In the second week, We read the article named Algorithm by Tarleton Gillespie who comes from Cornell University. In this article, he explains the different meanings of algorithm for different people and what the algorithm is.
The term algorithm in fact is not difficult to comprehend because people use algorithm every day, such as how to cook, how to get to the workplace and how to arrange our schedule. However, people use it in different fields because of the different roles in society. In most cases, we already have a target, and we need to consider that what is the first step. Furthermore, we need consider whether we have the second choice and what the conditions. It is more like if statement in coding.
//I want to go to company if(weather == rainy ){ Take taxi; } else{ By bus; }
Here is an example which came up with Theo’s class(Creative Coding).
This instance indicate that there does have connections between our daily life and algorithm.
This is the basic common function of algorithm which is used by almost every people. For me, I desperately wanted to do some coding work in my previous study, like game design and interactive installations. However, I did not learn how to code because my major concentrate on creativities rather making them. In other words, coding is not my duty. I learned a software named VVVV which is based on node. I do not have to know programming languages, because it is more like a mind map. I merely need to know the logic to achieve my targets
(Image comes from Google)
“The algorithm we’re concerned about today are rarely designed to reach a single and certificate answer, like a correctly alphabetized list. More common are algorithms that must choose one of many possible results, none of which are certifiably“correct””
The algorithm, over time, does not seem to be content to pursue a particular consequence, and it wants a variety of possible outcomes, like guessing the outcomes, then learns, analyzes, and think like human brains. For example, the concept of big data has been applied to many areas in China. Applying big data to people’s food, clothing, and housing can guess people’s habits and make recommendations, such as recommending foods you like based on the food you recently purchased, and guessing what you may need based on what you recently bought. It does help people make choice and save time. In my opinion, it is difficult to say whether it is good of bad, and I have a feeling of being controlled. But he does help people who have difficult on making choices.
It is true that algorithm, sometimes, would like to guess incorrectly, such as the music player will recommend me some music type. More often than not, the results guessed by the algorithm are not the music I actually like. it is because that the random data was entered and leads to incorrect outcomes when I listen music randomly.
““the algorithm” as having been responsible for particular results or conclusions, as a way to distance those results from the providers.(Morozov, 2013: 142)”
Does the algorithm should be the talisman?
Incorrect outcomes, like I mentioned above, which recommend you something you do not like are not serious things. In most cases, people can even laugh at it as a joke. However, if this kind of outcomes break the law, how do we tackle this situation? Should it still be a talisman, especially when it out of people’s controlling?
In China, the case of QvodPlayer, which does earned profits by illegal videos, the defender insisted that they only focus on the technology and do not provide video. He thinks he is not guilty because player can not distinguish whether the video obscene, and he had blocked more than 4,000 porn websites. The defender means that the algorithm is a talisman, he just wants to provide a player, but the player can not identify the porn videos, he does not want to do so. In this case, the algorithm and the company are separated as tow entities, and the algorithm break the law rather than the company. In other words, does people can do everything what they want because of the particular culture authority of the algorithmic and finally blame the algorithm?
Commenti