110 weeks agoGoogle is Me

I don't track any major blogs or news outlets, so I get it all second-hand. One example of that is this snippet:

Eric Schmidt, Google’s chief executive, said gathering more personal data was a key way for Google to expand and the company believes that is the logical extension of its stated mission to organise the world’s information.

Asked how Google might look in five years’ time, Mr Schmidt said: “We are very early in the total information we have within Google. The algorithms will get better and we will get better at personalisation.

“The goal is to enable Google users to be able to ask the question such as ‘What shall I do tomorrow?’ and ‘What job shall I take?’?”

Somehow everyone is surprised with this, but I'm not. I always imagined that this is the attitude Google will end up having. It's not specific to Google actually, it's an instance of a common kind of delusions of grandeur for big software companies, media outlets etc. Smaller ones attempt to look big by talking that way, one hilarious example is how every other backup company uses some variation of the same motto "Backup your life", "Backup for your life", "We don't backup your data, we backup your life" etc etc.

But back to Google. In fact the first sign of this approach is how GMail marks the sender of emails "me" instead of "you". It's subtle, but having some background in processing semantics of the natural language and psychology I spotted it right away as soon as I logged in for the first time. It's a way to erase the boundary between the person and a machine. I wanted to write up on this a long time ago but I guess today is as good as any time.

I don't think I can explain this properly but I'll give it a try. The boundary at which a person defines himself is variable, it's a matter of perception. The way one feels the car she's driving or how a samurai feels the sword as an extension of his own body are examples of this (you sure can come up with more). A good way to define what people consider to be "themselves" is "what they control". The trivial conclusion is that the perception of "my needs" is variable as well. It is reflected in language as well, for ex. "I need a refill" (in both meanings). The point is that outside and inside requirements are treated differently, so if someone would come up to you and tell you to drink some toxin anyone would decline, but if the same impulse comes from inside it's barely subjected to any question at all.

Propaganda / PR agencies have a long history of using this in their work, but we might start seeing this in software as well. What form could this take is up to your imagination. What I wanted to point out is that Mr. Schmidt visions might actually come true.

PS Sorry if I didn't make any sense. It's way too hard for me to speak coherently on topics like this in English.

Questions?