Semantics and Sonny Bono

"Bono and the tree became one"

That sentence has been an object of scrutiny for me over the past several weeks. It is short enough and the meaning seems fairly easy to digest: Sonny Bono died in a skiing accident. It might have shown up in a blog back when the event transpired, or in casual conversation around the same time.

So what is so fascinating about it? It is the range of semantic tools that are needed to resolve Bono to Sonny Bono and not to U2's Bono or any of the thousands of other Bonos that likely exist. First, we need background knowledge that Sonny Bono died in a skiing accident. Next we need either the specific knowledge that a tree was involved or the inference that skiing accidents sometimes involve trees. Finally, we need a choice preference that rates notable people as more likely to be the object of the discussion than everyday folk.

We could still be wrong, of course. The statement might be about Frank Bono, a guy from down the street who likes to commune with nature. It might be, but for a statement in isolation the notability preference serves a de facto role as a disambiguator.

How, then, can we design technology to correctly assign the correct referent to occurrences like Bono in the text above? We have several choices and the choices overlap to varying degrees. We could, for instance, collect together all of the contexts that contain the term Bono (with or without Sonny), label them as to their referent, and try to infer statistical models that use the term context to partition our choices. This could be as simple as using a feature vector of counts of terms that co-occur with Bono and then looking at the vector distance between a new context vector (formed from the sentence above) with the existing assignments.

We could also try to create a model that recreates our selection preferences and the skiing <-> tree relationship and does some matching combined with some inferencing to try to identify
the correct referent. That is fairly tricky to do over the vast sea of possible names, but is easy enough for a single one, like Bono.

It turns out all of these approaches have been tried, as well as interesting hybridizations of them. For instance, express the notability preference as a probability weighting based on web search mentions, while adding-in the distance between different concepts in a tree-based ontology, trying to exploit human-created semantic knowledge to assist in the process. It turns out that fairly simple statistics do pretty well over large sets of names (just choose the most likely assignment all the time), but don't really capture the kinds of semantic processing that we believe we undertake in our own "folk psychologies" as described above.

Still, I see the limited success of knowledge resources as an opportunity rather than a source of discouragement. We definitely have not exhausted the well.

Fiber Optics and Amateur Access

An elderly woman in Sweden got a 40Gb/s fiber optic pipe installed to her home, recently. She hardly uses the web but can now download a feature length film in 2 seconds. I was lamenting the death of satellite and cable TV when we all have fiber to the house with those kinds of bandwidths over lunch today. It came up because my neighbor dropped by for a drink the other night and ended up staying until 1 AM, sucking down my gin and complaining about the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. He called home at some point and apparently interrupted his wife's enjoyment of The Closer while also missing dinner.

It was the fact that she missed her TV show that struck me. I don't have that problem. I didn't watch much TV beyond the news, Frontline or some random late-night sitcom until recently when we upgraded everything. Now I have a DVR and actually watch some programs (including The Closer) but only because I can comfortably time-shift and pause TV as I see fit, and all in HD where available.

But what happens with full on-demand TV? The satellites will not be de-orbited for some time as they will continue to serve remote areas, but eventually they will go away. Even the notion of networks and channels would dry up over time. Channels are a delivery mechanism for content that are only useful as branding labels in an on-demand universe. Studios can equally well disintermediate their content and swing deals directly with advertising clearinghouses. This is already happening somewhat in the online video space, but the bandwidth and quality issues remain a stumbling block until that fiber optic pipe arrives.

Now, suddenly, without the channels to filter content choices down to a few hundred options (sheepishly, I have a few hundred channels; George Chadwick's Aphrodite is playing via SIRIUS Symphony Hall through Dish Network right now, blurring the lines between mediums) we will instead start using other mechanisms to make content choices. There will be individual critic lists, popularity recommendation engines and, most importantly, content cross-advertising to try to attract eyeballs. The amateur will mix with the pro as technological and artistic means for producing amazing content becomes increasingly inexpensive.

Framing and Dissonance

Finally, and with little fanfare, I closed on my final report for my most recent grant this evening. The champagne rests in the fridge for the moment. The last two weeks have been, well, consuming. Now I rush headlong toward a second phase.

While writing and experimenting, I was occasionally drawn into blog and editorial discussions, some of which were mildly amusing. I even learned some new things, though not directly from the blogs, I'm afraid. Specifically, the topic of semantic "framing" came up during a cross-Wikipedia excursion in pursuit of a recollection about Newspeak driven by Christopher Hitchens' discussion of cognitive tyranny in a variety of forums. As a biographer of Jefferson and Orwell, Hitchens is uniquely qualified to address the problem of tyranny and fascism.

