Author: gisellereis

Inteligência Artificial

Botando uns pingos nuns is…
(English version below)

O que acham que é?

ChatGPT e afins.

O que é?

Um campo de estudo sobre métodos para fazer com que o computador tome decisões “espertas” com mínima ou nenhuma intervenção humana.

O chatGPT é uma ferramenta que foi construída com um desses métodos. Por ela ser fácil de acessar e usar, e pela qualidade das respostas, é uma ferramenta que se popularizou muito. Mas ela é uma de muitas outras ferramentas usando um de muitos outros métodos da área de inteligência artificial.

O chatGPT é inteligente mesmo?

Não. O chatGPT é um jogo de probabilidades. Vou tentar explicar com uma analogia.

Imagina que você memorizou todas as obras da grécia antiga, em grego, sem saber falar grego. Ou seja, você sabe todos os símbolos, em todos os documentos, e a ordem que eles aparecem, mas não faz a menor idéia do que eles significam.

Aí alguém escreve pra você uma pergunta em grego antigo. Você vê aqueles símbolos e, sem saber o que significa, vai procurar em todos os outros símbolos que você memorizou se tem alguma coisa parecida. Aí você acha umas coisas similares e começa a construir uma reposta. Primeiro escolhe uma palavra que geralmente segue aquela pergunta, ou perguntas muito parecidas (porque têm muitos símbolos em comum). Daí você dá uma pesquisada no que geralmente segue aquela palavra, e escolhe a segunda aleatoriamente dentre os candidatos mais prováveis, e assim por diante.

É uma idéia simples, implementada muito complexamente com várias transformações de símbolos pra números (porque é mais fácil pro computador trabalhar com números), e que funciona incrivelmente bem. Mas que, na minha opinião, diz mais sobre a nossa regularidade e padrões existentes em tudo que a gente produz do que sobre um computador sendo mesmo inteligente.

É perigoso?

A tecnologia por ela mesma, não. A tecnologia na nossa mão descuidada, provavelmente sim. Mas essa é a história da humanidade. As tecnologias surgem, todo mundo fica empolgado e espreme tudo que pode delas até as coisas começarem a dar errado, e aí a gente pensa como consertar. Foi assim com a agricultura, com os carros, com a internet (que ainda não foi consertada, mas já deu ruim), e vai ser assim com a inteligência artificial. Tem potencial pra dar certo, e potencial pra dar errado, mas não temos o tempo (ou talvez a calma) pra refletir antes da coisa se popularizar e ser usada pra diversas tarefas, boas e más.

Artificial Intelligence

Crossing some t’s and dotting some i’s…
(Versão em português acima)

What do people think it is?

ChatGPT and family.

What is it?

It is a field of study about methods for computers to make “smart” decisions more or less autonomously.

ChatGPT is a tool built using one of those methods. As it is easy to access and use, and for the quality of answers, it has become widely popular. But it is one of many tools based on one of many methods from artificial intelligence.

Is chatGPT really intelligent?

No. ChatGPT is a probability game. I will try to explain using an analogy.

Imagine that you have memorized all the works from ancient Greece, in Greek, without knowing Greek. That is, you know all the symbols, in all documents, and the order in which they appear, but you have absolutely no idea what they mean.

Then someone sends you a question written in ancient Greek. You see those symbols and, without knowing their meaning, look for similar sequences of symbols among the ones that you have memorized. You find some similar stuff and start building an answer. First you choose a word that typically follows the question symbols or sequences like it. Then you search what usually follows that word, and choose a second one randomly among the more likely candidates, and so on and so forth.

It is a simple idea, implemented in a very obscure way with many transformations from symbols to numbers (because it is easier for computers to work with numbers), and that works amazingly well. However, in my opinion, this says more about our regularity and patterns existing in everything we have produced, than about a computer being actually intelligent.

Is it dangerous?

The technology in itself, no. The technology in our careless hands, probably yes. But this is the history of mankind. Technologies arise, everyone gets excited about it and use it to its limit until things start to go wrong, and then we think how to fix it. It was like this with agriculture, cars, internet (which we did not fix yet, but it already went wrong), and it will be like this with artificial intelligence. It has the potential of being a good or a bad thing, but we do not have the time (or perhaps the patience) to reflect before it becomes too popular and used for all sorts of things, good and bad.

