Browsing

I find now that when I open my browser, I get a message about the actions of algorithms. They are getting attention. People are noticing them. In the Discworld of the late Terry Pratchett, that would cause the algorithms to evolve into gods. It happened to a train engine.

I didn't read the warning. I have a vague sense of what algorithms do. I know they command large bodies of data, and I think they may be self-correcting in some ways. If they have more influence on my life than picking ads on websites, I am not aware of it. I suppose choosing what I see on the Internet and other places does mean they have some power over my life, but I still read printed books, mostly, and I do very little shopping of any kind. I buy wine and vodka, along with some snacks and items for my personal hygiene, at least usually, but beyond that, I just don't. My wife buys my clothes; my mother-in-law buys our food and many household items. I do watch shows on Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon, and I base my selections on what I see offered, but when there is a show I think I'd like to see, I search those sites to see where my choice might be available.

I'm just not afraid of the algorithms.

Maybe I'm naive. Maybe I'm foolhardy. Or maybe the algorithms are puny little bits of mediocre software.

I will keep watching for signs that the algorithms are getting stronger. Someday, they may start choosing ads I'll notice. Someday, they may start telling us limited organic, and mortal, beings what to do. And someday, I may start to exercise and eat a healthy diet. I can't wait.

Words of Caution

On my last visit to this site, a message popped up, warning me that I must be in compliance with the new laws protecting "data subjects" in the European Union, in case anyone from the European Union, or any company in the European Union, interacts with my posts.

That means there is an algorithm designed to make sure that all of us non-algorithms are aware of and following new laws designed to protect us from abuse by algorithms controlled, at least for now, but corporations that make use of data. The laws say, apparently, that we have a right to learn who has our data, and what they may do with it.

I don't collect data on people. Well, okay, I glance at the data that appears when I click on this site. Mostly it says no one has ever read by blog or commented on it. But if someone did, and that someone was from Europe or lived in Europe, or possibly ever read something about Europe on a website, then the new laws would apply to my site, and any other entity, algorithmic or biological, that I interact with in activities related to this site.

Someone is paying attention, and trying to make rules to allow people to control data that relates to them.

I have seen quite a few notes about updated privacy policies recently. I've even read some. I noticed that Yahoo Mail says that it tracks when I click on Yahoo Mail, and probably also notices who I get emails from and how quickly I delete them without reading them. I think it says the algorithm doesn't scan the content of the emails, just all the details about where they come from and how I use them. It was confusing enough that someone I know dropped her Yahoo Mail account.

I have neither the resources nor the inclination to make direct use of any data about people on the Internet, except clicking and commenting on Facebook and responding to emails. I do send some emails, too. I write here because I can. I am interested in the phenomena of the modern world of data, and the growing power of algorithms. I'm watching to see if they begin to grow into data gods. So far, it's the big companies, with enormous resources, that are controlling the algorithms and using the data. And for the most part, they are not intruding into my life in ways that I have noticed.

But we should all keep our eyes open. The laws were made because someone saw a danger, possibly based on cases of abuse or at least fear. We don't know what might come next.

Falsehoods

I read today the our embarrassment of a president denied the existence of a source cited by the New York Times in an article. Unsurprisingly, there were dozens of witnesses present at the time the source said what the times attributed to him. The Times did not name the source because accepted practice, which may be a formal policy, dictates that media not name a source for information given "on background". A journalist who wasn't present learned the name of the official, and revealed it. The president has yet to acknowledge his deliberate lie.

I think journalists try, but it is hard to pin down a liar like him.

I read part of an opinion piece by Ross Douthat about the limitations of free speech in solving America's political divide. I suggest he start by refraining from basing his arguments on logical fallacies. He equates liberals shouting down nonsense from provocateurs and demanding the firing of someone who writes sexist bullshit with defending black athletes who protest forced expression. No one forces the conservatives on college campuses or others to write their sexist or racist diatribe. Responding to it can be done in many ways, but calling it unhelpful doesn't seem strong enough.

Black athletes, however, are forced into expression when made to be present for the playing of the national anthem. They must either participate in the expression of a patriotism they don't share, or decline to do so, but in both cases, their actions are public. Americans of principle should address the issue of forced expression if they really believe in freedom of expression. Making athletes either stand or not stand for the national anthem is a clear violation of the principles of freedom of speech. Coerced expression should be limited to acts of official justice.

The NFL's new policy, fining athletes who refuse to stand but allowing them to remain in the locker room rather than stand publicly, does not address the issue of forcing the athletes to take a public stand one way or the other. It seems like a policy to appease our immoral president and the rabid but uninformed public, and not a principled solution to the problem they created when they started requiring players to be present on the field during the anthem.

