... but it does solves our shareholder's ones.
Sundar Pichai: ‘Technology Doesn’t Solve Humanity’s Problems’
241–250 of 295 posts
Re: Sundar Pichai: ‘Technology Doesn’t Solve Humanity’s Problems’
#242Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> The first one, because he was a young boy
He was a 16 year old Al Qaeda member who was the son of a leader of the group.
> The second, because the president using his sole authority to order the assassination of someone shouldn't happen.
Ever?
> 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.
Agree that because they were US citizens they should have been given due process, or at the very least, the legal rationale for their killing should have been subject to public scrutiny. But I don't think this really makes the case against drone strikes as a tool.
Re: Sundar Pichai: ‘Technology Doesn’t Solve Humanity’s Problems’
#243Earlier 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…
What you are measuring is merely the state of chaos of the middle east post iraq war and arab spring. If you look at the history of terrorism in Europe for instance, before the 70s it was mostly independentist mvts / de-colonisation related. 70s to early 80s was mostly far left terror attacks. Mid 80s state sponsored terrorism (Libya, Iran). 90s to now, islamist terrorism. Islamists were blowing bombs in the metro in…
> Terrorism is a side effect of this rise in islamism, like the red brigades, RAF, etc were to communism.
And what allowed Islamism to rise and prosper like that over these past decades?
The power vacuum created by the removal of Saddam in an illegal invasion? The resulting unleashed sectarian violence?
You can't just switch around cause and effect like that and call it a day. To quote from the 2001 article:
> Moderate Muslim opinion could also easily be swayed against America, predicted Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, head of the Muslim Parliament in Britain, an umbrella group for Muslim organizations. "If they end up killing innocent civilians it will be very unfair," Dr. Siddiqui said. "The problems will arise if people see that justice has not been done."
Now, nearly 2 decades later, we have relentless and ML driven drone warfare [0], torture scandals [1], a US president who is not only condoning it but actively advocating for it. The blatant injustice is done out in the open to see for everybody [2], justified in haphazard "They do not have rights" ways to a point where a US president just declares a "Muslim ban", followed up with pointless legal shenanigans how "it totally isn't a Muslim ban, but a Muslim country ban!", like that's in any way better.
How can you look at all that and deny it contributed to the rise of Islamist sentiments? Don't you think it's kind of telling that you have to summon the good ol "they caught the communism" bug to still justify these US actions?
Is it really that difficult to take a step back and admit: "We've fucked up, we've been going about this the wrong way from the very beginning"? Is doubling down on this oppressive and destructive path really the only way forward from here?
[0] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/the-n...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisone...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp
Re: Sundar Pichai: ‘Technology Doesn’t Solve Humanity’s Problems’
#244Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see it differently. Achieving broad, idealistic goals requires careful and strategic thinking and that's what he's expressing here. I'd argue you're being overly naive rather than overly cynical -- real-world trade offs have downsides, and require deliberation. They're not solvable with sloganeering or absolute purity.
I'm not sure. He's specifically saying technology can't achieve idealistic goals, even with careful and strategic thinking. It requires "humanity" to achieve those goals. So if idealistic goals aren't achieved, it's not because Google did the wrong thing, it's because Google's users didn't do the right thing. So it's a diversion of responsibility away from Google, which frees them to take a less vision-directed and m…
Well, you're right that he's a CEO and of course any communication has been carefully calculated.
But that doesn't mean that he's an empty vessel. It sounds like he's thinking about it and trying to weigh upsides against downsides, even if Google would be disproportionately blamed for the downsides.
Re: Sundar Pichai: ‘Technology Doesn’t Solve Humanity’s Problems’
#245Earlier quoted context omitted.
Arguably, the dropping of the atomic bombs saved more lives in the long run by forcing the Japanese to surrender and end the war, full-stop. And arguably, nuclear weapons are keeping the world at peace. Sure, everyone has them pointed at each other, but it’s that threat that keeps us honest and peaceful. Just like how drivers in Chicago are courteous and never honk their horn - you’ll get shot if you drive like a dic…
> Arguably, the dropping of the atomic bombs saved more lives in the long run by forcing the Japanese to surrender and end the war, full-stop. This was a popular myth that Truman started. In fact, if we’d told the Japanese we would let them keep their emperor, they almost certainly would have surrendered. The Soviets had just entered the war in the Pacific and we wanted to end it before they captured much territory.…
Dropping a nuclear bomb on a civilian population is an act of madness, doing it twice is is beyond ethical discourse.
We are just 70 years out but these crimes against humanity will haunt for generations to come.
Re: Sundar Pichai: ‘Technology Doesn’t Solve Humanity’s Problems’
#246Earlier 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…
It's interesting you mentioned Harari because he mentioned Google when describing #2.
Re: Sundar Pichai: ‘Technology Doesn’t Solve Humanity’s Problems’
#247Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Arguably, the dropping of the atomic bombs saved more lives in the long run by forcing the Japanese to surrender and end the war, full-stop. This was a popular myth that Truman started. In fact, if we’d told the Japanese we would let them keep their emperor, they almost certainly would have surrendered. The Soviets had just entered the war in the Pacific and we wanted to end it before they captured much territory.…
Dropping a nuclear bomb on a civilian population is an act of madness, doing it twice is is beyond ethical discourse. We are just 70 years out but these crimes against humanity will haunt for generations to come.
Conventional bombing killed far more on the Japanese mainland than both atomic bombs combined did.
Re: Sundar Pichai: ‘Technology Doesn’t Solve Humanity’s Problems’
#248Earlier quoted context omitted.
The term "village" is used repeatedly. If you think that--when there's an explosion in a village--it's reasonable to assume that the only people who rush to assist are terrorists, then you need to provide proof of that, not ask me to prove the opposite. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
> The term "village" is used repeatedly. If you think that--when there's an explosion in a village--it's reasonable to assume that the only people who rush to assist are terrorists, then you need to provide proof of that, not ask me to prove the opposite. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Do you believe that the CIA is purposefully targeting random villagers for drone strikes? If yes...why? If no...…
> Do you believe that the CIA is purposefully targeting random villagers for drone strikes?
Of course not. I believe that the CIA doesn't care who dies as long as they get their guy, and if they make everyone afraid to help drone strike victims, then it's much more likely that any terrorists who survive the initial attack will bleed out on the ground. (Innocents too, but they don't care about them.)
This is hardly an unusual claim. You can't be unaware that the CIA is infamous for decades of murder and abuse.
Re: Sundar Pichai: ‘Technology Doesn’t Solve Humanity’s Problems’
#249(Please try to respect the netiquette when voting.) Empty words by Sundar Pichai employed to achieve a desired effect in Google's benefit. The airplane is an example of a technology that has brought us closer together and helped advance the ideal of an interconnected global "village" and which I'm contrasting with the promise made for Google's products -- but don't get hung up on my example, because my argument is di…
These might be empty words in Sundar Pichai's mouth, but the underlying idea is not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmakon_(philosophy) It's time for Silicon Valley (I actually mean supporter's of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism actually) to learn what Classical Greeks discovered a long time ago.
Could you elaborate on the Pharmakon in this context or point me at any resources to get a better understanding of it?
Re: Sundar Pichai: ‘Technology Doesn’t Solve Humanity’s Problems’
#250Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you blow up a terrorist training camp out in the desert, and it turns out afterwards that there were a few civilian hostages or dependents on-site, that's unfortunate but arguably unavoidable. If you bomb an outdoor wedding party with dozens of visible women and children, and then return to fire again when ambulances are on the scene, that's not an "unfortunate accident". That's deadly negligence at the very best.…
> If you bomb an outdoor wedding party with dozens of visible women and children, and then return to fire again when ambulances are on the scene, that's not an "unfortunate accident". That's deadly negligence at the very best. You're trying to twist the second example into the framework of the first. Is it? Do you have a sense of what went into that particular decision? Was the wedding party the target, or were they…
Someone looked through a drone cam at a crowd of women and children, and authorized the drone to fire.
If he didn't bother looking closely enough to identify his target, that's negligence or incompetence. (Middle Eastern women are noted for dressing distinctively.) If he didn't care, that's intentional murder, or whatever euphemism we're supposed to use in those circumstances. If he was told it was all right to fire without being able to see the target clearly, that's bad policy. If he was told it's all right to knowingly kill women and children, that's also bad policy. If the drone was authorized to fire without any human in the loop somewhere, that's really bad policy, and also bad tactics--there's no point in wasting a missile on an empty field that you expected a terrorist to be standing in.
There is no circumstance where someone wasn't lethally and unnecessarily careless with innocent lives. Whether it was due to malice or incompetence is not really relevant.
> Did they actually do a double tap strike in this instance?
Yes. You've already been linked to relevant articles in this thread. Do your own homework.
You are not going to Socratic-method anyone into admitting that, yes, it actually is okay to blow up a wedding if we think there might be a terrorist in there somewhere.