P.S.: AI likes my post about AI 😂

Sobre debates produtivos

Nessa época de eleições, ocorrem debates entre candidatos na TV. Na sua maior parte, esses eventos acabam sendo uma oportunidade para a troca de insultos e propaganda grátis, e raramente representam um debate de fato. Debates, na verdade, fazem parte dos primórdios da lógica, e, logicamente, o objetivo nunca foi insultar o adversário ou enaltecer o aliado. Em um debate existem sim dois (ou mais) lados: o proponente e o oponente, em termos técnicos. O papel do proponente é propôr uma idéia, e o papel do oponente é desafiar essa idéia.

Pode parecer uma atividade combativa, mas não é. No final das contas, o objetivo é entender se a idéia é válida, ou em que condições ela seria válida. E isso só se descobre colocando essa idéia em cheque de todos os modos possíveis. O objetivo é aumentar o entendimento de todos sobre aquela idéia, e não “vencer” (seja lá o que isso significa) ou “convencer o outro”.

Na prática, debates (produtivos) entre dois lados aparentemente contraditórios servem para:

  1. Cada lado entender um pouco mais das motivações do outro, e
  2. fortalecer ou refinar os argumentos que a gente tem sobre algum assunto (ou seja, aprender).

Quando um lado faz pergunta pro outro o objetivo não é desafiar ou discordar, mas entender (ponto 1). E quando a gente tem que explicar nossas convicções pra outras pessoas, temos que pensar porque temos essas convicções e em que elas são baseadas (ponto 2). Ou seja, um debate produtivo contribui para o aumento do entendimento global. Infelizmente, as pessoas costumam reagir muito mal a qualquer questionamento que pareça desafiar suas afirmações ou exija um pouco de reflexão. E acabamos assim, com “debates” onde cada um fala pra si próprio, e ninguém realmente aprende.

Eu senti necessidade de esclarecer isso depois de muitas e muitas tentativas frustradas da minha parte de discutir política com algumas pessoas. Eu já discuti muito política na vida. Sinceramente, no início eu não sabia de muita coisa (eu continuo não sabendo, mas a curva é monotonicamente crescente). Mas a gente ouve as outras pessoas, faz perguntas, desafia suposições, pesquisa na internet… E nesse caminho eu aprendi muito. Lembro de discussões muito interessantes e produtivas sobre inflação, cotas nas universidades, voto obrigatório, aprovação de leis, corrupção (e as motivações e implicações sociais), índices econômicos, PIB… enfim. Uma variedade de assuntos! E um tanto de gente bem intencionada me ensinou muito sobre essas coisas durante discussões. Seja sobre partes técnicas do assunto que eu de fato ignorava, seja sobre consequências ou causas que eu não tinha considerado, ou sobre outras opções que eu nem sabia que existia. E talvez elas também aprenderam um pouco no processo, nem que seja como explicar as coisas que elas sabem de modos diferentes. E nem sempre a gente concordava no início, e nem sempre concordava no final. Mas isso não importava.

Infelizmente a coisa ficou feia de uns anos pra cá, e ninguém mais parece ter saco pra isso. Eu tentei, com a melhor das intenções possíveis, pedir uma elaboração de argumentos, perguntar, ou apresentar contra-exemplos a várias pessoas que me apresentaram idéias das quais eu discordo. E é muito, mas muito frustrante mesmo, quando alguém vira e fala “mas é minha opinião e eu não vou mudar e você não vai mudar então essa discussão é inútil”. Quer me matar de raiva é terminar um assunto assim. Cá estou eu, tentando entender o que pra mim parece incompreensível, e ninguém disposto a explicar a não ser com argumentos vazios e sem fundamentos. E que, ao invés de refletir sobre ou fortalecer seus argumentos quando eu faço perguntas, fecha a cara e vai embora. Isso pra mim não é opinião, é teimosia e preguiça de aprender. E se não quer aprender sobre um assunto ou fundamentar suas opiniões devidamente, não me venha apresentar ele como se fosse “a sua verdade”. Conhecimento não é fé.