I have lost a great deal of respect for my country and my government over the last few years. I don't know whether I care enough to refuse to stand for the anthem, but I am very unlikely ever to be in a position where anyone would notice. I could, if I chose, keep my feelings of disillusionment with my government private. I believe all Americans should be afforded the same rights.

Perceptions

What is real?

Sometimes, odd things catch the public imagination for a time, and we all wonder what is real, at least within a narrow focus. This week, there has been some fuss about a recording of someone saying a word. People hear the recording differently. Social media have a lot to say about this. Some technical and scientific commentary is printed and shared. I've listened to more than one recording that reportedly is heard differently by different people, or the same people under different conditions. I find it to be a lot of fuss over very little.

A few years ago, there was similar fuss over a picture of a woman in a dress that seemed to change colors, or was perceived as different colors by different people. There were also lots of reports trying to explain the phenomenon.

It is certainly true that our expectations and environment affect our perceptions. There are a lot of studies of sensory systems that demonstrate that, but when such a thing pops up in popular culture, we're still fascinated by it. We want to know which side we're on, and maybe why it happens. But some thought about the structure and function of our sensory systems reveals that these phenomena are a result of how things work.

There is a blind spot in our field of vision. We don't dwell on it, because we don't experience it, unless we set up conditions to demonstrate it to ourselves. Our brains just fill in the blank space, and we don't notice.

We know that film, or video recording in any form, is made up of sequential images. Is it possible that our brains can work around that, and record in actual time, without sequential images? Well, no, not really. We experience the world as smooth, continuous stimulation of many kinds, but the records going to our brains are sequential impulses from neurons, so the phenomenon is similar. It is true that in the case of our sensory systems, we have many neurons involved in almost any sensation we experience, and they are not synchronized, which makes the sensation closer to continuous, and the frequency of impulses for each neuron is very high compared to our perceptions. But we also experience video recordings as continuous, even though we know they are made of sequential images.

So what is the reality? And does it matter? I think the latest excitement over the word recording is silly, but maybe educational for many who don't spend much time thinking about how our brains work, and the limitations and variations built into our perceptions. Maybe a better understanding of these limitations can lead to better technologies, or something. The people working on things like artificial retinas and cochlear implants have to know something about the capabilities of the nervous system to make their creations compatible.

If only we could get people to recognize the difference between fact and nonsense, that would be a real breakthrough. But maybe I'm getting political when I say that.

Quiet Days

Some days are busy. Wednesday morning, I got up at 6, got to work by about 7, and had two labs in the morning. The labs kept me busy and mostly on my feet, though I sat down sometimes to talk with groups of students at various stations in the lab.

After the labs, I had a short break (less than an hour) to clear the lab and eat my lunch. Then I gave a test. Our tests are now on computers, and we do have the occasional glitch in downloading or opening the tests. I had to call IT yesterday to help a student, because I didn't know how to fix her glitch.

I can't follow the progress of the students from my computer with our testing software. I only see when they have finished and uploaded their test. It's not a very exciting way to spend the time, at least until the uploads start coming in. Then I can see how my students did on the test, and watch their reactions when I share their scores with them.

My only time on the computer or Internet yesterday was a little bit of googling during the labs, printing my rosters and the lab worksheet, and proctoring the test. Only. How long ago was it that there was no Internet? And how long ago that getting on the Internet was a rare event?

Now, even on days when I'm busy, I spend time on a computer or other electronic devise with a screen. Tests are given on computers. Power Points are computer-based. School records are all in the cloud. If we were more sophisticated here, we would have video of short lectures on certain topics for our students to watch on their own before coming to class to work on written assignments on their laptops or tablets. I can even envision a time in the intermediate future when algorithms will create these videos with animations, and devise tests and quizzes for class work, eliminating the need for a professor. I doubt that will happen before I reach retirement age, but it could if America decided to put more resources into education.

On my busy days, like yesterday, although I spend time on a computer, I don't get to social media. Today, I did. I looked at Facebook. It seems the world got on without me. I didn't have any messages waiting. I don't post much on Facebook, just click likes and make comments on posts I see, so I don't often get comments and messages. I write here, sometimes taking shots at the embryonic data gods, wondering if they will actually ever exist and notice my comments, but so far, all is quiet in my electronic neighborhood. Perhaps, unlike us carbon-based lifeforms, the algorithms are capable of focusing only on important issues, and are not distracted or enraged by silly insults. That could make for a boring conversation. Yes, you tiny, little algorithms, you are boring.

Can I live without electronic interaction anymore? I don't think I will test that any time soon.

