Google CEO: Building for our AI future | Hacker News Reader

Google CEO: Building for our AI future

blog.google

47 pointsyarapavan58 comments

The 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.

Unfortunately 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.

> 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.

He’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.

Google 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.

Google 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

I 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.

> 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?

> 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

That's exactly what the last paragraph does, no?

You're not wrong.

I'm taking issue with the fact that he's presenting Google and its mission as something objective and above reproach. By doing so he's going above and beyond asking people to align themselves with Google's mission and methods and asking them to assent to something that he seems to take for granted as transcendent.

It's religious language and behavior and it creeps me out.

It seems like your take on this statement from Google is highly subjective.

> 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?

I'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.

Reading 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.

It's always "stop bringing politics to work" until it's time to bust unions or tell your employees how to vote

Except 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.

Maybe Sundar just say it plainly. Leave the politics at home and come to work for work.

Original title: Building for our AI future

How is this edited title allowed on HN?

Let dang finish his coffee!

The 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.

I only view the front page of HN.

Sure, and this post was off the front page in minutes (whether due to the editorialized title or due to being a duplicate, we can't know). I.e. it was not actually allowed here, unlike stated in your complaint.

Its simple, you can choose your own title when submitting.

> 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?

Yeah its pretty ironic to say this in the same post where he announces another massive reorganization

Yeah, when the workplace is run like a despotic dictatorship, politics are exactly what the workplace needs.

Stack 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.

They are all dictatorships, meaning that can change by the day.

If 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.

Isn't that a common sense?

After 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).

Ah, yes, the problem is that people are disrupting their coworkers, not that you're enabling and profiteering genocide. Got it.

> 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.

Is the characterization wrong? And if so, in what way?

I'm sure you'll eventually figure it out. Just don't do it at work, at the expense of your colleagues.

No, genuinely help me to see the error.

If my colleagues are enabling bad things, it is not bad to disrupt them.

Don't be evil, instead just turn a blind eye to it.

> "No, genuinely help me to see the error."

I thought Sundar's message was pretty clear. Do you not understand?

He's speaking to a symptom, not the root of the problem. We're all for applying the five whys, except when it will prevent us from profiting.

When a military force puts its assets under civilian infrastructure, that forces your enemy to flirt with near-genocide in order to protect themselves.

There is no good guy nor bad guy in this fight. Only bad guys. Unfortunately innocents get caught up in the crossfire. Welcome to humanity, war is what we do. Stop trying to pick a side and start speaking out against all violence. People might be more willing to hear you out.

Mostly in your abuse of the word genocide. Is it really that hard to disagree with how Israel is conducting the war without using catastrophizing language?

Not me.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147976

the same experts "testified" that Israel bombed a hospital that we now know it didn't. They have less than zero credibility.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/10/gaza-un-expe...

Right? What are people on about?? There are a few buildings still standing. Some kids are still starving, it's not like they were all killed by bombs. Hopefully the final invasion will be successful and resettlement can begin, right? It's important we take the long view and not get bogged down by one hospital or another.

If the population would rather risk starvation and being bombed over returning the hostages and not supporting Hamas, what conclusions can we draw from that? Either, that the population majority supports Hamas, or that they fear Hamas more than they fear getting bombed.

The war would end almost instantly with the return of the hostages and a handful of Hamas leaders.

Hamas was propped up by the Likud government in order to delegitimize the PLO. All of the fishy events of Oct 7th aside, the point is the annexation of Gaza. At this point the people under apartheid have little recourse. All the better for Likud that Likud has funded them. Children did not take hostages. The world is aware of the dehumanization of Palestinian kids by the IDF, etc. Just say you support killing kids in order to annex and settle Gaza.

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2024-04-15/israel...

> "Just say you support killing kids in order to annex and settle Gaza."

Sounds to me like you yourself support the killing of kids (both Israeli and Palestinian), to further the Palestinian cause.

The war could end in an instant if Hamas surrendered and returned all hostages. Not something you would like to see happen though, and not something the protesters ever call for. I wonder why?

Your conspiracy theory makes no sense. If Gaza's motivation is to stop Israel from annexing all their land, why is it not the best move to replace leadership, return the hostages and turn that goodwill into a formally recognized statehood? Instead, they provide no proof of life of the hostages and fire rockets at Israeli civilians, making it all more the likely that the size of the demilitarized zone will continue to increase to appease the safety fears of Israeli citizens.

Much of what I've cited (would you like links?) could be a maximalist position. Oct 7th was fishy, this is reported in Israeli media as well. The point is annexation. It would be built atop the blood of children and some will celebrate this.

My conspiracy theory...? Formally recognized statehood...? What planet are you on?

Something tells me you weren't protesting when innocent Israeli people were being mercilessly slaughtered on October the 7th, but you'll gladly sit there and paint an entire false narrative about a war, based on events that never happened, twitter/reddit memes, and your silly version of reality. A war which many people agree is justified, despite being difficult to conduct (in probably the most difficult conditions and circumstances of any war in modern human history) - but you'll just pretend like those people don't matter, their opinions are worthless, and that you have it all figured out (thanks to TikTok).

Hence it's worth repeating Sundar's message, especially for self-centered phony hypocrites like you: keep your politics at home where they belong. Educate yourself about the world. Accept that things aren't black or white. Other people have opinions, too.

I'm independent so that isn't a problem for me. My response was to this mention of the 'credibility' of experts regarding one hospital. Gaza is obliterated. The repeated and deliberate targeting of World Central Kitchen aid workers may have arisen from very difficult conditions and circumstances indeed. Something tells me you're ready to settle atop that bloody soil. 'Educate yourself about the world' gave me a chuckle. Accept that there is right and wrong.

"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."

I 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.

Why is that too low a bar? That’s the same bar as every other company.

why google ui is so bad? I can't understand everytime i see a google designed page, i hate it.

They design for a billion users. Any design that appeals to 900 million users is not inclusive enough.

And 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”?

Way to bury the lede amongst the C-level bullshit

Reply on news.ycombinator.com