In particular, his connection between Boole (and Boolean Algebra) and recommendation systems seems weak. The latter are for more probabilistic.
And just when you think the article is going somewhere it ends with a strange detour into the Boole family which doesn't seem to have much to do with the rest.
I'm surprised he missed this connection: George Boole's great-great-grandson is named Geoffrey Hinton, and has not only done great work on recommendation engines, but is generally regarded as one of the worlds most important researchers on machine learning and AI.
I agree - furthermore his argument for a standstill in politics is weak at best and not surprising, because there are always phases where the lawmakers in Washington or Westminster are not particularly productive. however that doesn't hold for much of the rest of the world.
The reality in the "developed" world and places like China, Brazil, and India is quite different. The U.S., Britain, etc. are experiencing widening income gaps, political and cultural stagnation, and a whole lot of pessimism and outrage about what seems to be an emerging future that looks like The Hunger Games. In America it seems that if you're not in the top 5% of ability and connections or 1% of income, the future's not for you... or at least that's the perception. I think we're in something like a second Gilded Age, and it's going to end much like the first: a wave of economic leftism and wealth redistribution. I already see the tide shifting hard in that direction.
The "developing" world inhabits a totally different reality. They're seeing narrowing income gaps, growing opportunity, and a lot of political change and uncertainty. Everyone in China thinks there's gonna be some kind of revolution at some point, for example, but nobody's sure what it will look like.
I tend to stay away from streams of consciousness. Its hard enough to debate a highly edited, clear and concise article. Streams of Consciousness have the advantage in that the author is probably more honest about his opinion... but often contradicts himself or has many weak or irrelevant points.
On the flip side, it is the author being completely open about his surface thoughts. By leaving himself vulnerable to so many attacks, the piece feels more like a conversation as opposed to an article.
In the modern world of "phrase sniping" and picking, its hard to debate such an article on its merits.
I can see the potential appeal of this writing style, but certainly not for any form of internet debate. It just doesn't make a good baseline for discussion, no matter how I look at it.
I find this comment amusing, because a recurring theme in the article is that of concern over the way many automated systems mine the past looking for discontinuities in politicians, criminals and "potential criminals" - that this does not allow growth or change of a person. In politics particularly I agree that this is dangerous - I want my politicians to be human - for it to be acceptable for them to change their opinions as their understanding changes, and as society changes around them. A strong requirement on rigidity and consistency of position is, to me, just as bad as a politician who has no opinion other than what the polls say that day. Rather than either I like a carefully considered opinion and position that acknowledges new data, and changes if necessary upon understanding said new data. Further, I don't mind if my politicians make mistakes, sometimes say stupid things, and occasionally show their human foibles - I think its awful to hold them to superhuman standards as we see a lot these days.
To address the last point: I know nothing inherent to the internet that requires a strongly consistent piece and prevents open discussion about a topic. Heck - there's nothing inherent about the internet that requires it to be a debate. I've found debate tends to arise from proclamations of "this is the truth" rather than "here's what I'm thinking" anyway - internet or no. The latter tends to just lead to discussion but unfortunately also draws people who try to discredit the author on inconsistencies because they mistake a "my thinking right now" piece for a proclamation of truth. I don't think this is built into the internet, so much as a broader social issue or quirk of human psychology that causes or at least allows for that mistake. I lean towards a social issue of some sort that causes us to think everything people write is a proclamation of truths rather than a fundamental human thing - and that there is some psychological quirk that once someone is attacking a mistaken proclamation of truth it causes people to have to defend their team, rather than ignore the incorrect premise. I'll admit it, I've done both before - but I'm not sure it was the right thing to do.
Well, I thought, at least, that he was doing to talk about the problem of the 'filter bubble'. Instead he zoomed off into the Boole family and the Voynich Manuscript for no apparent reason.
The Voynich manuscript "tie in" I see as just another interesting digression while talking about Ethel's life.
But the Boole family bit ties in thematically in that it provides two people who represents two contradictory possibilities for the future:
The stagnating world described in the first part of the article where nothing changes because we're locked in place by technology, represented by Hinton's view of time as an illusion, where it is just what part of a static four-dimensional landscape we see that changes.
Or a future where things are allowed to change again, represented by Ethel, whose novel inspired a generation of revolutionaries, and who herself continued to believe in change to the end.
The manuscript is an old document that might still have significance. It's a part of the past that still holds sway over the future. That's how it fits into the article.
Oh, I don't know. To say that the article ever seemed to be going anywhere is to give it more credit than is warranted. At best, I could make an argument for royalism out of it, but in fairness I can do that with almost anything.
It's not the specifics of Boolean logic that's interesting, but the idea that computers can think logically and make decisions based on logic and data.
Tl;dr recommendation systems, digital records, all combine to highlight inconsistencies between our past behaviour and current behaviour, this forcing us to never change for fear of being labelled a Hypocrite.
This is extrapolating out of technical realm and not passing through culture before making a conclusion. Just as today's 30 year old will be far more forgiving of an employee with photos online of their drunken 20's than pre-Facebook 30 year olds, we will find our cultural norms changing as more and more of us find privacy has vanished.
The issue is not can the technology be used in this way, but will those using it that way be labelled "normal", "annoying moralists" or "unclean and untouchable".
Technology always leads us to new crises - but we should manage them with an eye on the value that can be wrought. Technology that monitors my heartbeat and liver function I like. Technology that monitors my political views I want to be wrapped in social and legal constraints.
