I was asked via DM to expand what I meant by my comments above.
Here goes:
I’m a big believer in data and fact, and have a lot of respect for Nate Silver.
My main point was really more about flaws in the formula, and that a sharp statistician like Mr. Silver could have used NET as a foil to discuss the differences between data (raw analytics) and information (transforming data into a story).
It was a bit of a stretch to compare machine learning and artificial intelligence to the blunt tool that is NET (although I would contend NET may make a good case study in inherent bias).
NET, at best, is just data (or as others have pointed out, it may just be too early for the output of the formula to have any tangible meaning). I’m not sure it will ever produce information.
A brief aside on data and information.
An example of data might be, an ostrich lays the biggest bird egg.
If you’ve never seen an ostrich egg, that data isn’t super meaningful.
If I know you’ve seen a chicken egg, or assume it is a common enough reference point and add an additional data point, an ostrich egg is equivalent to 24 chicken eggs, now you have information.
(I resisted temptation to create an example using basketball players and everyone’s favorite unit of measurement.)
Disclaimer: I’m not a statistician or mathematician, and one of my favorite mantras is “often wrong, never in doubt”.
With a little luck, maybe someone found this useful or mildly entertaining.
Let’s Go Duke!