7 ms·

It must be a fine line to walk between finding hyper-intelligent people, meeting their intense need for self actualization, and mostly employing them in the sou

by LPTS 18y ago

It must be a fine line to walk between finding hyper-intelligent people, meeting their intense need for self actualization, and mostly employing them in the soul numbing work of selling ads.

gojomo 18y ago
This criticism -- that genius is being wasted on "soul numbing" ad work -- strikes me as an inaccurate cheap shot. First, because most of the brain power at Google isn't devoted to the ad systems, but to the services that attract an audience. Don't you think their most "hyper-intelligent people" are engaged in the constant and noble battle to continue improving search, for an ever-changing internet and against the efforts of many unscrupulous manipulators? Second, because even creating better ad systems is a valuable and intellectually challenging activity. Directly, because matching people to info about things they may want is crucial to our economy, and online systems can do it better than ever before. Indirectly, because ad revenues make so much of the rest of the internet possible. Ad work is no more "soul numbing" than any other commercial work to "make something people want".
- LPTS 18y ago
  I agree it's a bit of a cheap shot. I don't think it's inaccurate. There is no doubt the ad system is valuable. There is no doubt that creating the advertising systems google uses would be an intellectual challenge. But people don't want to see ads. This work is mostly the work of deciding how to best trick people into being distracted by text they don't want to see in the first place. The better the ad people do their jobs, the worse off most people are for it. This is the basis for the work being soul numbing. Conversely, on what basis would working on google's ads be the kind of soul affirming work you look back happily on as you cough up blood while you're dying 50 years from now? Then the googlers can look at all the stuff someone like Ludwig Mies or Steve Reich or Jonathan Ive comes out with. I am sure that google has a huge amount of talent that would be capable of creating at this level (the peak of human potential), and they don't produce much at this level.
  - mrtron 18y ago
    I think that we will see excessive commercialization as something evil in 50+ years, along with the whole institution of corporations. So, going on this train of thought, how can you be a slave to any corporation where the huge number of employees are making very few very rich and die happy? On my death bed I will not look back and say 'I am really glad I worked for X and sacrificed time from my friends and family to make the company extra money.' I just want to be proud of my accomplishments and know I worked hard and played hard. Whether or not I got by with ad revenue probably won't factor into it too much for me.
    - gojomo 18y ago
      If you live in a highly-developed country, 'the whole institution of corporations', legal fiction/invention that it is, is probably responsible for most of your modern comforts. The institution of corporations is certainly responsible for the startup opportunities cherished by this community. On your death bed, you might wish somebody had worked harder at their company to cure whatever's killing you.
      - mrtron 18y ago
        I don't think there currently is a better social and economic system than capitalism and corporations. What I was trying to say wasn't really anything more than most people who work for ANY corporation (not just advertising) probably can't reflect and say they lived idealistically in regards to morals. Also I was trying to say exactly that: I want to do all I can regardless of what I am doing or where I am working. Current stress is crushing my writing skills, especially coding.
