Turing – so much more …

52 comments on “Turing – so much more … ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Bill 1

   23 July 2013 at 5:31 pm

   Never been altogether comfortable with the assertion that the internet somehow promotes democracy; not saying it doesn’t or can’t; just that I don’t see how it does.

   True, that more information and perspectives are avaliable than was the case in the days before the internet and that some of it is valuable. But how does that lead on into greater democracy? So much information and so many distractions might simply lead to a situation where with so much going on, nobody really knows what is going on.

   True also, that the internet means that (at least sometimes) information can be spread to more people quicker. But how exactly does that, in and of itself, support, promote or encourage democracy? Sure, it might mean that people can converge in one place quickly in support of some greivence/idea. And that’s valuable from one perspective of organising (numbers) But if those gathered are then subjected to the same old top down decision making processes…or even brought together as a result of the same processes, then the obvious counter argument applies – that the internet encourages the basis for authoritarianism.

   Then there is the fact, mentioned often enough here at ‘ts’, that too many people treat their keyboard entries as a substitute for activism – ie, feet on the streets, bodies at face to face meetings/gatherings and networking/socialising/organising.

   At present I’m inclined to view the internet as a somewhat useful tool with definate limitations and a fair few obvious downsides. But maybe I’m missing something really obvious. If I am, I’m more than happy to have it pointed out to me.
   • weka 1.1

     23 July 2013 at 5:39 pm

     The question then becomes, why has the internet not been more successfully used to promote democracy in the West? I’m tempted to say there is great untapped potential, but I suspect the reasons we aren’t taking better advantage of the useful bits of the internet have less to do with the internet and more to do with the humans.
   • Huginn 1.2

     23 July 2013 at 6:06 pm

     The internet supports democracy by making politicians more immediately available to their constituents.

     Technologically astute politicians can build broad, engaged and immediately responsive support base eg through twitter. They can ask their support bases to micro-fund them, which reduces the influence of vested interests.
     • Bill 1.2.1

       23 July 2013 at 6:18 pm

       That’s the ”obvious counter argument” I mentioned in my comment, right there.
     • Colonial Viper 1.2.2

       23 July 2013 at 6:53 pm

       They can ask their support bases to micro-fund them, which reduces the influence of vested interests.

       Oh yes, look how Obama was successful at that.
   • karol 1.3

     23 July 2013 at 6:25 pm

     Well, Bill, I didn’t think I was claiming that the Internet or other digital technologies were inherently democratic. If I did think that, why would I be concerned about the way such technologies can be used to suppress democracy?

     I tend to see it as having both democratic and anti-democratic possibilities. I was asking how it could be used more to promote the former.

     I agree – technology is neutral – it’s how people use it.

     Many proclaimed the advent of the printing press as a democratising technology because it would bring knowledge and information to all. Obviously it has been used both democratically and un/anti-democratically.
     • Colonial Viper 1.3.1

       23 July 2013 at 6:56 pm

       I agree – technology is neutral – it’s how people use it.

       this statement is not true and is reminiscent of the “guns don’t kill people” line of thinking.
       • RJL 1.3.1.1

         23 July 2013 at 10:31 pm

         I agree, CV.

         Some technology is neutral. Some is just bad.

         Once, I thought that the internet was a good tool for democracy. And a secure, decentralised, accessible method of global communication would perhaps be good tool for democracy.

         Unfortunately, the internet is actually none of these things.
         • McFlock 1.3.1.1.1

           23 July 2013 at 11:45 pm

           I don’t belive that there is any bad technology.

           Just technology (like guns and chemical warfare factories) that shold be restricted from personal or even state use, because some people are morons and others are dicks, and some are a glorious combination of the two. But advanced rifle manufacturing might be useful for something good one day. Mortars are used to create controlled avalanches, for example.
           • RJL 1.3.1.1.1.1

             24 July 2013 at 11:09 am

             Triggering avalanches with explosives may be good, but that doesn’t make mortars netural.

             Chemical weapons manufacturing is never good, despite the fact that chemical manufacturing might be in some instances.

