Waking up to some expert on the radio analysing the state of the economy is never a good start to the day. They are mostly negative and don’t tell me what I already could have guessed. During a recent discussion, I was reminded of a government minister’s comment about experts.

In 2016 Michael Gove, the then Justice Minister, was interviewed by Faisal Islam about the case for the UK leaving the EU. During the interview he was misquoted as saying that the British people “have had enough of experts”. The quote spread through the media like wildfire. He later clarified the quote in a follow up interview where he said “… people have had enough of experts from organisations with acronyms that have got things so wrong in the past.” He went on to discuss how the consensus on an issue should be challenged and tested and that things should not be taken simply on trust because of someone’s position.

Experts are important. They study a subject over a long period of time and with experience they can solve complex problems. There are many examples ranging from doctors and surgeons to plumbers and electricians. Without these experts life would be very difficult if not painful. But there is another type of expert that pops up in the media who adds very little to improving our lives. A good example is in economics. They never give any insight into how an economy works or better still how it could be improved. They can hide behind technical terms that require Google, or ChatGPT, to translate. I have yet to find a clear definition of ‘productivity’ never mind any ideas of how it affects everyday living or how it can be improved. I have lost count of the number of times I have contacted an expert in economics asking for more information about their subject and been met by silence ( yes I have checked my spam folder ). I can only conclude that silence means that they have no time for the general public which is ironic because they are usually pronouncing something that may affect our lives.

Michael Groves is correct in that experts should be challenged. But more specifically they should be challenged about how they improve peoples lives. In the case of doctors, surgeons and plumbers the effectiveness of their impact is obvious: we recover from an illness or the toilet has stopped leaking. But when the we question the insights of an expert in economics we are usually dismissed as not knowing enough to understand the complex issue. However, when a person in a position of power asks a question then they are forced to give an answer. One of the most effective challenges to expertise was made by Queen Elizabeth II. When she was touring The Bank of England, during the Financial Crisis, she asked: why did nobody see it coming? which received a lot of shuffling and looking at the floor. The Queen was asking a question that we all wanted an answer to. It took over four years for the Bank of England to come up with an attempt at an answer!.

I would propose the following criteria for any expert: how do you know that your expertise is understood by the wider public so that it can be challenged? and how has the application of your expertise improved peoples lives? If the government followed this criteria when distributing tax payers money to developing expertise in a subject then we may start to get value for money, and I would get a better start to the day.

Will poverty ever be made history? Lord Bird hopes so and in an attempt to eradicate poverty he has created an all party group in Westminster to tackle the problem. However, the group must ask some searching questions about previous government policies so that the same mistakes will not be repeated.

The all party group’s stated aim is to: “… bring entrepreneurialism to the heart of government, looking at how funding structures could break the cycle of poverty rather than reinforce it. We work with business-minded organisations invested in creating long-term solutions that lift people out of poverty and into self-sufficiency.” For many years Lord Bird has argued that instead of pouring taxpayer’s money into tackling the symptoms of poverty, it should solve the more difficult social problems at their root cause. He illustrates his argument with the statistic that 80% of the social pound is spent on helping the poor get through that day or that month. His approach to eliminating poverty aligns with its aim of the The Big Issue, which he started in 1991, to give people a “hand up, not a hand out”. In general, tax papers money should be spent on developing peoples potential so that they can contribute to the rest of society rather than keeping them stuck in poverty.

A study from the US reviewed their government’s anti-poverty policies. There were some successes but they have left children more exposed to poverty and with an estimated 12.5 mn people in “deep poverty”. I’m sure that it is a similar performance for the UK. Reviewing previous government initiatives would give insights into what works and what doesn’t work. The lack of success will be complex and could include: targeting the wrong problem, lack of real commitment to the policy, not enough resources and changes in governments. But there maybe other issues such using the wrong approach to develop a policy. For example why not ask the people who are in poverty what would help?

However, care must be taken that looking back doesn’t get stuck in “paralysis by analysis” and it takes too long. There is an emergency in people’s living standards and new solutions need to be found urgently. One way that might help is applying the framework developed by Lord Bird to classify the impact of different initiatives. It is called PECC: Prevention, Emergency, Coping and Cure. This could be applied to any policy review to identify its aim and then ask what worked well and what didn’t.

Poverty has cast its shadow over peoples lives for hundreds of years. If we are to make it history then we must look back and learn from the effectiveness of previous policies that succeeded rather than repeating the same mistakes.

In a recent Big Issue article, Sir John Bird argued for a new way of thinking about the many problems that the UK is facing. But what would a new way of thinking look like?