10 years away from Brazil / 10 anos fora do Brasil

Portuguese version below.

I realized today that it has been 10 years since I moved away from Brazil. March 2011 was when I moved to Vienna, Austria, to pursue a PhD degree. At the time, 10 years sounded like an eternity. Now that they have passed, it doesn’t feel that much. I was reflecting today about an interesting phenomenon that unfolded slowly, and I think it conveys a good picture of the country I once called home.

The first few times I visited Brazil after moving, I was usually asked “so when are you coming back?”. Everyone assumed I was away to study, and that I would go back as soon as I graduated. After a couple of years, I started being told by several people “you know, perhaps it is better you stay abroad a little longer”. Everyone was a bit more pessimistic, talking about how bad the country was. When I got a job at CMU, a lot of people asked if I could use this a chance to stay in the US for good. This year, with the pandemic, I am considering whether to visit Brazil in June/July (I am fully vaccinated). When mentioning that, I got “don’t come, things are a mess here”. 😢

Hoje eu percebi que fazem 10 anos desde que eu me mudei do Brasil. Em março de 2011 eu fui fazer meu doutorado em Viena, na Áustria. Na época, 10 anos parecia uma eternidade. Agora que eles já se passaram, não parece muito. Eu estava refletindo hoje sobre um fenômeno interessante que foi acontecendo aos poucos, e que, na minha opinião, reflete bem o país que um dia foi minha casa.

As primeiras vezes que eu visitei o Brasil depois de ter me mudado, a pergunta que eu mais ouvia era: “quando você volta?”. Todo mundo assumia naturalmente que eu só ia terminar meu doutorado e voltar. Depois de uns dois anos, antes de eu terminar o doutorado, o discurso mudou pra “talvez seja melhor que você fiquei aí mais um tempo”. Eu lembro que ainda estava em Vienna quando todo mundo começou a ficar mais pessimista, falando só dos problemas do Brasil. Quando eu consegui o emprego na universidade americana onde eu trabalho, muitas pessoas me perguntaram se tinha possibilidade de eu me mudar pros Estados Unidos de vez. Esse ano, com a pandemia, eu estou cogitando visitar o Brasil em Junho ou Julho (já tenho as duas doses da vacina, e há dois anos que não vejo minha família). Quando eu falei isso, a resposta foi “não vem, está um caos isso aqui”. 😢

Food, shelter, and companionship

I remember December 2018. I was at my parents house and we had a small gathering with my uncle’s family and grandmother to celebrate the end of the year. My uncle came to me and mentioned about 2018 being over and I remember replying tearfully something to the effect “Finally… this was such a hard year I just want it to be over”.

2018 was a hard year. A hard year so far… then came 2020.

In a strange way, 2020 was not harder than 2018 for me, personally. It was probably harder for people on average, and this comforts me a bit since, this time, I am not struggling alone. I see more people burnt out, just trying to get by, tired of online meetings, and tired of being stuck at home. More and more I hear that we need to be easy on each other, that we can’t possibly do everything we were doing before. We did save time on commuting, but now the house needs to be in order if it is appearing in a meeting, or we need to manage schedules so that the whole family is not speaking on meetings in the same room at the same time, or we need to make sure the kids are doing their homework, and the pets are not going to jump on camera, we need to make meals at home, we need to wash everything after coming back from the supermarket. All these things take more time and energy, and time and energy were already scarce resources before…

The same way this crazy year has exacerbated some of our social problems, it has also done so with our personal problems and the way we have been managing our personal lives. We are encouraged (to put it lightly) to strive for excellence. To be ambitious, to embrace opportunities, to accumulate roles. To “be creative” and recreate the same work environment at home. To be a good professional, partner, parent, sibling, friend, daughter/son, all at the same time. We were already working on our limits, when something unpredictable happened and everything goes up in the air. We struggle to find the time to even think about how to manage the emergency. We take it one day at a time, fighting small fires, without being able to stop and analyze the big picture, how we could be spending our time better, and what are our actual priorities. We end up spending time and energy to try and fit all we did before in this “new mode”, without ever considering whether we should be doing these things at all.