             A “good” “civilian” technology does not excuse/justify a parallel/similar “bad” “military” technology.
           • Colonial Viper 1.3.1.1.1.2

             24 July 2013 at 11:15 am

             There isn’t any “bad” technology, just technology which needs to be banned from use.

             OK. I can live with that. How about banned from being developed in the first place? Like weaponisation of pathogens, or design of fuel air bombs?
       • karol 1.3.1.2

         24 July 2013 at 7:00 am

         Hmmm… CV & RJL make good points. I’ll change my earlier statement – maybe it’s better to say there’s positive and negative impacts/potentials from most technologies.
         • Colonial Viper 1.3.1.2.1

           24 July 2013 at 11:19 am

           Yep, and that would allow a method to weigh up and assess technologies and their use/development.
     • Bill 1.3.2

       23 July 2013 at 7:10 pm

       I didn’t think for a moment you suggested the ‘net’ was inherently democratic. Was just picking up on what you say is a potential and extrapolating from that to a generally held and widespread ‘article of faith’ on the democratising effect of the internet…

       All my comment is getting at is that I don’t quite ‘get it’. That and curious as to whether I’m just not seeing something that others do.
       • karol 1.3.2.1

         23 July 2013 at 7:16 pm

         Well. Then I agree with you. I think maybe that idea that the Net is a democratising platform comes from some of the right wing, entrepreneurial, libertarians?
     • Huginn 1.3.3

       23 July 2013 at 11:59 pm

       I don’t believe that the technology of the web is neutral. I thinks that it is philosophically invested with the ideas of the people who made it – John Von Neumann in particular. IT embodies an agenda and we need to understand that agenda in order to avoid nasty surprises like the Global Financial Crisis.

       That’s why it’s a good idea to examine the histories that lie at its core
       • karol 1.3.3.1

         24 July 2013 at 7:01 am

         I don’t know a lot about Von Neumann. If you do, why aren’t you saying. What do you think that agenda is?
   • Rosetinted 1.4

     23 July 2013 at 6:44 pm

     Bill
     At least one can put a point of view on the internet such as TS. I have been to meetings where some seasoned time-wasting bigot gets up and natters on, not orating, just repeating his own opinion and calling on some authority to make it seem that his opinion is reliable. He may be known to the person ‘running’ the meeting or that person is sympathetic and there is attempt at proper time control. No-one else has a chance to put up an idea for discussion. Any time left over is spent is discussing points that the long-winded emphasised as important.

     An appearance on the street is important, but so is a chance to discuss things in an ordered way that encourages people to bring forward their own concerns and suggestions, which are then noted for action or further discussion, not just disregarded by the organisers of the meeting if they don’t match their chosen topics or line of reasoning.
     • Bill 1.4.1

       23 July 2013 at 7:12 pm

       That’s one thing I think the net is good for…the presentation and debating of ideas (depending on the format). But that’s not necessarily got anything to do with democracy…
       • Colonial Viper 1.4.1.1

         24 July 2013 at 11:20 am

         And it is a method for undemocratic forces to track and trace both ideas and people. Lessons from the oraganisers of the Arab Spring in various countries: NEVER use Facebook, Twitter etc.
2. Huginn 2

   23 July 2013 at 5:40 pm

   It is inconceivable that there are no UK or US government surveillance files on Turing.

   Turing worked at Bletchly Park, the home of the organisation that now calls itself the GCHQ.
   He may have been a lovely old Quean, but have no illusions, Turing was at the core of GCHQ’s project, and by extension that of the GCSB in NZ.

   About 10 years ago when files of that time were automatically declassified, a lot of them were recalled and/or redacted because institutional historians like Philip Mirowski started poking about in them and asking uncomfortable questions.

   http://www.gchq.gov.uk/History/Pages/Bletchley-Park-Post-War.aspx
   • karol 2.1

     23 July 2013 at 6:29 pm

     He may have been a lovely old Quean, but have no illusions, Turing was at the core of GCHQ’s project, and by extension that of the GCSB in NZ.

