He didn't school anybody, he apparently doesn't appreciate real technology development, which he should because the DoD is the largest single purchaser of it.
if all I was doing was making a widget or producing an app, and I didn’t have to worry about whether poor people could afford the widget, or I didn’t have to worry about whether the app had some unintended consequences
Yet again we see the results of people outside of tech focusing on these technologies that get headlines.
Quality Tech does deal in affordability, fail safes, and unintended consequences. Tesla specifically took this approach, as does Apple, palantir etc... not to mention myriad companies focusing on verticals across income and accessibility levels.
I think this statement, especially in light of the recent document published by the govt on artificial intelligence, is likely political more than indighting tech for being myopic.
He's not indicting tech, he's indicting people who think political problems have technological solutions. People who think running the government is like running a business and that the same skill sets apply. The President is not a CEO.
The problem with SV is that techno-libertarians are constantly imagining the government could be run as an spontaneous order of anarcho-capitalist service providers, as if the key to solving education, or healthcare was "disruption" with some applied science.
And it's interesting that you say he should appreciate the DoD being a large purchaser of "real technology development", because that seems to ignore the fact that SV history is built on publicly funded universities (the UC system) and government funded research. Part of the mythos of today's young tech bros is that SV is an example of pure capitalism working, ignoring the entire history of government subsidy of SV.
SV has done a great many amazing things, but it needs some humility, and tech bros need to stop thinking they can solve all of humanity's great problems by software.
> Quality Tech does deal in affordability, fail safes, and unintended consequences
Only to the extent that these things are profitable. Tech companies, like all companies, exist to make money for their shareholders. All other concerns are strictly pursuant to that. At least, as a shareholder, I sure as hell hope they are.
Let's not pretend like the scope of a CEO's job is even remotely approaching that of the President's. That would be absurd.
For one thing, that's not what he said. That's not even a paraphrase of what he said.
Also, (aside from his non-governmental community organizing activities), he was a partner in a DC law firm for 3 years, and served on various foundation boards after that. So it's not like he's Elon Musk -- but it's safe to say he probably has more "business" experience than your average (which is to day: heads-down, "monitor tan") techie.
And it's fairly safe to say - orders of magnitude more money-managing experience.
> But there’s lots of collateral damage inherent in the free market — in “blowing up the system,” as Silicon Valley entrepreneurs like to say. Such explosions are great for the bomb manufacturers, but not so much for innocent bystanders.
This seems to be the overlooked point here. In business, it can be profitable to disrupt and go after sweeping changes. In government, you can hurt real people in large numbers by doing so.
Also, the article isn't implying that companies can't or won't do good. Companies can certainly work well across income ranges. The point is, that's still a different goal than working well across all income ranges.
[+] [-] AndrewKemendo|9 years ago|reply
if all I was doing was making a widget or producing an app, and I didn’t have to worry about whether poor people could afford the widget, or I didn’t have to worry about whether the app had some unintended consequences
Yet again we see the results of people outside of tech focusing on these technologies that get headlines.
Quality Tech does deal in affordability, fail safes, and unintended consequences. Tesla specifically took this approach, as does Apple, palantir etc... not to mention myriad companies focusing on verticals across income and accessibility levels.
I think this statement, especially in light of the recent document published by the govt on artificial intelligence, is likely political more than indighting tech for being myopic.
[+] [-] cromwellian|9 years ago|reply
The problem with SV is that techno-libertarians are constantly imagining the government could be run as an spontaneous order of anarcho-capitalist service providers, as if the key to solving education, or healthcare was "disruption" with some applied science.
And it's interesting that you say he should appreciate the DoD being a large purchaser of "real technology development", because that seems to ignore the fact that SV history is built on publicly funded universities (the UC system) and government funded research. Part of the mythos of today's young tech bros is that SV is an example of pure capitalism working, ignoring the entire history of government subsidy of SV.
SV has done a great many amazing things, but it needs some humility, and tech bros need to stop thinking they can solve all of humanity's great problems by software.
[+] [-] zaccus|9 years ago|reply
Only to the extent that these things are profitable. Tech companies, like all companies, exist to make money for their shareholders. All other concerns are strictly pursuant to that. At least, as a shareholder, I sure as hell hope they are.
Let's not pretend like the scope of a CEO's job is even remotely approaching that of the President's. That would be absurd.
[+] [-] mslkmdf|9 years ago|reply
Wait, the two companies with some of the most expensive products in their industry took the affordability approach?
> palantir etc...
Palantir has consumer products?
[+] [-] spaceflunky|9 years ago|reply
-Said by the guy who doesn't understand business because he's only been in government.
[+] [-] kafkaesq|9 years ago|reply
Also, (aside from his non-governmental community organizing activities), he was a partner in a DC law firm for 3 years, and served on various foundation boards after that. So it's not like he's Elon Musk -- but it's safe to say he probably has more "business" experience than your average (which is to day: heads-down, "monitor tan") techie.
And it's fairly safe to say - orders of magnitude more money-managing experience.
[+] [-] zomg|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] joeyespo|9 years ago|reply
This seems to be the overlooked point here. In business, it can be profitable to disrupt and go after sweeping changes. In government, you can hurt real people in large numbers by doing so.
Also, the article isn't implying that companies can't or won't do good. Companies can certainly work well across income ranges. The point is, that's still a different goal than working well across all income ranges.