Corner Office: Sundar Pichai of Google: ‘Technology Doesn’t Solve Humanity’s Problems’

Growing up in India, he slept on the floor of a house without a refrigerator. Today, the chief executive is steering Google through the most turbulent period in its history.

Yet the man responsible for leading Google through this minefield is not one of the company’s founders — Larry Page and Sergey Brin — or even Eric Schmidt, the company’s former chief executive and chairman, who was ushered aside last year. Instead, the man in charge of arguably the most influential company in the world is Sundar Pichai, a soft-spoken engineer who grew up in Chennai, India.

Mr. Pichai was a voracious reader as a boy, and attended the prestigious Indian Institute of Technology, then Stanford and the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, where he received advanced degrees. After stints at Applied Materials and McKinsey, he joined Google in 2004.

Mr. Pichai helped develop the company’s browser, Chrome, and in 2014 he took over product, engineering and research efforts for the company’s products and platforms, including search, ads and Android. He was made chief executive in 2015, and joined the board of Alphabet, Google’s parent, last year.

This interview, which was condensed and edited for clarity, was conducted in New York.

There was a simplicity to my life, which was very nice compared with today’s world. We lived in a kind of modest house, shared with tenants. We would sleep on the living room floor. There was a drought when I was growing up, and we had anxiety. Even now, I can never sleep without a bottle of water beside my bed. Other houses had refrigerators, and then we finally got one. It was a big deal.

But I had a lot of time to read. I was processing a lot. I read whatever I could get my hands on. I read Dickens. Friends, playing street cricket, reading books — that was kind of the totality of life. But you never felt lacking for anything.

It was the first time I had ever been on a plane. I always wanted to be in the Valley. I kind of knew that’s where everything happened. I remember landing in California, and I stayed with a host family for about a week. I was in the car going from the airport, and was like, “Wow, it’s so brown here.” The family was like, “We like to call it golden.”

When I was back at I.I.T., I had access to the computer so rarely — maybe I’d been on it three or four times. To come and just have these labs in which you had access to computers and you could program, it was a big deal to me. I was so wrapped up in that, that to some extent I didn’t understand there was a much bigger shift happening with the internet.

When I first joined Google I was struck by the fact that it was a very idealistic, optimistic place. I still see that idealism and optimism a lot in many things we do today. But the world is different. Maybe there’s more realism of how hard some things are. We’ve had more failures, too. But there’s always been a strong streak of idealism in the company, and you still see it today.

When I come home on a Friday evening, I really do want to let go of my devices for a couple days. I haven’t quite succeeded in doing that. At home, our television is not easily accessible, so that there is “activation energy” before you can easily go watch TV. I’m genuinely conflicted, because I see what my kids learn from all this. My son is 11 years old, and he is mining Ethereum and earning money. He’s getting some insight into how the world works, how commerce works.

Every generation is worried about the new technology, and feels like this time it’s different. Our parents worried about Elvis Presley’s influence on kids. So, I’m always asking the question, “Why would it be any different this time?” Having said that, I do realize the change that’s happening now is much faster than ever before. My son still doesn’t have a phone.

There are areas where society clearly agrees what is O.K. and not O.K., and then there are areas where it is hard as a society to draw the line. What is the difference between freedom of speech on something where you feel you’re being discriminated against by another group, versus hate speech? The U.S. and Europe draw the line differently on this question in a very fundamental way. We’ve had to defend videos which we allow in the U.S. but in Europe people view as disseminating hate speech.

Should people be able to say that they don’t believe climate change is real? Or that vaccines don’t work? It’s just a genuinely hard problem. We’re all using human reviewers, but human reviewers make mistakes, too.

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.

There’s a lot of challenges in the world, and given what Google does, we feel like we are on the cutting edge of many of these issues. But when people say, “Wow, there’s a lot of challenges,” I always say, “There’s no better time to be alive.” I go through the exercise of placing myself at different times in the world. If you were alive during World War I, or influenza, or the Great Depression, and there’s World War II to come. If you were in the 1960s, and Martin Luther King was shot dead, and R.F.K. would later get shot dead, and we were in Vietnam and there was a Cold War and a Cuban missile crisis — there is no better time to be alive.

But having said that, I think as humanity we’re increasingly dealing with bigger things. As a company like Google, we have a deeper mission, and we feel the weight of that on our shoulders. I feel like people are energized and people want to change and make the world better.