      - jshen 18y ago
        "On your death bed, you might wish somebody had worked harder at their company to cure whatever's killing you" Or you may wish that you hadn't eaten the nutrionless high calorie corporate created food products that lead to your chronic disease? Or maybe it was the corporate toxic wasted dumped in the river upstream from your small town, while the corporate CEO lived on the other side of the country in a mansion and couldn't care less about the environment in your small town? Don't get me wrong, I agree with you too. But you are only half right.
- Tichy 18y ago
  "constant and noble battle" Oh come on, give me a break. Google is a commercial company. They are in it for the money, like everybody else.
  - pg 18y ago
    Not all companies are in it for the money to precisely the same extent.
    - Tichy 18y ago
      Google of course already has money in abundance at the moment. It won't last forever, though. I don't see any altruistic actions on the part of Google, would welcome some pointers? I think the founders started some welfare organization with their money, but I mean Google itself. Note: I have nothing against people getting paid for making the world a better place. But payment should be enough, it doesn't have to be a "noble battle" on top of that. Also Google has enough money to pay it's developers enough to make the battle worthwhile, noble cause or not.
  - gojomo 18y ago
    Google looks at the web and tries to make money. A phisher or scammer looks at the web and tries to make money. Does that make them equivalent? You can be motivated by money but still be engaged in a noble pursuit. Newspapers are published by for-profit companies in a constant and noble battle to report the truth, even though many other entities work hard to get falsehoods reported. Pharmaceuticals are developed by for-profit companies in a constant and noble battle against disease. The point of my grandparent comment is that the brainpower Google uses for its core service -- improving search -- is engaged in an honorable, beneficial activity. It's a hard problem, they're working against other profit-motivated malicious actors, and we all get a throwoff benefit from Google's work, even if we never click an ad. That the activity also makes them money, or even was primarily motivated by making money, doesn't change that.
    - Tichy 18y ago
      Your examples only prove the point: newspapers in a noble battle for the truth? Pharmaceutical companies in a noble battle against disease? No offence, but I think you need some reality checks. Not saying that newspapers don't hit upon the truth occasionally, or that pharmaceuticals don't cure the odd disease. But to quote a physician I once talked to: "I wouldn't be surprised if the cure against HIV is already lying in some drawer and not being published, because it has no benefits for the pharmaceutical companies". Or try reading an actual newspaper (not Hacker News) for a couple of days, then reconsider your opinion. It's very obvious that all they care about is making money, and perhaps they get the odd ego boost out of manipulating public opinion to their whims. I didn't mean this as a hardcore left wing or whatever paranoid comment (at least I don't consider myself any of those things). Maybe it is just because I am a foreign speaker that "noble" simply doesn't sound right to me. Noble is more than just beneficial in my book, I guess it also involves making sacrifices and stuff. Again I want to stress that I have nothing whatsoever against people reaping benefits of their work. I just took issue with the label "noble", that's all. Edit: if you could point me to a newspaper that is really fighting a noble battle for the truth, I would be delighted to hear about it. I might actually start reading it.
nkohari 18y ago
Hey, isn't selling ads what Web 2.0 is all about? :)