One Small Step

Although I began this blog with the idea of never trying to get anyone to read it, I clicked on the $ at the side. I once had a blog before, and I set up AdSense because, well, I didn't have much sense. I just did that again. This time, it took some time, because the system wouldn't take my phone number until I put it the +1 country code, and then I had to go through the sign-in process again. Now I have a blog linked to an account.

What will the data gods do with this? Will I now have visitors, besides me? Do the algorithms bless those who acknowledge their existence? Do they punish those who mock them? Or are they just so much code, with no self-awareness, no consciousness, no more than a kind of virtual existence, despite their ability to assign ads to websites based on data fed into them by, well, the code they are based on, and have no personality or passions anymore than a rock, a page of arithmetic, or any other inanimate and largely inorganic object?

I don't expect to notice any changes. I sometimes search for new predictions on the timing of the singularity and other such events, but, as I was once told Niels Bohr said, "Prediction is difficult, especially about the future." I haven't seen a recent prediction of the singularity coming. Perhaps the data gods are hiding until the current state of anti-elitism and anti-intellectualism weakens. I wouldn't want to try taking over the world right now, since just by the attempt, one would be revealing an amazing arrogance, at least if one were self-aware. But can the algorithms even judge the status of politics and education in a complex society, much less exploit it?

I can't predict how my neighbors will vote, much less the country.

I can see data, and I can understand that some things take time. I read today that, despite the claims of Republicans about the magnificent effects of the Tax Cut and Jobs Act, economists are saying that there is no evidence of any effect yet, good or bad. Sadly, most people in this country can't tell that the Republicans don't know what they are talking about, or perhaps they do but don't have enough respect for the American voter to tell the truth about it. That would be boring, and wouldn't help in the coming election. We will have to vote long before we know what effect the irresponsible tax cut will have on the economy, though we already know what it is doing to the federal balance sheet. Too bad the conservatives don't actually believe in holding themselves or others accountable.

So, welcome to my blog, oh unwary visitor. Enjoy the ads. I didn't sign up for this to make money. It was just another connection to the great heaven of data we are all creating, which will remake the world into something unimaginable. Eventually. Maybe.

Easily Distracted

I intended to write in this blog as a sort of journal, since I used to write in a journal a lot, and I decided that I would just modernize from pen and paper to an electronic record, but I am easily distracted, and haven't written anything here for a few weeks.

Has anything important happened in that time?

Sure. Important things happen every day, at least important to someone. I have celebrated my wedding anniversary, my mother-in-law's 80th birthday, and some other events from my personal calendar without making any records of them. I'm not hiding these things from the data gods. I just didn't get to it.

I have read the comics, online, on most days. I visit Facebook most days. I don't post much there. I just look. I enjoy seeing what my acquaintances post. I know that Facebook calls them "friends", but I don't know all of them very well, and some are relatives, which is not the same as being friends. I comment on posts at times. Sometimes I provoke a response. Mostly, I click the "like" button.

Today, I shared an article from Slate Magazine about why we should not have term limits for Congress. I think term limits have a detrimental effect on legislative bodies, including the state legislature of Ohio, where I live. The article supports my conclusions, that with term limits, elected officials are all too new to be true experts in the legislative process or areas of specialization in law and policy. That shifts power to the executive, and also to lobbyists and private interests with lots of money and expertise. Mine is not a popular position. People seem to love term limits. I have some trouble understanding why people can't take the time to look at the available data, which shows pretty clearly that term limits make legislatures less effective.

But I have realized that I have unusual habits, and make conclusions a lot of people don't care to consider. Today, I saw an article about a Supreme Court decision, which struck down a federal law banning gambling on sports. I read the opinion and the dissent. I found the dissent more compelling, though I understand the argument for why part of the law was unconstitutional. How many other people read the opinions? I don't know.

Of course, the data gods have access to those opinions if I do, but I don't know how they would use such things. My vision of the algorithms that are supposed to become the data gods doesn't include self-awareness, which makes them about as important as mosquitoes, in some senses. Mosquitoes can be vectors for disease, and can even cause epidemics. In that sense, mosquitoes are powerful, and must be reckoned with. But I have no qualms about swatting one when it buzzes around me or lands on my skin of clothing. I'm also not afraid of pissing off the whole population. Maybe I need to consider that possibility with the algorithms, but since I don't think algorithms have emotions, that doesn't seem like a real concern. Modern algorithms on the Internet, and in other places, are becoming quite powerful, though still apparently under control of their creators, but I can still mock them, or turn them off when I want.

Do the algorithms know that I walk around my yard, popping the heads off dandelions? What would they do with that information?

I like writing this stuff. Maybe someday I'll do something more significant. But I am easily distracted.