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.

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 naïve 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.

Catch up and prep for the week ahead with this newsletter of the most important business insights, delivered Sundays.

Please verify you’re not a robot by clicking the box.

 

November 08, 2018

Sources: New York Times

Related news

  • F.T.C. Is Said to Be Considering Large Facebook Fines

    F.T.C. Is Said to Be Considering Large Facebook Fines

    ced stages of its investigation into whether Facebook violated privacy rules and is expected to seek large fines from the company, according to two people familiar with the inquiry.</p><p>The five members of the commission met in mid-December to discuss the investigation, according to the people, who would speak only on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is not public. The meeting is a sign that the investigation is far along, the people said, because the commissioners rarely meet in the early stages of an inquiry.</p><p>The investigation, which began in late March, is continuing, and the commissioners and staff have not reached a final conclusion, including how much the agency might seek in fines, the people said. Consumer-protection and enforcement staff members have provided updates on what they believe is evidence of privacy violations, but they have not submitted a final report.</p><p>The commissioners would vote on any recommendations from the staff, including whether to pursue fines or other penalties. They do not always approve staff recommendations.</p><p>The highest financial penalty imposed on a tech company was Google’s $22 million settlement in 2012 for privacy violations. In the December meeting, the commissioners discussed a higher fine for Facebook, the people said.</p><p>The Federal Trade Commission declined to comment. Facebook, which has repeatedly defended its actions, also declined to comment.</p><p>The investigation is seen as a litmus test of the government’s ability to protect consumers in the digital age. All five commissioners have testified to Congress that they need more resources to go up against big corporations in enforcement actions. Their agency does not have the authority to create privacy rules, but it can police businesses through a broad mandate to protect consumers from deceptive and unfair practices.</p><p>The investigation into Facebook began with revelations by The New York Times that a British political consulting firm, Cambridge Analytica, had obtained data from tens of millions of Facebook users without permission. The report ignited calls for investigations by global regulators and the summoning of Facebook’s chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, to testify before Congress last April.</p><p>A consent decree from 2011 requires Facebook to seek permission from users of plans to share their data with third parties. The trade commission also requires Facebook to notify it when third parties misuse user data.</p><p>Over the past nine months, enforcement and consumer-protection officials have looked into a series of additional reports by The Times and other publications that raised questions about whether Facebook’s use of data violated its consent decree, according to former officials. The expanded investigation included Facebook’s partnerships with hardware and other tech giants like Netflix and Amazon that gave other companies access to Facebook user data without explicit permission.</p><p>Facebook has said Cambridge Analytica told it that the firm had deleted the data. The social network has hired scores of lawyers and privacy experts to handle the commission’s investigation, and Facebook’s top privacy officials and lawyers are in regular conversation with officials leading the investigation.</p><p>For 17 months of the Trump administration, the Federal Trade Commission was run by two commissioners. In May, the new slate of commissioners arrived, all appointed by President Trump. Three members are typically from the president’s party, and two from the other party.</p><p>The agency’s chairman, Joseph J. Simons, an antitrust lawyer, has declined to comment about the investigation. He has sent strict orders throughout the agency against leaking information about the inquiry to reporters.</p><p>One of the people familiar with the investigation said the meeting last month, though unusual, had been called partly because three of the commissioners were new, and because the case warranted an update from enforcement and consumer-protection staff.</p><p>The people said the investigation had been slowed by the government shutdown, now in its fifth week. The hallways at the agency are empty, and just the five commissioners and a smattering of other employees have arrived for work during the shutdown.</p><p>Mike Isaac contributed reporting from San Francisco.</p>