by LPTS 18y ago

It must be a fine line to walk between finding hyper-intelligent people, meeting their intense need for self actualization, and mostly employing them in the soul numbing work of selling ads.

gojomo 18y ago

This criticism -- that genius is being wasted on "soul numbing" ad work -- strikes me as an inaccurate cheap shot. First, because most of the brain power at Google isn't devoted to the ad systems, but to the services that attract an audience. Don't you think their most "hyper-intelligent people" are engaged in the constant and noble battle to continue improving search, for an ever-changing internet and against the efforts of many unscrupulous manipulators? Second, because even creating better ad systems is a valuable and intellectually challenging activity. Directly, because matching people to info about things they may want is crucial to our economy, and online systems can do it better than ever before. Indirectly, because ad revenues make so much of the rest of the internet possible. Ad work is no more "soul numbing" than any other commercial work to "make something people want".

LPTS 18y ago
I agree it's a bit of a cheap shot. I don't think it's inaccurate. There is no doubt the ad system is valuable. There is no doubt that creating the advertising systems google uses would be an intellectual challenge. But people don't want to see ads. This work is mostly the work of deciding how to best trick people into being distracted by text they don't want to see in the first place. The better the ad people do their jobs, the worse off most people are for it. This is the basis for the work being soul numbing. Conversely, on what basis would working on google's ads be the kind of soul affirming work you look back happily on as you cough up blood while you're dying 50 years from now? Then the googlers can look at all the stuff someone like Ludwig Mies or Steve Reich or Jonathan Ive comes out with. I am sure that google has a huge amount of talent that would be capable of creating at this level (the peak of human potential), and they don't produce much at this level.
- mrtron 18y ago
  I think that we will see excessive commercialization as something evil in 50+ years, along with the whole institution of corporations. So, going on this train of thought, how can you be a slave to any corporation where the huge number of employees are making very few very rich and die happy? On my death bed I will not look back and say 'I am really glad I worked for X and sacrificed time from my friends and family to make the company extra money.' I just want to be proud of my accomplishments and know I worked hard and played hard. Whether or not I got by with ad revenue probably won't factor into it too much for me.
  - gojomo 18y ago
    If you live in a highly-developed country, 'the whole institution of corporations', legal fiction/invention that it is, is probably responsible for most of your modern comforts. The institution of corporations is certainly responsible for the startup opportunities cherished by this community. On your death bed, you might wish somebody had worked harder at their company to cure whatever's killing you.
    - mrtron 18y ago
      I don't think there currently is a better social and economic system than capitalism and corporations. What I was trying to say wasn't really anything more than most people who work for ANY corporation (not just advertising) probably can't reflect and say they lived idealistically in regards to morals. Also I was trying to say exactly that: I want to do all I can regardless of what I am doing or where I am working. Current stress is crushing my writing skills, especially coding.
    - jshen 18y ago
      "On your death bed, you might wish somebody had worked harder at their company to cure whatever's killing you" Or you may wish that you hadn't eaten the nutrionless high calorie corporate created food products that lead to your chronic disease? Or maybe it was the corporate toxic wasted dumped in the river upstream from your small town, while the corporate CEO lived on the other side of the country in a mansion and couldn't care less about the environment in your small town? Don't get me wrong, I agree with you too. But you are only half right.
Tichy 18y ago
"constant and noble battle" Oh come on, give me a break. Google is a commercial company. They are in it for the money, like everybody else.
- pg 18y ago
  Not all companies are in it for the money to precisely the same extent.
  - Tichy 18y ago
    Google of course already has money in abundance at the moment. It won't last forever, though. I don't see any altruistic actions on the part of Google, would welcome some pointers? I think the founders started some welfare organization with their money, but I mean Google itself. Note: I have nothing against people getting paid for making the world a better place. But payment should be enough, it doesn't have to be a "noble battle" on top of that. Also Google has enough money to pay it's developers enough to make the battle worthwhile, noble cause or not.
- gojomo 18y ago
  Google looks at the web and tries to make money. A phisher or scammer looks at the web and tries to make money. Does that make them equivalent? You can be motivated by money but still be engaged in a noble pursuit. Newspapers are published by for-profit companies in a constant and noble battle to report the truth, even though many other entities work hard to get falsehoods reported. Pharmaceuticals are developed by for-profit companies in a constant and noble battle against disease. The point of my grandparent comment is that the brainpower Google uses for its core service -- improving search -- is engaged in an honorable, beneficial activity. It's a hard problem, they're working against other profit-motivated malicious actors, and we all get a throwoff benefit from Google's work, even if we never click an ad. That the activity also makes them money, or even was primarily motivated by making money, doesn't change that.
  - Tichy 18y ago
    Your examples only prove the point: newspapers in a noble battle for the truth? Pharmaceutical companies in a noble battle against disease? No offence, but I think you need some reality checks. Not saying that newspapers don't hit upon the truth occasionally, or that pharmaceuticals don't cure the odd disease. But to quote a physician I once talked to: "I wouldn't be surprised if the cure against HIV is already lying in some drawer and not being published, because it has no benefits for the pharmaceutical companies". Or try reading an actual newspaper (not Hacker News) for a couple of days, then reconsider your opinion. It's very obvious that all they care about is making money, and perhaps they get the odd ego boost out of manipulating public opinion to their whims. I didn't mean this as a hardcore left wing or whatever paranoid comment (at least I don't consider myself any of those things). Maybe it is just because I am a foreign speaker that "noble" simply doesn't sound right to me. Noble is more than just beneficial in my book, I guess it also involves making sacrifices and stuff. Again I want to stress that I have nothing whatsoever against people reaping benefits of their work. I just took issue with the label "noble", that's all. Edit: if you could point me to a newspaper that is really fighting a noble battle for the truth, I would be delighted to hear about it. I might actually start reading it.

nkohari 18y ago

Hey, isn't selling ads what Web 2.0 is all about? :)