Semantic framing is the use of distinctive metaphorical terminology that is designed to provide a clarifying distinction with alternatives. It is the opposite of nuance in a way, and relies on positioning issues as risky (when opposed) versus beneficial (when in agreement). Interestingly, framing effects on economic decision making appear to be less effective on some people than others, with the distinguishing mental characteristic related to emotionalism (exposed as increased amygdala activity during fMRIs).

But the question that arose to me was whether we have an innate property that resists framing (and that, when we have it, drives us towards more analytical tasks and higher education levels; yes, based on my own supposition that higher education levels correspond to greater cognitive moderation) or whether it is itself a learned response to moderate one's emotional reaction to arguments and information that corresponds to the "liberal" aspects of higher education?

Innateness, Excellence and Rats

I played hooky this afternoon and took the family to see Ratatouille. We got to the theater after the start time but before the main feature began. It was packed, though, and we ended up in the second row surrounded by chattering two-year-olds and crying babies. It is to the filmmaker's credit that despite all this I was suitably entertained--much more so than any of the recent blockbusters that we have seen.

But there is something slightly disturbing about the film that sloshes over from The Incredibles: the disturbingly Ayn Randian notions concerning excellence and mediocrity. In both films, the main characters possess innate abilities that transcend the abilities of their peers and that make them unique and exceptional. In The Incredibles it is the, well, incredible talents of the superheroes. In Ratatouille, the main character has a heightened sense of taste and smell that sets him apart from others.

Now, some of the critics drew direct parallels with Rand in terms of the opposition to the Incredibles by the masses and by their arch-enemy who resorted to technical feats to achieve his own power. But I don't think that is quite right because while Rand's characters strive against backlash from critics and opposition (well Roark does, at least), they do not achieve their talents and powers from some innate source. They are "constructively" brilliant or the source of their capacity is an emergent property of their life experience.

Instead, I interpret both films as more religious in tone because they specify talents that arise through unknown agency, much like the celebration of Mozart in Amadeus, rather than as exemplifying extraordinary devotion to craft. Of course, if excellence is purely innate, that leaves the rest of us out of luck with regard to spectacular achievement. And that is a bit disturbing to me as a message for young people.

Still, the films are wonderfully crafted achievements in their own right, maintaining Pixar's fine reputation for devotion to the craft of film making. There is even a lovely homage to Citizen Kane in Ratatouille when the grumpy critic eats a nouveau ratatouille (of course) that causes a flashback to his simple childhood. His pen drops from his hand and we watch it fall from below, just like the snow globe dropping from the hand that once piloted Rosebud. Sadly, the semantic associations flowed to Orson Welles hawking wine later in all his obese excellence as the critic sipped his wine in reverence over the rat's gustatory achievements: we will sell no wine before its time. The final fate of the truly extraordinary?

Prior Restraint and Hostile Speech

George Will came out swinging at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals today, claiming they are magisterially undermining free speech while catering to a carefully orchestrated Left Wing agenda bent on the destruction of all our rights. Some research on this issue turned up a remarkable group of culture warriors all taking on this issue, but from a range of different perspectives.

First, the facts. A group of Christian, African-American public employees in Oakland were offended by the posting of a "Coming Out Day" message on the City forum bulletin boards, as well as via email. So a few months later they created the Good News Employee Association (GNEA) and created a flier that promoted discussing "the natural family, marriage and family values." (paraphrasing roundly) They were told to remove the flier after a lesbian employee complained that the message was homophobic. The administrator decided to do so based on her interpretation of Administrative Instruction 71 (AI-71) which bars "discrimination and/or harassment based on sexual orientation." They were apparently told that they could change the flier to make it inoffensive but they decided to file suit instead. The 9th Circuit, in Memorandum 05-15467, decided their appeal was without merit.

From the Right comes George Will asserting this represents "prior restraint" of free speech about something as innocuous as some disagreement about religious ideas about morality. This guy takes another route, suggesting that the United Nations is behind all of this, working quietly to undermine free speech.

In reality, though, the courts have rightly found that governments have a legitimate interest in preventing hostile speech in workplaces, with the only real question being whether or not certain acts cross the line from merely bad taste to truly offensive. A raving racist can be fired after being warned to stop it or, perhaps, even without warning. This isn't viewpoint discrimination, just restrictions that are designed to get the business or agency aligned with the goals of getting work done.

So we can ask several questions, here.

First, was the GNEA flier symmetrical with the Coming Out Day flier vis-a-vis hostile speech? I think not. The GNEA flier was implying that homosexuality is unnatural while the Coming Out Day flier was not implying anything about Christians, Jews, Republicans, mice, lampposts or aviators--at least not according to 05-15467 and all of the other resources I can find.