    1 January 19, 2019
  • Bits: The Week in Tech: How Google and Facebook Spawned Surveillance Capitalism

    Bits: The Week in Tech: How Google and Facebook Spawned Surveillance Capitalism

    rter. And I’m writing to you from wintry New York City as the government shutdown increases financial pressure on federal workers and the tech elites jet off to Davos, Switzerland, to hobnob at the World Economic Forum.</p><p>Published on Tuesday, the book argues that digital services developed by the likes of Google and Facebook should not be viewed as the latest iteration of industrialization. Instead, Dr. Zuboff writes, they represent a new and problematic market form that trades in predicting and influencing human behavior.</p><p>“Surveillance capitalism has taken human experience, specifically private human experience, and unilaterally claimed it as something to be bought and sold in the marketplace,” Dr. Zuboff told me during a visit to The Times’s office. “This new kind of marketplace trades in behavioral futures. It’s like a form of derivative. But it’s about us.”</p><p>Yet most of us are not aware that platforms like Google and Facebook may track and analyze our every search, location, like, video, photo, post and punctuation mark the better to try to sway us, she said.</p><p>The technologies that power the behavior speculation market, of course, have spread far beyond online ads.</p><p>The flash-trading in human behavioral data was not inevitable.</p><p>In her book, Dr. Zuboff describes how Google, in its early days, used the keywords that people typed in to improve its search engine even as it paid scant attention to the collateral data — like users’ keyword phrasing, click patterns and spellings — that came with it. Pretty soon, however, Google began harvesting this surplus information, along with other details like users’ web-browsing activities, to infer their interests and target them with ads.</p><p>“We saw these digital services were free, and we thought, you know, ‘We’re making a reasonable trade-off with giving them valuable data,’” Dr. Zuboff told me. “But now that’s reversed. They’ve decided that we’re free, that they can take our experience for free and translate it into behavioral data. And so we are just the source of raw material.”</p><p>Of course, tech companies tend to bristle at the word “surveillance.” They associate it with government spying on individuals — not with their own snooping on users and trying to sway them at scale.</p>

    1 January 18, 2019
  • Twitter 'very sorry' for security flaw that made private tweets public

    Twitter 'very sorry' for security flaw that made private tweets public

    ritten, or redistributed. ©2019 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved. All market data delayed 20 minutes. </p><p>The glitch, which was fixed earlier this week, existed for more than four years, according to the tech giant.</p><p>In its statement, Twitter did not say how many users were affected by the security glitch.</p><p>&#x201C;We recognize and appreciate the trust you place in us, and are committed to earning that trust every day,&#x201D; it added. &#x201C;We&#x2019;re very sorry this happened and we&#x2019;re conducting a full review to help prevent this from happening again.&#x201D;</p><p>Users of Twitter on Apple&#x2019;s iOS operating system or the web were not impacted by the bug, according to Twitter. The company says that the issue was fixed on Jan. 14. &#x201C;We&apos;ll provide updates if other important information becomes available,&#x201D; it added.</p><p>&#x201C;We&apos;ve informed people we know were affected by this issue and have turned &quot;Protect your Tweets&quot; back on for them if it was disabled,&#x201D; Twitter said, in its statement. &#x201C;We are providing this broader notice through the Twitter Help Center since we can&#x2019;t confirm every account that may have been impacted. We encourage you to review your privacy settings to ensure that your &#x2018;Protect your Tweets&#x2019; setting reflects your preferences.&#xA0;&#x201C;</p><p>Fox News has reached out to Twitter with a request for additional information on the security glitch.</p><p>This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ©2018 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved. All market data delayed 20 minutes.</p>

    1 January 18, 2019
  • Work Friend: If You Don’t Think Your Office Is a War Zone You Are Fooling Yourself

    Work Friend: If You Don’t Think Your Office Is a War Zone You Are Fooling Yourself

