5 ms·
Google CEO: Building for our AI future
- glimshe 3y agoAfter near a decade of policies aligned with a certain side of the political spectrum, Sundar finally realizes that you shouldn't mix politics and business (unless you're in the News business).
- yarapavan 3y ago"But ultimately we are a workplace and our policies and expectations are clear: this is a business, and not a place to act in a way that disrupts coworkers or makes them feel unsafe, to attempt to use the company as a personal platform, or to fight over disruptive issues or debate politics. This is too important a moment as a company for us to be distracted."
- delichon 3y agoI agree with the sentiment but "makes them feel unsafe" is too low of a bar in a world filled with neurosis. An incorrect opinion seems to be a common trigger, and those are a necessary part of growth and exploration.
- bushbaba 3y agoWhy is that too low a bar? That’s the same bar as every other company.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- tanepiper 3y agoWay to bury the lede amongst the C-level bullshit
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- intexpress 3y ago> this is a business, and not a place to act in a way that disrupts coworkers or makes them feel unsafe Maybe stop doing random layoffs then, Sundar?
- readyman 3y agoYeah, when the workplace is run like a despotic dictatorship, politics are exactly what the workplace needs.
- transcriptase 3y agoStack rank every workplace on earth according to the resemblance to a despotic dictatorship. I think you’ll find Google somewhere near the bottom. Let’s keep some perspective here.
- readyman 3y agoThey are all dictatorships, meaning that can change by the day.
- bootsmann 3y agoYeah its pretty ironic to say this in the same post where he announces another massive reorganization
- transcriptase 3y ago[flagged]
- skilled 3y agoThe title was edited from the original submission, but the key part (that reflects the politics statement) is at the very bottom in the "Mission first" section. > One final note: All of the changes referenced above will help us work with greater focus and clarity towards our mission. However, we also need to be more focused in how we work, collaborate, discuss and even disagree. We have a culture of vibrant, open discussion that enables us to create amazing products and turn great ideas into action. That's important to preserve. But ultimately we are a workplace and our policies and expectations are clear: this is a business, and not a place to act in a way that disrupts coworkers or makes them feel unsafe, to attempt to use the company as a personal platform, or to fight over disruptive issues or debate politics. This is too important a moment as a company for us to be distracted.
- EA-3167 3y agoUnfortunately for a generation raised on social media, the idea that a workplace isn't just another "platform" for self-aggrandizing behavior seems entirely alien. Likewise, the idea that debate can occur between people who vehemently disagree, without the ultimate goal of silencing the opposing party seems outside of the imagination of some.
- neximo64 3y agoMaybe Sundar just say it plainly. Leave the politics at home and come to work for work.
- raincole 3y agoOriginal title: Building for our AI future How is this edited title allowed on HN?
- twoodfin 3y agoLet dang finish his coffee!
- Hikikomori 3y agoIts simple, you can choose your own title when submitting.
- jsnell 3y agoThe post isn't in the top 200 entries despite having 22 points in 20 minutes. So it wasn't really "allowed on HN" in any meaningful sense.
- maxehmookau 3y agoGoogle is everything. They own data on every single one of us and every move Google makes has an effect on the way most of us live our lives. The company is inherently political, and there's no way to be a company that big and not be political. Expecting otherwise is wishful thinking from Google leadership. I understand that it's easier when your employees don't talk politics, but is it a reasonable expectation? I don't think so.
- AtlasBarfed 3y agoGoogle and social tech are ticking authoritarian Time bomb. Whatever information Google, Facebook, Apple etc have on you, and the literally thousands and I do mean thousands of associated internet ad companies and specialized databases have on you... The government has on you. Actually multiple governments have on you. 1984 doesn't even begin to detail the fundamental level of information awareness that governments have on their fingertips of their population. The entire infrastructure now exists in government. All it takes is an authoritarian executive to be elected that isn't an incompetent buffoon, Democrat or Republican. So you're correct, it is inherently political. But it's not partisan. Google represents a political battle of fundamental democracy. One that was lost in the privacy battle 10-15 years ago. It is very, very doubtful. The privacy on the internet can be re-established in America considering the appetite of the federal government for total information awareness and the lobbying behemoths that big tech represent
- AbrahamParangi 3y agoI mean, they can simply start firing people who don’t do their job or prevent their colleagues from doing their jobs. It doesn’t seem like wishful thinking to think that that will work.
- AtlasBarfed 3y agoIf one looks at the timing of AI funding and mass implementation by executives It lines up with the covid me too at work as well as wfh rebellion. Fundamentally AI is a weapon being used by the management classes against labor. That should be obvious. But I think there's a fundamentally deeper motivation to roll in it out as quickly as possible with the minor labor rebellion that occurred in the last 5 years.
- Forbo 3y agoAh, yes, the problem is that people are disrupting their coworkers, not that you're enabling and profiteering genocide. Got it.
- csmpltn 3y ago> Ah, yes, the problem is that people are disrupting their coworkers, not that you're enabling and profiteering genocide. Got it. You need to stop seeing the world as either black or white, because it really isn't. Yes, disrupting your coworkers is absolutely a problem. Many of those coworkers disagree with your characterization of the situation, and are afraid to voice their opinions so as to not stir a mess.
- Forbo 3y agoIs the characterization wrong? And if so, in what way?
- swader999 3y agoExcept that google has carried a lot of water for political purposes, they've put themselves into the town square and censored speech. They have promoted narratives and trashed others. But now it's not ok to bring politics to work? That's breathtaking.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- h1fra 3y agoIt's always "stop bringing politics to work" until it's time to bust unions or tell your employees how to vote
- farleykr 3y ago> We have a duty to be an objective and trusted provider of information that serves all of our users globally. When we come to work, our goal is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful. That supersedes everything else and I expect us to act with a focus that reflects that. Sometimes I really wonder if there is a total lack of self awareness or if these things are phrased in obligatory ways because of legal concerns. Maybe the nature of working for a company is that you need to align yourself with the company's mission and methods. But I can't see how objectivity is really in play here. Surely Sundar Pichal can see that he's just putting his own truth claims over those of the employees? Why not just say that Google has a certain mission and methods and that if you're going to work at Google you need to get on board instead of phrasing in a way that makes it seem like Google is completely neutral or above reproach as an entity because of their alleged stature as objective and trusted?
- tonypags 3y ago> the nature of working for a company is that you need to align yourself with the company's mission and methods This is correct for any business. If you ran a business, would you tolerate any employee who attempts to subvert your products and revenue?
- farleykr 3y agoI'm not taking issue with him expecting employees to get in line with the mission and methods. I'm saying he should be more frank and transparent about the fact that this is what he's doing instead of acting like Google as an entity is objective and impartial.
- tonypags 3y agoReading into these statements is a mistake. It's full of soft language, which in context can be twisted to fit anyone's perception. I'm not defending Google; I am defending the termination of employees that have obviously prioritized the wrong things in their careers, or did not have the mentorship available to guide them to better ways of expressing themselves other than corporate sabotage. Also you're adding that word impartial as if they used it, but they didn't. Impartiality infers some personal lack of favoritism. A private company can obviously play favorites with whatever they think will make them more money as part of their mission. Politics do not belong in the work place or at the dinner table. They belong in your head and to be cast on your annual voter ballot, and if you feel like expressing yourself: penned in letters/tweeted to your various representatives, and nowhere else. I don't mind it being on socials as long as there's a way to filter it out of my feed. People used to say it a lot: never talk about politics or religion unless you want to make enemies out of your friends/family. It's still good advice, even if no one is listening. Be the change you want to see in the world (Nelson Mandela). If you want to be objective, start from there, don't start in your boss' boss' boss' boss' office.
- mc32 3y agoHe’s right, but at the same time he’s reaping what they sowed. They mistakenly encouraged this attitude of the company is your family and you can bring and express your peccadillos at work, mistakenly believing this would encourage innovation. There is a kind of freedom of thought that’s necessary at work. Challenging assumptions, superiors, accepted doctrine, etc., but that should not imply you can bring your dirty laundry of personal politics in to the workplace. It’s disruptive and if you let everyone do it, it’s going to distract from company mission.
- feverzsj 3y agoIsn't that a common sense?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- throwaway21634 3y ago> this is a business, and not a place to act in a way that disrupts coworkers or makes them feel unsafe, to attempt to use the company as a personal platform, or to fight over disruptive issues or debate politics. I have no doubt that if this protest is staged for some LGBTQ2S+/trans woman/PoC/BLM/racial issues - the line/paragraph above would not be included.
- pikseladam 3y agowhy google ui is so bad? I can't understand everytime i see a google designed page, i hate it.
- josemanuel 3y agoAnd yet they spent millions on UI/UX and probably think they have it all figured out on that area.. weren’t they the originators of UX as a “field”?
- returnInfinity 3y agoThey design for a billion users. Any design that appeals to 900 million users is not inclusive enough.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]