Centroids: There was a show on C-Span this morning that I had the good fortune to tune in to
at just the right moment, a panel discussion on the topic of social media and false information. I was most impressed by the comments made by Meredith Broussard, a professor of journalism at NYU. A while ago, a couple of weeks ago, I made a comment to the effect that the youth of nearly everyone at Google is a liability to the company. I imagine that most people who read my remarks shrugged it off as the views of a primitif who isn't fully connected to the 21st century. Centroids' very own Rousseau, worshiping an idealized unspoiled nature that is a thing of the past, etc Not that there isn't some truth to that outlook, and I'm certainly not infatuated with high tech, but it this case "I told you so." Meredith Broussard is not a relic of the past, and she IS very up to date and a creature of the 21st century if there ever was one. She also has a unique background as someone who has a degree in computer science who really knows that field but who re-trained herself as a journalist and now is a professor of the subject. Broussard made the observation that the people who write algorithms are -for the most part- simpletons. She did not spell it out but they also tend to be quite young. Her point is that these people, as good as they may be in crafting algorithms, make all kinds of assumptions that are hopelessly naive and, in cases, really uninformed and stupid. Which should be clear enough when considering how easily false information spreads and how difficult it is to root our bad stuff from the web. These people have almost no sense of the value of opposition research and no "ear" for nuances of meaning, nor for ironies or sarcasms. Among the worst assumptions they make is that "the popular" is (necessarily) good, or even true. But only idiots could possibly reach that conclusion, or the very young who simply do not know better. Some issues are "people problems" that simply cannot be treated as game theory problems -because if you do, you get ludicrous outcomes. Computer algorithms cannot catch nuances, subtleties, quirks, jokes, allusions, and you name it, all of which are how people often think and how they communicate. So, how can algorithms get it all right? They can't -and it is far better to admit it and work with reality rather than insist that all issues can be processed via algorithms. Any such thing is out of reach, maybe forever. What Broussard suggested is a new kind of "computer regime" that combines people (experts mostly) with the field of software development, to produce systems that take full advantage of human "wisdom" and with the value in high tech, a value which is considerable. Anyone have a better idea? Which is to say that my instincts were right. There are all kinds of good things to say about 20-somethings, especially their openness to new ideas and their attitude toward no longer functional traditions. But to attribute anything at all that can be called "wisdom" to the young is a joke. Half the time they don't know what in hell they are talking about. In case you wanted my opinion... Billy -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