Next, could the GNEA employees legitimately complain that the Coming Out Day flier was singling them out for discrimination under AI-71? It doesn't appear so. By promoting homosexuality, the authors of the flier were not denigrating GNEA employees. Thus, they have no specific claim against the Coming Out Day flier.

Finally, did the act of implying that homosexuality is unnatural cross the line of hostility? Just barely to my mind. Implication is not the same as direct hostility. There was a complaint against it, however, and an attempt to get GNEA to modify the flier. The fact of a complaint means that the administrator needed to evaluate his or her obligations under AI-71.

What might have happened if the Oakland government had chosen to side with GNEA and told the lesbian employee that they consider such a flier only modestly and indirectly offensive? Under those circumstances, they might have faced a lawsuit that the civil rights of the lesbian employee were violated by a hostile workplace. Suddenly the free speech issues get transferred to a question of whether the administrators allowed a hostile workplace and what remedy is appropriate if they did? So we would get a substitution of "post hoc litigation" for Will's "prior restraint." That's largely the way that sexual harassment is handled these days, creating an industry of trial attorneys who specialize in the topic.

George Will suggests that the Supremes will take and overrule the 9th Circuit because they are so terrifically out of touch with reality. I don't think so. Instead, I think the Supremes will affirm the decision and stay out of the fray, supporting the notion that judgment was used by the administrator, and that judgment was not out-of-line with existing jurisprudence or common sense.

Alternative History and Blue Moons

Sipping deeply into a Blue Moon draft with a slice of orange tilted over the lip at lunch today, I found myself wondering over alternative histories. The restaurant overlooks a small harbor and, as we ate, small boats and wet bikes cruised in and out, the crews waving to the shore as a band tested the drums at a yacht club across the inlet, tuning up for a ball tonight under the stars.

What if the Twin Towers had not collapsed from the plane hits of 9/11? What if only a few hundred people had been killed? A hundred per plane and the occupants of a few floors in each building.

The doctrine of proportionate response might have taken precedence over the urge for a massive military response. Moreover, the political momentum established by Afghanistan may not have been enough to sustain the invasion of Iraq. The Clinton administration's use of cruise missiles in Afghanistan and Africa following terrorist attacks under his watch was certainly one model that was available, but was deemed insufficient after 9/11. The use of the Northern Alliance as a proxy force supported by US air power and special forces was the chosen path forward, relieving us from the logistical difficulties of access to the land-locked Afghanistan for a full-scale invasion.

Still, a lighter-yet force presence might have been the primary option given 300 deaths at 9/11, and given continued intransigence by the Taliban leadership, but I think the outcome would still have been about the same. But given a lower international and domestic political will for the Iraq invasion, might UBL have been captured in Afghanistan? Perhaps, but only if he made a mistake of hubris or was betrayed. The option of hiding in Pakistan was too easy given the largely un-patrolable border and supportive political sentiment.

By not invading Iraq, however, we would have maintained the moral sympathy of the European nations, and would have increasingly been well-regarded in the Muslim world if sufficient NATO assets could have stabilized and rebuilt (well, built at any rate, considering the state of Afghanistan's infrastructure and institutions) the country.

Meanwhile, back in Baghdad, Saddam would have kept up his tyrannical but impotent realm. The strongest argument I have heard about the impact of the US invasion of Iraq, however, is that it was the decisive factor in causing Saudi Arabia to begin its own hard fight internally against support for terrorists, perhaps because they realized that failure to do so transformed them into a vulnerable terrorist-supporting regime. The same might be said for Libya, though it is no more plausible to argue that sufficient pressure could not have been applied to them based on the Afghanistan outcome than it is to believe that breaking the back of the Hussein regime in a week was the turning point in their attitude towards terrorist support.

The Blue Moon was light perfection, though, with just that hint of sweet orange to counteract the spices in my chicken salad.

Implausibility and Semantic Possibility

Academics can be so amusing. I'm reading a paper on machine learning late last night called "Hierarchical Topic Models and the Nested Chinese Restaurant Process" and I stop dead at the following sentence:

Suppose that there are an infinite number of infinite-table Chinese restaurants in a city.

Yes, and further suppose:

...that the Dim Sum cart could move at light speed...
...that the Szechuan sauce was infinitely hot...
...that Mr. Ying could only sit to the left of any member of the Yuan family...
...that you could get take-away delivered after 10PM...

It all goes to show the remarkable creativity of language. Quoting Pynchon: A screaming comes across the sky.