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

231–240 of 295 posts

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

#231

Post by WalterBright »

dumbfoundded wrote: post #117
craftyguy wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's pretty much no problem that given a large thoughtful effort, technology has not solved. Technology has failed over and over to provide an accountable, verifiable, and secure election process.

No it hasn't. Paper works great. So great in fact, many security experts recommend returning to a paper backup system (1). The reason we don't have a secure election process is because no one with the power to do anything has any incentive to fix it (a bit of an over-generalization). (1) https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/05/opinions/to-keep-our-votes-sa...

Washington state has an excellent system where all ballots are on paper and are mailed in. It's not perfect, there was a gubernatorial election where they kept "recounting" and "finding" more ballots until the correct person won, but it's a lot harder to corrupt than those hackable electronic machines.

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

#232

Post by crwalker »

robax wrote: post #181
crwalker wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Thankfully, we seem to have left the world of total war. Deaths in armed conflict form a fat-tailed distribution. Extreme events dominate, and the absence of any world wars for several decades is not evidence that humanity has gotten more peaceful if world wars happen roughly every couple hundred years. See Taleb, who is much more clear. http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/violencenobelsymposium.pdf

Yuval Noah Harari has a different argument in his book Sapiens. He says that we’re living in the most peaceful period of human existence ever and it’s caused by a few factors. #1 the stakes are too high because of nuclear weapons and #2 now more than ever a country’s resources are the brains of its inhabitants, which can’t exactly be conquered. I think we’re definitely seeing the landscape of war changing. I really h…

Both views could be correct: Taleb's point is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I haven't read Sapiens, and I hope Harari is correct, but I'm not tracking the second argument. Certain governments believe they can conquer minds, as evidenced by detention/propaganda camps and universal surveillance/scoring. If a government with this perspective successfully invaded another country, wouldn't they institute a similar program there and expect similar results?

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

#233

Post by dragonwriter »

robax wrote: post #181
crwalker wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Thankfully, we seem to have left the world of total war. Deaths in armed conflict form a fat-tailed distribution. Extreme events dominate, and the absence of any world wars for several decades is not evidence that humanity has gotten more peaceful if world wars happen roughly every couple hundred years. See Taleb, who is much more clear. http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/violencenobelsymposium.pdf

Yuval Noah Harari has a different argument in his book Sapiens. He says that we’re living in the most peaceful period of human existence ever and it’s caused by a few factors. #1 the stakes are too high because of nuclear weapons and #2 now more than ever a country’s resources are the brains of its inhabitants, which can’t exactly be conquered. I think we’re definitely seeing the landscape of war changing. I really h…

#2 seems obviously wrong; minds can be conquered (that's what propaganda is about), if you conquer minds you don't need to fire a shot to conquer, and—except perhaps for a handful of the most totalitarian regimes as targets—its never been easier for a hostile power to deliver propaganda to the citizenry of a target state, especially if the target is a developed democracy.

So, yeah, the importance of minds as resource might be part of the reason for the absence of major armed conflict, but for almost the exact opposite of the reason Hariri suggests.

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

#234

Post by mikemotherwell »

lordnacho wrote: post #118

I disagree. Technology is the very solution to our problems, the driver of social change. Why? Because our social instincts don't change terribly fast, being coded in DNA. Our hardware/OS is more or less what it was when the last ice age ended. Nobody has extra arms or hearts. People still use "look each other in the eye" and other old school tropes to decide if they are comfortable with a new person. The only thing…

"Technology" could mean silicon, or it could mean rules, or it could mean processes. It could mean lots of things. In this context, I think it means silicon and the internet, as opposed to, say, "melt certain ores".

I think the context here is "computer software and the internet doesn't solve humanity".

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

#235

Post by ntsplnkv2 »

crwalker wrote: post #232
robax wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yuval Noah Harari has a different argument in his book Sapiens. He says that we’re living in the most peaceful period of human existence ever and it’s caused by a few factors. #1 the stakes are too high because of nuclear weapons and #2 now more than ever a country’s resources are the brains of its inhabitants, which can’t exactly be conquered. I think we’re definitely seeing the landscape of war changing. I really h…

Both views could be correct: Taleb's point is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I haven't read Sapiens, and I hope Harari is correct, but I'm not tracking the second argument. Certain governments believe they can conquer minds, as evidenced by detention/propaganda camps and universal surveillance/scoring. If a government with this perspective successfully invaded another country, wouldn't they inst…

> If a government with this perspective successfully invaded another country, wouldn't they institute a similar program there and expect similar results?