    hey act accordingly.</p><p>Sometimes when men say that women “scare” someone in the office, they actually mean “respect.” Your credentials or performance may intimidate your colleagues. That is fine. Most men spend their lives trying to make that happen!</p><p>Oh, I actually think you have already figured this out. Offices run on you — offices are you. The super-competent who can see more than four hours ahead, while the people “in charge” blunder from endless meeting to endless meeting, making plans that’ll get whiteboarded away next week. We don’t value this kind of work most of the time (though I can think of a couple exceptions).</p><p>You could rebrand yourself and look for new work accordingly. You are a chief of staff. You are a senior project manager. You are a chief of operations. This has the advantage of bringing your level of caring into a more correct level of authority, salary and respect.</p><p>You could also stop caring and devote your apparently fearsome energies into a project worthy of your time — a local literacy project, a food bank, a refugee settlement group. Then you could clock out of your job at 5 and get your satisfaction elsewhere. I can imagine that would lead to a rewarding career transition for you, too. What if your passion and your abilities were joined in the same enterprise! You’d be unstoppable and happy at the same time.</p><p>Your intention to not sleep with your co-workers is appreciated. (From 10 weeks of monitoring the workfriend@nytimes.com inbox, I know that all of you are sleeping with each other, and I promise it will only end in tears and/or children — equally terrible fates.)</p><p>This is, secretly, a hard question, because the dating apps are a desert of emotional sustenance. They are only effective like Bitcoin mining is effective. You have to put in the hours and the electricity. You have to grind through the leveling-up of bad dates and endless swiping to actually have intercourse. (To be fair, it was much worse in the olden days, let me tell you! You would meet some seemingly wonderful guy and there was no open-source spreadsheet on the internet to tell you that said man was in fact a bad man.)</p><p>Your other options include: trivia nights, live music shows in small venues and, I dunno, the gym? (Do straight people actually ever hook up at the gym? Seems unlikely.) Get back on that Hinge, I guess. Only 418 more swiping hours until you identify someone you might feel some connection with. Your question has given me a little more empathy for all the office-sex emails.</p><p>Fun! You have a juncture here in which you can change or ruin or derail or improve a life. I (like most people) often balk at taking action in these moments, feeling my hand on the crossroads of someone’s path, to mangle a small group of metaphors.</p><p>If you intervene, you’d want to have a conversation like:</p><p>What qualities are common in the people who are succeeding on management’s terms?</p><p>What are they telling you in your reviews about ways you should improve or change?</p><p>But even if you do all that work, it probably won’t matter. People hire and promote people they want to spend time with. This is true no matter how high-minded they are about opportunity and fairness. People hire and promote people who solve a problem for them. And that problem can take a lot of forms, but the one thing people don’t do is promote people who are making problems. People are animals.</p><p>So, instead, you should make a plan together to go start your own firm where no one is going to police you for your atypicality. It’s not that hard! Go find someone psychotically outgoing to sell your services, and y’all can happily sit in your nerd cave all day working up some hot spreadsheets. Any idiot can start a business. It’s not really any worse than going to someone else’s office every day. At least you nerds know what you’re getting into with each other. </p>

    1 January 18, 2019
  • AT&T to Advertise on YouTube Again After a Nearly 2-Year Holdout

    AT&T to Advertise on YouTube Again After a Nearly 2-Year Holdout

    ts advertising dollars from YouTube in 2017 because the brand was appearing alongside offensive videos. But on Friday, after a nearly two-year holdout, the company said it had been persuaded to resume advertising on the video platform.</p><p>“The testing took time, and we needed to be 100 percent confident throughout our organization that it met the standards that we were aiming for,” Fiona Carter, AT&amp;T’s chief brand officer, said in an interview. “We want a near-zero chance of our advertising appearing next to objectionable content, and that’s a high standard.”</p><p>The advertiser exodus brought a focus to the potential risks of digital ads, which often follow individuals on whatever content they are viewing. Questions were raised about what that meant for advertisers, which could inadvertently end up funding disturbing material and be associated with such content by viewers.</p><p>“We care deeply about where we appear and whether it reflects our values and whether it breaks that trust with our consumers,” Ms. Carter said. “It was a moment to remind us that marketers must have their hands on the wheel at all times of their brands’ destiny.”</p><p>Testing that AT&amp;T conducted after the problem arose showed that it was widespread. Ms. Carter gave credit to Google’s and YouTube’s leaders, who “leaned into the issue when they realized from the evidence we produced that perhaps it was a broader issue than they were aware of.”</p><p>Marketers and their agencies have also learned more about the types of content that they may want to avoid. For example, Ms. Carter said, AT&amp;T looks to avoid gaming videos, where the chances of unsavory chatter and behavior may increase.</p><p>“Having to have more subscribers and more viewing hours has really helped with eliminating fringe content that we might not want to advertise against,” Ms. Carter said.</p><p>In AT&amp;T’s latest test of YouTube’s Brand Suitability System, which avoids categories like violence, extremist and hate speech, and adult content, almost zero ads ran alongside offensive content.</p><p>Procter &amp; Gamble spent $2.8 billion on ads in 2017, according to data from Kantar Media. AT&amp;T, the second-biggest advertiser in the United States, spent $2.4 billion in the same period.</p><p>“Over the past year, we’ve worked hard to address concerns raised by our customers,” Debbie Weinstein, vice president of YouTube Video Global Solutions, said in a statement. “We’re committed to retaining their trust in YouTube, and ensuring they can realize the unique value of our platform.”</p><p>“Technological advancements mean you have to be on your game and you have to be constantly vigilant in this area,” Ms. Carter said.</p>

