Book Review: The Big Switch

I just finished reading The Big Switch, Nicholas Carr's description of the rise of cloud computing. The thesis is simple: computing is becoming a utility, just like electricity. The book comes in three parts: historical comparison, policy implications, and social implications

The first part of the book is great. It sticks to the thesis, going back and forth between the early 20th century and the early 21st to make the comparison between electricity and computing as utilities. Carr's narration of the technological, business, and social changes that attended the early twentieth century rise of the electrical grid in the U.S. are particularly interesting. Analytically insightful and engagingly written, the first half of the book is a must-read.

The second part of the book is pretty good too. Carr raises a selection of thorny security and legal issues around the use and maintenance of the Internet. Most of these are not new (privacy, spam, phishing, cybersecurity, etc.), but Carr does a good job laying out the important facts. No solutions -- but that would be a lot to ask.

The last portion of the book, you can skip. Here Carr abandons his thesis and turns his back on history to wander into a dystopian tirade. Stepping into the role of an Emersonian prophet of doom, he laments the flattening loss of human spirit in a world dominated by the World Wide Computer. He predicts that computing will destroy our social relationships, take over our bodies, and weaken and replace our minds. It's pretty Matrix-esque, actually. And I don't buy it.

This section annoyed me so much ("The rest of the book was amazing, and then he coughs up this kind of drivel?") that I can't let it go without a fight. Carr's half-baked mantra is "the Internet is a medium of control." Implication: control is antithetical to freedom; therefore, the Internet is decreasing human freedom. But his use of the word "control" is slippery to the point of silliness.

Examples:

pg 192: "The process of control itself has two thrusts. It involves measurement ... and two-way communication."

pg 195: "The entire history of automated data processing ... is best understood as a part of [an] ongoing process of reestablishing and maintaining control."

pg 198: "Programming, after all, is nothing if not a method of control."

We're supposed to believe that measurement, communication, data-processing, and computer programming equals a loss of human freedom? Again, I don't buy it.

Most of Carr's objections to interconnectedness through computing could also be raised against interconnectedness through language: it shapes thought, alters behavior, complicates relationships, and subjects people to new stresses. All true. But language also allows greater empathy, creative expression, coordination, communication, collaboration, and cooperation -- the same kinds of benefits we see on the Internet. All told, I think most people will agree that language is more liberating than stifling. I'm still convinced that the same is true of the Internet.

Game theory on the Daily Show

Bruce Bueno de Mesquita is a political scientist specializing in game theory and coalitions. Unlike most academics, he's made a business out it. He routinely consults for the government and businesses trying to predict future political events. He's got a new book out -- The Predictioneer's Game -- which I suspect may be the next Freakonomics. Controversial, widely read, simultaneously powerful and a little gimmicky.

I've discovered that BDM is a polarizing figure among game theorists. On the one hand, he's clearly good at what he does, and he's succeeded in bringing some popular attention to it. On the other hand, he sometimes comes off as arrogant, and he makes some really big claims. Lots of people think that one of these days, he's going to be wrong about something big. I get the impression that a jealous few would like to see it happen.

A bunch of fun links to BDM-related material:
* His interview on the Daily Show on Monday of this week. In my opinion, Stewart asks good questions, but lets him off easy on the answers.
* The TED talk where he first (?) made his prediction that Iran will not get the bomb.
* A really good NYTimes article on the topic.

There's one link I couldn't find: video from the History Channel's show "The Next Nostrademus." I'm told it's over the top. Links anyone?

Follow up: Big stories from the '08 election

About a month ago, I posted asking for your thoughts on the biggest stories of the 2008 presidential election. If you recall, my goal was to compare your intuition with a computer algorithm chewing through reams of newspaper archives.

Here are the results, as a line graph. The red line is an aggregate tally of your responses. The blue line tracks total words of coverage devoted to the campaign. The two track reasonably well, taking into account the fact that news coverage often lagged actual events by a day. (I used newspaper coverage for this tally; presumably, evening TV coverage wouldn't have had this lag.)