     Yes, but both Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden were in the belly of the beast before they perceived it’s dangers and turned on it.

     I was stepping into a hypothetical, wondering how Turing would view today’s debates on surveillance technologies, given his bad experiences on the receiving end of (non-digital) surveillance.
     • Huginn 2.1.1

       23 July 2013 at 6:37 pm

       Turing not so much in the belly of the beast as in it’s womb, flailing about at the moment of conception.

       Good idea to look at the core histories, though.

       Ask yourself ‘what would have happened if Turing had accepted John Von Neumann’s offer and gone to the US?’

       Or, ‘what was Friedrich Hayek doing at the time and what would he have to say to John Key about the GCSB in particular and about the state’s use of computational methodologies in general?’.
       • karol 2.1.1.1

         23 July 2013 at 7:08 pm

         But you could also ask why Turing turned down Von Neumann’s invitation? Not comfortable with the culture?

         And if Turing had got involved int he Manhattan project? And had experienced McCarthyism? Oppenheimer didn’t fare too well during that period. The authorities also weren’t that welcoming of gay people.

         What has Hayek got to do with it?
         • RJL 2.1.1.1.1

           23 July 2013 at 10:22 pm

           I’m not sure why Turing would have been involved in the Manhattan Project?

           Anyway, that got to its outcome without his involvement; how would it have better/worse with Turing involved in it?
           • Colonial Viper 2.1.1.1.1.1

             23 July 2013 at 10:26 pm

             Brilliant mathematicians always useful in nuclear research projects…but I am guessing he was a loyal member of the british empire…much good that did him.
           • lprent 2.1.1.1.1.2

             23 July 2013 at 11:35 pm

             There is quite a lot of maths involved in making a A-bomb
             • Arfamo …

               23 July 2013 at 11:48 pm

               Bugger. Might as well forget that as my next summer project.
               • Huginn …

                 24 July 2013 at 12:09 am

                 don’t worry – you can download it all from the interweb now
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   24 July 2013 at 12:24 am

                   The precision machining and materials required are still out of reach of most countries.
                   • Arfamo …

                     24 July 2013 at 1:06 am

                     I’m still learning how to shut down XP.
                   • Arfamo …

                     24 July 2013 at 1:07 am

                     I’ve decided to see if I can build a flying machine out of an old pushbike. I’m hoping there might be a market.
                   • Arfamo …

                     24 July 2013 at 1:09 am

                     Anybody want to buy some plutonium? It’s no use to me now.
           • karol 2.1.1.1.1.3

             24 July 2013 at 7:05 am

             The Manhattan Project pulled in experts from a wide range of fields. That was part of the reason for its success in achieving the set goals. It enabled extensive cross-fertilisation between people with differing expertise, leading to innovation – pushing people to think “outside the box”.

             It Von Neumann was involved, why not Turing?
             • RJL …

               24 July 2013 at 11:40 am

               Yes, the Manhattan project had a theoretical division and there were numerous mathematical problems to solve. But those problems were solved (at least well enough) and the bombs were built. There were plenty of geniuses already involved.

               Perhaps Turing would have helped solve the theoretical problems quicker or differently, but I’m not really sure what difference that would have made.

               Different solutions to some of the theoretical problems may have resulted in a more efficient use of the fissionable material during detonation, but a few kilotonnes here or there makes little practical difference.

               Quicker solutions to some theoretical problems, would still mean that the refining of U235 and the breeding of Pu239 would be the bottlenecks in the construction of the three bombs. It is not apparrent that another genius mathematician would have made much difference to the speed of bomb manufacture. Doubling the 150,000 strong workforce might have made a difference there.
           • karol 2.1.1.1.1.4

             24 July 2013 at 7:21 am

             I was thinking more about how Turing would have felt about those sorts of involvement – following Huginn’s suggestions that Turing’s life would have been different if he’d taken up von Neumann’s invitation to the US.
         • Huginn 2.1.1.1.2

           23 July 2013 at 11:45 pm

           The Manhattan Project was only one of many that Von Neumann was invloved with. I was thinking more of spin-offs from the Eniac Project where he separated ‘data’ from ‘program’, thus inventing ‘software’ as we know it today.
           Or Turing could have hung out with Kurt Gödel at Yale’s Institute for Advanced Study.
           Most of all, I’d like to think that he would have ended his days in California, maybe sitting by a swimming pool waiting for David Hockney to come round.

           I mentioned Hayek because he was also part of the core history of this technology. Hayek was so disturbed by the kind of work that was coming out of Bletchly Park towards the end of the war that he and Michael Polanyi lobbied the post war UK government to end its involvement with Operations Research (another Von Neumann project), and related technologies. Philip Mirowski has suggested that their success in this led to the UK lagging behind the US in the development of the computer which Mirowski believes is closely related to the development of OR.

           Hayek wrote extensively about the state’s use of computational methodologies which he believed to be a very bad thing. It’s one of his issues with Keynes. He’s worth reading now about it because it’s becoming clear that he was right about it.
3. Santi 3

   23 July 2013 at 6:10 pm

   He was a genius and true giant of mathematics.. Sexual orientation does not matter and Turing should get the pardon and recognition he deserves.
4. Rosetinted 4

   23 July 2013 at 6:25 pm

   It’s all just an excuse to go witch-hunting. Run scary scenarios, rumours to frighten the populace, get them alarmed, as we are already about terrorist threats from religious extremists who have genuine national grievances fuelling thjem.

   The McCarthy scare in the USA after WW2 was one. People were scared and were played on by aspirational politicians appealing to uncertainty about the Soviets and communism and some spies who had leaked information. Those in powerful Rebpublican positions made a Hollywood blacklist ending up with people like Charlie Chaplin having to leave and go to Britain. This was also the reign of the malign Edgar Hoover.

   And the McCarthy thing was a beat-up to raise his political profile and had to be ended by action from the President when McCarthy started to question the defence forces reliability.
   http://www.authentichistory.com/1946-1960/4-cwhomefront/1-mccarthyism/
   On February 9, 1950, at the Republican Women’s Club of Wheeling, West Virginia, Senator Joe McCarthy gave his Lincoln Day speech. “I have here in my hand a list of 205–a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department.” Communists in the State Department represented a potential threat to national security. But McCarthy had no such list. His source was a four-year-old letter, already published in the Congressional Record, from then Secretary of State James Byrnes to a U.S. Congressman.

   On McCarthy dodgy political maneouvring –
   erroneous accusations against his opponent, Robert La Follette, to promote his own campaign. Damaging La Follete’s reputation by claiming he hadn’t enlisted in the military during the war, McCarthy won the election and became Senator.

   http://www.coldwar.org/articles/50s/senatorjosephmccarthy.asp

   As re-election began to loom closer, McCarthy, whose first term was unimpressive, searched for ways to ensure his political success, resorting even to corruption. Edmund Walsh, a close fellow Roman Catholic and anti-communist suggested a crusade against so-called communist subversives. McCarthy enthusiastically agreed and took advantage of the nation’s wave of fanatic terror against communism, and emerged on February 9, 1950, claiming he had a list of 205 people in the State Department who were known members of the American Communist Party. The American public went crazy with the thought of seditious communists living within the United States, and roared for the investigation of the underground agitators. These people on the list were in fact not all communists; some had proven merely to be alcoholics or sexual deviants…

   Drew Pearson, a critic who discredited McCarthy’s accusations regularly through columns and radio broadcasts. McCarthy made seven speeches to the Senate on Pearson, which resulted in the loss of sponsors to Pearson’s show. Also, money was then raised to help numerous men sue Pearson, all charges of which he was found innocent and not liable.,,in December of 1954, a censure motion, which is a formal reprimand from a powerful body, was issued condemning his conduct with the vote count at 67 to 22. The media subsequently became disinterested in his communist allegations and McCarthy was virtually stripped of his power. He died in May of 1957 after being diagnosed with cirrhosis of the liver due to heavy drinking

