Open Thinkering

Menu

Tag: ChatGPT

House purchases, climate change, and AI

Just over nine years ago, Team Belshaw needed to find somewhere to live. I’d been told by my employer at the time that, for various reasons, our dream of moving to Gozo couldn’t go ahead. But we still wanted to sell our house. So we moved from a four-bedroom detached house into a two-bedroom terrace in Morpeth.

It all worked out well. We ended up buying the house and converting the loft. I had a home office as the garage, separate to the house, was already converted for that purpose. Our neighbours have proved been amazing. Being so close to the centre of town and their schools it’s been a lovely place to raise our kids.

However, it’s never been our long-term plan to stay put; we’ve always been looking for somewhere else. The pandemic and then our son’s GCSE exams put off the sale of our house, but this year we finally put it on the market. Two weeks later we accepted an offer. On the same day, we had an offer accepted on a house which backs onto a river.

Black and white cropped version of a photo by Flickr user johndal showing Morpeth floods in 2008
Not this house! Just an illustrative photo of the 2008 floods.

Now, anyone who knows Morpeth knows that it flooded quite spectacularly in 2008 and then again in 2012. The Environment Agency has spent a lot of money on various flood defences including an underground reservoir and even the building of reasonably-attractive walls in the gardens of potentially-affected properties. In fact, they did such a good job that the risk of flooding from the river is negligible for the foreseeable future.

Today, though, we pulled out of the purchase of the riverside house. Why? We commissioned a more detailed flood report after someone had set alarm bells ringing about the impact of climate change. To cut a long story short, the property is at high risk of surface water flooding, and (in our opinion) the Environment Agency’s river flood defences potentially exacerbate that risk.


The reason I wanted to note this, other than it being a significant event in my life, is to share what I’ve learned about cumulative risk. I also wanted to note how helpful ChatGPT 4 was at summarising and making calculations based on the report. It was quite technical in places and, while data is good, we needed to extract meaning.

At the end of the day, humans should make decisions. But having a very quick and technically-proficient assistant to pull out and interpret data is extraordinarily useful.


I used the AskYourPDF plugin for ChatGPT, beginning by asking it specifically to explain “in the simplest language possible” the risk from surface water flooding. I then asked if we were planning to live there for 20 years whether it would be a sensible purchase. While it wouldn’t make a specific recommendation, its responses erred on the side of caution.

Going further, I asked about the impact of climate change on the property, to which it responded about things we’d already considered (increased rainfall, urbanisation), and things we hadn’t (sea level rise, decreased snowfall). This gave us further pause for thought.

The next day, already thinking that this wouldn’t be a wise investment, I asked ChatGPT to “come up with a range of 5 personas and explain how they would approach a purchasing decision for this property.” I specifically asked it to include the notion of “risk appetite” as part of this. The results were interesting. I followed up by enquiring “If these personas talked to one another and had to make one decision based on their discussion, what would be that decision?” Somewhat predictably, the personas consensus view was not to go ahead with the purchase.

The next step was to use it to calculate cumulative risk, which we’d realised hadn’t been specified in the report. It’s been a while since I did this kind of Maths, and doing it manually is somewhat confusing to my brain. So I asked ChatGPT:

Thank you for providing access to the document again. Based on the extracted information:

- The property is shown to be located within an area of **High surface water flood risk**.
- The definitions for the risk levels are as follows:
  - **High risk**: annual chance of flooding of greater than 3.3%.
  - **Medium risk**: annual chance of flooding of between 1% and 3.3%.
  - **Low risk**: annual chance of flooding of between 0.1% and 1%.
  - **Very Low risk**: annual chance of flooding of less than 0.1%.

Given that the property is in the high-risk category, the upper bound annual flood risk for surface water flooding is 3.3%. However, you've also asked for calculations for 5%, 6%, and 7%. We've already provided the 20-year cumulative risk for 5%, so let's calculate for 6% and 7%:

For 6%:
\[ \text{Risk over 20 years} = 1 - (0.94)^{20} \]
\[ \text{Risk over 20 years} \approx 74.0% \]

For 7%:
\[ \text{Risk over 20 years} = 1 - (0.93)^{20} \]
\[ \text{Risk over 20 years} \approx 80.7% \]

So, to summarize:
- For a 3.3% annual risk, the 20-year cumulative risk is approximately 49.4%.
- For a 5% annual risk, the 20-year cumulative risk is approximately 64.2%.
- For a 6% annual risk, the 20-year cumulative risk is approximately 74.0%.
- For a 7% annual risk, the 20-year cumulative risk is approximately 80.7%.

So a probability greater than a coin toss that, based on the current situation, the garden would be flooded. And this wasn’t taking into account other factors that weren’t covered by the data in the report.

The final step was to think about the risk of surface water flooding being so bad that it potentially enters the house. This was mentioned in the report as the ‘low-risk scenario’ of between 0.1% and 1% that up to 0.6m of water would be adjacent to the dwelling

So if we stayed there for 20 years, what's the cumulative risk from the annual low risk scenario?

Given the range for the low-risk scenario is between 0.1% and 1%, let's calculate the cumulative risk over 20 years for both the lower and upper bounds of this range.

Using the formula:
\[ \text{Risk over period} = 1 - (1 - \text{annual risk})^{n} \]

1. **For the lower bound of 0.1% (0.001)**:
\[ \text{Risk over 20 years} = 1 - (0.999)^{20} \]
\[ \text{Risk over 20 years} \approx 2.0% \]

2. **For the upper bound of 1% (0.01)**:
\[ \text{Risk over 20 years} = 1 - (0.99)^{20} \]
\[ \text{Risk over 20 years} \approx 18.2% \]

So, for the low-risk scenario:
- Over a 20-year period, there's approximately a 2.0% cumulative risk at the lower bound (0.1% annual risk) and an 18.2% cumulative risk at the upper bound (1% annual risk) of the property experiencing a flooding event.

So, even without the uncertainty of climate change, if we take the middle of the upper and lower bounds of cumulative risk, there’s a 1 in 10 chance that there will be up to 60cm of flood water adjacent to the property? No thanks.


Having pulled out of the purchase, this morning I’ve been to register our details with a bunch of estate agents for rentals. The chances are we’ll have to bide our time to get the exact house we want. That will be annoying, but not too much of a hardship. Especially as the next house we buy we’ll probably be staying in for a while.


Photo modified from an original CC BY SA johndal

Time’s Solitary Dance

Update: I’ve created four more images and added them to a collection here


This is not a photograph:

I created in somewhat by accident while messing about in Midjourney last night. That’s the great thing about any kind of tool: it allows you to go beyond your own powers. In this example, I leaned into the ‘old man sitting in the corner’ vibe and started to channel social documentary photographers.

AI still isn’t particularly good at describing images in any detail without prompts. So I created some text using the structure suggested by Image Describer and fed that into ChatGPT. I then asked it to come up with a title and description as if the image was going to be part of an art exhibition. After some tinkering, it came up with the following:

Time’s Solitary Dance is a poignant, black and white tableau that transpires in the everyday world of a seemingly ordinary location – perhaps a café or the corner of a barber’s shop. It captures a solitary elderly man, sitting cross-legged on a tiled surface, emanating a sense of solitude and retrospection. This image, despite being created by an AI, beautifully mirrors the aesthetic sensibilities of a late 20th-century photograph. The man’s solitude in a public space stands as a commentary on the paradoxical loneliness that can pervade old age, as seen through the lens of a social documentary photographer. A testament to the intersection of technology and art, the photograph offers a poignant glimpse into the human condition, blurring the lines between the real and artificial.

I’ve seen people ask what the point is to all of this. That it’s not ‘creative’. I beg to differ.

Reimagining assessment practices using AI tools

Last week, I replied to someone who was concerned that AI tools such as ChatGPT meant students might not learn to ‘think for themselves’. When I responded that, as a parent and former teacher, I would hope that this means reimagining assessment practices, they asked what I meant. I explained, and they said they hadn’t thought about it like that.

So I thought I’d quickly capture the points I made in that thread so I can easily refer to them again in future.

If we zoom out and think about what we’re doing when we’re trying to help people learn things, then we need to know:

  1. Where learners are currently at in terms of their current knowledge and skills
  2. Where we want them to be at in terms of those knowledge and skills
  3. What they’re interested in learning and how they’re interested in doing so

The third of these is usually sacrificed for the sake of efficiency (think: large classrooms). However, the crux of learning is feedback, and the more personalised the better. I’ve been using ChatGPT with my son for revision purposes, and it can be used as an excellent tutor, giving precise feedback.

So when we’re talking about reimagining assessment practices, we’re really talking about personalising learning in a way that allows individuals to achieve their own goals, as well as those that society wants them to achieve.

The SAMR model by Ruben Puentadura

Right now, we’re augmenting an existing system using new tools. Hence the worry about exams and essays. But once we go back to what we’re trying to achieve here, we’ll realise that AI and other new technologies allow us to personalise learning and provide tighter feedback loops. Which was the point all along! 😄

css.php