The best lesson we could learn from 2020 is to put things into perspective, and be better at figuring out what *really* matters. The more we do this exercise, the more we realize that very *few* things matter, and the rest is bonus:

My experience in a male dominated discipline

I was asked to participate on a panel at the university about diversity, and my task was to talk about “my experience in a male dominated discipline”. I kept thinking about this for the last couple of days, and I am always unsure on how to approach this topic. On the one hand, I have never felt I was at a disadvantage in my career due to my gender. On the other hand, I know of many women who do struggle in their workplace because of their gender. But I was asked to talk about *my* experience, so here we go.

Throughout my career I have met wonderful people (men and women) whom I get along with and who never made me feel for a second that I was “different”. So many names just pop up in my head and I feel incredibly fortunate for that. Most of the times our commonalities are much greater than our differences, and I like that none of these people seem to care that I am of a different gender, or that I look differently. I was very lucky to have been able to choose who I work with most of the time (academia perk?), and looking back I have surrounded myself with colleagues and friends that made working a pleasant experience. I do not remember many instances where I needed to “put up with someone” for too long. Perhaps a consequence of that is that I hadn’t really paid so much attention to the whole gender biased business until much later in life.

As I became more aware of gender differences, I started noticing certain things here and there, and listening to other people’s experiences. Today, my opinion is that the core of the problem is beyond gender, and probably much more related to personality. We live in a society that values the outspoken, the ambitious, the confident one. We are easily impressed and convinced by those that speak their messages loud and clear, even if they are not sure of what they are talking about. And we feel that cautious and nuanced messages are from insecure and unsure people. We are drawn to certainty, even when it is not certain at all. That leaves the introspective and careful people at a disadvantage. (Ironically, the more nuanced messages are usually the more well-thought ones). The fact that women are generally raised to be more agreeable, and less combative, is incidental, and makes the problem worse for us, typically but not exclusively. However, being a cautious person in an overly confident world is tough for any gender.

So I feel like my struggles have been caused more because I am cautious and I don’t like to rush into things, than for being a woman. The way I found around this is to move closer to people that appreciate this trait, and move away from those that feel this is a weakness. I know I am lucky to be able to make this choice, and I know many that are not.

About choices and tech

Do you waste hours scrolling through infinite feeds on your favourite app? Did you check your e-mail for the 100th time today? Did you stop an important task you were doing because your phone vibrated? Did you stop paying attention to someone you were talking too because of a pop-up notification on your desktop? If any (or all) of those seem familiar, I suggest you watch the documentary The Social Dilemma (see trailer) on Netflix. I think this hits the nail on the head when it comes to problems exacerbated by new technology which I was trying to talk about in a previous post.

I really like the way the problem is framed, and I feel somewhat relieved that my resistance to social networks might not be an indication of a character flaw. It also puts in check a general belief that we are in control of our thoughts and choices, something I have questioned over and over again. We are highly suggestible (maybe gullible?) animals and new technology just found out a way to make specific targeted suggestions with microscopic precision. New apps change our habits, the way we think, the way we work, the way we relate to each others, and we don’t even realize it. Maybe you are happy with this situation, maybe you think there is no harm done, since you are getting access to content that you would never be able to see otherwise. But we are really biased for judging what is good for us… For example, we all know that eating too much fat or sugar is bad for our health, but we can’t resist that desert every now and then. If we were less aware of our health, we might think that sweets are good for us because they just taste so good… so what’s the harm? The same thing happens with all this new technology, except we are in uncharted territory, in all senses, and it is not really clear what is and isn’t healthy. So we must treat this with care, and we must be extra judicious when spending time online. Where are we spending time? Is this time well spent? Is there a competition for our attention that prevents us from focusing on one thing? Are we happier with ourselves after unplugging from the online world?

I am definitely not happy. We need to admit that choices are made *for us* and that we are not so much in control. We need to recognize that first, and try to fight it. But we should not fight this alone. It is unrealistic to believe everyone will suddenly have the will power to control how much time they spend online, and how. Like many other aspects of life, we need policies to protect us from ourselves. Like having salads before deserts in buffets, calorie counts on labels, sugar-free options… We need sugar-free internet. This will only happen with a big shift in how the industry operates. And this can be triggered by social demand.

