Silicon Valley’s Futile Search For Utopia Via The ‘Perfect Algorithm’

Wikipedia Commons
Please Share This Story!
Human programmers produce human algorithms after their own kind, with prejudices and belief structures stemming from their creators. If the ‘creator’ is searching for Utopia, the programs will ultimately reflect that. Technocrats suffer from the terminal intellectual disease of groupthink. ‚ĀÉ TN Editor

I find myself thinking quite a bit about algorithms these days. The word itself derives from the Latinized name of the Persian scholar Mohammed ibn-Musa al-Khwarizmi, reputedly the inventor of algebra, who flourished during the Abbasid Caliphate in ninth-century Baghdad. 1200 years later with the advent of the computer, the age of programming and machine-learning dawned, refining and applying al-Kwarizmi’s scheme of numeration into conceptual regions he could never have imagined. According to the standard definition, an algorithm is a set of rules determining the nature and order of computer calculations, the major component of search engines that canvass data bases cued by key words.

In¬†The Master Algorithm, Pedro Domingos writes: ‚ÄúA programmer‚ÄĒsomeone who creates algorithms and codes them up — is a minor god, creating universes at will. You could even say that the God of Genesis himself is a programmer.‚ÄĚ The serpent in Algorithm Eden is complexity — of space, time and human limitation — creating a world that grows ‚Äúincreasingly fragile.‚ÄĚ Data is turned into information and information is transformed into knowledge.

But the situation grows increasingly tangled when we realize that algorithms can reflect a programmer‚Äôs ignorance or prejudice or explicit design, and that algorithms can also learn to rewrite themselves, that is, they can also be self-programming, introducing a degree of uncertainty into the original parameters. Knowledge may be skewed, infected by error, and even prey to delusions — a tree whose fruit should not be plucked and eaten.

Similarly, Frank Pasquale in¬†The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms that Control Money and Information¬†alerts us to the troubling fact that algorithms, often opaque to their own programmers, can serve to reinforce social taboos, prejudices and prior assumptions which reflect the unconscious attitudes of the programmers. But these attitudes may also be quite conscious, introducing a propagandistic element into the algorithm. Pasquale writes: ‚ÄúThe proprietary algorithms‚Ķ are immune from scrutiny,‚ÄĚ rendering us vulnerable to surveillance, censorship, and coercion masking as persuasion, and so ‚Äúundermining the openness of our society.‚ÄĚ He points out that mining data from social media in the hunt for potential malefactors ‚Äúcomes with a high risk of false positives.‚ÄĚ We should be aware, too, that it comes with a growing certainty of false negatives. Indeed, given the monopolistic power of the major social media networks, practically all promoting progressivist memes and left-wing politics, such contamination is inevitable.

The principal social networks — Facebook, Google, Twitter, YouTube, Patreon, etc. — all rely on secret algorithms derived from human emotional and ideological input. As Jim Treacher¬†writes¬†at PJ Media, ‚ÄúTech companies are notorious for their liberal culture. ‚Ķ Worse, tech companies like Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Twitter have relied on the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a far-left smear factory that brands Conservative and Christian organizations ‚Äėhate groups.‚Äô‚ÄĚ Clearly, these networks are not simply digital¬†common carriers¬†but a species of political cabal.

Niall Ferguson‚Äôs study of network theory in his recently released¬†The Square and the Tower¬†shows us how we are often the victims of the ‚Äúdiscrepancy between the ideal and reality,‚ÄĚ so that in ‚Äúmak[ing] the world more connected‚ÄĚ — Facebook‚Äôs mission statement — these networks may actually have made the world more susceptible to manipulation. As noted, they filter out content deemed ‚Äúhateful‚ÄĚ — that is, unpalatable to the controllers, who routinely¬†censor posts and messages¬†of a conservative stripe on the excuse that they ‚Äúlook like spam‚ÄĚ or constitute ‚Äúhate speech‚ÄĚ — and strive to foster ‚Äúcommunity governance‚ÄĚ on a global scale, which is to say, mass control from the top down. In effect, these algorithmic conglomerates have become both the sign and the driver, as Ferguson says, of a world ‚Äúfalling apart.‚ÄĚ

In my wackier moments, I like to fantasize that the confusion and thought-programming from which we suffer in the contemporary West is the product of a jihadist conspiracy, orchestrated by a Muslim mastermind named Mohammed al-Gorithm, who has convinced us that Islam is a religion of peace and that those who object are guilty of Islamophobia. Or that a nefarious character whose real name is Al-Gorithm has managed to convince us that the globe is incinerating due to exponential carbon buildup. Of course, the databases relied upon here are subject to prior engineering, the information extracted is corrupted, and the knowledge acquired is filled with error about the world we live in.

On a more serious plane, we need to recognize that our beliefs and actions are increasingly predicated on falsehood. Islam is peaceful, the planet is growing warmer, the seas are rising and polar bears are on the verge of extinction. Ultimately, taking such calculations to their logical extreme, we can assert that gender is a social construction — there are 32 or more sexual morphisms with which we can identify — or that our universities are places of tolerance and free debate or that masculinity is toxic or that multicultural diversity makes us stronger or that socialism is the solution to all our political and economic problems. We create an alternate reality with no relation to actual social, political and physical reality which, to quote the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein in the¬†Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, is ‚Äúall that is the case.‚ÄĚ

Rather, the algorithms currently operating in the social and political spheres have us chiefly believing and promoting all that is not the case. They have us behaving in ways that must infallibly lead to our demise as rational beings as we become human bots seeking an ever more fraudulent epistemology.

Read full story here…

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments