Whimsy Speaks Again

Like most computer scientists of my age, my education included a fair amount of study in AI, computational linguistics, and compiler design.  Artificial Intelligence has always been a relatively politics-free discipline, though long battles have been fought about how best to accomplish its goals.  When it comes to AI, most people probably think of computerized chess programs, but natural language translation has been an active area for at least as long. I started learning about grammars (e.g., Backus-Naur Form) and studied Chomsky's work.  AI moved on and so did I, at some point (though I did write a couple of compilers over the years).  I have watched the LangPo Wars from a distance in the last decade, not really understanding the premises (computer science is a pretty apolitical discipline).  For this reason, I found Kent Johnson's article in Simon's second absent issue pretty interesting (thanks to Joshua for the link).  Charles Bernstein is quoted:  "Grammar, vocabulary, diction, form, and style reflect the power relations in a society. You can't change the society by changing your grammar[,] but any radical social, economic, or cultural change must necessarily come to terms with its rhetorics and its metaphors."  AI research has benefited greatly by advances in neurobiology and the cognitive sciences, but I don't know if the (now decades-old) assertions of the Language School have incorporated as much "outside research".  Kent certainly doesn't think so:  "I'd assumed, in other words, there had been an at least grudging recognition that Chomsky's dominant theory of Universal Grammar -- or else more recent research from Cognitive Linguistics on governing semantic frames that are largely shaped in childhood -- made any "Marxist" proposals about *grammar and syntax proper* as some kind of ideologic superstructural effect a problematic wager, to say the least".    Kent asks questions the way that I would, I suppose:  "Does grammar do this [reinforcing existing social orders] at phonological, morphological, and syntactical levels?"  I admit to being not well-read at all on the topic, and don't really have a dog in the fight.  It's just such a difference in viewpoint.  I might ask "how would we design a computer program that could pass the Turing Test?"  Bernstein might ask how, through word choice or animatronic gesture,  the political views of the programmer and sponsoring employer bolstered the existing power structure.  Not something I've ever thought much about (which makes me part of the problem?).

Funny enough, I do have sympathies for Bernstein's point of view.  Even if you throw out The Big Lie, false reasoning and other crude subterfuges, there remains the  demonstrated power in controlling the agenda.  The recent administration's success in getting publishing/broadcast outlets to use phrases like Global War on Terror, partial-birth abortion, liberal media, and death tax is a small example.  If you control the language, you get to fire off just the right neurons in the minds of many who don't care to think too hard about an issue.  On the other hand, it's not clear that these are grammatical ploys.

Simon speaks to much the same issue (not coincidentally) in a prior absent.

Coincidentally, Mathias Svalina is "an artificial intelligence program".

~~~

I am reading Einstein's world-changing paper on Special Relativity (translated to English).  It had never occurred to me to do this, and (amazingly) you can get through almost all of it with basic calculus and geometry (let your eyes blur over the differential equations).  This gives me goosebumps.  I finally understand the Paradox of the Twins, about which I once wrote a poem.

~~~

Reginald beats my record by sending out 300 submissions before his first acceptance (it took me 74) in an wonderful post in which Jorie Graham figures.  Rebecca reminds me that the total eclipse will be here just about when I usually get up.  Gabe posts some reviews of Rhode Island Notebook.  I like the cover of Laurel's new book.  Seth reports in from the Iowa program.  I'm still trying to find Henry in the picture.  I like Kasey's new blog photo, very Chandleresque.  Dylan and Ginsberg at Kelli's place.