It is not like I believe the big internet giants are evil. This story has happened several times before: we do first, and think second, when we realize the mistakes, we adapt. I hope we are realizing our mistakes, and I really hope we adapt before it is too late.

Realidade Paralela

Quanto mais perto eu olho, mais eu acho que existem (pelo menos) dois “Brasils” acontecendo. É bizarra a diferença abismal entre os lados pro ou contra o governo. Ou melhor, pro ou contra Bolsonaro, já que ele e o governo são duas coisas diferentes, e “governo” é difícil de definir nesse momento. Eu sou uma pessoa abertamente contra o Bolsonaro, por variados motivos que os que concordam comigo estão cansados de saber, e os que discordam não querem saber. A resistência a um diálogo vem me frustrando faz uns anos, então ultimamente eu resolvi ver de perto o que o outro lado vê. Tenho entrado no Twitter do Bolsonaro com frequência, e de vez em quando visito o site de notícias r7 (claramente a favor do governo). Assisti também a vários debates na CNN que tentam mostrar os dois lados (devo dizer que ouvir o Caio Copolla foi particularmente doloroso, mas me esforcei). Eu acho que estou começando a entender o que os outros vêem (por mais que eu discorde), então resolvi fazer uma tabela comparativa pra fazer sentido de toda essa avalanche de informações.

Pro-Bolsonaro Cons-Bolsonaro
Coronavírus
Existe um vírus novo e muitas pessoas vão ficar doentes, então vamos equipar os hospitais. O que aconteceu com outros países não necessariamente será o caminho do Brasil porque as condições de vida aqui são diferentes. Existe um vírus novo e muitas pessoas vão ficar doentes, então vamos equipar os hospitais, e também escutar os especialistas sobre o que podemos fazer e estudar as experiências dos outros países.
Os cientistas estão pensando no pior cenário e são um pouco exagerados quanto às previsões. Os cientistas estão pensando em vários cenários e fazendo modelagens e simulações.
Um lockdown agressivo vai resultar em perdas de emprego, empresas quebrando e a economia desaquecendo. Para não deixar isso acontecer, não faremos o lockdown. O povo quer trabalhar e sabe se cuidar. Um lockdown agressivo vai resultar em perdas de emprego, empresas quebrando e a economia desaquecendo. Mas isso também é o resultado de uma crise de saúde. Devemos ter um plano claro com medidas objetivas para salvar vidas e mitigar as consequências sociais.
Discurso inflamado
O líder de um país deve ter pulso firme e falar o que deve ser dito, sem rodeios. O líder de um país deve ser ponderado e respeitoso, dando um bom exemplo para os cidadãos.
Eventuais comentários sobre mulheres e homossexuais não são machistas ou homofóbicos. Não é nada que não aconteça entre amigos num espaço privado onde todos têm liberdade de dizer o que querem. Eventuais comentários estereotipados sobre mulheres e homossexuais perpetuam uma cultura de opressão à estes grupos já marginalizados na sociedade, amenizando a seriedade de certos preconceitos.
Imprensa
A imprensa é contra o governo e por isso só publica notícias ruins, sem dar ênfase a todas as coisas boas que o governo tem feito. A imprensa tem o dever de informar os cidadãos com fatos confiáveis e de interesse popular, incluindo medidas impopulares do governo. Se ela não existir, o que impede o governo de tomar essas medidas sem informar?
Governabilidade
O presidente não quis fazer alianças políticas, e por isso sofre com um congresso que é cegamente contra suas propostas, o impedindo de governar e fazer boas coisas pelo Brasil. Seria muito melhor se ele estivesse livre para implementar seu plano de país. O governo é formado por representantes de várias classes e causas. Um governo plural garante que todos os interesses sejam considerados antes de se aprovar qualquer medida. O sistema não é perfeito, mas é melhor do que dar todo o poder para um grupo de pessoas.
Apesar de todos os problemas, o presidente não quer fechar o congresso e o STF. Ele simplesmente quer um governo que esteja alinhado com as suas idéias, e isso se faz colocando pessoas de confiança em cargos que ele pode nomear. As reações exageradas às ações do STF e congresso mostram que o presidente se irrita quando as pessoas não estão do seu lado. Ele se esquece que um governo não é só feito com pessoas que concordam entre si, e usa sua prerrogativa para nomear somente aqueles que apóiam sua opinião, e demitir quem discorda. Ele se mostra incapaz de dialogar.
Filosofia
Liberdade acima de tudo. Os cidadãos sabem o que é melhor pra eles, então quanto menos intervenção do Estado, melhor. Um Estado paternalista só torna as pessoas dependentes. O Estado deve prover os serviços básicos de qualidade para todos os cidadãos e um sistema mínimo de segurança social para os marginalizados da sociedade. Em muitas situações não podemos contar com o bom senso do cidadão.
Devemos defender os valores da família tradicional, que são a maioria da população. Não podemos normalizar aquilo que é atitude de uma minoria. A defesa de valores das famílias tradicionais estigmatizam famílias não tradicionais e as marginaliza. A defesa pela igualdade de direitos e representatividade não é um ataque à família tradicional.
O presidente governa para o povo brasileiro. Ele quer o melhor para o povo que o elegeu, que é a maioria do país. O presidente não deve governar somente para aqueles que o elegeram. Ele deve entender todos os lados e governar para a população como um todo.
Democracia
Apesar das faixas pedindo a volta da ditadura e AI5, o presidente nunca disse que era a favor desse tipo de medidas. Isso é só o que os seus apoiadores afirmam e não reflete o que ele vai fazer. O comparecimento do presidente em manifestações anti-democráticas é, no mínimo, preocupante. Ele enaltece um discurso agressivo que aumenta ainda mais uma grande divisão entre a população.

