Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sundar Pichai: ‘Technology Doesn’t Solve Humanity’s Problems’

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 295 posts

Re: Sundar Pichai: ‘Technology Doesn’t Solve Humanity’s Problems’

#201

Post by davebryand »

yoavm wrote: post #179
davebryand wrote: post #52

He's right. Humanity's problems are solved by humans solving themselves. Each one of us is a puzzle that gets solved in the same way--doing the inner work to quiet our mind and open our hearts. When enough of us are solved, humanity's problems will automatically solve themselves. Sundar seems to have done the inner work and understands this Truth. His "Cockroach Theory" is enlightening: I realized that, it is not the…

What's the source of this text? I've looked it up and couldn't find one reliable source that shows that Pichai actually told this story once.

You're right, I can't find that he actually said this. Guess I'll have to pretend that he did. :)

Re: Sundar Pichai: ‘Technology Doesn’t Solve Humanity’s Problems’

#202

Post by freeflight »

cm2187 wrote: post #176
Forbo wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted. Perhaps the inclusion of the absolutist "every drone strike... ever". But this raises a valid concern. Is drone striking weddings really winning the hearts and minds of people, or is it just setting up the next generation of (IMO, justified) hate toward the US? [0] [1] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wech_Baghtu_wedding_party_airs... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Has…

None of 9/11 hijackers were victimized by the US. Islamist militants don’t need drone strikes to hate the US.

So this has now become a "We've always been at war with Islam!"? Is that kind of 1984esque discourse really helpful?

For some proper context, I really suggest reading this CS Monitor piece from back in 2001 [0].

Keen observers will quickly realize that pretty much everything written there has become reality over these past 17 years. It should also be noted that there's a certain irony to it when the "Christian Science Monitor" is peeved about your religious rhetoric being a bit too much on the extreme end.

This is something that seemingly passed by many US Americans like it never happened. But you can't declare yourself a "Christian nation" going on "crusades", hinging large parts of your popularity drive on this imagined "clash of the cultures", and then act all surprised and outraged when the opposite side also reacts with more radicalization.

Just looking at the trends for global terrorism for these past 2 decades [1], there's a very clear picture to be found there. Before 2002 countries like India, Colombia and Algeria topped the "terrorism charts".

But by 2003, as a response to the "War on Terror" started by the US, you already see Iraq and Afghanistan making their way up the list, steadily increasing in the number of attacks and fatalities until in 2005 they take the top.

Since then there's been little change, only Pakistan making their way up there some years, one might wonder why? [2]

But all three of these countries represent massive outliers and make up the vast majority of "Islamic terrorism", what do they all have in common?

9/11 was bad, no debate there. But the US's reaction to 9/11 was worse, it perfectly played into Osamas original intentions of starting a "culture clash", stigmatizing even moderate Islam in the Western world, making frustrated and discriminated moderates more likely to join his cause.

In that context, the US pretty much kicked a hornet's nest down the street and still keeps kicking it to this day. Yet many US Americans keep wondering where the angry hornets are coming from and "why they hate us so much".

[0] https://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html

[1] https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/globe/index.html

[2] http://drones.pitchinteractive.com/

Re: Sundar Pichai: ‘Technology Doesn’t Solve Humanity’s Problems’

#203

Post by puzzle »

ma2rten wrote: post #56
puzzle wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No matter the values and principles, no matter whether you agree with them or not, at the end of the day both positions are the law in the respective territories. You don't get to pick and choose which laws should be enforced. But you can choose which countries to do business in, of course.

I am not sure what you point is. It's not just a binary thing: we do business in the country or we don't. With any decision you have to see if it's in line with your values or not. For me personally, I am fine with passive censorship in China. My wife is Thai-Chinese so I can accept that there is a cultural difference. Where I would draw the line is when a company hands over information about individuals and then tho…

My point is that the law is the law. You can and should work to change laws if you don't like them. But, if you break a law that you don't agree with, there is no broadband in jail (as Eric Schmidt used to say).

Re: Sundar Pichai: ‘Technology Doesn’t Solve Humanity’s Problems’

#204

Post by solitus »

darawk wrote: post #199
kentm wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In many cases, probably. In other cases, probably not. The fear is that drone strikes lower the bar for how certain you have to be that "action" will have better results, because the practical risks have been substantially lowered. If the bar is lowered, then we may be choosing the "no action" a lot less even if it was warranted.

Certainly. I agree 100%. They lower the bar, and that increases their frequency. No question about that. However, you can say the same about literally any military technology. Bulletproof vests have the same effect. The question at hand is: is this lowered bar leading us to make bad judgments? I see people pointing at cases where civilians were killed and saying "See! Its bad!". But that isn't an argument that it was…

Worthwhile in terms of saving other human lives or in terms of capital?

Re: Sundar Pichai: ‘Technology Doesn’t Solve Humanity’s Problems’

#205

Post by solidsnack9000 »

sullyj3 wrote: post #191

Not to be cynical, but there's enormous PR pressure on Google and Sunday Pichai specifically to make this their opinion. Widespread public opinion is turning against silicon valley, and even technological advancement more generally, like a kind of mini-second-postmodernism. For sure silicon valley has some serious problems, but humanity is a lot better off generally than it was a few centuries ago, and the reason isn…

...and the reason isn't because we all became nicer people.