When you chalk up the important stories, here's what you get. These are the top 10 stories from the election, tallied using three slightly different measures.

Your Responses
1. Reverend Wright controversy
2. Rep. convention; Palin joins ticket
3. Election day
4. Super Tuesday
5. Clinton concedes Dem. nomination to Obama
6. Iowa caucus
7. McCain suspends his campaign to work on the financial crisis
8. Obama makes his “PA bitter” comment
9. Dems vote to seat MI and FL delegates
10. Dem. convention

Computer version A (text volume)
1. Election day
2. Super Tuesday
3. Election week
4. Iowa caucus
5. NV and SC caucuses
6. Obama becomes presumptive Dem. nominee
7. McCain becomes presumptive Rep. nominee
8. Rep. convention; Palin joins ticket
9. Giuliani and Edwards withdraw
10. Dem. convention

Computer version B (IEM trading volume)
1. Election day
2. Rep. convention; Palin joins ticket
3. Final phase of the election
4. Election week
5. WA, D.C., MD, VA primaries
6. McCain becomes presumptive Rep. nominee
7. Super Tuesday
8. Democratic convention
9. NC and IN primaries
10. OR and KY primaries

What you see is that the computer gets a lot of things right (election day, Super Tuesday, the party conventions), but misses nuances that a lot of people thought were important. For example, the Rev. Wright controversy was the number one story in your responses -- almost everyone remembered it as a pivotal event in the campaign -- but it didn't generate that much media coverage, so the computer didn't see it as particularly important. I think it's an open question whether our memories are cloudy, or the computer's event detection is flawed.

If you're really into this stuff, here's a link to the paper. It's half baked, but feedback from the conference convinced me that the concept is worth pursuing as a research topic. Thanks again for your help!

On putting faith in models

Here's a conversation I had with my brother via g-chat the other day. It's a great prototype of a conversation I've had many times in the last few months. The basic question is "how much faith can we place in mathematical models?" Most people seem skeptical; I'm more of a believer.

This particular exchange was unusual because 1) it was conveniently recorded, and 2) it went in some interesting and productive directions at the end. I'm posting it unedited, except for some spelling fixes and external links. Comments welcome.

10:44 AM Sam: this is probably trivial compared to the analysis you usually look at, but i thought you might like it nonetheless

http://gigaom.com/2009/08/09/predicting-the-unpredictable/

me: I'll check it out

6 minutes

10:51 AM me: Interesting stuff

I hadn't seen the wine article before

10:52 AM I'd read the paper on war, but I hadn't seen the TED talk

10:54 AM This is exactly the kind of stuff I'm interested in doing

Sam: have you read when genius failed?

me: no

Sam: i can't remember if we talked about it already

it's about a hedgefund

long-term capital management

10:55 AM and their story

it's the classic cautionary tale of putting too much faith in models

me: oh, yes

I haven't read it, but I know the gist

10:56 AM I would change the interpretation a little bit and say putting too much faith in a theory.

A model is a theory that happens to be expressed mathematically

Like any theory, if your assumptions are bad your conclusions will be bad

10:57 AM Sam: it was all mathematical

they determined 'actual' risk spreads based on reams of historical data and market conditions

10:58 AM and then tried to beat the market by playing the spreads dictated by their systems

me: right

as I understand it, the mistake they made was in the way they calculated risk

10:59 AM Sam: this is an interesting meta-argument

because you're pointing to the specific problem of their models

where i'm saying their mistake was over reliance on models

me: yes

11:00 AM this is a live debate in social science

I'm a pretty strong advocate for the quant side

11:01 AM Sam: hm

me: I'd say the key question is "is there anything substantively different about theories expressed in math verses theories expressed in English?"

Sam: this is probably a classic

me: classic?

11:02 AM Sam: academics vs business

11:03 AM me: hm

maybe

it's not so clean cut, though, because there are academics who reject the quant stuff and businessmen who embrace it

11:04 AM I think it has to do with the way people think about math

Is it a set of fixed processes for getting answers, or is it a language for expressing ideas?

11:05 AM If it's a language, then the fault for bad models lies is the assumptions expressed, not the language for expressing them.

