
Thinking critically about and researching algorithms [pdf] - lainon
http://futuredata.stanford.edu/classes/cs345s/handouts/kitchin.pdf
======
rodionos
It's an essay on algorithms in general, not related specifically to computer
sciences. They talk about algorithms in journalism, for instance. The
difference between algorithms, techniques, approaches and other terms they use
is rather blurry.

------
jasode
The "critical thinking" Rob Kitchin is talking about is analyzing algorithms'
impact with a _social_ lens. Because algorithms affect people's lives, we
shouldn't be content with letting them be opaque black boxes.

It seems to have overlap with the themes in the book by Ed Finn _" What
Algorithms Want - Imagination in the Age of Computing"_.[1]

Both say that algorithms are intensely studied from a _technical_ perspective.
E.g. O(log n) is better than O(n^2), etc.

Their idea is that the algorithms themselves are creating their own "culture"
or "reality" and this should be studied through the lens of "humanities" or
"sociology" instead of just "mathematics".

E.g. neural net or statistics algorithm computes that Person A is better
credit risk than Person B. However, observers notice that Person B is always
black and therefore claim that algorithms are (re)creating racial inequality.
Or algorithms that provide sentencing guidelines for convicted felons. Or
algorithms that diagnose medical problems.

Other writings with somewhat similar themes:

\- Cathy O'Neil, _" Weapons of Math Destruction - How Big Data Increases
Inequality and Threatens Democracy"_[2]

\- Eli Pariser, _" The Filter Bubble"_[3]

There doesn't seem a universal term coined that generalizes the ideas in all 4
of those books but nevertheless, I'm sure more and more writers will notice
they are talking about similar ideas.

Side observation about language usage... What I notice in all 4 books is that
authors are using the word _" algorithms"_ as a catch-all term for _" machine
learning"_. They're not really concerned about building-block algorithms such
as "quick sort" or "discrete Fourier transform". What they're all talking
about is "Facebook machine learning" is imposing X on us, or "Google's machine
learning" is making us think Y. For some reason, the word "algorithm" has
gained more currency than "machine learning" in these pop science books.

[1] [https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/what-algorithms-
want](https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/what-algorithms-want)

[2] [https://www.amazon.com/Weapons-Math-Destruction-Increases-
In...](https://www.amazon.com/Weapons-Math-Destruction-Increases-
Inequality/dp/0553418815)

[3] [https://www.amazon.com/Filter-Bubble-Personalized-
Changing-T...](https://www.amazon.com/Filter-Bubble-Personalized-Changing-
Think/dp/0143121235)

~~~
gatlinnewhouse
There are some books which are more concerned with algorithms (in the correct
sense of the term) within the field of Software Studies/Digital
Humanities/Critical Code Studies.

Some books and articles:

[1] _Protocol_ by Alexander Galloway

[2] _10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1));:GOTO 10_ by Nick Montfort et al

[3] _On "Sourcery" or Code as Fetish_ by Wendy Hui Kyong Chun

[4] _The Exploit_ by Alexander Galloway and Eugene Thacker

I can list many more.

There was also a doctoral seminar taught by Alexander Galloway at NYU in 2010
called The Politics of Code. The reason Galloway's name pops up a ton is that
he worked with r-s-g.org and has a fair amount of experience coding in
addition to his academic credentials in literary theory.

------
pzh
This is probably off-topic, but I find it a bit irritating that in an article
about 'critical thinking' the author is quoting a 2012 paper by some Miyazaki
to explain the origin of the word 'algorithm'. I thought we knew about al-
khwarizmi long before 2012 and that it is good form that when you present a
new fact or discovery, you should try to cite the original research rather
than somebody who wrote about it last week.

~~~
gumby
He's doing it because he uses the word "algorithm" in a broader sense than
simply mathematical formalism.

I am not particularly sure I agree with this approach but his use of that
particular reference is appropriate in this case. In fact good, since he has a
non-standard (or at least nonstandard outside _his_ discipline) usage of the
term. Domain-specific jargon that is still too new to have become completely
institutionalized.

~~~
theoh
No, I disagree. I think he's doing it because he is building on Miyazaki's
work (he refers to it multiple times).

What's sad about this work is that Kitchin isn't really interested in having a
technical discussion. Github is apparently "a code library", and where
decompilation should have been mentioned, it is absent.

A technical collaborator would have improved the paper in those ways, and
assuredly others.