We did become better governed. Not unrelated to technology but not directly a result of it, either.

Re: Sundar Pichai: ‘Technology Doesn’t Solve Humanity’s Problems’

#206

Post by solidsnack9000 »

Emma_Goldman wrote: post #38
puzzle wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No matter the values and principles, no matter whether you agree with them or not, at the end of the day both positions are the law in the respective territories. You don't get to pick and choose which laws should be enforced. But you can choose which countries to do business in, of course.

'You don't get to pick and choose which laws should be enforced. But you can choose which countries to do business in, of course.' That's - if you'll excuse me - a very amoral and commercial way of looking at things: you don't belong to any society, and don't wish to exercise any control in any society, and the only way in which you can or should exercise your rights is in where you do business. It is precisely the r…

It is precisely the rationale of democracy that you DO 'get to pick and choose which laws should be enforced' (to some extent).

We can change the law formally, but rely on people following and enforcing that law in the absence of the formal change.

It's not for companies or individuals to decide, unilaterally, what laws they will enforce or follow, in any society.

Re: Sundar Pichai: ‘Technology Doesn’t Solve Humanity’s Problems’

#207

Post by PhasmaFelis »

darawk wrote: post #162
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, yeah? I know there have been cases where drone strikes were justified, but it really only takes one instance of "We think there's some terrorists at this wedding, so let's fire a fragmentation missile into the middle of it, and then another one a few minutes later to make sure we kill the paramedics and firemen too" to decide that the US military is not responsible enough to be allowed to make these decisions…

> I mean, yeah? I know there have been cases where drone strikes were justified, but it really only takes one instance of "We think there's some terrorists at this wedding, so let's fire a fragmentation missile into the middle of it, and then another one a few minutes later to make sure we kill the paramedics and firemen too" to decide that the US military is not responsible enough to be allowed to make these decisio…

It's designed to kill anyone who comes to the aid of the injured. In any built-up area, that will obviously include ambulance personnel; there's no way the policy-makers do not know this. So, yes, it is absolutely designed to kill civilian medics and concerned neighbors/bystanders, and has done so over and over. See also:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/outrage-at...

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2013-08-01/get...

Re: Sundar Pichai: ‘Technology Doesn’t Solve Humanity’s Problems’

#208

Post by darawk »

solitus wrote: post #204
darawk wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certainly. I agree 100%. They lower the bar, and that increases their frequency. No question about that. However, you can say the same about literally any military technology. Bulletproof vests have the same effect. The question at hand is: is this lowered bar leading us to make bad judgments? I see people pointing at cases where civilians were killed and saying "See! Its bad!". But that isn't an argument that it was…

Worthwhile in terms of saving other human lives or in terms of capital?

Worthwhile ethically/morally. So, considering all factors, to include saving lives and capital.

Re: Sundar Pichai: ‘Technology Doesn’t Solve Humanity’s Problems’

#209

Post by pnathan »

This is a dramatic shift from the mid-90s viewpoint, which held an incredibly youthful optimism that has long fed into Google's culture. I want to bring that to one's attention.

That said, this also reads like a thoughtful and mature viewpoint; nuanced and understanding the reality of humans colliding with sophisticated technology.

Historians and philosophers have a lot to contribute to this world; I think there's an increasing awareness of that reality.

Re: Sundar Pichai: ‘Technology Doesn’t Solve Humanity’s Problems’

#210

Post by darawk »

freeflight wrote: post #202
cm2187 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of 9/11 hijackers were victimized by the US. Islamist militants don’t need drone strikes to hate the US.

So this has now become a "We've always been at war with Islam!"? Is that kind of 1984esque discourse really helpful? For some proper context, I really suggest reading this CS Monitor piece from back in 2001 [0]. Keen observers will quickly realize that pretty much everything written there has become reality over these past 17 years. It should also be noted that there's a certain irony to it when the "Christian Scienc…

> This is something that seemingly passed by many US Americans like it never happened. But you can't declare yourself a "Christian nation" going on "crusades", hinging large parts of your popularity drive on this imagined "clash of the cultures", and then act all surprised and outraged when the opposite side also reacts with more radicalization.

Hm? Which crusades are those?

> Just looking at the trends for global terrorism for these past 2 decades [1], there's a very clear picture to be found there. Before 2002 countries like India, Colombia and Algeria topped the "terrorism charts".

You mean countries that had civil wars going on in them? That seems practically tautological.

> But by 2003, as a response to the "War on Terror" started by the US, you already see Iraq and Afghanistan making their way up the list, steadily increasing in the number of attacks and fatalities until in 2005 they take the top.

You mean that terrorist attacks increased in places when they had foreign military bases in their country to target? What is that evidence of, exactly?

> But all three of these countries represent massive outliers and make up the vast majority of "Islamic terrorism", what do they all have in common?

Fundamentalist Islam and low economic development.

Post reply on HN