   Wikipedia reports –

   There were also more subtle forces encouraging the rise of McCarthyism. It had long been a practice of more conservative politicians to refer to progressive reforms such as child labor laws and women’s suffrage as “Communist” or “Red plots.”[7] This tendency increased in the 1930s in reaction to the New Deal policies of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

   Sound familiar?
   • Colonial Viper 4.1

     23 July 2013 at 6:42 pm

     McCarthy was funded by Republican oil money out of Texas. Connect the dots.
   • Rosetinted 4.2

     23 July 2013 at 6:55 pm

     I branched off into McCarthy because I was thinking how people can be singled out and scapegoated for being different than the mainstream, ie homosexual. Which was by extension of fearful attitudes seen as subversive I think. And with a little creep right wing power player like McCarthy (McCarthy was also a lawyer, and I am sorry to see how many of these are getting into politics here) the value of being able to point the finger of scorn and shock etc. is a useful tool for a tool.

     And CV says he was funded out of Texas.. Ronald Reagan was keen to finger people as anti-communist in the Hollywood ‘trials’. Bush, and shrub, I suppose both came from that great state so one can see this unattractive trend in USA politics. It can only keep sliding downwards, that’s the trend.
     • Colonial Viper 4.2.1

       23 July 2013 at 6:59 pm

       McCarthy was seen in Texas so often that he got the nickname “the third Senator from Texas”. (he was actually senator for Wisconsin).
       • yeshe 4.2.1.1

         23 July 2013 at 8:20 pm

         like Cheney ? Wisconsin folks can’t be pleased .. oh, and they’re not as Cheney’s daughter as we write is trying to overthrow the existing Repug senator in that very same state … and with Jeb Bush in Florida .. ugh.

         And I believe Turing deserves so much more than a pardon. He virtually won the war.
5. Binders full of women 5

   23 July 2013 at 8:11 pm

   Sadly Turing almost survived the deadly homophobia…. didn’t he make a flippant remark to a couple of bobbies who were investigating a minor matter and they got suspicious and started the lewd ball rolling?
6. Murray Olsen 6

   23 July 2013 at 9:55 pm

   Turing’s impact and memory will outlast the morons who drove him to his death. It was a total obscenity that someone who had save so many of their lives was driven to his death. Unless he said or wrote something, we’ll never know what he thought of the surveillance society. In a very real sense, it’s what we think of it and how we stop it that are more important.
   • karol 6.1

     24 July 2013 at 7:19 am

     Although, Turing was interested in “artificial intelligence” and it is technologies with a reasonable amount of “intelligence” that enable the wide spread surveillance of meta-data that are now an issue.

     I’d be interested to know more about what Turing thought of AI.
     • Murray Olsen 6.1.1

       25 July 2013 at 1:14 am

       As far as I know, Turing’s main involvement with AI was in knowing how to quantify it if it ever turned up, hence the Turing test. Here’s the paper that I’m aware of, where he seemed to be looking forward to it:
       http://www.loebner.net/Prizef/TuringArticle.html
7. Sosoo 7

   24 July 2013 at 12:26 am

   While I agree with these pardons in principle, I’d be pretty wary of making Turing the poster boy for them, as I remember reading that he allegedly engaged in what we would now label paedophilia at least a couple of times in his life.
   • Colonial Viper 7.1

     24 July 2013 at 1:31 am

     If that is factually accurate, its odd (hypocritical?) why PM Cameron would OK a pardon for Turing while simultaneously banning child porn on the internet.
   • karol 7.2

     24 July 2013 at 7:16 am

     Yes, he seems to have had a bit of a tendency to hit on (at least) one or two underage teenage boys (under 15yrs).
8. Sable 8

   24 July 2013 at 1:11 pm

   Why “pardon” a man who did nothing wrong. Perhaps they would do better to apologise to his family.

Links to post

1. The Daily Blog Watch Tuesday 23 July « The Daily Blog: posted on 23 July 2013 at 10:13 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS