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

171–180 of 295 posts

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

#171

Post by Tyrek »

darawk wrote: post #159
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter. Adults are expected to understand the potential consequences of their actions. If you knowingly fire missiles into a populated area, you don't get to say "oops, I didn't mean to" when you accidentally kill a few dozen innocent civilians.

> It doesn't matter. It absolutely matters. Intending to kill civilians and killing them accidentally are very, very different things. > Adults are expected to understand the potential consequences of their actions. If you knowingly fire missiles into a populated area, you don't get to say "oops, I didn't mean to" when you accidentally kill a few dozen innocent civilians. Are you alleging that they didn't understand…

Well, I'm sure that intent has an impact, but the question is one of magnitude. You can't exactly solve extremism by telling them all to stop being mad at the US because the missile that killed their families 'was just a miss whoops my bad'

I take issue with your stance that the burden of evidence lies with the 'let's not shoot missiles crowd', though. While we don't have specific evidence on the specific efficacy of individual drone strikes, I'd argue that the intelligence community's track record (or what's been declassified or widely known) does not inspire the greatest confidence in their ability to make nuanced, apolitical judgment.

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

#172

Post by mLuby »

virmundi wrote: post #147
mLuby wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ensuring your citizens are safe, fed, housed, and healthy is the bare minimum for any government (Looking at you, SF). "Peace, land, bread", you know? But any time an entity is afraid to be challenged, it is selfishly choosing its own survival over the possibility that there exists a better provider for its citizens. That part is the "not best" part, and it's also the part Google is accused of helping with. If Google…

How do you know that the entity isn't better than its people? The long term stability of governments correlates with general wellness. Technology helps make the government more stable. If 90% of the population's standard of living improves at the expense of the 10%, is that wrong? Where is the line? Even when a rising tide raises all boats, there are many who will still get swamped. Should we stop forward progression…

Are you describing a situation where government A is objectively better for its citizens but they want government B (which wants to supplant A and is objectively worse) more than A for some reason?

I'm not following how your second paragraph is connected to the question of governments protecting themselves at the expense of their citizens' well-being. It sounds like you're talking about the trolley problem, and tying that to some notion that we can halt 'progress'? What do you mean?

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

#173

Post by eiaoa »

knieveltech wrote: post #88
make3 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a progressive, but there is no peace without being ready for war. I just hope we don't find out too late, and China has much better smart weaponry

Quick question: in this hypothetical where China presents an existential threat to the US, what happens to the Chinese economy when they invade the largest consumer of their domestically produced goods and services?

>> I'm a progressive, but there is no peace without being ready for war. I just hope we don't find out too late, and China has much better smart weaponry

> Quick question: in this hypothetical where China presents an existential threat to the US, what happens to the Chinese economy when they invade the largest consumer of their domestically produced goods and services?

WWII was not bad for the US economy. The car plants were converted to build tanks and airplanes, then they were converted back when the war was over.

I don't think China poses an existential military threat to the US itself in the medium term, but it does pose one to Taiwan and potentially some other countries in the region. Unfortunately, the main thing that contains that threat and maintains peace is US military superiority.

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

#175

Post by pokemongoaway »

SquishyPanda23 wrote: post #22
Kurtz79 wrote: post #7

To put the title into context: "Do you still feel like Silicon Valley has retained that idealism that struck you when you arrived here?" "There’s still that optimism. But the optimism is tempered by a sense of deliberation. Things have changed quite a bit. You know, we deliberate about things a lot more, and we are more thoughtful about what we do. But there’s a deeper thing here, which is: Technology doesn’t solve h…

Part of me can't help but read this a little cynically. They're starting to articulate a shift away from Larry Page's idealistic view of making information universally accessible and useful and toward tempering expectations about what technology can do. After that they'll pivot increasingly toward a position that lets them justify the drone and censorship programs without the baggage of Page's original naivety. Again…

Not sure why you're tempering your position by calling it cynical. That's just a judgement. What evdience is there that it is cynical (and inaccurate)? Your analysis is in line with the trend, and few speak up without tempering their critiques. The rise of leftism makes no attempts at tempering it's effects - just like it did not in Russia or China.

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

#176

Post by cm2187 »

Forbo wrote: post #81
Tyrek wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you certain that every drone strike that's ever been made has had a positive impact on the world?

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.

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

#177

Post by CM30 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #105
knieveltech wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quick question: in this hypothetical where China presents an existential threat to the US, what happens to the Chinese economy when they invade the largest consumer of their domestically produced goods and services?

Gets redirected towards the war effort, suffers some problems after the war, and then recovers. Assuming isolated China vs. US war, there's still the whole Europe to manufacture trinkets for.

Which countries in Europe would still buy Chinese goods if China were at war with the US?

Maybe it's my memories of being taught about World War 1 and 2 speaking, but it seems more likely Europe would side with the US than China, and kinda unlikely they'd let both parties import goods as they please.

The chances of it remaining an 'isolated' war where no one else gets involved would be low enough than action would probably cost China most of the European market along with the likes of Canada/Australia/etc.

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

#178

Post by TeMPOraL »

CM30 wrote: post #177
TeMPOraL wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gets redirected towards the war effort, suffers some problems after the war, and then recovers. Assuming isolated China vs. US war, there's still the whole Europe to manufacture trinkets for.

Which countries in Europe would still buy Chinese goods if China were at war with the US? Maybe it's my memories of being taught about World War 1 and 2 speaking, but it seems more likely Europe would side with the US than China, and kinda unlikely they'd let both parties import goods as they please. The chances of it remaining an 'isolated' war where no one else gets involved would be low enough than action would pr…

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.

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

#179

Post by yoavm »

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.

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

#180

Post by vetinari »

discoball wrote: post #12
Kurtz79 wrote: post #7

To put the title into context: "Do you still feel like Silicon Valley has retained that idealism that struck you when you arrived here?" "There’s still that optimism. But the optimism is tempered by a sense of deliberation. Things have changed quite a bit. You know, we deliberate about things a lot more, and we are more thoughtful about what we do. But there’s a deeper thing here, which is: Technology doesn’t solve h…

> Google was enabling the DoD to be more efficient at killing people and China to be more oppressive until its workers protested. So he's right about humanity having to solve its problems but he's forgetting that Google, the corporation, is opting to make it harder for humanity to solve its problems by enabling those who do not have humanity's best interest in their heart.

DARPA and NSF MDDS grants were the money that kickstarted Google back at the Stanford University. Later, they took investments from another three-letter agencies.

Is it any wonder they did what they did?

Post reply on HN