Computational Arts-Based Research and Theory: Journal 2

The automatization of specialist jobs

I find the parallels between the mechanically-focused industrial revolution of the 18th century and the data-focused industrial revolution of our present times to be very interesting, thought provoking, and somewhat terrifying.

Living through a technological revolution has made me develop empathy for the luddites. Often we look at the past as a series of events that happened to some people we're not very emotionally invested in. We know what happens at the end of their story, and we know their endpoints (somehow) lead to where we are now, but we often forget the obvious fact that they didn't know what was going to happen as it was happening to them.

A notable parallel I feel between these two industrial revolutions is the fear that new innovations bring to the working classes. I'm personally terrified by the idea of current job obsolescence. But at the same time, it makes me hopeful. It's a strange combination.

How will I provide for myself and look after people I care about in a future where there are no jobs my present mind can imagine? And furthermore, who will take the helm of the new world created by this revolution? Will it be ill-intentioned people? Will it be well-meaning but incompetent people? Or will it be the “system” itself that will take lead of the new world?

Despite the huge anxiety and fear that our possible futures bring, it also brings interesting questions. Not all changes are negative. Also, some changes sometimes have the opposite effect of what would've been expected.

I think about this specifically in the context of music. If algorithms can write believable pieces of text, then they can write believable pieces of music.

A very naive part of me is hopeful that once we realize algorithms can write “better” songs than anyone else, and that algorithms can mix “better” than anyone else, we'll come to the conclusion that it's ultimately meaningless to try to be “good” at music.

When technical achievements are easily manufactured by computers, individuality will have a different meaning.

Instead of feeling defeated by computers who are better at our jobs, we might find ourselves liberated from the meaninglessly mechanical routine of creation for a commercial marketplace, be it of art or other products.

We might remember that it is our weird and personal biases and views and inherent incoherencies and personal fears and experiences that really make interesting works of art.

We might lift the veil that technical proficiency has been providing for too long. It will no longer be special to be talented, but it'll be special to be honest.

Hit-composing algorithms might “break” the music business, but then again, maybe that's the best thing that could happen to creativity.

But alas, it is not that simple. And I did provide a disclaimer – I am being naive. And the old question comes back: how will I make money if a robot is replacing me?


The algorithm

It's interesting how sensitive language is.

In the beginning of Gillespie's essay, he refers to Raymond Williams' book, “Keywords”. Williams explains how groups of people often find themselves talking about different things while using the same term.

Gillespie uses this reference as a way of pointing out that what is implied by the usage of the term 'algorithm' is dependent on the context and those involved in its usage.

I think this is interesting, because it points out how obfuscated conversations can become when discussing abstract concepts. Communication breaks down when there is no common ground of agreement, despite having the impression of one. It is confusing, and can even turn people hostile.

It's interesting how the meaning one derives from a word functions as a form of mirror – what someone understands by a word reveals a lot about them. But what is even more interesting to me, is how easy it is to shift from one usage to another without being consciously aware of it.

I wonder if this shift in understanding is simply an empathetic mechanism in order to acknowledge the fact that language is somewhat fluid.

Personally, when I think of the world 'algorithm', I'm thinking very technically. I'm thinking of lines of code, of instructions... things like that. I try to understand how a given algorithm works and I try to go from there.

But when I talk to my mother, the “algorithm” might turn into something more abstract. My descriptions are more vague, and probably verge on sounding like “it's the thing computers do”.

To what extent do we shift definitions of words to our convenience?

It seems harmless to simplify a concept when talking to my mother – not because she's not capable to understand a technical term, because she is, it just seems like a lot of work for a brief point in a conversation.

However, what she understands by that word is not what the word meant at one point. Wouldn't it be unreasonable for me to expect her to understand the original meaning when we implicitly agreed its definition also included a simplified version of the concept?

Eventually, it will become a feedback loop.

A multi-leveled feedback loop with no point of agreement.

And we're somehow supposed to understand each other.


Writing from the perspective of an algorithm

MERGE SORT

I am given a list of numbers and my purpose is to organize it. It is expected that I will arrange numbers from smaller to larger, their size determined by their position in the number line. The number line is a convention agreed upon by the human race at the time of my existence.

I am fed the following list:

583712946

I take the list of numbers and divide them into their smallest possible grouping unit. In this case, the smallest possible grouping unit is a single digit. After dividing the list of numbers, I am left with the following individual units:

5 8 3 7 1 2 9 4 6

My main mechanism for sorting is called the merge. When I merge, I re-group numbers that have been separated. In this case I will turn single digits into small lists. However, I will not only merge, but I will also perform an evaluation to determine which number is lower in the number line, and I will place it first.

My new grouping looks as follows:

58 37 12 49 6

My main mechanism for sorting is called the merge. When I merge, I re-group numbers that have been separated. In this case I will turn small lists into larger lists. However, I will not only merge, but I will also perform an evaluation to determine which numbers are lower in the number line, and I will place them first.

My new grouping looks as follows:

3578 1249 6

My main mechanism for sorting is called the merge. When I merge, I re-group numbers that have been separated. In this case I will turn small lists into larger lists. However, I will not only merge, but I will also perform an evaluation to determine which numbers are lower in the number line, and I will place them first.

My new grouping looks as follows:

3578 12469

My main mechanism for sorting is called the merge. When I merge, I re-group numbers that have been separated. In this case I will turn small lists into larger lists. However, I will not only merge, but I will also perform an evaluation to determine which numbers are lower in the number line, and I will place them first.

My new grouping looks as follows:

123456789

I am done.