Skip to main content

Outnumbered - David Sumpter ***

This book contains some impressive and important content - so I struggled initially to understand why I found it difficult to get on with. More on that in a moment.

Applied mathematician David Sumpter takes apart our current obsession with algorithms, information bubbles, AI and fake news, showing that all too often what we read about it is more hype than reality. Whether he is dealing with the impact (or otherwise) of Cambridge Analytica on elections, or the ability of algorithms to out-think humans, he shows that we have too often assumed that sales pitches were a reality: at the moment AI and its algorithms are rarely as good as we are told.

It might seem that this is the work of an academic with an axe to grind about the other mathematicians who are coining it in, but this is no unsubstantiated polemic. In many cases, Sumpter describes constructing a model to simulate the workings of an algorithm and demonstrates how feeble it really is. It was also fascinating to discover the way that an algorithmic presentation of 'also liked' amplifies (mathematical) chaos to bring out near-random winners - responsible, for example, for those YouTube stars where no one can understand their success.

I absolutely loved one section where Sumpter is trying to assess the intelligence levels of current AIs. Clearly they can't match humans. How about dogs? No. Bees, maybe? No. He shows that in reality, current machine learning struggles to match the intelligence level of an advanced bacterium.

Everything about what's in the book (apart from Sumpter's enthusiasm for football) seems a perfect match for someone deeply interested in algorithms and AI. So why did I not find the book particularly compelling? In part it's because it has quite a dry presentation. Unlike Sumpter's previous title Soccermatics, the style here is very measured and near-academic, presumably to add weight to the content, but the result was that some of it proved a dull read. 

It's not all like that, I ought to stress. I loved the line when considering what the Cambridge Analytica model promised: 'Democrats... could focus on getting the vote out among Harry Potter fans. Republicans could target people who drank Starbucks coffee and people who go camping. Lady Gaga fans should be treated with caution by both sides.'

I think the other issue was the 'negatives don't engage' syndrome. While it's important to know that algorithms and AI are far less powerful than we are generally given to believe in the news (and some books), it's hard to get too excited when told about something not being the case. It's a bit like the news headline 'War does not break out.'

The last thing I want to do is put people off this book. It really was interesting to learn how relatively ineffective AI is at this stage of its development, given how much news coverage has been given particularly to Cambridge Analytica, but also to the dark power of algorithms. It's an important message. I just wish the way it was delivered had been more engaging.

Hardback:  

Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you


Review by Brian Clegg

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Patricia Fara - Four Way Interview

Patricia Fara lectures in the history of science at Cambridge University, where she is a Fellow of Clare College. She was the President of the British Society for the History of Science (2016-18) and her prize-winning book, Science: A Four Thousand Year History (OUP, 2009), has been translated into nine languages. An experienced public lecturer, Patricia Fara appears regularly in TV documentaries and radio programmes. She also contributes articles and reviews to many popular magazines and journals, including History Today, BBC History, New Scientist, Nature and the Times Literary SupplementHer new book is Erasmus Darwin.

Why history of science?
I read physics at university, but half-way through the course I realised that had been a big mistake. Although I relished the intellectual challenge, I was bored by the long hours spent lining up recalcitrant instruments in dusty laboratories. Why was nobody encouraging us to think about the big questions – What is gravity? Does quantum mechani…

The Idea of the Brain: Matthew Cobb *****

Matthew Cobb is one of those people that you can’t help but admire but also secretly hate just a little bit for being so awesome. He is professor for zoology at the University of Manchester with a sizable teaching load that he apparently masters with consummate skill. He’s a scientific researcher, who researches the sense of smell of fruit fly maggots; I kid you not!  He’s also an attentive and loving family father but he still finds time and energy to write brilliant history of science books, three to date. His first, The Egg and Sperm Race, describes the search for the secret of human reproduction in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and is one of my favourite history of science books, on the period. His second, Life’s Greatest Secret is a monster, both in scope and detail, description of the hunt to decipher the structure and function of DNA that along the way demolishes a whole boatload of modern history of science myths. The most recent, and the subject of this review, is

The Search for Life on Mars - Elizabeth Howell and Nicholas Booth ***

From the book’s enticing subtitle, ‘The Greatest Scientific Detective Story of All Time’, I was expecting something rather different. I thought the authors would kick off by introducing the suspects (the various forms life might take on Mars, either now or in the past) and the kind of telltale traces they might leave, followed by a chronological account of the detectives (i.e. scientists) searching for those traces, ruling out certain suspects and focusing on others, turning up unexpected new clues, and so on. But the book is nothing like that. Continuing with the fiction analogy, this isn’t a novel so much as a collection of short stories – eleven self-contained chapters, each with its own set of protagonists, suspects and clues.

Some of the chapters work better than others. I found the first three – which despite their early placement cover NASA’s most recent Mars missions – the most irritating. For one thing, they unfold in a way that’s at odds with the cerebral ‘detective story’ na…