Ben Gomes (Google Fellow) posted a video on 28-Nov-2011 entitled: The evolution of search in six minutes. In it Amit Singhal (Google Fellow) describes his ideal Google (from 5:30). He describes a search engine that returns answers to complex questions such as “what is the best time for me to sow seeds in India given that monsoon was early this year.”

Amit doesn’t provide a sample response, but it might be something like:

June-24

Providing the answer to a complex question needs to have the option “Why” or “Proof” or “References”. If the question is misinterpreted, or the analysis is incorrect, or the response is in an unexpected format, Amit may lose a season of crop.

The sample response imparts knowledge, but it does not impart wisdom or understanding. An option to prove the answer, to question why it is so, to help people understand how that response was selected, might impart both wisdom and understanding.

In Google’s philosophy, they state core principles which guide their actions. Core principle 6 highlights: You can make money without doing evil.

• Google money comes from ad hits. So here’s the paradox. Amit wants to sow seeds. He asks Google (1 page hit). Google gives a response without proof. Amit plants and things grow. He trusts Google.
• Next year the monsoon is early. Without understanding, Amit may choose to consult Google again (2 page hits). If he has understanding though he may wisely deduce the knowledge himself, which does not result in a use of Google, or the ads they display.

So is it in Google’s interest to impart knowledge, but NOT impart wisdom. Is that “doing evil”? I think so. It reminded me of the filter bubble.

This paradox only arises as the complexity of the questions increases, and the interpretation and analysis of data and information frays.

And I think it is resolved by Google telling me the simple answer to a complex question, but then allowing me to choose “Why”, or ask for “Proof”. Something like:

June-24 Proof

That would increase knowledge, understanding, wisdom, and user confidence. And it might be “doing good”.