亚洲欧美中文日韩在线v日本,亚洲精品永久在线观看,亚洲av日韩av永久无码色欲,亚洲成a人片777777,亚洲人成网站在线播放942

選擇法大商學(xué)院MBA

做穩(wěn)健遠(yuǎn)行的企業(yè)家

The delusions of techno-futurists who ask: crisis, what crisis?

技術(shù)未來(lái)主義者的烏托邦錯(cuò)覺(jué)

桑希爾：“AI+全民基本收入=烏托邦”把問(wèn)題簡(jiǎn)單化了，技術(shù)專(zhuān)家應(yīng)該設(shè)法尋找讓AI幫助人類(lèi)發(fā)揮創(chuàng)造力的方法。

The Covid-19 pandemic may have killed 2.7m people and resulted in the worst economic contraction in a generation. But the optimism of the West Coast tech elite remains undimmed. “The future can be almost unimaginably great,” as Sam Altman, who heads an artificial intelligence research company, wrote in a recent essay, Moore’s Law for Everything.

新型冠狀病毒肺炎（COVID-19，即2019冠狀病毒?。┮咔榭赡芤呀?jīng)導(dǎo)致270萬(wàn)人死亡，并造成了一個(gè)世代以來(lái)最嚴(yán)重的經(jīng)濟(jì)萎縮。但是美國(guó)西海岸科技精英的樂(lè)觀情緒仍然不減。“未來(lái)可能會(huì)美好得難以想象?！币患胰斯ぶ悄?AI)研究公司的主管薩姆?奧爾特曼(Sam Altman)在最近的文章《萬(wàn)物皆適用摩爾定律》(Moore's Law for Everything)中如此寫(xiě)道。

Like many tech evangelists, Altman argues that we are on the brink of an AI-induced productivity explosion that will shower abundance on all. The entry of millions of Chinese workers into the global labour force over the past three decades will be seen as nothing compared with the arrival of tireless AI “workers” that will radically cut the cost of all tradable goods. When robots start inventing better robots, we will achieve “Moore’s Law for everything”, not just computing power.

像許多“科技布道者”(tech evangelist)一樣，奧爾特曼認(rèn)為，AI即將帶來(lái)一場(chǎng)生產(chǎn)力大爆炸，這場(chǎng)爆炸將讓所有物資極大豐富。過(guò)去三十年，數(shù)以百萬(wàn)計(jì)的中國(guó)工人進(jìn)入全球勞動(dòng)力市場(chǎng)，但這與不知疲倦的AI“工人”的到來(lái)相比簡(jiǎn)直微不足道，后者將會(huì)大幅削減所有可交易商品的成本。當(dāng)機(jī)器人開(kāi)始發(fā)明更好的機(jī)器人時(shí)，摩爾定律將適用于萬(wàn)物，而不僅僅是計(jì)算能力。

“Imagine a world where, for decades, everything — housing, education, food, clothing, etc — became half as expensive every two years,” he enthused.

他充滿激情地寫(xiě)道：“想象這樣一個(gè)世界：在幾十年內(nèi)，所有東西——住房、教育、食物、衣服等等——每?jī)赡陜r(jià)格就減一半?！?/p>

Altman admits that many readers may think his arguments utopian. Others will dismiss them as those of a techno-crank. But it is hard to deny that Altman has an interesting vantage point from which to peer into how the future may unfold.

奧爾特曼承認(rèn)，許多讀者也許認(rèn)為他的觀點(diǎn)很烏托邦。其他人可能認(rèn)為這只不過(guò)是一個(gè)科學(xué)怪人的想法。但很難否認(rèn)，奧爾特曼占據(jù)著一個(gè)有趣的位置，讓他能更好地窺見(jiàn)未來(lái)可能的走向。

For many years, Altman helped run Y Combinator, the start-up accelerator that backed many of Silicon Valley’s smartest businesses, and he is now chief executive of Open AI, the research company that has developed the spookily convincing GPT-3 language generation model.

多年來(lái)，奧爾特曼幫助經(jīng)營(yíng)Y Combinator——一家創(chuàng)業(yè)加速器，支持了許多硅谷最有想法的企業(yè)；現(xiàn)在，他是Open AI的首席執(zhí)行官，這是一家研究公司，研發(fā)了GPT-3語(yǔ)言生成模型——這是個(gè)強(qiáng)大得令人毛骨悚然的模型，其生成的文本幾可亂真。

More unusually among the Silicon Valley crowd, Altman has long expressed a deep concern about the flip side of technological creation: societal disruption. As he sees it, the AI revolution will further shift the balance of power from labour to capital, resulting in the concentration of phenomenal wealth among the machine owners. Good societal outcomes will only result if there is a radical change in public policy and a massive redistribution of wealth. He has himself sponsored an experiment with universal basic income in Oakland and proposes the creation of an American Equity Fund to give everyone a share of future technological riches.

奧爾特曼長(zhǎng)期表現(xiàn)出對(duì)技術(shù)成果的負(fù)面影響——擾亂社會(huì)——的深切擔(dān)憂，這種態(tài)度在硅谷人當(dāng)中較為不尋常。他認(rèn)為，AI變革將進(jìn)一步讓權(quán)力的天平從勞動(dòng)者向資本傾斜，導(dǎo)致巨量財(cái)富集中到機(jī)器擁有者手中。只有在徹底變革公共政策、大規(guī)模重新分配財(cái)富的情況下，AI才會(huì)帶來(lái)好的社會(huì)結(jié)果。在奧克蘭，他自己資助了一項(xiàng)全民基本收入(UBI)實(shí)驗(yàn)；他還倡議建立美國(guó)平等基金(American Equity Fund)，讓每個(gè)人都能享有一份未來(lái)技術(shù)創(chuàng)造的財(cái)富。

“A great future isn’t complicated: we need technology to create it and policy to fairly distribute it,” he wrote.