I preferred the novels where a woman able to perceive alternative futures simply chose the one where if she scratched her left ear and turned round twice, her enemy had a heart attack a week later on a different planet. She was literally the most powerful being alive.
This piece makes little sense to me. There are no "hidden systems" that freeze time or stop anyone from changing their mind. In fact, politicians routinely contradict themselves in public! For hilarious evidence of this, just watch John Stewart's Daily Show.[1]
PS. If you're ever accused of contradicting yourself, just respond with the famous quote often attributed to John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"[2]
Another good quote along those lines is "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." Ralph Waldo Emerson. http://www.bartleby.com/100/420.47.html
This meandering, arty-sounding essay was interesting despite not being very rigorously argued. I'm only surprised the author didn't mention that Geoffrey Hinton, a major figure in neural networks, is a descendant of Boole. Maybe he wasn't aware of the connection.
It is, of course, true that large monied interests have an interest in stability (I'd like to cue the arguments against having a Great War, "It'll be too expensive, no one would dare", circa 1913 or so).
It's also true that politicians have to be extremely careful of saying stupid things, or things that can be taken out of context, or things that might offend people they don't want to, because of the prevalence of technology and the "Gotcha" approach certain classes of media prefer. Which too is also a hindrance to change.
Not to mention conflict with Russia over Ukraine (i.e. Europe needs Russia's natural gas too much and Russians have too much capital tied up in Europe).
Interesting, but the inaccurate obsession with Boole needs to go. If anything half the examples they cite as "Boolean" inference are more Bayesian. And what does the Voynich manuscript have to do with a surveillance dystopia? That ending is pretty weak.
That's funny but I associated the title with something completely different than what I read in the article.
When the author starts talking about politics and systems frozen in time I can't help but think about how the real frozen system is our political system.
We get new digital systems almost weekly, that help us do things like monitor peoples activities and map their opinions, but these systems are all being deployed within a political system that has largely remained unchanged for our entire documented history.
The old satirical images of class hierarchies in the shape of pyramids come to mind.
"We get new digital systems almost weekly, that help us do things like monitor peoples activities and map their opinions, but these systems are all being deployed within a political system that has largely remained unchanged for our entire documented history."
In terms of documented history, democracy is still a young experiment - after outright tribalism, monarchism was the dominant system until a wave of revolutions between the 18th-20th centuries.
Democracy is changing rapidly (in historical terms) - the "digital trackers", Citizens United, creation and repeal of the Voting Rights Act. These will all have far-reaching implications.
A world with a "new political system almost weekly" would be mired in violent localized revolution and tribalism, which is how humanity lived for far longer than they've lived under representative democracy.
I never said democracy specifically. I meant in a broader sense the systems where a minority have centralized power over a majority of largely unorganized masses.
> In 1987 the growing paranoia finally burst out. The trigger was a BBC television series called The Secret Society made by an investigative journalist called Duncan Campbell.
In 6 half-hour films Campbell pulled what had been happening all together - and drew a frightening picture that still haunts the imagination of the liberal left.
Some Americans were already paranoid back in the mid 70's - Francis Ford Coppola's "The Conversation", with that well known and often mis-parsed phrase - "He'd kill us if he got the chance".
The problem with collaborative filtering systems, whether based on personal preferences or on past purchases, is that you end up in a recommendation bubble. Seeing the same items recommended over and over again.
Over time the things I want to buy change. Perhaps because I had a major life event - got married, had a child, turned 50 and had a mid-life crisis, etc. The systems can't predict the timing of those because people don't do them on a schedule.
It's an exploration vs exploitation trade-off. They are just predicting the things you are most likely to buy and suggesting those. But you also want to throw in things which you are less likely to look at, but if you do it gives them more information to make better suggestions. And then as you mention, account for the fact people are dynamic and change over time.
On one hand it's old politics - digging up the dirt on your opponent. But it is also part of something new - and much bigger than just politics. Throughout the western world new systems have risen up whose job is to constantly record and monitor the present - and then compare that to the recorded past. The aim is to discover patterns, coincidences and correlations, and from that find ways of stopping change. Keeping things the same.
This is a false conclusion. The goal isn't to stop change. The goal is to embarrass a political opponent. Or intimidate them. Or make them worry enough that they'll be very careful not to say much (i.e. chilling effect). In extreme cases, such a weapon may render a political impotent, or end their career (or prevent their re-election, anyway).
So it really is just political crap, somewhat TMZ style. But to say the purpose is to maintain the status quo just doesn't follow.
On the other hand, it may be a "sunlight" or transparency sort of thing ... if a politician knows the public can / will see everything they say or do, this could lead to positive results. It's all in who does what with the information that gets recorded & archived.
Recommendation systems should really have an element of randomness built within them. It is true people will continue to like movies, music, books or products similar to those they have liked before, however occasional randomness would enable some diversification.
The nugget buried at the end is very interesting - Boole (of Boolean Logic) was related to Voynich who found what is perhaps one of the most cryptic documents of all time.
to wit, "In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash Installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content"
In particular, his connection between Boole (and Boolean Algebra) and recommendation systems seems weak. The latter are for more probabilistic.
And just when you think the article is going somewhere it ends with a strange detour into the Boole family which doesn't seem to have much to do with the rest.