At this point, it is quite clear that “progressivism” tries to permeate and contaminate everything it can touch. Let us refer, for instance, to the revolutionary infiltration and the different strategies of social engineering, which do not cease to represent one more modality of socialism.
It does not matter what field we are referring to: education, health, social services, environment, care dependency, religious organizations, financial units, etc. A single-minded project cannot leave any space free from its influence, especially when what it tries to impose goes against the spontaneous and natural course.
Thus, it should not surprise us with astonishment that “progressive” social engineers are even thinking of applying the postulates of gender ideology and the so-called Critical Race Theory to those computer solutions that result from logical-abstract stipulations and which are called “algorithms.”
Algorithmics as a sequence of steps to solve a problem
Certainly, as the digitalization of society advances, certain terms from the computer jargon will become more familiar to us. One of these is “algorithm” (from this noun is derived the conceptual topic of discipline categorization we would understand as “algorithmics”). Now, what does it mean?
Let us define an “algorithm” as a sequence of steps with one or several flows that lead to the resolution of a problem or a question, with results that do not have to be the same, since they depend both on the data input and on the flow path we have chosen. For this, there may be conditional or repetitive phases until a certain condition is met.
Examples of this are the “divide and conquer,” which requires the division of some sets of problems into smaller parts in order to come to a conclusion, or the binary search tree, which builds a structure of this type when choosing the elements that make up the new sequence, already out of disorder.
However, not every algorithm works. Depending on the number of operations and the size of the data, they will have an order of complexity that has a direct impact on the execution time and the consumption of hardware resources of the system (to illustrate, let us say that there are, among others, the quadratic, exponential and logarithmic functions).
Therefore, it is obvious that a computer programmer has to take into account not only which lines of code give a resulting data output as expected, but also the execution time of the solution and, as far as possible, the consumption of resources. In short, consider the maxim: “do more and better with much less”.
Greater concern for progressive dogmas
What has been said above is the subject of “astonishing” objections today. It is not that they express themselves literally, but they can be hinted at by taking into account the considerations of revolutionary propagandist activists, who are not necessarily concerned about relying on technological improvements.
In recent times it has been heard with some frequency that algorithms “discriminate”. This would be obvious if we understand that the resulting solution will depend on the data value given and, above all, very especially and obviously, on the conditions that are fulfilled in the course of the flow.
But they are not going that way, but along the path of “progressive sensationalism,” so to speak. We are being told the algorithms are likely to be discriminating against women, non-heterosexuals, those whose skin color is not white, and those who may not exceed certain income thresholds.
A proof of this is the theoretical purpose of the Spanish Agency for the Supervision of Artificial Intelligence, which will be released in the next budget year thanks to the social-communist coalition that governs the country. This will control algorithmic flows and what is published on social networks (in their words, to see whether they “discriminate” or not).
On the other hand, an MIT research pointed out that the algorithms used to optimize judicial processes in the United States would be “discriminating African Americans” by making specific corroborations about criminal recidivism in society.
At the same time, there are somewhat more remote complaints about the fact that the search results of engines like Google tend to show results in accordance with spontaneous reality (for example, women engaged in kitchen work or men in charge of what requires greater physical strength).
These three things are concrete examples, although it would allow us to understand the concerns of “progressivism” that seems to want to go beyond the processes of large technology corporations, often designed to censor contents that question the progressive “official truth” against “more conservative discussions.”
With all this, we can say that computer algorithms do not seem to be free from expansive, revolutionary, progressive and leftist social engineering either. The totalitarians are proposing a change of approach to this discipline, so within the technical common sense, it serves more to ensure an “official truth” than anything else.