[bayindirh]

Generally, if you're targeting behavior of the people or the masses, you're targeting a societal problem.

People bullying other people is not a technical problem. People driving dangerously is not a technical problem. People shoplifting is not a technical problem. All of them have different reasons deep down, and preventing the symptom doesn't solve the problem.

When you effectively prevent bullying, the bully might damage something else or may do self-harm to soothe their demons. Same for people driving dangerously or have to shoplift to survive.

When you cure the root problem, which is generally harder BTW, the problem you're technically trying to prevent disappears, too.

Hope this helps.

[senordevnyc]

Not even a little bit. Every example given has immediate first order causes and effects that are both technical and societal. And the second order effects are even more entangled. The example of a societal problem given (online bullying) is itself enabled by technology! And there are online spaces where technology solves it.

We are highly adoptable, highly social creatures whose behavior is greatly impacted by our environment, which includes the people around us, the culture in which we live, and the things that technology enables (or prevents) in that environment.

I just think there’s no bright line at all between societal and technical problems, they’re just labels we apply based on our internal views of how they should be solved.

[bayindirh]

> I just think there’s no bright line at all between societal and technical problems, they’re just labels we apply based on our internal views of how they should be solved.

A great event has happened a couple of days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49045159 (Google may soon restrict on-device ADB).

So, people rushed to propose technical solutions to this. I noted that on-device ADB was the primary vector for sideloading applications and touted as the "ultimate solution" to Google's tightening of Android ecosystem.

Now, the ADB door is closing, yet people are proposing technical solutions, but the problem is not technical in nature. Google's mindset and agenda is restricting Android step by step, and the trend will continue.

At every step, Android power users adapt, will find new technical workarounds and comfort themselves, but the problem is not technical in nature. No technical solution can stop Google from closing this doors because decisions are managerial and rooting from human-nature.

So this is a great example to what I pointed out. Technical solutions can't solve societal problems. The problem is not restricting ADB. The problem is Google's desire to restrict and close-down Android ecosystem. You can't solve it with a patch, but maybe relieve symptoms for a short amount of time.

If one considers this solving, then it's just deluding yourself.

[cwmoore]

Taxing the bots for UBI would help more people than it would harm.

[Marha01]

> People driving dangerously is not a technical problem.

Complete bullshit. This problem can be completely solved by a technical, not societal solution: actually working self-driving cars. Once they are available, all your imperfect societal solutions to the problem are not needed anymore.

[bayindirh]

Yeah, that future is certainly here: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/-FXvRHHjXSU

I don't believe many understands the complexity of a self-driving car. It's not like programming a couple of agents with simulated sensors on a computer.

[Marha01]

That future is not here yet, but my point still stands: once they are sufficiently developed (it's only a matter of time, perhaps 5 years, perhaps 20 years), your societal problem suddenly has a technological solution. QED.

[blanched]

"Sufficiently developed" seems like a cheap proof. There are still many non-technological problems above and below it.

For example, how do you ensure everyone on the road has a self-driving car? We've sufficiently developed electric cars, but they're not nearly the majority.

[bayindirh]

> We've sufficiently developed electric cars, but they're not nearly the majority.

Just to further support your point, sufficiently developed electric cars' batteries still doesn't have the energy density of fossil fuels, so they can't replace any and every use case.

For example, can we carry or generate the energy these cars requires to move unimpeded like ICE vehicles yet? Or, did we improve the procedures and materials so these cars can be extinguished faster, more reliably and securely then their previous generation counterparts? Or did battery recycling methods became cheap and efficient enough yet, so we can reuse these batteries and at least not increase mining on our planet? Etc. Etc.

I'm not against renewables or electric cars, but even in their current form, we need to solve many problems to make them more practical and even less impactful when compared to their ICE counterparts.