Sundar Pichai of Google: 'Technology Doesn't Solve Humanity's Problems' (nytimes.com)

In a wide-ranging interview with The New York Times, Google CEO Sundar Pichai has addressed some of the recent tensions within the company and those that the entire industry appears to be grappling with. From the story: Question: An estimated 20,000 Googlers participated in a sexual harassment protest this month. What's your message to employees right now?
Pichai: People are walking out because they want us to improve and they want us to show we can do better. We're acknowledging and understanding we clearly got some things wrong. And we have been running the company very differently for a while now. But going through a process like that, you learn a lot. For example, we have established channels by which people can report issues. But those processes are much harder on the people going through it than we had realized.

Question: Do you worry that Silicon Valley is suffering from groupthink and losing its edge?
Pichai: There is nothing inherent that says Silicon Valley will always be the most innovative place in the world. There is no God-given right to be that way. But I feel confident that right now, as we speak, there are quietly people in the Valley working on some stuff which we will later look back on in 10 years and feel was very profound. We feel we're on the cusp of technologies, just like the internet before.

Question: Do you still feel like Silicon Valley has retained that idealism that struck you when you arrived here?
Pichai: 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 humanity's problems. It was always naive to think so. Technology is an enabler, but humanity has to deal with humanity's problems. I think we're both over-reliant on technology as a way to solve things and probably, at this moment, over-indexing on technology as a source of all problems, too. Further reading: After Paying Off Men Accused of Sexual Harassment, Google Says It Will Meet Many of the Protesters' Demands.

Comments

Huh?

[Locke2005]

Technology doesn't guarantee a solution, and it does solve all problems, but I'm pretty sure it has solved some problems, i.e. we're not all starving due to advances in agricultural productivity made possible by... technology.

Re:Huh?

[bluefoxlucid]

It's a fundamental understanding of technology.

You use a rock to crush up bits of sticks so they're easier to ignite as tinder. One day, you realize that striking in a different manner better separates the fibers, allowing you to produce 50% more tinder in the same time with the same tools.

That's technology. You've just invented a new, more-efficient method of manufacturing tinder from sticks using the same tools. You can make the same tinder with less labor and apply other labor to do other things like hunt more meat. Your society can now enjoy more meat. Arbitrate between these two activities and you can have more tinder and more meat, and so you can have more cooked meat per person, all at the same cost.

Re:Huh?

[DontBeAMoran]

+1 million insightful

But you will be modded down because "people have the right to have children" and other idiots who think about themselves before looking at the overall picture. This is why we're doomed as a species: overpopulation, famine, war. In that order.

Re:Huh?

[ceoyoyo]

The 1970s wants its alarmism back.

The rates of famine and war have decreased exponentially (literally exponentially) over the last 500 years or so. The population is currently fairly high, but the rate of increase is tapering off and all reasonable forecasts predict topping out then a decrease. The first world is already in the decrease phase.

Famine is caused by unreliable food production or distribution. War is caused by economic forces. Educating females (by having a high enough standard of living that lets everyone get an education) is the best method of population control. All these are enabled by technology.

Re: Huh?

[BringsApples]

Did you know that there were more than 2 genders as long as 4000 years ago?

*Citation needed*

So, my question is when were there only "2 sexes"?

Right now.

When have their been no wars?

Never. It's sad.

Re:Huh?

[Pinky's Brain]

We get to run off the cliff faster and in more comfort.

Re: Huh?

[Zero__Kelvin]

-10 million .... You are a fucking moron. Any loser that thinks people don't have the right to have children proves only that it would have been better if their parents didn't take advantage of that right.

Re: Huh?

[PopeRatzo]

*Citation needed*

I would think by now you guys would know better than to challenge me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

"Inscribed pottery shards from the Middle Kingdom of Egypt (2000–1800 BCE), found near ancient Thebes (now Luxor, Egypt), list three human genders: tai (male), st ("sekhet") and hmt (female).

"In ancient Assyria, there were homosexual and transgender cult prostitutes, who took part in public processions, singing, dancing, wearing costumes, sometimes wearing women's clothes and carrying female symbols, even at times performing the act of giving birth.[9]

In ancient India, Hijra are a caste of third-gender, or transgender group who live a feminine role. Hijra may be born male or intersex, and some may have been born female.[10] Hijras have a recorded history in the Indian subcontinent from antiquity onwards as suggested by the Kama Sutra period.

In Persia, poets such as Sa'di, Hafiz, and Jami wrote poems replete with homoerotic allusions, including sex with transgender young women or males enacting transgender roles exemplified by the köçeks and the bacchás, and Sufi spiritual practices."

Re: Huh?

[BringsApples]

No, I know better than to challenge anyone. But, my friend, in regard to the sex of a being, there is only male or female. Maybe a male FEELS like a female, and maybe a female FEELS like a male. And in that case, please do dress however you feel comfortable. But to purport that you're the opposite of your physical gender is just a lie. Just like a short person purporting to be tall, or visa versa.

Re: Huh?

[Archangel Michael]

Scientifically, we are a binary sex species. The abnormalities of XXY, XXX, XYY Chromosomes are similar to having other Chromosome deformations like Downs Syndrome. That is to say, they are no less HUMAN, but they are exceptions, not the rule (binary sex).

There are even rare cases of Hermaphroditism, where there appears (or actually are) two sets of genitalia. These are also rare cases, similar to people born with six fingers/toes. It does happen. We say we have ten fingers and toes, because MOST people conform to that. We don't make gloves that have six fingers in them just in case someone MIGHT have six fingers. That is stupid. But we can and will make accommodations where it is possible.

The Political left wants to conflate the various terms(gender, sex etc), often using them interchangeably to the point of full destruction of any basis for having a conversation about how to deal with people suffering mental problems. All so they can feel superior to everyone else who thinks there are two sexes.

For instance, I suggested that if gender is based on male vs female cultural traits, that there are 7.1 Billion Genders, as everyone has a unique mix of male and female traits, and that really upset the transgendered people I was having a discussion with. They want to define the terms using arbitrary and fluid terminology with the end result being confusion. One cannot have a conversation based on fluid definitions that conflate sex, gender, and societal roles into a soup of uncertainty that ONLY they can decode (and when convenient for their goals).

Re:What. The. Fuck?!?!

[Nidi62]

Seriously? This guy runs Google?

How many people does he think could survive on Earth without technology?

Keeping literally billions of people from dying sure seems like "solving problems".

I think the whole point is that technology is not a panacea. It helps solve problems, but deep down a lot of problems like hunger or poverty have underlying causes beyond the remedy of technology. A lot of it is simply getting past the human element: greed, corruption, stubbornness, mistrust, etc. Then you have natural causes such as simple physics, ecology, geography, etc that technology can mitigate but not effectively or realistically fully overcome. A lot of people in Silicon Valley (and tech in general) have grand ideas about changing or saving the world, and those dreams just simply aren't realistic or feasible. Limited or localized change and improvement is certainly possible and is a laudable achievement, but expectations must be realistic. And in quite a few instances, but trying to solve problems you end up only creating more.

He's trapped in a bubble

[rsilvergun]

he's only thinking about Information Tech. Most of society's problems are economic. Food, shelter, healthcare. Look at every major societal in human history it's always been traceable to money. WWI and II were land grabs by nations looking for more wealth. 9/11 was due to US meddling in the middle east to secure cheap oil. The only other problem to solve is disease, and we're doing pretty good there. No more small pox. We kept bird flu in check.

Bio tech changes everything. People don't realize how much we've changed farming in the last 100 years. We use oil byproducts to recondition land so that we need fewer or no crop rotation cycles. We used genetic modification to massively increase yields and make pest resistant crops. We can feed everyone on the plant now.

Yeah, tech moved faster than our society at fixing problems, but our society wouldn't even get a chance to fix them without tech.

Idealism? No.

[Kohath]

- Grievance-obsession is not idealism.
- Making up stories about bad things that might happen is not idealism.
- Beefing about people or condescending to people or looking down on people in other states who aren't like you is not idealism.
- Bigotry against religion is not idealism.
- Name-calling is not idealism.
- Self-obsession is not idealism.
- Wanting to spend money other people earned is not idealism.
- Choosing to side with one group over another group is not idealism.
- Rejection of science in favor of storytelling about diversity is not idealism.

Idealism rejects all of these things. Idealism tells the truth and treats everyone with goodwill. You guys at Google should try it.

Not all, not yet.

[HeckRuler]

But there's a deeper thing here, which is: Technology doesn't solve humanity's problems. It was always naive to think so. Technology is an enabler, but humanity has to deal with humanity's problems. I think we're both over-reliant on technology as a way to solve things and probably, at this moment, over-indexing on technology as a source of all problems, too.

It won't solve all our problems. But we've made the blind see, the lame walk, fed the world, cured a lot of cancer, fought off a lot of diseases, empowered billions, and unless we have some sort of additional advances things look pretty damn grim when it comes to global warming.

You are working on self-driving cars. "1.3 million people die in road crashes each year. An additional 20-50 million are injured or disabled". This is a problem. You are working on solving it. That justifies the investment, all the work, and your fucking stock price.

You want non-discriminatory hiring practices that truly adhere to being an equal opportunity employer? Automate it. Remove discriminatory factors and strive for a meritocracy that's blind to race, religion, or creed. If the process for raising complaints is painful, fix it. Streamlining and automating HR sounds like something you could sell.

You are a technology company. Act like it.

Technology doesn't solve ALL of humanity's problems. Yet.

Re:Not all, not yet.

[rogoshen1]

You want non-discriminatory hiring practices that truly adhere to being an equal opportunity employer? Automate it. Remove discriminatory factors and strive for a meritocracy that's blind to race, religion, or creed...

In Tech you'd wind up with a 40-30-30 mix of white, asian, and desi males between 25 and 45.

They aren't bleating about a meritocracy or equality in opportunity; it's equality of outcome or nothing.

Technology evolves faster than humans

[Rick Schumann]

Our technology has evolved many orders of magnitude faster than our species evolves, especially the hardwiring in our brains. In many ways we'd benefit from slowing down our technological progress (and even backing it up) until the human species can catch up to it. Unfortunately nature may do that for us and in the harshest way possible.

Self-fulfilling

[petes_PoV]

Technology doesn't solve humanity's problems

It does, technology has solved many of the world's biggest problems. However, once it solves a problem then there is no longer a problem, so it doesn't appear that technology has done anything.

But take mass transportation as an example. The inability to move millions of people and millions of tons of goods never seemed like a problem before it was possible. Nobody ever thought "Hmmmm, I wish there was a way to get 50 million people a year to visit other countries" or "I wonder how we could possibly move a quarter of a million tons of crude oil across the world?" . Not until the means to do so was delivered. Then after that, the problem disappeared.

So it is a rather dumb statement. Just like we don't have a "problem" now on how to get 10,000 people a year to The Moon and back. It will become possible - and then easy - to do. And once it does, that will be because technology enabled the solution. But right now, no-one considers our inability to do that to be a "problem".

Google is Doomed.

[AftanGustur]

The moment Google caved in to the first demands of the SJW, the company was doomed.

Once you have let that Genie out of the bottle, the is no turning back.