Algorithms

There is a wave of books asking how social media platforms shape the stories we tell about ourselves and, through that shaping, what new kind of self they are producing. Megan Garber’s Screen People argues that the language and ethos of entertainment have permeated every aspect of life, so that we now see each other as characters in an ongoing show whose continuity we are responsible for maintaining. Kathryn Jezer-Morton’s The Story of Your Life, out in August, makes the related case that algorithmic platforms have disciplined what counts as a shareable experience into what Jia Tolentino’s blurb calls a rigid, optimized, phone-shaped norm. I haven’t read either yet, but I’m willing to bet they’re basically right.

What do you do if decisions that used to be made by humans, with all their biases, start being made by algorithms that are mathematically incapable of bias? If you’re rational, you should celebrate. If you’re a militant liberal, you recognize this development for the mortal threat it is, and scramble to take back control. You can see this unfolding at AI conferences. Last week I attended the 2020 edition of NeurIPS, the leading international machine learning conference. What started as a small gathering now brings together enough people to fill a sports arena. This year, for the first time, NeurIPS required most papers to include a 'broader impacts' statement, and to be subject to review by an ethics board.