Behind Trump’s war on the LGBT community

From Masha Gessen in the New York Review of Books:

July 26, 2017, was a personal anniversary for me: one year earlier I had written a piece in which I argued for setting aside the idea of a Trump-Russia conspiracy (yes, this idea was with us a year ago) for the much more important task of imagining what a Trump presidency might bring. I wrote that Trump would unleash a war at home and while it was difficult to predict the target, “my money is actually on the LGBT community because its acceptance is the most clear and drastic social change in America of the last decade, so an antigay campaign would capture the desire to return to a time in which Trump’s constituency felt comfortable.” This was a thought exercise; even as I made an argument that I believed to be logical, I could not believe my own words. On Wednesday of this week, one year to the day since I made that prediction, President Trump announced, by tweet, that transgender people would no longer be allowed to serve in the US military—a policy reversal that would directly and immediately affect thousands of people.

Like many others I thought that this move was a distraction — a classic way of appealing to his base — policy by tweeting. The Pentagon announced that it had received no instruction from the President and so things would remain as they were, at least for the time being. Gessen, however, sees it as part of a bigger trend.

Trump got elected on the promise of a return to an imaginary past—a time we don’t remember because it never actually was, but one when America was a kind of great that Trump has promised to restore. Trumps shares this brand of nostalgia with Vladimir Putin, who has spent the last five years talking about Russian “traditional values,” with Hungarian president Viktor Orbán, who has warned LGBT people against becoming “provocative,” and with any number of European populists who promise a return to a mythical “traditional” past.

With few exceptions, countries that have grown less democratic in recent years have drawn a battle line on the issue of LGBT rights…

The appeal of autocracy, Gessen says,

lies in its promise of radical simplicity, an absence of choice. In Trump’s imaginary past, every person had his place and a securely circumscribed future, everyone and everything was exactly as it seemed, and government was run by one man issuing orders that could not and need not be questioned. The very existence of queer people—and especially transgender people—is an affront to this vision. Trans people complicate things, throw the future into question by shaping their own, add layers of interpretation to appearances, and challenge the logic of any one man decreeing the fate of people and country. lies in its promise of radical simplicity, an absence of choice. In Trump’s imaginary past, every person had his place and a securely circumscribed future, everyone and everything was exactly as it seemed, and government was run by one man issuing orders that could not and need not be questioned. The very existence of queer people—and especially transgender people—is an affront to this vision. Trans people complicate things, throw the future into question by shaping their own, add layers of interpretation to appearances, and challenge the logic of any one man decreeing the fate of people and country.

This is very perceptive stuff IMHO. What most liberals (like me) underestimate is Trump’s intuitive understanding of the prejudices and longings of his core supporters. In a strange way, he’s a gifted populist.

The EU problem that nobody seems to be talking about

My big question about the EU has nothing to do about Brexit, but about why Hungary — and now Poland — have not already been expelled from the Union. Neither country now meets the criteria for a functioning liberal democracy. As Jacek Rostowski (a former Deputy Prime Minister of Poland) points out in a sobering essay:

The EU … faces not just an “illiberal democracy” in its midst, as it does with Victor Orbán’s Hungary. For the first time in its history, the EU must confront the prospect of a member state that is a non-democracy, in the fundamental sense of lacking free, unrigged elections. And Kaczyński can count on Orbán to provide him cover (in the expectation of reciprocation when needed), by vetoing any attempt at depriving the PiS government of its vote within the EU, a move that would require member states’ unanimous support.

If Kaczyński succeeds in controlling Poland’s Supreme Court, or if he finds another way to rig Polish elections, the implications for the EU will be profound and far-reaching. Unless Hungary’s veto can be circumvented, a non-democratic state will participate in legislating for the populations of the remaining democratic member states for many years.

Despite the hype, AI is stuck

Interesting essay by Gary Marcus. I particularly like this bit:

Although the field of A.I. is exploding with microdiscoveries, progress toward the robustness and flexibility of human cognition remains elusive. Not long ago, for example, while sitting with me in a cafe, my 3-year-old daughter spontaneously realized that she could climb out of her chair in a new way: backward, by sliding through the gap between the back and the seat of the chair. My daughter had never seen anyone else disembark in quite this way; she invented it on her own — and without the benefit of trial and error, or the need for terabytes of labeled data.

Presumably, my daughter relied on an implicit theory of how her body moves, along with an implicit theory of physics — how one complex object travels through the aperture of another. I challenge any robot to do the same. A.I. systems tend to be passive vessels, dredging through data in search of statistical correlations; humans are active engines for discovering how things work.