O propósito dessa tabela não é defender um lado ou outro, mas simplesmente apontar os argumentos mais frequentes. Entender um pouco mais o outro lado é condição necessária (mas não suficiente) para o início de um diálogo, e foi o que eu quis fazer preenchendo o lado esquerdo acima. Por mais que eu achasse que entendesse o outro lado, eu não entendia tanto. Agora entendo mais um pouco, mas tenho certeza que vou aprender mais à medida que conversar com as pessoas. Isso não significa que eu passe a concordar com elas, mas, no meu ponto de vista, o ponto de contenção é geralmente muito diferente do que parece na superfície. Mas encontrar esse ponto exige muita paciência e boa vontade dos dois lados.

Acho que o único jeito que a gente tem pra crescer e sair desse deadlock é conversando com as pessoas e acabando com essa divisão improdutiva na qual nos encontramos. Senão ficaremos nesse vai-e-volta, avançando com passos de formiga e sem vontade (como já dizia Lulu Santos).

What happened?

Six months since I last wrote here, and the world is now upside down. It is not like it was not already messed up before, but this is a whole new level of mess… There are so many things going on, and so many things crossing my mind, that I find it hard to make sense and organize it all. So forgive me if this text is all over the place.

A bit of context if you are reading this too far in the future. The world is now 5 or 6 months in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. This is a highly contagious virus that causes a respiratory disease named COVID-19. For more on the topic, you can google it. There is, of course, a wikipedia page about it. The story told in the future about this depends on how we deal with it now. Only you, future person, can know what came out of it, but I must say that, for some of us people of the present, things are not looking good.

I started checking the news again since I am working from home and things are calmer on my side. Big mistake. It feels surreal. I end up asking myself “whaaat??!!” way too often. Here are a few recent headlines, just FYI:

In hindsight, we can hardly blame the virus alone for this chaos. We have put ourselves in this situation, it was a long time coming, and the health crisis is only making our problems more evident.

What happened to knowledge?

For starters, there was a *lot* of skepticism about the seriousness of this illness. In spite of all the warnings of the WHO, scientists, and epidemiologists, decision makers were still dismissive, thinking the studies were alarmists, and these scientists were an “opposition” of sorts. Maybe because mortality rate is not at 50%, and people are not visually sick, it was easy to look to the other side. Then, when things started to look bad, many decision makers put their faith in untested drugs, irresponsibly advertising them and encouraging distribution in hospitals. Even with no evidence that it would work, and a lot of evidence that it had serious side effects.

In my opinion, this is a result of two things: (1) a general distrust in science (e.g. climate change deniers, anti-vaccine movement, flat-earthers); and (2) an enhanced sense of entitlement for an opinion on each and every subject. Obviously these two things are not completely independent, but I think it is interesting to understand how this has come about, and ways to alleviate it. It seems people are unable to critically analyse information, and discern trustworthy sources. I don’t blame them. We can find literally everything on the internet nowadays disguised as reliable information. In a world where everything is true, each person picks their own truth. But you see, science doesn’t really work like that.

what happened to social security?

This reluctance to accept the studies was not a mere opposition to science. There is a very real and practical reason behind it: the economy. You see, all the studies indicated that, in order to curb the spread of the disease and prevent the collapse of health care systems, we needed to reduce gatherings, be more isolated and avoid contact with others. Now, people won’t stay at home because we politely ask them… Governments needed to take action. First thing to close are schools, then shops, then public spaces, and so on. Or at least that was the recommendation. The thing is, some people can move their business to home office, but a big number of people cannot. And with people at home, they don’t buy, they don’t travel, they don’t spend. And that means a lot of business lose income, which means they cannot pay their employees, which results in bankruptcy and unemployment. No government wants to deal with this problem, this is all very familiar, so why would they force business to close and the economy to slow down?

When have our lives become so dependent on an economy running and business working properly? Are we willing to continue this way? I mean, it is quite fragile as we can see now. Peoples’ subsistence depend on them having a job, but not all people have jobs all the time. So what happens when they don’t? That is what a social security system is for. We can compare the social impact of this pandemic in countries with high and low social security to see what a difference this makes. Of course this is hard given all the other factors, but it might be educational in any case. What cannot happen is for decision makers to look away so much because supporting the citizens in a time of need is just not possible (or not a problem they want to handle).

what will happen to us?

A(n optimistic) part of me wants this to be a lesson, that we look at it critically, find our weak points as a society, and fix them for the next emergency (let’s face it, another one is bound to happen sooner or later). The two topics above are simply things that worry me more, but I am sure there are all sorts of other problems that have become really obvious (like international collaborations, access to health care, inequality, to mention a few). A (realistic) part of me is hopeless that this will happen, specially when I see people so eager for things to “get back to normal”. Once again, we fall prey to our urgency and move forward in leaps and bounds (or as we say in Portuguese, aos trancos e barrancos).

About data

I have recently watched the documentary The Great Hack, which explains the Cambridge Analytica scandal: how they used a great amount of data from facebook to spread biased and fake messages and influence the outcome of Brexit and the US presidential election of 2016. The film focuses a lot on the role of big data-owning corporations such as facebook, google, or amazon (the usual suspects). It hints towards holding these companies responsible for what people do with the data they collect, and sort of portraits them as “evil”, but perhaps too much [1]. It also blames the technology and the “algorithms”, whatever those are. In my opinion, this is a very shallow analysis of what is actually going on, and I think they got it all upside down. Let me break down this problem into three parts.

The technique

People that do not understand what is going on behind the curtains of recommendation algorithms tend to see the spread of targeted manipulative information as an extremely bad thing (which it is), and how music streaming services that suggest music that you like as an extremely good thing (which it is). I am no expert in recommendation systems myself, but I know enough to know that the principles behind these two tasks are basically the same. So blaming and prohibiting the technique itself will mean that a lot of wonderful things we have today will no longer be available. And a huge field of research, which can be used for good, will go away. I don’t think this is a good direction to follow…

The data

Our data is being collected all the time. I know that, you know that, everyone knows that. It is because of this data, and the techniques, that we can talk to our phones, that we can search for a photo by a keyword, that our watches can measure our steps, and many other conveniences that make our lives today very comfortable. The corporations that collect and use the data to develop these wonderful things know how this is sensitive information, and how everything should be super anonymized if it is supposed to go into the hands of others (such as researchers).