他寫(xiě)道：“美好的未來(lái)并不復(fù)雜：我們需要技術(shù)來(lái)創(chuàng)造它，需要政策來(lái)公平地分配它?！?/p>

There are three main criticisms of Altman’s equation of AI + UBI = utopia. The first is that he wildly overestimates the short-term impact of AI. The second is that he wildly underestimates the difficulties of policy change. The third is that by focusing on the fascinatingly improbable, we will crowd out more useful discussion about the worryingly probable.

奧爾特曼的“AI+全民基本收入=烏托邦”等式主要面臨三類(lèi)批評(píng)。第一類(lèi)認(rèn)為他嚴(yán)重高估了AI的短期影響。第二類(lèi)認(rèn)為他嚴(yán)重低估了政策改革的難度。第三類(lèi)認(rèn)為，如果我們專(zhuān)注于炫酷的不實(shí)際做法，就會(huì)擠占更有用的討論的空間，即關(guān)于不完美但可行的做法的討論。

Many of those who work in the field of AI themselves think that AI is overhyped. Erik Larson, author of a forthcoming book called The Myth of Artificial Intelligence, is one. He is critical of many of the “false narratives” around AI which suggest that machine superintelligence is somehow imminent. AI systems that can soar in one narrow domain still have a hard time jumping off the ground in others.

許多本身就在AI領(lǐng)域工作的人都認(rèn)為，AI的作用被夸大了。埃里克?拉森(Erik Larson)就是其中之一，他的新書(shū)《人工智能迷思》(The Myth of Artificial Intelligence)即將出版。他批評(píng)了許多圍繞AI的“錯(cuò)誤說(shuō)法”，這些說(shuō)法認(rèn)為超級(jí)機(jī)器智能很快就能出現(xiàn)。一些AI系統(tǒng)能在某一狹窄領(lǐng)域迅猛發(fā)展，但仍然很難在其他領(lǐng)域取得突破。

For example, IBM’s Watson may have won the quiz show Jeopardy! But it failed to cure cancer. A few years ago, autonomous cars seemed to be just round the corner. But they still have difficulty distinguishing between a turning bus and an overpass. “There is an odd cognitive dissonance between the reality of what we are doing and the science fiction debates you see about AI,” says Larson. What worries him more is the “spectre of a jobless future from mindless automation”.

例如，IBM的“沃森”(Watson)也許在智力競(jìng)賽節(jié)目《危險(xiǎn)邊緣》(Jeopardy!)上取得了勝利，但它無(wú)法治療癌癥。數(shù)年前，自動(dòng)駕駛汽車(chē)似乎很快就能面世。但現(xiàn)在自動(dòng)駕駛汽車(chē)仍難以區(qū)分一輛轉(zhuǎn)彎的公交車(chē)和一座立交橋。拉森表示：“在技術(shù)發(fā)展的現(xiàn)狀和現(xiàn)在有關(guān)AI的科幻辯論之間，有一種奇怪的認(rèn)知失調(diào)?！备屗麚?dān)心的是“盲目自動(dòng)化可能造成未來(lái)無(wú)業(yè)可就”。

From the policy perspective, it is equally simplistic to believe that UBI is the remedy for all ills, although it may be a partial cure. Vi Hart, who also once worked at Y Combinator, acknowledges the danger of what she calls the “AI-pocalypse” but does not think that UBI is the answer.

從政策的角度看，如果你相信全民基本收入可以解決所有問(wèn)題，那就同樣把事情簡(jiǎn)單化了，盡管全民基本收入也許能解決部分問(wèn)題。維?哈特(Vi Hart)——她也曾在Y Combinator工作——認(rèn)為，確實(shí)存在她稱之為“AI末日”(AI-pocalypse)的危險(xiǎn)，但她不認(rèn)為全民基本收入能夠解決問(wèn)題。

“I believe the apparent synergy of AI and UBI comes not from them being a radical brilliant solution, but from them being the easy way out, the status quo, the default choice that leads further down our current path of increasing inequality,” she wrote.

她寫(xiě)道：“我認(rèn)為，AI和全民基本收入之間有明顯的相似性，并非因?yàn)樗鼈兌际羌みM(jìn)的絕妙解決方案，而是因?yàn)樗鼈兌际呛?jiǎn)單的出路，是維持現(xiàn)狀，是引著我們繼續(xù)走向日益擴(kuò)大的不平等的默認(rèn)選擇?！?/p>

Altman frames the AI debate as one of techno-determinist inevitability: the technological revolution is unstoppable and so it will be the fault of politicians if we fail to adapt. But this is buck-passing of epic proportions that gives technologists a free pass to develop whatever they want.

奧爾特曼的總體看法是帶有技術(shù)決定論色彩的，認(rèn)為AI是不可逃避的未來(lái)：技術(shù)革命是不可阻擋的，因此如果我們無(wú)法適應(yīng)，那就是政治人士的錯(cuò)。但這是嚴(yán)重的推卸責(zé)任，賦予技術(shù)專(zhuān)家隨心所欲研發(fā)任何東西的權(quán)利。

Their efforts would be better spent figuring out how best to use AI to enhance human creativity and innovation in small, discrete and meaningful ways, rather than render it redundant.

對(duì)他們而言，更好的努力方向是，尋找最佳方法，以微小、分散而有意義的方式利用AI來(lái)提高人類(lèi)的創(chuàng)造力和創(chuàng)新力，而不是荒廢人類(lèi)的能力。