No country of consequence can be invaded like this today - nuclear weapons upped the stakes considerably.

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

#236

Post by ntsplnkv2 »

da_chicken wrote: post #161
marricks wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is such a false dichotomy. Consider arming police officers with tasers. We were promised it would be an alternative to guns and help protect civilians but instead police officers use tasers a ton and still shoot people a ton as well.[1] There’s always the excuse new smarter technologies will save lives but it ends up the “safer” they are the lower the threshold to use. 1. Da_chicken’s reply below has a good sour…

Research as shown that when police are armed with tasers, they will use them in situations where previously no violence would have been used at all. Additionally, tasers will be used not just to subdue an individual who is a threat, but also simply to punish those who fail to comply. Further, the police will ignore the safety limitations which would prohibit repeated use of a taser. You cannot escape the law of unint…

You can escape it if you actually think about the scenario on the ground.

A taser can't replace a gun, it doesn't function like a gun, it's not as reliable as a gun, it doesn't have the range, etc.

But it can be useful in lieu of physical force or if someone is resisting, which is what became its use case.

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

#237

Post by dragonwriter »

ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #235
crwalker wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both views could be correct: Taleb's point is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I haven't read Sapiens, and I hope Harari is correct, but I'm not tracking the second argument. Certain governments believe they can conquer minds, as evidenced by detention/propaganda camps and universal surveillance/scoring. If a government with this perspective successfully invaded another country, wouldn't they inst…

> If a government with this perspective successfully invaded another country, wouldn't they institute a similar program there and expect similar results? No country of consequence can be invaded like this today - nuclear weapons upped the stakes considerably.

> No country of consequence can be invaded like this today - nuclear weapons upped the stakes considerably.

No nuclear power can be, nor can any country closely allied with a nuclear power, but not every country of consequence is in one of those categories.

Unless you define “of consequence” specifically to mean in those two categories, and so exclude, e.g., Ukraine.

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

#238

Post by ntsplnkv2 »

CM30 wrote: post #200
TeMPOraL wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the isolation assumption is a pretty weak one, but taking it, if China won, then why wouldn't Europe want to buy from them? Economics always beats hard feelings.

If China won would assume Europe would stay out of the conflict while the US and China fought each other. A fight with China as the enemy would probably end up dragging in basically the entire 'Western' world. Of course, it's all pretty insane to speculate about, since: A: Most countries now seem like they're trying to avoid actual wars as much as possible, and most remaining issues seem to be sparked off more by ext…

Essentially none of these big nations can lose.

The US never has to surrender - they simply say we will use our nuclear weapons. These wars have no victor hence these wars have been replaced by proxy wars in various locations.

That's why Russia now focuses solely on disrupting elections and cyber warfare-only from within can these nations be affected and weakened.

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

#239

Post by ameister14 »

darawk wrote: post #194
ameister14 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about these two? https://www.salon.com/2011/10/20/the_killing_of_awlakis_16_y... https://www.theguardian.com/world/blog/2011/sep/30/anwar-al-...

Both of these are troubling to me from a legal perspective, it concerns me that these citizen's due process rights were waived, particularly in secret, with secret justifications. It does not trouble me at all from a moral position that these individual were targeted and killed, however. If they were not US citizens, i'd consider this an excellent example of a great use of drones. Do you disagree and if so why?

The first one, because he was a young boy. The second, because the president using his sole authority to order the assassination of someone shouldn't happen.

Regardless, not taking action at that time would likely have been better. They were US citizens, their rights were abrogated and they were killed illegally.

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

#240

Post by freeflight »

hindsightbias wrote: post #223
freeflight wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The Christian Science Monitor, while founded by the founder of the Church of Christ does not really represent the Church or push its doctrines. It has historically been one of the least ideological and most objective news outlets for a couple of generations. So there may be irony in the name, but not in their practices.

That was more of a pun on the irony of name/situation, sorry just couldn't resist.

I've never researched their actual background, but over the years I've noticed their content to be usually of very good quality.

I suppose it's a good example of why one should never judge a book by its cover, or in this case, the content of a website by its domain name ;)

Post reply on HN