I asked Claude to read my post, Go for the Gold! on using inequality in the NFL and NBA to get a different perspective on income inequality. Then I asked Claude, “Which words best show that they understand their point of view and respond in a productive and rational way, with criticism or with conviction?” And following that “Which words have the least information, the most useful?” Here are Claude’s responses to the best comments and the original comments (no backtracking to Claude):
Jack of all trades (2024-08-19 09:26:51):
The NFL is a clever analogy, but if this weren’t such a small part of the economy we’d be struggling to create value, opportunity, and fairness even if we couldn’t measure performance in other jobs the way we can in professional sports. Genetics are very important in economic outcomes, for example. Is this right or wrong? We’d be fighting a lot over that question even if we could give everyone a reasonable chance to raise their full potential and be able to measure a person’s contribution to society as a whole.
This comment acknowledges the NFL’s analogy as brilliant while pointing out its limitations. It expands on the discussion by noting that genetics play a larger role in economic outcomes beyond just athletics, raising logical questions about fairness and opportunity that go beyond the original analogy.
Marginalist Cormac (2024-08-19 11:42:54):
The point most of the comments here are unwilling to accept is the undeniable truth of the truth:
Every egalitarian society known to man is more poverty-stricken than unequal societies. For all: economically poor, socially poor, high poverty, high resentment, low freedom, low access to health and recreation, good pessimism and powerlessness.
Voila!
Although brief, these comments show an understanding of the broader implications of the op-ed. It effectively shifts the discussion to practical outcomes, noting the historical link between inequality and overall social prosperity. This adds an important perspective that should be considered alongside the ethical arguments presented in the first section.
Saturn (2024-08-19 08:10:08):
The analogy makes me think that Alex is now sympathetic to strong government, unions and price/wage controls. Go Kamala!
This comment, though brief, cleverly turns the op-ed argument on its head in a thought-provoking way. By suggesting that the NFL analogy actually supports “strong government, unions and price/wage controls,” the commenter highlights a potential contradiction in using the NFL as a model of free market economics. This response shows a deep understanding of the premise of the op-ed and engages with it deeply in an intelligent and insightful way.
Alex again: Here are Claude’s responses to the worst comments. This time I am not including the original comment but I checked and Claude is right. EdR is usually the best!
It is much easier to agree with the negative than with the best comment. I wouldn’t mind letting Claude remove the worst comments.
- A skeptical American (2024-08-19 08:37:25): This comment attacks Bernie Sanders personally instead of engaging with the content of the op-ed. Uses aggressive language and makes accusations without providing evidence or constructive criticism. This type of comment does not contribute to a meaningful discussion about inequality.
- EdR (2024-08-19 14:26:49): This comment goes off topic to make a personal attack on Kamala Harris, including unsubstantiated claims about her personal life. It does not address the arguments in the op-ed and instead engages in inflammatory rhetoric that does not contribute to a productive debate about inequality.
Hat tip: Robin Hanson who suggested the test.
Source link