The article lists a wide range of problems: the on-going effects of Covid, the impact of the Ukraine war on the cost of living and the changes to the economy from Brexit. Added to the list are the impact of geopolitics on the UK such as the changing relationship between the USA and China and the erosion of the environment and climate change. Sir John identifies the root of the problems: “We have had appalling political and social leadership for much of the past 23 years, since we entered the millennium. All the big problems we have to navigate now are largely due to the decisions our global leaders have taken. The galloping rate of crisis after crisis has been orchestrated by some of the most miserable thinking imaginable”. He then calls for a revolution in thinking strategically to get through the current set of emergencies. I would add that the new thinking needs to solve poverty and inequality.

But before we start working out what a new type of thinking would look like we need to analyse the problems with the current type of thinking. It is important to realise that most organisations are looked upon as systems e.g. health system, education system, benefits system, banking system, political system and so on. Roughly a system can be defined by something having inputs, then something happens to the inputs to produce outputs. In the case of the health system, sick and injured people go in and in the majority of cases, healthier people come out. There is a similar situation with the education system: young people go in and young adults come out with the skills to develop their careers and play their role in society. However most problems arise when there is an interaction between the systems. A clear example is between the NHS and social care where lack of coordination has produced bed blocking. Similar problems can be seen at the strategic level where the food system is destroying the environment, increasing health problems and is a major contributor to climate change. When a problem occurs in a system, for instance the education system, then the call is for more resources, but many of the problems are caused by factors external to the system like parental support for child eduction, impact of new technology, the influence of social media and inequality.

A new way of thinking would take into account the interrelationship of systems, as in the interaction between primary health care, i.e. GPs and secondary care i.e. hospitals. Because people cannot get easy access to a GP they turn up to Accident and Emergency with their problems which creates an overload on the emergency service. Another example is the food system, which in the the UK is market driven by food manufacturers and supermarkets, which produces high levels of obesity. Obesity costs the NHS a massive £6 billion annually and is set to increase to over £9.7 billion each year to 2050. A new form of political and strategical leadership must have the capability to understand not only the systems that are in the UK but their interrelationship.

Sir John Bird’s article picks up on a number of major problems in the UK which are against a background of an increasingly hostile world. There are techniques that look at the interaction between systems which could help to solve some of these problems. But we need a new crop of political leaders that have the intellectual capability to understand how the different systems that make up the UK work, or don’t work, together. The new political leadership must have the capability to communicate a way through the problems in a way that people feel motivated to be part of the solution.

One day a teacher set a problem for the class that he thought would keep them busy for at least an hour. But a student solved the problem in about a minute. How he solved the problem is a reminder of how maths should be taught.

The story goes that in the 1780’s a provincial German teacher wanted to keep his class busy for a while. So he set them the problem of adding up the first 100 numbers i.e. \(1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 ... 100\). After about a minute, Carl Friedrich Gauss, walked to the front of the class with the number \(5055\) written on a piece of paper. The teacher thought he had cheated but didn’t know how. There appears to be no record of how Gauss solved the problem therefore the story has taken on mythical proportions and speculation has been rife as to how the young Gauss solved the problem. Although he had the ability to carryout complicated calculations, something that he had from the age of 3, I suspect that he used his ability to look at maths problems in a different way.

To see how he could of solved the problem so quickly let’s look at a simpler problem: adding the first \(5\) numbers i.e. \(1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5\). Rather than using a pen and paper and adding up first \(1 + 2 = 3\) then adding \(3 + 4 = 7\) and so on let’s lay the numbers in a the following pattern:

\[\begin{array}{c c c c c} \bullet & \bullet & \bullet & \bullet & \bullet \\ \hspace{1 mm} & \bullet & \bullet & \bullet & \bullet \\ \hspace{1 mm} & \hspace{1 mm} & \bullet & \bullet & \bullet\\ \hspace{1 mm} & \hspace{1 mm} & \hspace{1 mm} & \bullet & \bullet\\ \hspace{1 mm} & \hspace{1 mm} & \hspace{1 mm} & \hspace{1 mm} & \bullet\\ \hline 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 \end{array}\]

What Gauss probably spotted was that if he added the last number to the first and the second last number to the second one etc. the columns always add up to the same number:

\[\begin{array}{c c c c c} \bullet & \bullet & \bullet & \bullet & \bullet \\ \circ & \bullet & \bullet & \bullet & \bullet \\ \circ & \circ & \bullet & \bullet & \bullet\\ \circ & \circ & \circ & \bullet & \bullet\\ \circ & \circ & \circ & \circ & \bullet\\ \circ & \circ & \circ & \circ & \circ\\ \hline 6 & 6 & 6 & 6 & 6 \end{array}\]

Now the picture shows \(6\) rows by \(5\) columns which gives a total number of dots of \(30\). But only half the dots were the original numbers therefore dividing \(30\) by \(2\) gives the correct answer of \(15\). Of course it would need a very large piece of paper and a long time to draw out the dots but what Gauss probably saw was a pattern for the solution. Gauss’ insight can be generalised for the total sum of any number \(N\), i.e. \((N+1) \times (N) \div{2}\). In the case of the number set by the teacher then we have \((100 + 1) \times 100 \div 2\) which gives the answer \(5055\). Gauss took problem that used addition and solved it by turning it into a multiplication problem which is quicker to calculate.

Maths has to fit into a busy school curriculum. To get through a wide and varied syllabus the teaching of maths can be reduced to rote learning: this is the problem now apply this formulae to get the solution. If a bit more time was allowed for students to play with the problems and explore different ideas then they would gain a deeper understanding of the subject and might even have fun!

Gauss turned out to be one of the greatest mathematicians of the 18th century whose influence is still felt today with many of his ideas used in the current maths syllabus. During his career he never lost the approach of looking at problems in a different ways which often led to breakthroughs in maths. Few students will turn out to be like Gauss but allowing them time to explore maths in a playful way would increase the much needed levels of numeracy.

I use Google a lot to search for information on a wide range of topics. When ChatGPT hit the headlines my mouse itched with curiosity. But is it up to all of the marketing hype or is it genuinely the next step in civilisation?

Somebody once described searching with Google as a bit like a car boot sale where you go from stall to stall until you find what you are looking for. My experience backs this up. It can be time consuming trying to find the correct key words that returns the information that I am trying to find. Like a car boot sale there are piles and piles of rubbish to go through before I find an answer to my question. ChatGPT operates differently. The conversational style makes it easier to ask questions and if ChatGPT is not sure what is being asked it will ask further questions for clarity, admit its mistakes, challenge incorrect premises and reject inappropriate requests.

To test ChatGPT I asked it a range of questions that covered philosophy, mathematics, politics, films from the 1950s and even asked how Ukraine could win the war against Russia. Where it struggled was where I had in-depth knowledge of a subject. Its reply missed some of the subtleties in the question. However, I quickly gathered enough information to achieve the level of understanding that I wanted on a subject. I would give ChatGPT somewhere between 7 to 8 out of 10.

When I asked the question that is the title of the post, ChapGPT replied “As an AI language model, ChatGPT represents a significant advancement in the field of natural language processing and has the potential to be a valuable tool in many applications. However, it is important to recognize that AI and machine learning are still evolving technologies and their future capabilities are subject to further research and development. It is also important to consider the ethical, social, and economic implications of AI and ensure that its use aligns with the values of society. In this sense, the future of ChatGPT and other AI technologies will depend not only on their technical capabilities, but also on the choices and decisions made by those who develop and use them.” I feel ChatGPT gave a realistic answer.

There is no doubt that ChatGPT is a major advance in AI. However there are a number of areas that could be developed further. One way to improve learning, in particular self-learning, is to get some feedback on your understanding about a subject. This could be done by checking something I had written or steps in a maths workings. There are already online systems such as Stack Overflow where a mathematics or computer science question can be submitted along with workings and members of the network put forward answers or improvements. But the replies can be hit and miss and the quality of the answers depends on how clearly the question was asked. If I could put in my understanding of a particular subject and then something like ChatGPT came back with corrections or suggestions to improve my level of understanding then learning online would be significantly improved.

Every other email that I receive is a survey which can range from how well my bank’s ATM has performed ( yes it is hard to believe ) to how a large organisation can improve its customer service. The surveys take the form of giving a number for a particular aspect of the service or product and a text box where a few sentences can be added. How all of the data is analysed is a mystery and nothing ever improves. A better approach could be based on something like ChatGPT carrying a proper in depth interview. ChatGPT would ask questions and based on the answers it would adjust the next question until detailed information about a person’s thoughts and behaviours had been reached. This would give a better picture of how the product or service was being used.

Another area is the ‘how to’ type question. When I asked ChatGPT how I should tie the ‘Tup’s Indispensable’, which is an artificial fly used for trout fishing, it struggled. After asking me several questions it still couldn’t find an answer other than broadly how an artifical fly is tied. Imagine if ChatGPT could give a step by step instructions on how to repair domestic appliances such as a washing machine that would keep it from being sent to household waste!

There are lots more areas that could be developed. For example could ChatGPT, or something equivalent, write its own software. In other words could it develops itself rather than coders writing the software. Now there is a thought!

Forty years ago I started my career writing software. The computers of the day were not much more than big programmable calculators. You put some numbers in and numbers came back. Since then each step in computer technology has had a major impact on our lives starting with Personal Computers to the internet and mobile technology. ChatGPT is another step into the future which I’m sure will have an irreversible impact on how we live.