In the case of Cambridge Analytica in particular, I think Facebook has actually little blame on this [1]. The story plays out like this. A researcher at Cambridge University developed an app and provided it to Cambridge Analytica. The company, in turn, used this app to do a survey and people had to agree that their data was going to be used for academic purposes. It turns out that, because of the way facebook was designed, the app also collected data from all the friends of the person taking the survey. Now, I think this is a serious design flaw, and whoever saw that, the researcher or whoever was working on this at Cambridge Analytica, should have at least informed facebook about it. Instead, they have exploited this to get all the data, and kept quiet. Needless to say, there was no “academic purpose” there. So facebook’s fault is this design flaw. They have openly apologized for that, and implemented more strict privacy rules (GDPR) since then. However, it is not fair to place the responsibility of how others used this data solely on them.

These big data companies tend to be already protective enough of their data. Ask any researcher that needs data how hard it is to get a fraction of what they have. So it is not like facebook is completely irresponsible and is just allowing anyone to tap into their pool. By the way, the researcher who developed the app was actually a consultant for facebook. Which makes me even more suspicious why he wouldn’t report such a breach in the first place.

The use

This is the crucial point in my opinion, and the point that is most overlooked. The problem, in the end, was not the existence of data or fancy techniques to process it. The problem is how this framework was used. And it is not like it was used for a super novel thing. The data was used for propaganda, and propaganda has been around for centuries. And people warning about the dangers of propaganda have also been around for a while now. For example, this quote from Everett Dean Martin: “Propaganda is making puppets of us. We are moved by hidden strings which the propagandist manipulates.” is from 1929. 1929!

The problem this time is that we had propaganda on steroids. Because of the amount of data Cambridge Analytica had, and the ability to quickly analyse it, they could provide the most targeted and efficient advertisements. If you think about it, this is the dream of *every* advertisement agency. Now, does that mean we should forbid propaganda? Well, I lean towards yes, but I also admit that there is a thing such as good propaganda [2]. So we should not discard it as an activity altogether. One could say propaganda/advertisement [3] should not be biased, but isn’t that an inherent characteristic of it? When people are trying to sell something (a product, an idea, an image), they kind of have to be biased towards that thing.

So what is it about the Cambridge Analytica case that bothered so many people (myself included)? I have had this lingering feeling that it crossed a line. But which line? After thinking a lot about it, I suspect this line is ethics.
First of all, these people were using exaggerated messages, sometimes blatant lies, to attack the opposition. Attacking the opposition is a low blow of desperate people, specially in politics [4]. This is a dirty move which I find disgusting. You want to advertise yourself? Fine. Show off your advantages, don’t hit the adversary. That makes me very angry.
Secondly, this was targeted to influence people on important decisions, which ideally should be taken with the minimum amount of bias. The only way people are going to start to think critically, is if they have to in order to form an opinion. If they are bombarded with information from only one side, it is brainwashing. I can see why a politician or government would think this is a good thing (“I know what is best for the people, I am just making them realize faster”). However, if you stop to really think about it, this is a disservice for the society as a whole. It simply creates citizens that follow the herd, and are lazy to think for themselves [5].
At this point, one possible solution would be to forbid advertisement related to elections and any issue that would affect society as a whole. Honestly, I think this would be a good thing, and it could solve many problems we face today in a democratic process (not only the one presented here). But I need to think more about this one.

Ultimately, this whole situation is much more complicated than portrayed in “The Great Hack”. There are fundamental problems that we have been facing for many years now, it is simply exacerbated by the effectiveness of a new method. The issue, as I see, is not the method in itself, but the fundamental problem of advertising/propaganda. Where do we draw the line of good/acceptable propaganda, and unacceptable one? Who should be responsible for regulating this? As usual, there is a whole area of study about persuasion, advertisement, etc. As usual, we will only pay attention and try to solve it when things explode and it becomes obvious that this is the problem. We never learn…

[1] And I hate Facebook…
[2] Government funded campaigns for vaccination, anti-tobacco, more exercises, etc.
[3] I am using the two words interchangeably, since it is quite debatable what distinguishes one from the other. In Portuguese, for example, there is only one word to describe what would be two different things for an English speaking person.
[4] 11 years ago, this was an issue in the election of a mayor where I come from. I wrote about here (in Portuguese), after hearing an admission that, still today, makes me furious.
[5] For example, do you think I just thought about all of these things at once? It took me weeks thinking about the documentary, discussing it with other people, and researching, until I formed this opinion (which could be changed in light of new information).