    1 January 18, 2019
  •  Students in Germany, Switzerland protest climate change

    Students in Germany, Switzerland protest climate change

    ay were inspired by a Swedish student's weekly "school strike."</p><p> In Berlin, protesters focused on an upcoming political decision on when to end the use of coal in the country.</p><p> Germany still relies heavily on lignite coal, a fossil fuel which produces large amounts of greenhouse gases that heat the atmosphere.</p><p> An expert panel is expected to publish non-binding recommendations later this month for how Germany can achieve the transition from coal to renewable energy in the coming decades.</p>

    1 January 18, 2019
  •  Oxford suspends research funding from China's Huawei

    Oxford suspends research funding from China's Huawei

    and funding donations from Huawei amid growing security concerns about the Chinese telecom giant.</p><p> It's another setback for Huawei's image in Europe, an important market for the company, which has been effectively blocked in the U.S.</p><p> The university said in a statement Thursday that Oxford "will not pursue new funding opportunities" with Huawei or related companies, though two existing research projects will continue.</p><p> The decision was made "in the light of public concerns raised in recent months" surrounding the company's U.K. partnerships.</p><p> Britain's defense secretary and its intelligence chief both voiced concerns last month about Huawei's involvement in the country's rollout of 5G networks.</p><p> Huawei said it was "not informed of this decision" and awaits the university's full explanation.</p>

    1 January 18, 2019
  •  Students in Germany, Switzerland protest climate change

    Students in Germany, Switzerland protest climate change

    ay were inspired by a Swedish student's weekly "school strike."</p><p> In Berlin, protesters focused on an upcoming political decision on when to end the use of coal in the country.</p><p> Germany still relies heavily on lignite coal, a fossil fuel which produces large amounts of greenhouse gases that heat the atmosphere.</p><p> An expert panel is expected to publish non-binding recommendations later this month for how Germany can achieve the transition from coal to renewable energy in the coming decades.</p>

    1 January 18, 2019
  • Pornhub reports jump in viewership amid partial government shutdown

    Pornhub reports jump in viewership amid partial government shutdown

    ritten, or redistributed. ©2019 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved. All market data delayed 20 minutes. </p><p>The porn-viewing site&apos;s traffic &#x2014; pre-shutdown &#x2014; was usually at its peak from 10 p.m. to midnight. But, post-shutdown, &quot;late-night traffic increased by up to 14% above average, while early morning traffic from 9am to 10am had the smallest change.&quot;</p><p>In Washington D.C. alone, Pornhub claims its hourly traffic has increased an average of 6.32 percent, with female traffic, in particular, increasing 12.3 percent above average.</p><p>Both Democrats and Republicans are at a standstill as President Donald Trump continues to demand $5.7 billion for a border wall, a request that some Democrats have described as immoral.</p><p>This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ©2018 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved. All market data delayed 20 minutes.</p>

    1 January 18, 2019
  • Facebook employees caught posting 5-star Portal reviews on Amazon

    Facebook employees caught posting 5-star Portal reviews on Amazon

    ritten, or redistributed. ©2019 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved. All market data delayed 20 minutes. </p><p>An Amazon user named Tim Chappell said in his review that he paid $1,150 to buy four Portals and one Portal Plus &#x201C;on a chance&#x201D; right before Thanksgiving &#x2014; although he isn&#x2019;t a big Facebook user.</p><p>&#x201C;I would recommend this product to anyone who has a family or friends that they enjoy staying in contact with,&#x201D; Chappell wrote. &#x201C;So much better than just a plain phone call.&#x201D;</p><p>VP AR/VR at Facebook Andrew Bosworth tweeted Thursday that Facebook told its employees that &#x201C;we, unequivocally, DO NOT want Facebook employees to engage in leaving reviews for the products that we sell to Amazon.&#x201D;</p><p>Lara Sasken Lindenbaum, a&#xA0;Facebook spokeswoman, told Fox News via email Thursday night: &#x201C;All employees have removed their Amazon reviews as we asked them to.&#x201D;</p><p>This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ©2018 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved. All market data delayed 20 minutes.</p>

    1 January 18, 2019

Comments