Marcus thinks that a new paradigm is needed for AI that places “top down” knowledge (cognitive models of the world and how it works) and “bottom up” knowledge (the kind of raw information we get directly from our senses) on equal footing. “Deep learning”, he writes,

“is very good at bottom-up knowledge, like discerning which patterns of pixels correspond to golden retrievers as opposed to Labradors. But it is no use when it comes to top-down knowledge. If my daughter sees her reflection in a bowl of water, she knows the image is illusory; she knows she is not actually in the bowl. To a deep-learning system, though, there is no difference between the reflection and the real thing, because the system lacks a theory of the world and how it works. Integrating that sort of knowledge of the world may be the next great hurdle in A.I., a prerequisite to grander projects like using A.I. to advance medicine and scientific understanding.”

Yep: ‘superintelligence’ is farther away than we think.

Posted in AI

Quote of the Day

“More than two years ago, soon after Donald Trump entered the presidential race, I noted online that no one like him—with no political, military, judicial, or public-service experience, with no known expertise on policy matters, with a trail of financial and personal complications—had ever before become president. Therefore, I said, it wasn’t going to happen this time. Quite obviously that was wrong. Penitent and determined to learn from my errors, I’ve avoided any predictions involving Trump and his circles ever since.”

James Fallows

Links for 29/7/2017

  1. Tim Harford: We are still waiting for the robot revolution. More on the lessons of the ATM machine. In the same vein as Tyler Cowen’s Bloomberg column yesterday. This is getting to be a trend.

  2. Diane Coyle: Economics for a Moral End. Nice review of Ian Kumekawa’s The First Serious Optimist: A. C. Pigou and the Birth of Welfare Economics. Pigou’s misfortune was that he was eclipsed by Keynes, and so undeservedly forgotten.

  3. Simon Wren-Lewis: Why Owen Jones is wrong about Brexit. Terrific post, taking down the arguments of the emerging ‘re-leaver’ lobby. I particularly like this: “It is an utterly defeatist argument: we must let people harm themselves because only then might they learn that they were mistaken in what they wanted. A much more progressive policy is to persuade people they are wrong.”

Links for 28/7/2017

  1. In a Robot Economy, All Humans Will Be Marketers. Tyler Cowen talking sense about robotics. The impact won’t be devastating in the way doomsayers think. But some of the stuff humans will be doing (like marketing) may not be all that rewarding either. Covers some of the same ground as David Autor’s article.

  2. The Agony and the Anxiety of The New York Times. Vanity Fair piece evincing a certain amount of glee at the transition-pains of the New York Times as it loses many of its backroom editors and squeezes office space to reduce costs. But the paper is also hiring 100 more journalists and having the time of its life. Trump is a gift that now keeps on giving.

  3. Ctrl + Alt + Del. Conservatives must reboot capitalism. Thoughtful essay by the leader of the Scottish Conservatives. I don’t think any member of the current Cabinet could have written anything half as interesting. Reminded me of David Sainsbury’s book Progressive Capitalism: How To Achieve Economic Growth, Liberty and Social Justice.

  4. Emily Bell and Taylor Owen, The Platform Press: How Silicon Valley reengineered journalism. Useful report on how Tech platforms have become publishers in a short space of time, leaving news organisations confused about their own future. That’s if they have one. It was always a crazy idea to think that putting your stuff on Facebook would give you a long-term future as a publisher. Think of it as going for a swim with a crocodile.

Quote of the Day

“The public have an insatiable curiosity to know everything. Except what is worth knowing. Journalism, conscious of this, and having tradesman-like habits, supplies their demands”.

Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man Under Socialism, 1891

If at first you don’t succeed…

This morning’s Observer column:

There were just two problems with Glass. The first is that it made you look like a dork. Although Google teamed up with the company that made Ray-Bans, among other things, if you were wearing Glass then you became the contemporary version of those 1950s engineers who always had several pens and a propelling pencil in their top jacket pockets. The second problem was the killer one: Glass made everyone around you feel uneasy. They thought the technology was creepy, intrusive and privacy-destroying. Bouncers wouldn’t let wearers – whom they called “Glassholes” – into clubs. The maître d’ would discover that the table you thought you had booked was suddenly unavailable. And so on.

In the end, Google bit the bullet and withdrew the product in January 2015. Privacy advocates and fashionistas alike cheered. Technology had been put in its place. But if, like this columnist, you believe that technology has the potential to improve human lives, then your feelings were mixed…

Read on

Links for 19/7/2017

  1. The Digital Tow-bar. Lovely idea by Quentin Stafford-Fraser. A realistic application for self-driving vehicles.

  2. Roger Sollenberger: How the Trump-Russia Data Machine Games Google to Fool Americans. Or how SEO meets politics.

  3. Andrew Rawnsley: Theresa May could still have a future – as a human sponge. Nice historical parallel: William Petty (2nd Earl of Shelburne) was the Prime Minister who had to mop up after Lord North lost the American colonies. Petty had to negotiate with the victors. Theresa May reminds Rawnsley of the hapless Petty. Me too.

  4. Tom Russell: How to talk to your teen about colluding with Russia. Useful advice for a naive president.