5 minutes

11:10 AM Sam: accepting that an omniscient agent could express all ideas as formulas and believing that you can are different, right?

11:11 AM its that leap where you decide to stake a business and millions of dollars on the formula that puts you on one side of the line or the other, in my opinion

me: yes, fair points

11:13 AM It seems to me that you're introducing another aspect of theories, which is that they don't just have to expressed, they also have to be acted upon

and strange things can happen when you act on a theory without fully understanding it

It's kind of a Jurassic Park idea

11:14 AM Sam: ha

i guess ultimately the moral to when genius is the same as jurassic park

11:15 AM but trust funds drying up is less dramatic than dino-carnage

me: so maybe the problem with models isn't that they are more likely to be wrong, but that they invite careless extrapolation

Sam: i don't think it's careless

it's hubris

me: "I'm going to leverage a billion dollars 30 times"

11:16 AM "I'm going to bring back dinosaurs from the dead, focusing mainly on intelligent top predators"

Sam: it's the opposite of being careless- it's spending so much time working on a model that you believe that you can and have thought of everything

11:17 AM its validating that model again and again against the datasets you have without allowing for future events to be unknowable

11:18 AM me: I agree -- my only reservation would be that hubris is not specific to people who frame their models using math

Sam: of course

the opposite story is much more common

which is why when genius failed is a story worth telling

11:19 AM when hubris failed would be too common

11:21 AM me: so instead of "people fail because of math," it's "even people using math can fail because of hubris"

11:22 AM Sam: yeah, that's the gist

me: okay, I don't have to feel so defensive now

11:23 AM a lot of the people around me here are model-builders

some of the faculty are among the best in the world

I see both types

11:24 AM Some use models for the sake of transparency -- all the assumptions are laid out for criticism and improvement

Others use models for the sake of beating up on people who don't speak game theory

11:25 AM I'm pretty invested in the notion that models can help the process of collective learning, and it frustrates me when the arrogant ones give modeling a bad name

Big news stories in the 2008 elections -- Looking for you input

I have a ~10 minute favor to ask. It has to do with timelines again*.

I've pulled a list of the top ~200 events from the run-up to last year's presidential elections. (Download it here as an .xlsx file, here as an .xls file, and here as a .txt file) Sometime when you weren't doing anything anyway (e.g. facebook), skim through the list and pick the top 20 or so events that you think were the biggest stories* in the campaign. If there are important stories that you think are missing, you can add them.

When you're done, post your results in the comments section. Here are the rules:

• By "big news stories," I mean events that did at least one of three things: 1) generated a lot of media buzz, 2) affected public opinion, or 3) evoked a strong response from the campaigns themselves. Any combination of these things qualifies as a news story.
• Don't do any background research and don't ask anybody else for their opinion. I'm just looking for a gut check on which events were the most important.
• Don't worry if you aren't a big-time pundit. I'm not either, and they're mostly bluffing anyway.
• And don't don't don't read other peoples' responses before you post your own -- this will be much more useful and interesting if everyone's ideas are independent.

I'm going to use these responses (anonymously) at a conference coming up in a few weeks. Once the conference is over I'll post some diagnostics and results here so you can see how your intuition stacks up against the wisdom of the crowd.

Like I said, this should only take about 10 minutes or so. Thanks for being part of a convenience sample of the willing!

Some background:
I'm working on a research project using automated content analysis to identify big news stories in archives of media content. The 2008 presidential election is my test case. Basically, I'm throwing a lot of text at the computer and using tricks from computational linguistics to tease out the news stories. It would be neat to be able to do this because 1) news stories are a big part of the way we think about politics, 2) this would make it possible to identify news stories in a replicable way on a grand scale, and 3) complicated algorithms are cool.

Your answers will help me construct a baseline to check how well the algorithm is doing. If the computer finds events that are broadly consistent with human intuition, that's a good sign that it's working. Thanks again for your help.


*PS on my previous post: Chronologic turned out harder than I initially thought! I'm working on ways to weed out some of the ridiculously obscure cards.)