Archive (Page 2 of 3)

Who and What Will Get to Think the Future?

There’s already a kind of cog­ni­tive invest­ment that we make, you know. At a cer­tain point, you have years of your per­son­al his­to­ry liv­ing in somebody’s cloud. And that goes beyond mere­ly being a mem­o­ry bank, it’s also a cog­ni­tive bank in some way.

What Our Algorithms Will Know in 2100

A lot of the sci­ence fic­tion I love the most is not about these big ques­tions. You read a book like The Diamond Age and the most inter­est­ing thing in The Diamond Age is the medi­a­tron­ic chop­sticks, the small detail that Stephenson says okay, well if you have nan­otech­nol­o­gy, peo­ple are going to use this tech­nol­o­gy in the most pedes­tri­an, kind of ordi­nary ways.

What Should We Know About Algorithms?

When I go talk about this, the thing that I tell peo­ple is that I’m not wor­ried about algo­rithms tak­ing over human­i­ty, because they kind of suck at a lot of things, right. And we’re real­ly not that good at a lot of things we do. But there are things that we’re good at. And so the exam­ple that I like to give is Amazon rec­om­mender sys­tems. You all run into this on Netflix or Amazon, where they rec­om­mend stuff to you. And those algo­rithms are actu­al­ly very sim­i­lar to a lot of the sophis­ti­cat­ed arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence we see now. It’s the same under­neath.

What Do Algorithms Know?

The Tyranny of Algorithms is obvi­ous­ly a polem­i­cal title to start a con­ver­sa­tion around com­pu­ta­tion and cul­ture. But I think that it helps us get into the cul­tur­al, the polit­i­cal, the legal, the eth­i­cal dimen­sions of code. Because we so often think of code, and code is so often con­struct­ed, in a pure­ly tech­ni­cal frame­work, by peo­ple who see them­selves as solv­ing tech­ni­cal prob­lems.

Automation and Algorithms in the Digital Age

I want to think more broad­ly about the future of cyber state, and think about accu­mu­la­tions of pow­er both cen­tral­ized and dis­trib­uted that might require trans­paren­cy in bound­aries we wouldn’t be used to.

Safiya Noble at Biased Data

I often try to tell peo­ple that Google is not pro­vid­ing infor­ma­tion retrieval algo­rithms, it’s pro­vid­ing adver­tis­ing algo­rithms. And that is a very impor­tant dis­tinc­tion when we think about what kind of infor­ma­tion is avail­able in these corporate-controlled spaces.

Four Trends for the Digital World

This quote’s from Andy Warhol. He was look­ing at America and say­ing America’s dif­fer­ent. He’s say­ing, Well, Elizabeth Taylor’s drink­ing Coke and I’m drink­ing Coke and the bum on the street’s drink­ing Coke, and it’s all the same thing.” For the first time in his­to­ry, mass mar­ket cul­ture has allowed us all to enjoy the same thing. This is not cham­pagne. The bum on the street can’t afford cham­pagne.

The Relevance of Algorithms

How would we begin to look at the pro­duc­tion of the algo­rith­mic? Not the pro­duc­tion of algo­rithms, but the pro­duc­tion of the algo­rith­mic as a jus­ti­fi­able, legit­i­mate mech­a­nism for knowl­edge pro­duc­tion. Where is that being estab­lished and how do we exam­ine it?

Response to Tarleton Gillespie’s The Relevance of Algorithms”

It seems to me that to con­front algo­rithms on their own terms, we may have to mod­i­fy our pre­oc­cu­pa­tion with the pol­i­tics of knowl­edge and take up an inter­est in the pol­i­tics of logis­ti­cal engi­neer­ing.