if they attempted to create a just society from behind a ‘veil of ignorance’. 

 

John Rawls proposed a famous thought-experiment in which a group of humans come together and have to devise a set of principles for their society to work by. The imaginary part of this is that the individuals doing the deciding are told that there will be some people of greater and lesser intelligence, greater and lesser degrees of health, greater and lesser pigment in their skin, ability to lead, to follow, to carve wood, to care for babies, etc etc – in other words, these people would represent a reasonable cross-section of the types found in human society. However, the deciding individuals did not know which attributes they themselves possessed...

This ‘veil of ignorance’ Rawls thought would ensure a just distribution of rights and duties in his hypothetical society – just as if you were in charge of cutting up a pizza to share and only knowing that you would get the last piece: you would do your best to cut it equally. (“Deontological Ethics.” http://www.sevenoaksphilosophy.org/ethics/deontology.html)

 

Rawls thought that people would likely agree to things that would benefit the population no matter their situation: freedom of speech; a limited role for a government influenced by or answerable to the people; an equitable social system wherein people have equal opportunity, access to resources; a system that encourages virtue, etc. 

 

This veil of ignorance would make people aware that that they could be among the disadvantaged or marginalized, and they would want to make laws that would protect them if they were one of the weaker members of society and not punish them if they were one of the stronger.  

 

With that foundation in mind, let’s apply that idea to COVID-19.

COVID-19: My Little Library Of Statistics And Analysis

For months now, I have been slowly building a document of COVID-19 resources when I run across things that catch my eye: a post on social media that I wanted to check;  an intriguing news story floating through my Flipboard feed; friends who work in the medical field post heart-breaking updates on their work in hospitals, only to be dismissed as if they must be lying. Sometimes I read articles (rightly) criticizing the inconsistency of public health organizations over time, or the words vs. the actions of politicians who said one thing and did another. Sometimes I simply wanted to know more about how to first re-open and then keep open our church in a way that offers a reasonably safe and accommodating space.

Whatever the reason, I built this document over time. It represents a pursuit of knowledge; I am well aware it's not the end of it! And as serious as I believe the coronavirus to be (as you will see), I’m not curled up in a ball quivering in fear, as anyone who knows me can attest. I assume I will get it at some point (as most of us will); I assume I will be like most people in my demographic, and when I do get it, it will be somewhere on a spectrum short of fatal, and likely relatively mild, though it's definitely unpredictable. [1] So that’s not why I compile stuff like this. I just want to know what’s true about the world. 

Oh, and one other note. 

I am interested in the stats and the science for the purposes of this post, so I don' have anything about politics or freedoms or the constitution here. Those are important topics for a different time. They just aren't my focus here. You can write that one :)

At to the science, it has obviously and publicly evolved over time around the entire world. It’s frustrating, and it can understandably make us leery of trusting authoritative voices, but it’s how science works. It's not a sign of a nefarious plot. I am far more confident in the science now than I was six months ago, for sure. I’m also sure three months from now doctors and epidemiologists will know even more, and will have pivoted yet again in some way.  

With that in mind, if you want to add to the discussion by agreeing or disagreeing - and I would like you to add to this, because I want to pursue truth as I build this database -  post links and offer thoughtful insights from your research and experience. I don’t mind being thoughtfully challenged. I’m not a big fan of being called stupid or deceived or ‘sheeple.’ That line of discussion will not be pursued.